UNDP-GEF Madagascar Mid-Term Evaluation - FINAL DRAFT 230608

PA-PASZ CONCEPT (Protected Areas & PA Support
Zones)
Mid-Term Evaluation
Madagascar Environment Programme (EP 3) Support Project GEF/UNDP
Final Draft, 22 June 2008
___________________________________________________________________________
Conducted for: UNDP

By Dr. Juliane Zeidler, IECN Namibia,
June 2008
Table of Content
Acronyms and terms .............................................................................................................................................. 3
Acknowledgements................................................................................................................................................ 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................... 5
1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 8
1.1.
Purpose of the evaluation......................................................................................................................................8
1.2.
Key issues addressed............................................................................................................................................8
1.3.
Methodology of the evaluation..............................................................................................................................8
1.4.
Structure of the evaluation.....................................................................................................................................9
2. The project and its development context...........................................................................10
2.1. The joint WB/UNDP GEF project in Madagascars development and environment policy context................10
2.2. The PA-PASZ concept & pilot areas.........................................................................................................................10
2.3. Project key information................................................................................................................................................11
2.4. The UNDP component................................................................................................................................................12
3. Findings and Conclusions............................................................................................. 18
3.1.
Results....................................................................................................................................................................18
3.2.
Project formulation (and implementation)..........................................................................................................28
3.3
Implementation......................................................................................................................................................32
4. Recommendations...................................................................................................... 33
4.1. Top priority recommendations for immediate management action......................................................................33
4.2. Priority strategic performance areas and operational recommendations...........................................................34
5. Lessons learned......................................................................................................... 48
Annexes..................................................................................................................... 49
ANNEX 1: TOR....................................................................................................................................................................50
ANNEX 2: List of key documents reviewed.....................................................................................................................56
ANNEX 3: List of persons interviewed.............................................................................................................................58
ANNEX 4: Consultation methodology, incl. questionnaire/guidance used.................................................................60
ANNEX 5: Recommendations from 1st Year Evaluation................................................................................................65
ANNEX 6: Itinerary..............................................................................................................................................................70
ANNEX 7: Summary of evaluation work sessions (site visits) .....................................................................................71
ANNEX 8: Reference site summaries concept...............................................................................................................78
ANNEX 9: Assessment: Performance on project objective and results......................................................................83
ANNEX 10: Knowledge/Awareness baseline concept.................................................................................................100
ANNEX 11: Capacity needs self-assessment elements concepts.............................................................................101
ANNEX 12: Draft brochure concepts (for decision makers; project promotional)...................................................102
ANNEX 13: Photo library concept...................................................................................................................................107
Acronyms and terms

ANGAP
AP
APMC
APR
CBNRM
CBO
CCA
CELCO
CI
CITES
CLB
CP
COSAP
CTD
DGA
DREEFT
DRDR
EIA
EP2
EP3
FEM
GDRN
GEF
GELOSE
GICZ
GTZ
INRM
KM
LFA
MAAP
MCPA
MEEFT
M&E
METT
NGO
NRM
NSC
PA
PASZ
PC
PCDI
PIR
PFIR
PFR
PMU
PNUD
ProDoc
PTA
SAGE
SEA
SLM
SNRM
TA
ToR
UNDP
UNOPS
USAID
WB
WCS
WWF
ZAAP
Association Nationale pour la Gestion des Aires Protges

Aire Protge
Aires Protges Marines Ctires
Annual Project Review
Community Based Natural Resource Management
Community Based Organisations
Climate Change Adaptation
Cellule de Coordination du PE3
Conservation International
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
Communaut Locale de Base
Comite de Pilotage (Steering Committee)
Comit dorientation et de soutien laire protge
The capacity of Government extension
Assistant Secretary General
Direction Regional de Lnvironment, des Eaux et Foret & Tourisme (Environment, Water, Forestry and
Tourism)
Direction Regional de Development Rurale
Environmental Impact Assessment
2nd Environment Programme
3rd Environment Programme
Facilits pour lEnvironnement Mondial
Gestion Durable des Ressources Naturelles
Global Environment Facility
Gestion Locale Scurise des Ressources Naturelles
Gestion Intgre des Zones Ctires
Germany Development Cooperation
Integrated Natural Resource Management
Knowledge Management
Logical Framework Approach
Madagascar Action Plan
Marine and Coastal Protected Area
Ministry of Environment, Water, Forestry and Tourism
Monitoring & Evaluation
Management Evaluation Tracking Tool
Non Governmental Organisation
Natural Resource Management
National Steering Committee
Protected Areas
Protected Area Support Zones
Project Coordinator
Projets de Conservation et de Dveloppement Intgrs
Project Implementation Reports
Platform Inter-Regional
Platform Regionale
Project Management Unit
Programme des Nations Unies pour le Dveloppement
Project Document
Plan de Travail Annuel
Service dAppui la Gestion de lEnvironnement
Strategic Environmental Assessment
Sustainable Land Management
Sustainable Natural Resource Management
Technical Advisor
Terms of Reference
United Nations Development Programme
United Nations Office for Project Services
U.S. Agency for International Development (Agence des Etats-Unis pour le Dveloppement International)
World Bank
Wildlife Conservation Society (Socit de Conservation de la Nature)
World Wide Fund for Nature / World Wildlife Fund (US) ( Fonds Mondial pour la Nature)
Zones dAppui aux Aires Protges
Acknowledgements
Over 200 interviews and consultations took place during the evaluation process. All participants are thanked for their enthusiastic, engaging
and critical inputs, without which this evaluation would not have been possible. A thank you is extended to all facilitators from SAGE, who
ensured that all local and regional consultations were successful. The entire evaluation team is thanked for organising my visit so well and for
accompanying me to the regions. The team members of the Project Management Unit, Hanta Hanta Rabefarihy, Helivelo Ramamonjison,
Vololona Rakotarinina and Teddy Rakotondrazafy are thanked for their excellent support. Patricia Ramarojaona of the Environment Unit at the
UNDP Country Office provided invaluable facilitation. All other team members, interviewees and otherwise involved partners are
acknowledged.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background to evaluation and project concept
This evaluation is conducted at mid-term evaluation of the project implementation according to GEF rules and is
an integral part if the project cycle. The evaluation is commissioned by the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP) Country Office in Madagascar, on behalf of the project Executing Agencies Coordination
Unit/Cell for the 3rd Environment Programme (EP3) (CELCO) (for the Ministry of Environment, Water, Forestry and
Tourism; MEEFT) and UNOPS. The evaluation analyzes the achievements of the project against its original
objectives. The evaluation considers the effectiveness, efficiency, relevant, impact and sustainability of the project.
It further identifies factors that have facilitated or impeded the achievement of the objectives. This evaluation has
been conducted further to a first support mission, which was completed in 2006.The evaluation has a strong focus
on developing recommendations and lessons learned to assist in defining the future direction of the project,
during the remaining project period of approximately 2 years. The evaluation was conducted in a participatory
manner, and over 200 persons were involved in the assessment of achievements, setting priorities and devising
recommendations for future action. Beneficiaries in the local project intervention areas, members of the various
governance structures established through the project (so-called Platforms as well as Steering Committees at
regional and national level), and national level project partners were consulted. Further a great number of project
related documents were reviewed.
The UNDP/GEF support is integral part of Madagascars EP3, a comprehensive country strategy and programme,
which, amongst other, sets the goal of establishing a significant number of new protected areas (component 2 of
EP3). This project, together with the associated World Bank (WB)/GEF support under the same GEF overall
biodiversity support project, assists in the establishment of four new protected areas (PA) (in French: AP),
exploring co-management and Natural Resoruces Management models with communities situated in so-called
Bufferzones/Support Zones around the PAs (in French: ZAAP). Further, the GEF support assists with the
mainstreaming of Sustainable Natural Resource Management (SNRM) models developed under component 2
into policy processes (component 3 of EP3).
Summary evaluation assessment
The evaluation of project achievements to date have been assessed against the initial project design, as laid out
in the Project Document of 2004, and refined during a First Year Evaluation, conducted in 2006. Based on 22
indicators developed in the Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) Plan of the project progress in implementation was
assessed. Eleven of the 22 indicators measure progress towards achieving the overall project objective, and the
other 11 indicators measure progress towards achieving the results set out in the original project design. The
progress towards results is rated using standard GEF scales, as follows: HS highly satisfactory, S satisfactory,
MS marginally satisfactory, MU Marginally unsatisfactory, U unsatisfactory. HU highly unsatisfactory.
Development Objective 11: The biodiversity and renewable natural resources of representative eco-regions is
conserved and managed on a sustainable footing with active multi-stakeholder participation; and
Development Objective 2: The systemic framework for sustainable environmental management is further
strengthened through the incorporation of said management objectives into public policy making and investments
[In French : Objectif de dveloppement du projet : La gestion des ressources naturelles et la protection de la biodiversit dans les corgions
critiques sont tablies sur des bases relles et durables avec la participation active des populations locales et des autres parties concernes,
en mme temps que les dimensions environnementales sont effectivement intgres dans la prise de dcisions politiques et les dcisions
dinvestissement.]
Project objective2: Sustainable Natural Resource Management Systems established and strengthened in
Protected Area Support Zones (PASZ/ZAAP)
[In French: Objectif immdiat du projet : Des systmes de gestion durable des ressources naturelles sont tablis et renforcs dans les zones
dappui aux aires protges.]
1
2
Set out in original joint WB/GEF UNDP/GEF ProDoc, as well as French UNDP/GEF ProDoc, based on EP3.
See PIRs 2006 and 2007.
Level of outcomes3/Niveau de rsultat

EP3 SUB-COMPONENT/SOUS COMPONANTE 2.2
Outcome 1:
SNRM and biodiversity conservation are improved by
their full integration into development planning in PA
Support Zones through stakeholder participatory
planning structures (fora) and other means
Rsultat 1
La GDRN et la conservation de la biodiversit sont
amliores dans les zones dappui aux aires
protges par leur intgration dans la planification du
dveloppement
Outcome 2:
Measures to ensure biodiversity conservation and
productive SNRM developed in the field reference
sites are replicated and adapted in the PASZs
Rsultat 2
Les approches dveloppes dans les sites de
rfrence de terrain pour dfinir les mesures
appropries de conservation de la biodiversit, de
GDRN et pour le dveloppement de filires de
biodiversit durables et rentables, sont reproduites
dans les zones dappui aux aires protges
Outcome 3:
Participatory management systems for marine and
coastal protected areas are improved through the
integration of SNRM principles
Rsultat 3:
Les systmes de gestion participative des aires
protges marines et ctires sont amliors grce
lintgration des mesures de GDRN
EP3 SUB-COMPONENT/SOUS COMPONANTE 3.2
Outcome 4:
SNRM knowledge production contributes to efficient
management of natural resources in Madagascar
Rsultat 4 :
La production de connaissances amliore lefficacit
de la gestion des ressources naturelles Madagascar
Outcome 5:
Sharing the knowledge relative to SNRM among the
stakeholders contributes to efficient and sustainable
management
valuation
2006
valuation
2008
Motivation/ comments
MS
MU
MU
Establishment of stakeholder participatory

structures largely in place and operational
Some progress in policy relevant work
Overall local and regional level work blocked;
urgent need for tangible actions and results
Overall limited progress
Some important background work undertaken,

however still very far from achieving planned
results
Some important background work undertaken,

however still very far from achieving planned
results
Very limited progress
MS
HU
No progress
HU
HU
No progress
Rsultat 5
Le partage des connaissances relatives la GDRN
auprs des parties prenantes contribue amliorer
lefficacit et la durabilit de la gestion
Overall evaluation assessment/valuation globale MU
U
du projet
HS highly satisfactory, S satisfactory, MS marginally satisfactory, MU Marginally unsatisfactory, U unsatisfactory. HU highly
unsatisfactory
In summary it is noted that the project is performing below standard at this stage, and decisive mitigative
interventions are required to ameliorate project implementation during the remaining project period. It is further
noted that at this stage more than 67% of the original budget are still available, as well as some additional funds
that were allocated to the project. The enabling environment to intensify project activities is provided.
The originally agreed to outcomes as set out in the ProDoc are used; it is noted that several iterations of reformulation took place (see e.g.
PIR 2007), however the evaluation suggests to revert to the original for coherent referencing and M&E. It should be noted that the objectives
and outcomes are part of the contract between the Government of Madagascar and the GEF and can only be modified after approval from the
GEF; a resubmission of documentation is required.
Summary of Recommendations
A set of seven summary recommendations are made for immediate guidance on project management (see Box 1,
below). Additionally, Section 4 contains a suite of operational recommendations, that have been developed based
on the consultative performance assessment and they are aimed at supporting the effective implementation of the
project from mid-term onward. The 23 operational recommendations are aligned according to three overall
strategic performance areas: A. Vision, Structure & Management, B. Communication, Capacity Building,
Knowledge Management & the Role of Science and Research, and C. The Priority: Implementation at Regional
and Local Levels.
Box 1: Top priority recommendations for immediate management action
Despite poor project performance at mid-term, the recently strongly demonstrated want of national ownership and willingness to improve on
project performance by key players such as MEEFT, related regional structures, regional governments and ANGAP are recognised as a
strong foundation for performance improvement. This commitment forms the basis for the following key recommendations from the
evaluation:
1.
It is recommended to continue project implementation, given that strategic and operational recommendations stemming from the
mid-term evaluation are positively acted upon.
2.
It is recommended to request a 3 year no-cost extension for the PA-PASZ pilot project
a.
68% of funds are still available at mid-term (excl. a supplementary amount of US$ 500,000 availed through UNDP
additionally)
b.
The final time horizon will depend on how fast the project can be realigned (incl. by when a TA can be hired)
3.
A Technical Advisor has to be hired as a matter of urgency to help bring the project on track. Such a position should be advertised
nationally, if available, and internationally. The TA would be a SNRM expert with a track record of strong capacity building [skills],
which would be applied to the MEEFT and the PMU staff, in particular and would aide build a longterm sustainability element into
the project implementation phase.
4.
The evaluation found that the initial project design is still responsive to the key PA-PASZ and SNRM problematic and it is thus
recommended to retain the design framework. Implementation elements can be adjusted in the context of adaptive planning,
and re-phased in line with the request for a 3 year no-cost extension. The TA shall take leadership in such a process and guide
the country team. It is recommended that the overall project objective, the five outcomes and the major project in dicators (22 +2) will
be retained when re-phasing the project. Certain indicators might benefits from minor revisions. Potentially the outputs should be reviewed
with the support of the TA. Esp. outputs 2.2 and 2.3 seem major and should be further unpacked.
5.
It is further advised to install a policy expert TA at senior level of MEEFT, to aide the full integration of the PA-PASZ and SNRM
concepts into Government policy making, [and the up-scaling of the piloting results and integration into a systematic policy
process,] amongst other.
6.
It is critical to tighten the coordination of SNRM work in the PACZ and PA work under an integrated vision; it is proposed that this
vision be furthered between MEEFT and ANGAP, and then be shared and furthered with all project partners.
7.
It is recognised that the key implementation activities have to be carried out at the local and regional level. It is therefore
recommended to decentralise project coordination aspects to the regional level, including a certain level financial authority, to
ensure more responsive management of project affairs. The following points should be taken into consideration, amongst other:
a.
A strategy for decentralised implementation of the project is needed; such a strategy has to be developed in a
participatory manner with all key stakeholders and with potential implementation partners
b.
It needs to be recognised that this project is of piloting nature; thus the prerogative is to utilise a lean and effective
implementation arrangement that allows for best performance during a very limited project implementation period;
capacity support for longterm sustainability shall be considered as part of the project strategy, however cannot lead to
sacrificing the piloting success
c.
A tiered implementation approach is recommended, including a strong prioritisation of key activities to be tested and
implemented at local level; the current number of project sites (reference sites and Community Based Organisations
(CBOs/CLBs)) seem to be too large to ensure effective project implementation.
Site selection should be revisited and based on the needs of the PA-PASZ concept, under the leadership of ANGAP.
d.
e.
Considering the relatively short life-time of the project, and recognising its piloting nature, practical implementation
mechanisms are sought for. Regional and PA-PASZ specific differences need to be taken into account when planning
such mechanisms. It is recognised that different approaches may be taken for each PA-PASZ, based on the peculiar
contexts of each of the PA-PASZs. The capacity of Government extension (CTD) is rated to be currently low; it is
recommended to install intermediaries such as SAGE or other institutions (other national or international NGOs, e.g.
Fanamby, church based networks or other) to aide the successful testing of the pilot approaches. Relevant capacity
support to such organisations shall be provided by the project and other players.
1. Introduction
1.1. Purpose of the evaluation
According to UNDP/GEF rules and in line with the M&E plan outlined in the Project Document (ProDoc), a midterm evaluation of the project implementation to date has been scheduled for early 2008, and is an integral part if
the project cycle. The evaluation is commissioned by the UNDP Country Office in Madagascar, on behalf of the
project Executing Agencies Coordination Unit/Cell for the 3 rd Environment Programme (PEIII) (CELCO) (for the
Ministry of Environment, Water, Forestry and Tourism; MEEFT) and UNOPS.
As indicated in the Terms of Reference of this assignment (ANNEX 1) the evaluation analyzes the achievements
of the project against its original objectives. The evaluation considers the effectiveness, efficiency, relevant,
impact and sustainability of the project. It further identifies factors that have facilitated or impeded the
achievement of the objectives. This evaluation has been conducted further to a first support mission, which was
completed in 2006. The current evaluation assesses to what extend the recommendations of this support mission
in 2006 have been followed. While a thorough assessment of the progress of implementation to date is important,
the evaluation has a strong focus on developing recommendations and lessons learned to assist in defining the
future direction of the project, during the remaining project period of approximately 2 years according to initial
project schedule.
1.2. Key issues addressed
Amongst the key issues addressed during the evaluation are:
Participatory assessment of project implementation results and barriers at national, regional and
local level since project inception; (overall there seems to be a lack of communication so that local and
regional level achievements and concerns are not readily recognised on the national level)
Identification of key implementation bottlenecks, which have led to slow progress in

implementation of activities to achieve set out results
Response to request by Minister (MEEFT) to look at revising project design, esp. to strengthen
local level project implementation and review overall implementation and coordination
arrangements (evaluation coincided with the dissolving of CELCO by the Minister)
Participatory identification of potential mitigation measures that would allow improved project
implementation and execution
Development of tangible recommendations that would guide project implementation after midterm
1.3. Methodology of the evaluation

A suite of different tools were used during the evaluation process:
(a) Desk top review
A minimum set of documents were suggested for consultation in the ToRs (PIR, APR, PRoDoc etc., see ANNEX
1). Aside these, a good number of other technical project documents (reports from implementing agencies such
as SAGE, various consultants reports e.g. of the Scientific and Economics Group) and project management
documents (TORs for various project entities and for consulting contracts, Annual Work Plans a.o.) were reviewed
in depth, as this was seen to be critical for an in-depth evaluation and analysis of problem areas, in particular. See
list of documents consulted in ANNEX 2.
(b) Focal interviews (national level)
A suite of focal interviews were conducted at national level (see ANNEX 3 for list of people consulted) with key
informers and project partners; the interviews were usually conducted free style keeping the overall evaluation
methodology (see ANNEX 4) in mind, and allowing contributions to flow, as most focal interviewees were familiar
with the project in one way or another and had their various priorities. Specific focal interviews also took place on
an ad hoc basis during the interactions with project staff and regional consultations. The key points from these
interviews are only partially reproduced in this report, but served largely the targeted triangulation of
information e.g. presented in the PIR/APR and other background reports, or gathered from other consultations.
(c) Evaluation core team
An evaluation core team was established, under guidance of the international evaluator, Dr. Juliane Zeidler, and
included the Project Coordinator, other staff of Project Management Unit (PMU), MEEFT; additionally regional
8
representation of Regional Government and Line Ministries esp. DREEFT, ANGAP; overall facilitation and
participation by SAGE.
(d) Consultative meetings and semi-structured working sessions at regional level, with local level
representation (with various project structures such as various Platforms)
Field visits to the northern and southern project area respectively were conducted. The itinerary of the regional
and local level consultations and visits is provided in ANNEX 6. Meetings were organised and facilitated by SAGE,
the local and regional project implementation and facilitation agent 4, and a primary project partner. All meetings
were conducted in Malagasy and translated into French either personally or to the group. The motivation was to
allow representatives of the various project structures to provide inputs into the evaluation, aide in participatory
assessment and problem identification, and prioritisation for future project action. The evaluation concept
including the design of the regional and local consultations is included in ANNEX 4.
(e) Local level facilitated consultations and site visits
Visits to project partner CBOs/CLBs and communities were included in the itinerary to be able to visualise project
impact at that level and to exchange information relevant for the evaluation, including the establishment of a
general awareness baseline. A selected and limited number of CBOs/CLBs near primary reference sites were
visited. All consultations were facilitated by SAGE and conducted in Malagasy and translated into French.
(f) Feedback meetings
Individual feedback meetings after the various national, regional and local level consultations were conducted, i.e.
with the evaluation core team, with the Secretary General (SG) of MEEFT, the Assistant Secretary General (DGA)
and Director of Operations of ANGAP, the Resident Representative (RR) and his Deputy (DRR) of UNDP and the
Director of SAGE. Further a report back meeting was scheduled at the last day of the mission, and the draft
findings from the evaluation were presented to regional representatives and project partners, and discussion
points are reflected in the evaluation report.
(g) 2-day verification and planning workshop
An in-depth feedback meeting and planning session was scheduled by MEEFT for the 16 & 17 June 2008. The
key findings from the evaluation were presented and discussed at the meeting, however the time for the
evaluation verification was limited.
1.4. Structure of the evaluation
The evaluation report sets out first a comprehensive project description, as information available has been
very general and not updated in detail based on the adaptive planning and implementation approach applied in
the project. For the benefit of all stakeholders concerned with the project, reviewing and using the evaluation
report section 2 describes the project and illustrates e.g. implementation arrangements in some detail. It contains
a translation of the higher tier project design objective outcomes outputs indicators in French and English.
Section 3 provides the performance assessment results / key findings of the evaluation. Firstly an overview of
key activities implemented to achieve project results/outcomes is provided, mainly based on the desk top review
and enriched by the information gathered form the consultations of stakeholders and project partners at all levels.
Performance as per indicator (there are about 22 indicators identified for this project) is also assessed, based on
the same set of information sources. Action gaps and priority activities for future implementation are indicated.
Based on the evaluation guidelines, performance is rated and ratings are motivated. If and how recommendations
made in an earlier evaluation (1 st Year Evaluation, 2006) were addressed in project implementation and how these
actions/inactions impacted on project was added to the assessment as per ToR.
Special emphasis is on section 4 which presents the major recommendations for the amelioration of project
implementation and performance. Recommendations are made on a strategic and operational level. It should
be noted that a great deal of effort has been made to provide tangible recommendations and examples for action,
as this seems to be a key need for successful project implementation. Additionally the specific requests made by
the Minister at the onset of the evaluation indicated that these points should be examined carefully to allow for
unbiased and practical recommendations to be made. The recommendations are to a largely based on the self4
It needs to be mentioned that SAGE currently has no long-term contract with the project and the support to the evaluation visit was
scheduled and contracted separately from other project responsibilities.
identification of solutions and amelioration priorities identified by project partners at local, regional and national
level.
Section 5 contains lessons learnt, both best practices and case examples of approaches that were unsuccessful,
to allow future programming of GEF to be improved, not necessarily in a Madagascar specific context. The
Annexes contain a rich set of background information and specific examples of work outputs relevant to the
project.
2. The project and its development context
The project under review constitutes one part of a joint GEF funded initiative with one WB and another UNDP
implemented project component, respectively. Although the evaluation is concerned with the UNDP project
component, it is important to present the GEF project in its entirety.
2.1. The joint WB/UNDP GEF project in Madagascars development and environment policy context
Madagascar, over the past years, has followed a systematic approach to improving environmental management,
through its integrated national Environment Programme (EP), which is currently in its third phase (EP3). The GEF
support for EP3 was formulated based on the lessons learnt from EP2 and emerging priorities for the next
implementation phase. The well formulated EP3 sought funding from a number of donors, and together attracted
significant donor commitment.
EP3 is a very comprehensive country strategy, and, amongst other, sets the goal of establishing a significant
number of new protected areas/ bringing a significant area of threatened ecosystems under formal protection
(through the establishment of the protected areas) (component 2 of EP3). The mainstreaming of SNRM models
into policy processes is a complimentary priority (component 3 of EP3). Both components are being addressed by
the joint WB/UNDP implemented GEF support (see section 2.3. below).
The GEF contribution to EP3 has been prepared under Focal Areas Biodiversity, Operational Programmes (1)
Arid and Semi-Arid Zone Ecosystems, (2) Coastal, Marine, and Freshwater Ecosystems, and (3) Forest
Ecosystems. Strategic Priority One Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems at National Levels and
Strategic Priority Two Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Production Landscapes/Seascapes and Sectors are
addressed.
2.2. The PA-PASZ concept & pilot areas
As for the establishment of new Protected Areas, the Government of Madagascar is testing various comanagement arrangements that would support the effective conservation of biodiversity and natural resources.
Protected Areas (PAs; or in French Aires Protges (AP)) are surrounded by a immediate conservation fringe
(Zone tampoon), and a large Bufferzone (in French Zone dAppui de AP (ZAAP) 5). Whereas no people live in the
demarcated AP, local population inhabits the buffer zones. Through a strong association between the AP and
ZAAP, resources in the buffer zone are managed in a sustainable and biodiversity-friendly manner by the
communities, promoted through incentive measures. The WB component of the GEF project focuses on
supporting the establishment of the new AP, whilst the UNDP component invests into capacity building and
support activities in the ZAAP (Figure 1). Of course both components have a high degree of interaction and are
interdependent.
For the purpose of the report the French abbreviation is used primarily.
10
Figure 1: Concept PA-PASZ (AP-ZAAP) and WB and UNDP component support focus in each area respectively, and
collaborative interaction. The inner light blue shaded area is the PA core area, whilst the larger area demarcated by the blue
line depicts the PASZ. The yellow doted line illustrates that the two GEF project components of WB and UNDP respectively
ought to be implemented in a collaborative manner.
Four PA-PASZ (AP-ZAAPs) are included in the project as pilot areas, covering a suite of priority ecosystems to
conserve and with characteristic ecological, socio-economic baselines, covering terrestrial and marine and coastal
habitats.
A. SOUTH
(1) AP Mikea
(2) APMC Toliara/Nosy-Ve
B. NORTH
(3) APMC Sahamalaza/Iles Radama
(4) APMC Lokobe/Nosy Tanikely
A more comprehensive design for the description of the four PA-PASZs and their respective reference sites
(see Section 2.4.2) is included in ANNEX 8, and will be finalised by the PMU.
2.3. Project key information
A few project key information points include:
Financing:
Joint coordination:
Intended implementation
period:
WB : +/- US$9 Mio (GEF) (plus UNDP:US$4,5 Mio (GEF) &

major co-financing)
US$1,8 Mio (TRAC)
CELCO, on behalf of MEEFT; since May 2008 newly arranged under
MEEFT
WB: 2003-2009
UNDP: 2004-2010
11
Two subsidiary development objectives (as specified in EP3)

strengthened through the incorporation of said management objectives into public policy making and investments.
The two development objectives are achieved through the components and results spelled out in the GEF project
design. In the following the specific WB and UNDP project components are identified.
EP 3 Component 2: PA/PASZ (AP/ZAAP)
Sub-Component 2.1. : Protected Area System Management (WB)
2.1.1. Reducing pressures in selected communes around PAs, capacity building, awareness and civil society
involvement
2.1.2. Enhance complementarity value, alignment and eco-regional representativeness of the PA system
2.1.3. Conservation programs to consolidate the emerging PA system
2.1.4. Sustainable use of PA system
2.1.5. Development and implementation of the trust for long-term funding
Sub-Component 2.2.: Sustainable Resource Management (SNRM) in PASZ (UNDP)
[In French : Sous-Composante 2.2. : Dveloppement GDRN dans ZAAP]
2.2.1. Development of models for coastal and marine ecosystems and mangrove systems
2.2.2. Development of models for the management of the Western Dry Forests Dry/Spiny Forest ecotone
EP 3 Component 3: Environmental Mainstreaming
Sub-Component 3.1. Mainstreaming (WB)
3.1.1. Environmental Information, Education and Communication
3.1.2. Environmental Legislation, Policy Making and Regulations
3.1.3. Environmental Compliance
3.1.4. Environmental Management and Coordination
Sub-Component 3.2.: Knowledge Management for SNRM (UNDP)
[In French : Sous-Composante 3.2. Gestion des connaissances focus GDRN]
3.2.1 Knowledge management for field practitioners
3.2.2 Knowledge application in policy making
2.4. The UNDP component
The specific UNDP component is described in some more detail in the following.
2.4.1 Project Design
Set out in original joint WB/GEF UNDP/GEF ProDoc, as well as French UNDP/GEF ProDoc, based on EP3.
12
strengthened through the incorporation of said management objectives into public policy making and investments
[In French : Objectif de dveloppement du projet : La gestion des ressources naturelles et la protection de la biodiversit dans les corgions
critiques sont tablies sur des bases relles et durables avec la participation active des populations locales et des autres parties concernes,
en mme temps que les dimensions environnementales sont effectivement intgres dans la prise de dcisions politiques et les dcisions
dinvestissement.]
Project objective7: Sustainable Natural Resource Management Systems established and strengthened in
Protected Area Support Zones (PASZ/ZAAP)
[In French: Objectif immdiat du projet : Des systmes de gestion durable des ressources naturelles sont tablis et renforcs dans les zones
dappui aux aires protges.]
Table 1 : Project EP3 sub-component, outcomes and outputs to be attained over project period
Outcomes
Outputs8
SUB-COMPONENT 2.2
Outcome 1:
SNRM and biodiversity conservation are
improved by their full integration into
development planning in PA Support
Zones through stakeholder participatory
planning structures (fora) and other
means
1.1 Platforms that bring together stakeholders and serve joint planning and conflict resolution are
established and operational
Rsultat 1
La GDRN et la conservation de la
biodiversit sont amliores dans les
zones dappui aux aires protges par
leur intgration dans la planification du
dveloppement
1.2 Des plans de dveloppement des ZAAP plusieurs niveaux intgrant la gestion des AP, la
conservation de la biodiversit et la GDRN sont utiliss comme cadre de planification pour les
financements du PE III et du dveloppement rural.
Outcome 2:
Measures to ensure biodiversity
conservation and productive SNRM
developed in the field reference sites are
replicated and adapted in the PASZs
2.1 Approaches (guides) for the development of SNRM measures, based on scientific
knowledge, are developed, tested, applied and up-scaled (transposed).
Rsultat 2
Les approches dveloppes dans les
sites de rfrence de terrain pour dfinir
les mesures appropries de conservation
de la biodiversit, de GDRN et pour le
dveloppement de filires de biodiversit
durables et rentables, sont reproduites
dans les zones dappui aux aires
1.1 Des plates-formes runissant les diverses parties prenantes et servant la planification et
la rsolution des litiges sont mises en place ou amliores et sont oprationnelles
1.2 PASZ Development Plans integrate PA management, biodiversity conservation and SNRM,
and are used as framework for financial planning of EP3 and rural development.
1.3 Improved application/implementation of SNRM policies through effective

surveillance/monitoring systems.
1.3 Amlioration de la mise en application des textes relatifs la GDRN par des surveillances
effectives
2.1 Des approches (guides) pour la conception de mesures de GDRN sur la base de
connaissances scientifiques sont conues, appliques, mises au point et transposes
2.2. Local/community level resource managers understand and adopt the adaptive SNRM
approaches.
2.2 Les gestionnaires de ressources au niveau communautaire comprennent et adoptent
lapproche adaptative de la GDRN
2.3 Biodiversity-product based businesses operate under cost-recovery and generate revenue
creating incentives for SNRM.
2.3 Des entreprises travaillant sur les produits de la biodiversit gnrent des revenus qui
incitent la gestion durable des ressources naturelles et en couvrent les cots.
See PIRs 2006 and 2007.

The initial English ProDoc provides indicative outputs as reproduced below, which are also contained in the French version of the
UNDP/GEF ProDoc; the in the table indicated outputs were formulated during the First-Year Evaluation, as a pragmatic way of
operationalising the project.
Overall expected outputs for Subcomponent 2.2.: Replicable SNRM models for: coral reef and associated shallow coastal waters developed at
5 sites; mangrove management developed at 3 sites; and Dry Forest and Dry/Spiny Forest ecotone developed at 5 sites. The models will
include: 1. Cost benefit analysis of SNRM and biodiversity product chains; 2.NRM techniques adapted to each ecosystem and each product
focus; 3.The definition of types of community institutions best suited for managing different ecosystems and for different biodiversity productbased businesses; 4.Sustainable financing for community management (primarily through community management funds); 5.Guidelines for
the development of community level biodiversity product-based businesses; 6.Appropriate systems for internal and external controls for
SNRM; 7. Institutional capacities developed within SAGE and other service providers to replicate and adapt the SNRM models to similar
ecosystems in other geographic areas.
Expected outputs for Subcomponent 3.2: The final product will be a set of publications of lessons learned on following aspects of SNRM: (i)
The economics of SNRM and of biodiversity product chains; (ii) SNRM techniques by ecosystem type; (iii) Sustainable financing mechanisms
for SNRM; (iv) Appropriate institutions for SNRM management, NRM-based businesses, participatory planning structures, government
oversight and service providers; (v) Internal and external enforcement for SNRM and (vi) the development of community-based enterprises
linked to SNRM.
8
13
Outcomes
Outputs
2.4 Sustainable management methods for commercially-used Wild Species are developed,
tested and applied in a participatory manner with local/community level resource managers.
protges
2.4 Des approches pour dterminer des mesures de gestion rationnelle pour les espces
sauvages qui font lobjet de commercialisation sont conues, appliques et mises au point avec
les gestionnaires communautaires
Outcome 3:
Participatory management systems for
marine and coastal protected areas are
improved through the integration of SNRM
principles
3.1 Participatory MCPA management plans, based on best scientific and technical knowledge,
are elaborated.
Rsultat 3:
Les systmes de gestion participative des
aires protges marines et ctires sont
amliors grce lintgration des
mesures de GDRN
3.1 Des plans de gestion participative des APMC bass sur les meilleurs apports
scientifiques et techniques sont labors
3.2 Representative partner CBOs/CLBs that work together with ANGAP in the management of
MCPAs are trained to use and apply adaptive management (SNRM) principles.
3.2 Les institutions communautaires qui participent avec lANGAP la gestion des APMC et
qui sont reprsentatives sont formes utiliser des principes de gestion adaptative
SUB-COMPONENT 3.2.
Outcome 4:
SNRM knowledge production contributes
to efficient management of natural
resources in Madagascar
Rsultat 4 :
La production de connaissances amliore
lefficacit de la gestion des ressources
naturelles Madagascar
4.1 Knowledge and awareness needs pertaining to SNRM in Madagascar are assessed,
covering SNRM knowledge of all major natural ecosystems.
4.1 Les besoins essentiels en matire de connaissances pour le dveloppement de la GDRN
sont dfinis travers une tude de qualit portant sur ltat de la GDRN dans les principaux
cosystmes naturels Madagascar
4.2 A system and a network allowing the systematic collection and the analysis of the SNRM
related data in Madagascar are set up and are operational.
4.2 Un systme et un rseau permettant la collecte et lanalyse systmatiques des donnes
relatives la GDRN Madagascar sont mis en place et sont oprationnels
Outcome 5:
Sharing the knowledge relative to SNRM
among the stakeholders contributes to
efficient and sustainable management
5.1 A Knowledge Sharing system on SNRM has been set up and is operational, for use by
practitioners.
Rsultat 5
Le partage des connaissances relatives
la GDRN auprs des parties prenantes
contribue amliorer lefficacit et la
durabilit de la gestion
5.2 A communication system for the preparation and distribution of SNRM information packages
for decision makers at national, regional and local levels is established.
5.1 Un systme de partage des connaissances en matire de GDRN entre les praticiens est
mis en place et est oprationnel
5.2 Un systme dlaboration et de distribution de dossiers pour informer les principaux

dcideurs aux niveaux national, rgional et communal des questions de GDRN est mis en
place.
5.3 The key findings in terms of SNRM knowledge are consolidated and shared at mid-term and
at the end of the project.
5.3 Les principales avances en matire de connaissance sont consolides et partages
travers des rsums produits mi-parcours et la clture du projet.
2.4.2 Intervention design & stakeholders

Thirteen Reference Sites were identified during the project preparation phase, in the vicinity of the planned APs at
the time, representing ecosystems and socio-economic realities in the ZAAPs for which natural resources
management and conservation models ought to be developed through the project (Figure 2; Figure 3). They are
laboratories for research and approach testing over the five year project phase, and are usually associated with
a larger number of rural communities surrounding them. It is important to recall the rationale behind the
establishment of the reference sites, which initially were called laboratories, and relevant references can be found
in the ProDoc and the Year-One Evaluation report of Dominique Roby.
14
Figure 2: Partnerships and project stakeholder interaction on PA-PASZ level; SAGE and ANGAP are the two primary
facilitators of the PA-PASZ (AP-ZAAP) concept, however other service providers are involved in project implementation.
Thirteen reference sites and a greater number of associated CBOs/CLBs have been established/ are engaged in the pilot
project.
Figure 3: Maps depicting the newly established / to be established Pas and selected reference sites in the pasz. It is to be
noted that a suite of new and additional reference sites has been suggested recently by ANGAP, as the final demarcations of
the PAs have been changing, and project implementation has to be needs-based.
15
2.4.3 Institutional arrangements

National level execution, coordination and implementation
Figure 4 gives a schematic overview of the national level project implementation and coordination arrangement.
The project is executed by MEEFT, who, in the past, had delegated all executing and coordination functions to
CELCO, an entity specifically established for the implementation of the GEF supported EP3 components. Other
donor funded EP3 components have been directed directly by MEEFT from the onset; however have in certain
cases established project offices (e.g. GTZ NRM support project). The GEF-UNDP Project Management Unit
(PMU) used to be housed in CELCO, and the project coordinator reported to the Head of CELCO, who was
ultimately responsible for the project. A National Steering Committee has been established. The implementation of
the various project activities (delivery of results) has been outsourced. SAGE, a national association established
during PE2 and a primary target for capacity building support in this project phase as national institution for
CBNRM support coordination (see ProDoc), is tasked with the establishment of the necessary local and regional
level CBNRM and project structures, as well as with the facilitation of local and regional level technical support by
a number of service providers. Consortia of scientists and economists, brought together as Group of Scientists
and Economists, have been commissioned to conduct some of the technical research foundation work.
Consultants to assist with the implementation of the Knowledge Management component should be hired,
however, are currently not in place. The various service providers were identified and managed by CELCO in the
past. Proposals for new alignments are partially presented in Section 4, and are based on the recent decision of
the Minister of MEEFT to incorporate the PMU in MEEFT directly.
Figure 4: The national level implementation and coordination arrangements for the UNDP component of EP3.
Regional and local level implementation

With SAGE as a facilitating body, a systematic approach to establishing community-level governance structures
for SNRM has been implemented by the project (Figure 5). Guided by Regional Steering Committees, platforms
of a wide ranging set of stakeholders concerned with SNRM, development, environmental management and
conservation, representatives of CBOs/CLBs incl. local farmers, fishermen, villagers, and service providers
(governmental, non-governmental, donors projects, business) have been established as regional and subregional integrated discussion, policy development and decision-making mechanisms, tasked with contributing to
project implementation at this stage, but in the longerterm with the potential to serve as decentralised governance
bodies more globally. Bottom-up and relatively democratic representation is guided by statues and policies. It is
16
these structures that ought to be the primary implementation mechanism for SNRM approaches in the AP-ZAAPs
(see Section 2.4.4.), and the governance approach is an integral part of the SNRM models to be tested and
established during the UNDP project phase.
Figure 5: The decentralised local and regional level implementation arrangements, facilitated by SAGE.
2.4.4. PA-PASZ level intervention design (local level)

Based on the project design and the expected results, Figure 6 depicts the type of local level actions that ought to
be addressed on the local level as part of SNRM models. Knowledge Management (KM) is a critical element, and
although not limited to the local level, must be firmly rooted in the key project delivery mechanisms.
17
Figure 6: Visualisation of local level activities that should be integral part of the SNRM models to be developed and tested in
the four PA-PASZ pilot areas of the project.
3. Findings and Conclusions

3.1. Results
3.1.1. Attainment of project objective and results
An overview summary of the assessment of work done to achieve the set out project objectives and results is
presented in a tabular format below. A more comprehensive assessment table is included in ANNEX 9.
Performance indicators for the project were formulated a design phase and later refined during the first evaluation
and subsequent PIRs. The format set out in these reports is used in this evaluation for consistency purposes.
Performance of the project during the implementation period 2005 to May 2008 was assessed based on the
various information sources outlines in the Methodology above (see Section 1.3), and cross references to relevant
sources are made in the Tables presented in ANNEX 9. The final rating of performance has been undertaken
following evaluation guidance as set out by UNDP and GEF, and is set against the background of progress at midterm and results still to be achieved in the remaining project time.
Overall 22 project indicators are in place, of which 11 measure achievements towards attaining the project
objective (Table 2), and an additional 11 measure progress on specific project outcomes (in French: rsultats)
(Table 3). In needs to be said that the baseline and targets set, may not be perfect, however serve as working
basis. Certain indicators from the first and second set of project objective and results indicators, respectively, are
repetitive. It is further noted that at this stage the specifically proposed SP 1 Impact Indicators are considered as
they are integrated in the 22 indicators referred to above (they were proposed during the first evaluation and are
partially integrated into the overall indicator system), and that the debate if SP 2 indicators should be considered
continues and is addressed in the recommendations.
18
Table 2. Progress of project according to its overall objective (11 indicators)
Project Objective : Sustainable Natural Resource Management Systems established and strengthened in
Protected Area Support Zones (PASZ)
[In French : Objectif du projet : Des systmes de gestion durable des ressources naturelles sont tablis et renforcs dans les zones dappui
aux aires protges.]
Indicators9
Baseline
Target
Progress at 31 Mai 200810
Indicator 1:
BD compatible SNRM mainstreamed in the
development plans in PASZ
SNRM not part

of development
planning in
communities
At least one
fully
functioning
multistakeholder
platform with
capacities for
integrated
development
planning exist
for each PASZ
Strategies for
improved
enforcement &
oversight of
SNRM related
laws/
regulations are
completed for
each PASZ
A number of key achievements have been made with

regards to developing and testing key strategies that
form the enabling framework for SNRM (see ANNEX 9)
SAGE, an association established during PE2 in

support of MEEFT has been supported; however
MEEFT requests new strategy (May 2008)
Overall implementation capacity of CTD (Extension

Services) seen to be extremely limited, and an
improved strategy has to be put into place
Isolation of Pas
surrounded by
forest, bush
field or
severely
degraded
ecosystems
that are not
ebing allocated
to conservation
compatible
land uses
Participatory
planning and
joint
management
of PASZs
Local level (CLB) conservation plans integrated into

overall CLB workplans; PA-PASZ system is quite well
understood (see ANNEX 9; ANNEX 11)
Scientific support surveys were conducted during
2006/2007, and finalised in July 2007; strength and
weaknesses identified
Lack of coordination with other ongoing activities e.g.
ANGAP (and other organisations) and at this not
compatible/aligned with this component (PNUD-FEM)
2,209 km2
2,209 km2
Indicateur 1:
La gestion durable des ressources naturelles
compatible avec la conservation de la biodiversit
est intgre dans les plans de dveloppement des
zones dappui aux aires protges.
Indicator 2 :
SNRM legal and institutional framework set up
Indicateur 2:
Les cadres lgal et institutionnel de la gestion
durable des ressources naturelles sont tablis
Indicator 3 :
Conservation plans developed and implemented
Indicateur 3:
Les plans de conservation sont dvelopps et mis
en uvre
Indicator 4 :
Mangrove cover in the 2 project priority zones
maintained at 2004 area of 2,209 km2 level
Weak
institutional
capacity and
serious
governance
issues
No specific data was made available during the

evaluation mission, although the PIR 2007 and a
UNDP support mission in February 2008 did request
such
However, overall notion is that conservation efforts

have increased and are successful (ANNEX 9; ANNEX
7; ANNEX 11)
Additional indicators 4.a and 4.b proposed in PIR 2007

based on work of Scientific group focusing on two
additional ecosystems targeted for conservation in this
project (i) spiny forests, and (ii) coral reefs (see ANNEX
9)
No monitoring/assessment data available after June

2007! As all relevant follow-up activities were
discontinued/ are blocked since July 2007.
A key problem pertaining in the project is that most AP

boundaries are still under establishment (by ANGAP,
BM component)
in 2004
Indicateur 4:
La superficie couverte par les mangroves dans les 2
zones dintervention du projet est maintenue au
niveau de celle de 2004 correspondant 2 209 km2
[ADDED in 2006: 4a.The surface within the PA and
the dry and spiny forests in the PASZ is maintained
at the 2006 level.
4b. The rate of recovery of living coral is maintained
at the 2006 level in the southern and northern area
of the project.]
A solid and well performing system of SNRM

stakeholder and governance structures established;
workplans in place and priorities identified
A number of relevant development plans have been
developed (both PCD & GICZ)
Participatory evaluation indicates progress and
priorities for future action see ANNEX 7; ANNEX 9;
ANNEX 12
Need to put into place tangible support activities as
matter of priority
The PIR 2006 establishes baseline levels and target levels for all indicators; additional indicators and their baseline and targets were
included in the PIR 2007; current indicator 7 was newly introduced in PIR 2007
10
Progrs ralises au Mai 2008 base sur le rapports PIR, APR, consultations au niveau national, rgional et locale, et vrification avec
lquipe dunit de gestion (coordinatrice), SAGE et PNUD. The full assessment table is presented in ANNEX 9.
19
Indicators
Indicator 5 :
Difference in presence and/or abundance of
indicator species from the upper levels of the food
chain such as large predatory species of the
Lutjanidae family
Baseline
Target
Indicator values were established in PIR 2007 based

on work of Scientific group (ANNEX 9); not clear if data
are available for all relevant sites

2007! Activity was discontinued/ blocked since July
2007.
The quality of the indicator and the set baseline should

be assessed e.g. through a peer review mechanism
Established/ proposed system seems to be

disconnected from other resource monitoring work
that ANGAP is undertaking with other partners and
coordination needs to be enhanced


2007.
Indicateur 6:
La prsence/absence despces indicatrices
(maintenue, accrue ou diminue selon le type
despce indicatrice) dans les sites o la
conservation et la GDRN sont mises en oeuvre
(indicateur dfini sur la base des recommandations
des scientifiques)


Indicator 7 :
Improvement of the global efficiency index of 4
protected areas supported by GEF (Ref. ANGAP)


2007.



on work of Economic group (ANNEX 9); not clear if
data are available for all relevant sites and if the sites
will be engaged in future

2007; no filieres have been actually implemented;
baseline may need to be re-established/ verified at
begin of local level interventions
Reference to work of economic group during

participatory evaluation not always positive; needs to
be verified and addressed e.g. through peer review
mechanism
ANNEX 9
ANNEX 9
Indicateur 5:
Lvolution dans la prsence et/ou labondance
despces indicatrices au sein des niveaux
suprieurs de la chane trophique, telles les
espces prdatrices de grande taille de la famille
des Lutjanidae
Indicator 6 :
Presence/absence of indicator species (maintained,
increased or decreased depending on the type of
indicator species) in the sites where SNRM is
implemented (based on recommendations from
scientists)
ANNEX 9
ANNEX 9
ANNEX 9
ANNEX 9
Indicateur 7:
Amlioration de lindice defficacit globale de
gestion des 4 aires protges appuyes par le FEM
Indicator 8 :
Number of households deriving income from wild
resource harvests participating in sustainable
natural resource management in the two target
zones
3,000
households
21,500
households
Indicateur 8:
Nombre de mnages dont les revenus proviennent
de la collecte de ressources sauvages et qui
participent la gestion durable des ressources
naturelles dans les deux zones cibles du projet
20
Indicators
Baseline
Target
Indicator 9 :
Improved voice of communes in protected areas
management through fully operational collaborative
management structures as represented by the
percentage of COSAP complying with their rights
and obligations as defined in PA management plans
0%
80%
0%
80%
0%
70%
Progress data in terms of % not provided during

evaluation , however PIR 2007 states that the
relocation of scientific and economic research vis a vis
the communities and the local and regional authorities
has allowed one to judge the conformity of the
stakeholders regarding the project. 89,22% are globally
satisfied; this statement cannot be verified by this
evaluation and it is noted that the indicator and
associated baseline and target may need to be revised
No knowledge / awareness baseline has previously

been established thus it is difficult to measure progress
Overall it is noted that the KM component has not been

implemented, some positive spill over effects from
other activities can be expected
Indicateur 9:
Prise en compte de la position des communes dans
la gestion des aires protges travers des
structures de gestion participative pleinement
oprationnelles, illustr par le pourcentage de
COSAP qui respectent leurs droits et obligations
tels que dfinis dans les plans de gestion des aires
protges
Indicator 10 :
Improved community empowerment in SNRM
through fully performing GELOSE/GCF
arrangements as measured by the % of
communities benefiting from transfers who have
successfully protected their resources at the end of
the 3-year trial period as determined by the
evaluations scheduled before renewing the
contracts

evaluation , however PIR 2007 states In March 2007,
Sahamalaza received official certification as a marine
and coastal protected area, with full support by local
communities, thanks to intense work by IEC. The next
phase, establishment of the COSAP, being carried out
progressively, with work and back up by IEC, and
consequently, is not yet, to date, fully operational

evaluation , however PIR 2007 states that an
evaluation of the the resource management transfers
(GELOSE) (of the 13 reference sites) is outstanding
and should be undertaken by MEEFT/DREEFT; this
notion was repeated during most consultations (See
ANNEX 7; ANNEX 9) and is also reflected under the
points identified under Indicator 2, above
Indicateur 10:
Renforcement des communauts en GDRN
travers la pleine excution des dispositions
GELOSE/GCF, tel que mesur par le % des
communauts ayant bnfici de transferts et qui
ont protg leurs ressources avec succs la fin de
la priode de probation de 3 ans. Le succs de la
protection des ressources est dtermin lors des
valuations programmes avant le renouvellement
des contrats
Indicator 11 :
% of users who judge SNRM knowledge
management services/ products as meeting their
requirements
Indicateur 11:
% des utilisateurs qui considrent que les services
et produits pour la gestion des connaissances en
GDRN rpondent leurs besoins
Progress indicators towards achieving the overall project objective can show that certain activities have taken
place, however overall performance has been very limited. It should be noted that the established project design
and M&E plan are useful, however could be improved. Especially the formulation of certain baseline and target
values is a bit problematic. However, at mid-term of the project the focus cannot be planning any more. Practical
improvements that can be done without major disruption of implementation can be made, however it is
recommended to use the design and M&E framework as a management tool, not a means in itself. As long as the
vision for the project is clear amongst all stakeholders, focused implementation will take place and disagreements
on decision-making will be negligible. Improved leadership on the management level will also aide.
21
Table 3. Progress of project in terms of outcomes (11 indicators); basis for evaluation rating
Indicator11
Baseline
Targets
Achievements by 31 Mai 200812
Outcome 1: SNRM and biodiversity conservation are improved by their full integration into development planning in PA Support Zones through
stakeholder participatory planning structures (fora) and other means
Indicator 12 :
There exist:
At least 1 multi-stakeholder
A solid and well performing system of

Increase in the % of EPIII and
- A plan for the spiny
platform (forum) {with ANGAP
SNRM stakeholder and governance
rural development funding in
forest (Ala Maika) but it
as a member} with capacities
structures established; workplans in
each PASZ that is allocated to
does not relate
for integrated development
place and priorities identified
priority actions of the
specifically to the interest
planning exist for each PASZ,
PFIR/PFR strong multi-stakeholder

participatory development plans
zone.
plus one regional forum
representation; ANGAP plays strong
integrating biodiversity
- draft plans have been
(platform) for each Zone.
role in both areas; some participants
conservation and sustainable
developed for the forest
do not fully understand the project or
natural resource management.
of Mikea
7 operational platforms, with
the role and mandate of the PF at this
a regional group or coalition
stage; need to ensure active support
Indicateur 12:
per zone
to structures for a while; priority needs
Pourcentage daugmentation
identified (ANNEX 7, ANNEX 9,
8 development plans of
des budgets du PE III et du
ANNEX 11, ANNEX 12)
PASZs
dveloppement rural qui sont
A number of relevant development

allous aux actions prioritaires
plans have been developed (both
identifies travers des
PCD & GICZ)
planifications participatives du
dveloppement intgrant la
conservation de la biodiversit
et la GDRN
Indicator 13 :
No historical base-line
The progressive incorporation of

% of conflicts registered that
Number of registered legal
data on registered legal
regulations within the management
have been resolved through
infractions decrease due to
infractions on
systems tested
the multi-stakeholder
SNRM-related regulations
environment.
Conflict management training has

platforms.
enforcement & oversight
taken place in all PF ZAAPs and
through stakeholder platforms.
members incl. on the CLB level
(participatory evaluation) are satisfied
Indicateur 13:
with training and request further
Diminution du nombre
Some progress with application of

dinfractions judiciaires grce
customary Dina system; problems
la mise en vigueur des textes
with follow up on GELOSE/ TdM (see
relatifs la GDRN et la
Indicator 2, Indicator 10)
surveillance effectue par les
A great number of tangible

plates-formes des parties
implementation activities have not
prenantes
been addressed and need to be dealt
with as a matter of priority; blocking
of such local level action has been
identified as the major performance
bottleneck of the project
Rating
Overall evaluation of Outcome 1

MS
Outcome 2: Measures to ensure biodiversity conservation and productive SNRM developed in the field reference sites are replicated and adapted in
the PASZs
11
Baseline and targets established in PIR 2006
12
Progrs ralises au Mai 2008 base sur le rapports PIR, APR, consultations au niveau national, rgional et locale, et vrification avec
lquipe dunit de gestion (coordinatrice), SAGE et PNUD. The full assessment table is presented in ANNEX 9.
22
Indicator
Indicator 14 :
Number of community based
management structures (VOI)
implementing sustainable and
profitable SNRM measures that
contribute to biodiversity
conservation in each
ecosystem, in addition to the
communities already active in
the 13 field reference sites.
Indicateur 14:
Nombre de structures de
gestion communautaires qui
mettent en oeuvre des mesures
durables et rentables de
gestion des ressources
naturelles qui contribuent la
dans chaque cosystme, en
plus des communauts
concernes par les 13 sites de
rfrence de terrain
Indicator 15 :
Forest cover loss rate in the
protected area support zones is
decreased as compared to
trends observed for the
reference period.
[Expanded to other ecosystems
see ANNEX 9 and indicator 4]
Indicateur 15:
Diminution du taux de perte de
couverture forestire dans les
zones dappui aux aires
protges relativement aux
tendances observes pour la
priode de rfrence.
[
Baseline
- 6 of the coral reef
laboratories have
established basic rules
(dina) to put an end to
destructive practices
- 2 laboratories in
mangroves have simple
community based
management systems
- some of the
laboratories in the forests
have simple zoning plans
Targets
Management plans and
systems for biodiversity
compatible SNRM systems
are in place in replication
(pilot) sites
None of the baseline

initiatives can show
ecological or economic
sustainability.
Forest cover loss rates in

the Toliara region have
always been among the
highest ones in the
country.
No established criteria
for defining appropriate
institutions for SNRM.
Capacity assessments
are not done in any
organized fashion
A SNRM system, that

includes a monitoring and
evaluation component thus
enabling the measurement of
coverage, is kept for each
field lab. (pilot area;
reference site).
The capacity of community
institutions for SNRM are
assessed annually & modified
as needed.
23
Elements for SNRM approaches

which define the management and/or
conservation measures developed
(reports from scientific and economic
research) at all 13 reference sites;
Research covers three types of
ecosystems: coral reefs, mangroves
and dry and spiny forests; need for
well established peer review process/
technical debate that informs decision
making
A number of points of criticism, e.g.

need for practical application;
currently level of work not applicable
at community level as is; need to
develop a strong strategy of how to
deal with the scientific work, e.g. as
input to CTD expert monitoring;
research not embraced by community
members or other stakeholders
(participatory evaluation) how much
research/ science is needed
Currently parallel development of

SNRM approaches SAGE (community
level) versus scientific and economics
group; need to identify best
implementation mechanism,
collaboration partners and role
clarification
Pertaining problem that management

staff in project does not fully
understand the models envisaged,
thus are unable to take adequate
decisions for implementation of next
steps; this, amongst other, has led to
the complete stand-still of the
component (application of SNRM
systems) (contracts fro scientific and
economic group probably quite
rightfully so were not renewed in July
2007)
A great number of tangible

implementation activities have not
been addressed and need to be dealt
with as a matter of priority; blocking
of such local level action has been
identified as the major performance
bottleneck of the project
See Indicator 4
Good foundation work of scientific/

economics group, however adaptation
for relevant application esp. at
community level needed; science
foundation strong for technical/ expert
surveys; relevant strategies to be
developed
Limited measures in place to support

the communities in the application of
SNRM
CLB and PF work plans contain

elements of CB and the evaluation
visit has allowed for further noting of
CB needs (self identification) with a
great number of stakeholders
Various SNRM systems proposed by

science and economics group;
elements can be applied to the
development of the filieres/ NR
product based community enterprise
proposed with the scientific and
community monitoring and evaluation;
however, need peer review and
relevant approach
Rating
Indicator
Indicator 16 :
The presence or absence of
ecosystem health indicator
species in the SNRM field
reference sites.
Baseline
Absence of reliable
scientific data on
indicator species
Targets
The presence of indicative
species for the target
ecosystems is verified.
Presence maintained for
health ecosystem indicator
species on all field reference
sites.
Indicator species identified by

scientists for each of the 13 reference
sites (see Indicator 6)
Sub-result 2.4 on wild species

(potentially CITES) not addressed in
particular
Rating
Indicateur 16:
Prsence ou absence
despces indicatrices de la
sant cologique dans les sites
de rfrence de GDRN
MU
Outcome 3: Participatory management systems for marine and coastal protected areas are improved through the integration of SNRM principles
Indicator 17 :
There are only plans
Co-management plans for
Scientific and economic data on

Collaborative conservation
developed in part or
MPAs based on the best
ecosystems of the reference sites in
management plans based on
draft forms.
scientific and technical input
the PASZ of the MCPA are available
scientific knowledge are
are developed.
(see indicators 5 and 6); may serve
operational for each marine and
ANGAP to improve and develop the
coastal protected area
conservation and joint management
plans of the MCPA with the
Indicateur 17:
communities.
Des plans de gestion
Lack of peer review and technical

participative bass sur les
debate on products and general
connaissances scientifiques
technical issues
sont oprationnels pour toutes
Limited measures in place yet to

les aires protges marines et
support the communities in the
ctires
application of SNRM; systems not
aligned to other tools (ANGAP, WWF,
WCS), which might, in comparison be
more appropriate given the target
PIR 2007: Data collected by SAGE

for the 2 MCE reference sites in the
PASZ of Sahamalaza/Iles Radama
and Lokobe of the northern area in
order to establish jointly with ANGAP
and the communities the guidelines
for the complementarities of the
management plans; progress/
Project contributions unclear

application could not be confirmed
Indicator 18 :
One small no-take zone
At least one no-take zone
Scientific and economic data of the 10

Effectiveness of no-take zones
(marginally functional)
established through sciencemarine and coastal ecosystems
is shown by the presence of
was set up in Nosy-Ve.
based criteria on optimal size,
reference sites are available; may
indicator species within and
spacing, % coverage & on
serve ANGAP to improve and develop
outside no-take zones.
socio-economic criteria is
the conservation and joint
(target indicator species are the
established for each local
management plans of the MCPA with
large predatory fish of the
community-based
the communities, however lack of
Lutjanidea family)
management unit.
coordination with other ongoing work
(e.g. ANGAP, WWF, WCS)
Indicateur 18:
Lack of peer review and technical

Lefficacit des zones
debate on products and general
prlvement zro est
technical issues
dmontre par lvolution dans
No further work undertaken since July

la prsence et/ou labondance
2007; vacuum in responsibility - who
despces indicatrices des
would be responsible to discuss with
niveaux suprieurs de la chane
ANGAP a.o. other than PFs; need
alimentaire, telles les espces
technical guidance
prdatrices de grande taille de
Decisions on reference site selection

la famille des Lutjanidae, au
need to be addressed as matter of
sein et hors des zones de
urgency
pche
U
Outcome 4: SNRM knowledge production contributes to efficient management of natural resources in Madagascar
24
Indicator
Indicator 19 :
A knowledge management
support system that collects
and analyses economic,
ecological, social & technical
information on SNRM for major
biomes is functional & effective.
Indicateur 19:
Un systme de gestion des
connaissances permet de
rassembler et danalyser les
informations conomiques,
cologiques, sociales et
techniques relatives la GDRN
pour les principaux
cosystmes de Madagascar.
Indicator 20 :
Adequate information and
knowledge are gathered that
enable the adaptation of
practical and sustainable SNRM
models in the main natural
ecosystems of Madagascar
Indicateur 20:
Suffisamment dinformations et
de connaissances sont
accumules pour permettre de
transposer les approches
permettant de concevoir des
mesures de gestion durable et
rentable des ressources
naturelles dans les principaux
cosystmes naturels de
Madagascar.
Baseline
A fairly large number of
field practitioners are
working on SNRM
throughout the country,
but without systems
which are organized for
knowledge generation
and sharing
Targets
A national facility for
collecting, analyzing, and
distributing SNRM related
knowledge for practitioners
and decision makers is
established & effective.
After 2 of project implementation no

progress at all has been made
Input elements e.g. on knowledge

baseline, information and knowledge
and CBN needs; certain quick
instruments such as photo library,
reference site descriptions, overview
maps, brochures; some examples of
international work etc. provided
through this evaluation (references)
Inadequate knowledge
on sustainable natural
resource community
based management
among the stakeholders
at various levels,
regarding the coral reefs,
the lagoons, the spiny
forests, the mangroves,
and the other natural
ecosystems in
Madagascar.
A national network of SNRM

practitioners and
information/database
managers is identified and
established
PIR 2007states that The SNRM

models and the data collected by
scientists and economists are shared
by all stakeholders and partners in the
project. (Through regional and
national workshops and sent to
partners and beneficiaries). This
information and knowledge are
brought together by SAGE and
shared with local stakeholders
through support to the development of
the Communal Development Plan and
the GIZC (Integrated Coastal
Management plan). The recruitment
process for an institution which will
consolidate a national network of
SNRM is currently underway
The PIR assessment can be
confirmed based on this evaluation
Although some data and information
sharing effects have taken place there
is absolutely no ownership of the work
on the local and regional level, not
even national
Almost one year after PIR 2007
finalisation recruitment process is still
underway
None of the sub-results has been
addressed (4.1 or 4.2)

Outcome 5: Sharing the knowledge relative to SNRM among the stakeholders contributes to efficient and sustainable management
Indicator 21 :
No basic survey has
An information management
PIR 2007: First step is achieved: The

% of SNRM practitioners who
been conducted, and
system for sharing knowledge
results of the research and work
are satisfied with the generated
there is no appropriate
on SNRM with SNRM
produced for the development of
and shared knowledge
formal training provided
practitioners is established &
sustainable natural resource
in Madagascar with
functional. Possibility of
management and use are shared and
Indicateur 21:
regard to the
quantifying the ecological and
explained to regional and local
% de praticiens de la GDRN qui
development of SNRM
socioeconomic impacts of the
authorities, ANGAP and decentralized
sont satisfaits des
models
sustainable management of
state services at the regional
connaissances gnres et
natural resources A multiworkshops. The electronic version of
partages.
stakeholder, knowledge
the results (CD) is offered to allow
sharing communication
their use at all levels.
[Proposed in PIR: An effective
strategy is completed.
This evaluation cannot confirm any

knowledge sharing
progress; this can be so as the PIR
management system relating to
was produced at the time when the
SNRM in Madagascar is in
results from the scientific and
place.]
economic group were just forthcoming
and now almost a whole year without
any follow-up has passed; the
participatory evaluation sessions
make no mention of the work, but if
prompted people remember the work
and the feedback sessions
Sustainability serious concern
Refer to evaluation points under

Result 4; lack of GdC/KM team etc.
no implementation to date
25
Rating
HU
Indicator
Indicator 22:
% of policy and decision
makers who have basic
understanding of SNRM issues
(as determined through
sampling surveys)
Baseline
No survey has been
conducted, but findings
reveal inadequacy of
communication on
SNRM towards decision
and policy makers
Indicateur 22:
% de responsables de
politiques et de dcideurs qui
ont une comprhension de
base des questions de GDRN.
Targets
Mainstreaming of SNRM
objectives in the strategy
documents for the
development of the country
Eight policy briefs prepared
each year on key issues
related to SNRM.
The estimated number of
policy & decision-makers
reached thro a variety of
communications media
increases each year.
No explicit work done (GdC/KM); no

policy briefs, although evaluation
process IDs key issues that have
been addressed at local level and
should be discussed at various levels
Technical debate urgently needed
However, work of SAGE at local/

regional level and certain interactions
with various project staff and
associates has led to some level of
awareness on project (see from
participatory evaluations)
Rating
HU
Note: Project progress is assessed according to the following categories: HS highly satisfactory, S satisfactory, MS marginally
satisfactory, MU Marginally unsatisfactory, U unsatisfactory. HU highly unsatisfactory
The progress evaluation as per result is based on various information sources and assessed against the
performance so far towards reaching the goal, keeping the remaining project time frame in mind. Reference is
made to planned outputs (in French: sous-rsultats) (see Table 1), which aide the more specific assessment of
progress made. It is clear that the project has made limited progress under UNDP/GEF sub-component 2.2 and
no progress under sub-component 3.2. In comparison to the findings of the First-Year Evaluation a regression of
progress is observed, although the work of the scientific and economic group is recognised. One key problem is
that the value of that work must be seen in the bigger picture of establishing SNRM models for the four PA-PASZs
as well as the establishment of functioning SNRM knowledge management at national, regional and local level,
and thus only makes a relatively small contribution to overall performance. It also needs to be noted that the
quality and usefulness of the work in context of the overall project is questionable and should undergo a rigorous
peer review and/or technical debate.
Overall the performance assessment (Table 4) highlights that significant actions need do be put into place to
ameliorate project performance.
Table 4. Summary of progress report
Outcomes
Outcome 1
valuation
2006
S
valuation
2008
MS
Motivation/ comments
Establishment of stakeholder participatory structures largely

in place and operational
Some progress in policy relevant work
Overall local and regional level work blocked; urgent need
for tangible actions and results
Some important background work undertaken, however still
very far from achieving planned results
Some important background work undertaken, however still
very far from achieving planned results
Very limited progress
No progress
No progress
Outcome 2
MU
MU
Outcome 3
Outcome 4
Outcome 5
Overall project
evaluation
MS
HU
MU
HU
HU
U
In comparison to the project performance, financial data was to be assessed. Over the first 2 years of project
implementation about 32% of the overall budget have been spent. 68% of the initial budget is still available for the
implementation of the outstanding activities. Additionally, US$ 500,000 were made available recently, and can be
26
added to the overall amount of funding available.

Table 5. Financial situation a tend of financial year 01/12/2007, (data presented by Finance Manager May 2008)
GEF
4,500,000.00
TRAC
1,800,000.00
TOTAL
6,300,000.00
Expenses
2005
2006
2007
Total
307,434.00
900,280.92
634,237.37
1,842,052.29
49,801.99
57,961.54
39,892.49
147,656.02
357,235.99
958,342.46
674,129.86
1,989,708.31
Funds available
2,657,947.71
1,652,343.98
4,310,291.69
Budget (US$)
Table 6. Funds available (with an additional US$ 500,000) (data presented by Finance Manager May 2008)
GEF
Project Management (i) PMU, (ii) UNPOS/UNDP
Result 1
Result 2
Result 3
Sub-total GEF
US$
552,147.71
534,950.00
1,867,420.00
203,430.00
3,157,947.71
TRAC
Project Management (i) PMU, (ii) UNPOS/UNDP
Result 4 & 5
Sub-total TRAC
914,543.98
737,800.00
1,652,343.98
Total available
4,810,291.69
3.1.2. Responsiveness to First-Year Evaluation

The in 2006 conducted First-Year Evaluation had made 27 recommendations to aide more effective establishment
of the project at the time. The recommendations are reproduced in French in ANNEX 5, including a short
indication of status of implementation/nature of management response. A comprehensive table with management
actions taken indicated was prepared by the PMU. Overall it is found that although a good number of tangible
recommendations were taken up, others seem to have only be partially addressed and should be revisited.
3.1.3. Contributions to Global Environmental Benefits
Relevant information that would aide the filling in of the forms for GEF Tracking Tools 1 and 2 to monitor
contributions to global environmental benefits are included in the M&E plan of the project (as outlined in the 22
(+2) indicators), however at the date of the evaluation the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (mainly set up
for PA, thus 1) was not completed for the project sites at time of evaluation (2008 status). It is understood that this
information would need to be submitted to GEF with the evaluation. It may be necessary to revert to the 2007 data
gathered by the Scientific and Economics Group, should the METT be a necessity under the given circumstances
of low performance and low level implementation of project activities.
3.1.4. Sustainability
At this stage the project is not performing to plan, thus sustainability is difficult to determine. There are major
capacity bottlenecks that have been identified and they need to be addressed to move towards sustainability.
The recent strong engagement by MEEFT in re-orientation and solution findings can be interpreted as a strong
move towards sustainability. A major concern is the clear identification of the need for an enhanced local and
regional implementation mechanism, against the obvious capacity shortcomings of government services at such
level. The at the project preparation stage and during PE2 identified solution to establish non-governmental
27
support mechanisms (i.e. for this project SAGE), are currently not viewed positively by government. It is critical to
find tangible solutions for the implementation arrangements.
The abolition of CELCO as key coordination unit for EP3, and with it the UNDP/GEF sub-components, may have
sustainability implications of various kinds. Firstly the direct integration into Government (MEEFT) can be
beneficial to long-term sustainability of the PA-PASZ and SNRM model approach, as well as for KM thus to the
overall project objective, given that relevant capacities can be strengthened over the remaining project period.
However, at this stage it is not clear whether the current staff of the UNDP/GEF PMU is well equipped to take the
necessary leadership role.
The lack of establishing any progress of work concerning KM is critical, as KM also helps promote ownership and
understanding, without which the project, its concept and the developed models will not be recognised thus will
not attain any level of sustainability.
In terms of long-term financial sustainability it needs to be recognised that the tasks of establishing new
conservation areas whilst implementing incentive measures leading to the upliftment of the livelihoods of a large
number of people living in the ZAAPs, i.e. through promotion of sustainable SNRM based alternative incomes is
very difficult and required longterm commitment. The piloting nature of this project needs to be highlighted and
plans for future action and upscaling have to be developed now to guarantee sustainability.
3.1.5. Contribution to upgrading skills of the national staff
No explicit capacity and skills activities for staff were mentioned during the assessment. Overall it seems that the
PMU was strongly integrated into CECLO and only operated with limited authority for project implementation. At
this stage, with the recently effected restructuring and changes in executing of the project, it seems that the
prioritisation of establishing a capacity development support programme is timely, and relevant recommendations
are made in Section 4.
In the past it seems that there has been a reluctance to involve international expertise in project implementation
and management, although strongly recommended in the project document, various project progress reports and
the first year evaluation. A capacity support and skills development strategy including for national and regional
staff needs to be urgently developed and implemented, both to improve on project performance as well and to
foster sustainability. Technical advisory support, national or international needs to be sought for as a matter of
urgency.
Focusing on the capacity of the PMU and its four staff members, it would seem important to review their individual
TOR and establish new performance contracts, considering the new institutional arrangements, the draft
recommendations in this report and any decisions that may be taken on refocusing project implementation. A
more hands-on and practical role for PMU staff in project implementation at the national level, enhanced support
functions for regional/local staff, coordination of implementation partners and strong backing for the established
governance structures (e.g. various PFs and CPs) is recommended. Capacity reinforcement may be required.
Although mention was made that efforts need to be directed mainly at local level implementation, the evaluation
did identify capacity gaps and shortcomings at national level and within the various government and other partner
institutions. It therefore is recommended to include capacity building activities for national staff within the larger
PA-PASZ project. Again it needs to be highlighted that it is the project management that needs to have a good
understanding of the project vision, to be able to provide leadership and to aid other stakeholders to become more
understanding of the project concept PA-PASZ and SNRM. Recognition of other work going on in Madagascar
and elsewhere in the World i.e. southern Africa is a critical element of this and a strong link to KM has to be made.
Exposure visits, the invitation of guest speakers and facilitation of discussion groups are just some of the activities
that would assist the visioning, management and overall communication, KM and capacity building.
3.2. Project formulation (and implementation)
3.2.1. Implementation approach
In terms of project design, it should be noted that two Project Documents setting out (i) the design of the
implementation approach for the joint WB/GEF and UNDP/GEF project (English), and (ii) the design for the
UNDP/GEF project only (French) exist. Whilst both documents provide ample information on the project concept,
28
the design may not have been very clear to less experienced project managers (esp. less experiences in terms of
GEF projects). The in 2006 conducted First-Year Evaluation and subsequent PIR have improved on the initial
design, and should be self explanatory. Overall the design seems novel, needs driven and practical.
For ease of reference this evaluation report is presenting the logframe on the objective outcome - output and
indicator levels bilingual. This should aide clear communication of the logframe and any changes. Overall it is
recommended to retain the design as is. On the output level, certain adjustments could be made, i.e. to outputs
2.2 and 2.3, which are at the heart of the project and would need to be further unpacked and operationalised.
This can take place on the activity level. Output 2.4 may not become very significant during the project
implementation, however this would depend on the demand as indicated in the reports of the Scientific and
Economic group and by ANGAP. All outputs, should indicate the final product, for example output 3.1 should be
expanded by adding a note on . And implemented, whilst output 4.1 could have an addendum . And
Knowledge and Awareness Strategy developed and implemented. In terms of indicators it is mentioned
elsewhere that certain indicators, and related baselines and targets may benefit form minor revisions.
Project implementation mechanism:
- SAGE: foreseen as key execution/implementation partner (in French: APEX) responsible for putting the local
and regional project structures in place and responsible for community outreach (see Prodoc)
- ANGAP: key beneficiary of project, responsible for AP management; key implementation partner esp. vis-vis SAGE
- Additional specific Service Providers are commissioned to carry out specific project activities
- CELCO established as coordination unit for EP3, housing the UNDP/GEF PMU, amongst other
- MEEFT: NEX agency; largely coordination function, delegated through CELCO
Key issues:
- The establishment of outside government services is always a political issue and remains often donor
driven. In the case of SAGE and ANGAP the newly established Government is seeking to find new
arrangements that would also strengthen Government, which requires a technical feasibility assessment and
debate
- Especially in the context of a pilot project like the presently discussed, it is critical that implementation
arrangements are followed that guarantee the success of the piloting phase, so that overall up-scaling and the
implementation of the exit strategy can take place
- Renewed or revised implementation arrangements need to be strictly performance based to ensure that this
project can deliver
- Elements for the Exit Strategy including the longterm and nation wide up-scaling of successful piloting
approaches and should already be part of the project strategy
- It is clear that the changed political environment has had strong impacts on the implementation approach; it
needs to be critically assessed if a pilot project like the GEF/UNDP PA-PASZ project can fully react on such
changes
3.2.2. Country ownership/Driveness
The Prodoc and overall project are characterized by a very strong adherence to and integration into EP3, which
would suggest very strong country ownership. The newly developed Madagascar Action Plan (MAP) is a higher
tier development plan, which integrated EP3 elements and in its formulation clearly provides excellent
opportunities for this current project to make nationwide contributions. Overall the PA-PASZ concept is or highest
national interest and there is an urgent need to perform on establishing workable models and successful
demonstration interventions. The urgency for a project like the UNDP/GEF project, but more so the integrated
WB/GEF UNDP/GEF joint approach has been voiced over and over again during the evaluation visit.
In the past the MEEFT had installed CELCO as their coordination body for the project; recent political changes
have led to stronger ownership by MEEFT itself, and the PMU has been moved from CELCO into MEEFT. There
seems to be strong ownership and country driveness given by the project. At the regional level, strong ownership
over the project is observed, although the centralized implementation arrangement inhibits more effective
ownership and regional driveness at this stage. Local and regional level engagement, enthusiasm and readiness
is rated as being high and this should be harnessed. The role of SAGE and ANGAP cannot to be underestimated
in this, and any review or local and regional implementation arrangements need to take this into consideration.
3.2.3. Stakeholder participation
29
The initial project design foresees strong stakeholder participation, especially, but not only on the local
implementation levels. A well designed tiered approach to involving stakeholders at all levels can be deducted
from the concepts set out in the ProDoc.
Stakeholder participation needs to be established at various levels, (i) national, (ii) regional, and (iii) local. The
evaluation found, that best performance in terms of participation is at local and regional levels, and a strong
disconnect with national level is observed. Whilst relatively strong local and regional governance structures have
been established esp. under outcome 1 of the project design, these structures have subsequently not been
operationalised, largely due to national level project management decision making. One of the key bottlenecks of
the project is that national level decision making is done without participation of other national level stakeholders
and experts as well as without recognition of local and regional stakeholders priorities and activities. There is a
lack of national regional technical collaboration and support, which may be caused by the set up implementation
arrangements and a misunderstanding or responsibilities. Whilst SAGE could be seen as the key responsible
organization to establish this link, this is not reflected in any of the annual contracts or work plans. It is debatable if
such functions should rest with the PMU or with other project partners. At the national level an overall EP3
coordination mechanism was set up (e.g. in French: Committee Conjoindre), which in principle could fill some of
the participation gaps identified at that level, however the mechanism has not performed. The National Project
Steering Committee was not formally established during the first half of project implementation, and only a small
management group composed of CELCO, UNDP and partially SAGE and ANGAP seem to have operated. This
is insufficient to allow for relevant stakeholder participation.
3.2.4. Replication approach
In the project design a very strong replication approach is conceptualized, which clearly identifies the current
project as a pilot phase that would test and develop SNRM models, including implementation mechanisms
(ANGAP-SAGE), which would later be up-scaled to other PA-PASZs throughout the country.
It is observed that the replication approach for outcome 1 of the project has been well established and relevant
local and regional project structures have been established, even if they are not fully operational at this stage. In
terms of the methods developed in support to the SNRM systems by the Scientific and Economics group it is
obvious that no follow-up work on their deliverables has taken place. Thus at this stage there simply is nothing
that can be replicated. In the project design it is foreseen that the under results 2 and 3 produced work should be
applied and replicated by esp. ANGAP.
3.2.5. Cost-effectiveness
The in the project design foreseen implementation arrangements and the joint WB/GEF and UNDP/GEF
complimentarity element are novel and one would expect that cost-effectiveness criteria be met.
However, at this stage the lack of real project implementation makes it difficult to assess cost-effectiveness to
date. The fact that almost 70% of project funds are still unspent is hardly a reflection of such cost-effectiveness,
but points to the fact that key project activities have not been implemented. At this stage management decisions
at the national level (MEEFT, CELCO, UNDP) have led to the poor performance of the project. The
discontinuation of several project activities for a prolonged time period (e.g. hiring of KM service providers,
extension of contract for APEX SAGE, testing and application of model components of scientific and economic
group (various service providers), no availing of community funds, to name a few examples) seem ineffective.
If the project design and the developed PA-PASZ models incl. the ANGAP/SAGE partnership will be cost effective
once under proper implementation is taking place will have to bee examined at a later stage. Also if the joint
WB/GEF UNDP/GEF arrangement contributes to cost-effectiveness is not clear at this moment, although the
concepts seem credible (e.g. sharing of administrative and running costs; strong coordination of activities).
3.2.6. UNDP comparative advantage
The technical support services that can be rendered to project implementation are alluded to in the project plan,
mainly through the various support functions (support missions, evaluations), although they are relatively loosely
formulated in the ProDoc.
The UNDP Madagascar Country Office is generally well situated to serve as GEF Implementation Agency,
especially as programming can be aligned with other larger scale country support e.g. to the MAP and
Decentralisation efforts. It is, however stressed, that as CO, an effective and efficient administration and decision30
support system is required to ensure that projects are well guided and implemented. This is particularly true in the
context of a project that seems to have severe performance problems. It is observes that the UNDP Regional
Office in Pretoria has provided invaluable technical and administrative support to the project, i.e. through various
support missions. The voluntarily decision to install a First-Year evaluation, for example, demonstrates good
project support.
Linkages to the WB/GEF component of the joint project seem relatively limited.
3.2.7. Linkages between project and other interventions within the sector
As already pointed out in section 3.2.2. Country ownership/Driveness and elsewhere extremely strong linkages to
all EP3 project interventions were set out in the project concept.
In reality, the initial project idea is well planned, but poorly executed. This is particularly true at the policy and
national level. At the regional and PA-PASZ level, on the other hand, the establishment of the various project
structures such as the various platforms (PFs) allows for good coordination, exchange and establishing linkages;
very pertinent discussions and interactions have arisen amongst PF members, which need to be recognized. A
major difficulty of the project is that the KM component and with it its two foreseen outcomes (outcomes 4 & 5)
have not been implemented are foreseen in the ProDoc. Potential linkages that could be forested through
information sharing and exchange are therefore not tapped on currently.
3.2.8. Indicators
The in the ProDoc set out indicators are directly integrating the in the EP3 formulated indicators, to ensure that a
lean and effective M&E of EP3 progress can take place.
The ProDoc, the First Year Evaluation report and subsequent PIRs build on the initial indicator framework and
refined the outline of the M&E plan. The First Year Evaluation specifically addresses GEF requirements under the
Biodiversity Focal Area, by developing SP 1 impact indicators. It is recognized that the M&E Plan for which
elements were proposed in the First Year Evaluation was never fully completed, although a great deal of excellent
technical work was undertaken by the Scientific and Economic Group in terms of assessing baselines and refining
targets. Current 22 primary indicators are in place, of which 11 assess performance towards the project objective
and another 11 performance under the five project outcomes. Certain indicators are repeated.
Overall the indicator framework is quite strong, but certain indicators seem impractical (see comments in ANNEX
9), e.g. Indicator 5 aims at an increase of specific indicator families but can we really expect such an impact
over the relatively short project time period? Similarly for Indicator 6, which measures increase in endemic
species? Indicator 9: Is the measure in % practical? To name just a few examples.
Whereas the overall M&E plan should be improved, the primary difficulty seems to be the monitoring process in
itself. The mechanisms foreseen for the monitoring, and monitoring responsibilities are vested in a number of
project partners (e.g. scientists, communities, ANGAP), but no effective monitoring system is in place. One
additional difficulty is that the project M&E plan foresees a strong M&E role of ANGAP (mainly related to SNRM),
however consultations do not confirm that such a mandate for ANGAP exists outside of the AP. Role clarification
between MEEFT/DREEFT and ANAGP, and in marine areas MAEP/DDR is required and a check against existing
capacities may need to be undertaken.
It needs to be noted that the M&E data provided for the mid-term evaluation was sub-optimal especially in terms
of impact indicators, as no functional M&E system is in place.
3.2.9. Management arrangements
The established project management arrangements were introduced in Section 2, and are largely based on the
concepts presented in the ProDoc. The role of CELCO as a by the Ministry/Government designated EP3
coordination unit was foreseen to be significant and to facilitate integrated and effective project implementation. A
PMU was established in a subordinate arrangement.
CELCO was recently (May 2008) dissolved on action of the Minister of MEEFT. Although CELCO seems to
remain as WB/GEF mechanism, the UNDP/GEF component has moved under direct coordination from MEEFT
(Directorate of Planning). The new management arrangements mainly affect the PMU, which has now moved into
MEEFT offices. It is clear that the fact that CELCO was dissolved indicates that the arrangement did not suit the
31
current government; it would seem that a decision as significant as this should be based on the best performance
options for a pilot project such as the current. UNDP supports the demonstrated ownership drive by MEEFT. How
this new management arrangement will affect other project partners previously a major part of the ProDoc (esp.
SAGE and ANGAP) needs to be clarified.
It is clear that the management level of the project has suffered from major weaknesses, which have led to the
underperformance of the project. A number of project partners have to take responsibility, including MEEFT, the
PMU, UNDP, ANGAP and SAGE. The currently observed mismatch between national level decision making and
needs and realities on regional and local implementation levels could potentially be ameliorated by stronger
decentralisation of the management arrangements (see Section 4).
3.3 Implementation
The following sections have been partially addressed in Section 3.2 and only relevant additional points and crossreferences are indicated here in point form.
-
3.3.1. Financial Planning

Cross-reference to Section 3.2.5 on cost-effectiveness is made
Overall the low project expenditures to date reflect the blocking and non-performance of key project
activities.
The initial project budget presented in the ProDoc seems to follow-normal layout guidance and seems to have
been used as basis for financial management at PMU level.
In how far long-term planning of financial resources in line with changing project needs is considered in
annual planning and so forth could not be readily established during the evaluation
A re-phasing of the project, in line with the recommendation to request a 3 year no-cost extension, needs to
be undertaken with the remaining budgetary resources in mind
There is a need to decentralise financial management and planning activities to regional and local levels for
improved implementation
3.3.2. Monitoring and evaluation
Cross-reference to Section 3.2.8 on indicators is made
There seems to have been very limited follow-up on the First Year Evaluation report; although that evaluation
was not a GEF requirement, it was instituted as a support mission to assist successful project establishment
in Madagascar; it is not clear why a good number of key recommendations have not been addressed
3.3.3. Execution and implementation modalities
The MEEFT recently enforced the NEX status of the project, which has led a certain major changes
concerning project implementation, including much stronger Government ownership
3.3.4. Management by the UNDP country office
It is clear that UNDP needs to fill the donor relevant leadership role in a project of the nature of the
UNDP/GEF support project to EP3; the UNDP leadership needs to follow the unified vision of the project,
which currently lacking or at least unclear
Certain project blockages seem to have been worsened by UNDP CO, hampering successful project
implementation; the most pertinent example is the unacceptable delay of implementation of activist
contributing to Outcomes 3 & 4, amongst other. A delay in administrative procedures with UNOPS has been
mentioned as cause and this needs to be urgently addressed
3.3.5. Coordination and operational issues

Operational issues are dealt with in Section 4.
32
4. Recommendations
Based on the evaluation visit and the numerous consultations with project stakeholders, a wide ranging set of
recommendations are made, focusing on three reporting elements:
Corrective actions for the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the project
Actions to follow up or reinforce initial benefits from the project
Proposals for future directions underlining main objectives
The recommendations section is divided into two sections, 4.1 and 4.2, with the first stating the top priority
recommendations for immediate management action, whilst the second section elaborates detailed operational
recommendations that could guide the formulation of the management responses to the evaluation.
4.1. Top priority recommendations for immediate management action
Despite poor project performance at mid-term, the recently strongly demonstrated want of national ownership and
willingness to improve on project performance by key players such as MEEFT, related regional structures,
regional governments and ANGAP are recognised as a strong foundation for performance improvement. This
commitment forms the basis for the following key recommendations from the evaluation:
1.
It is recommended to continue project implementation, given that strategic and operational

recommendations stemming from the mid-term evaluation are positively acted upon.
2.
It is recommended to request a 3 year no-cost extension for the PA-PASZ pilot project
a.
68% of funds are still available at mid-term (excl. a supplementary amount of US$ 500,000
availed through UNDP additionally)
b.
The final time horizon will depend on how fast the project can be realigned (incl. by when a TA
can be hired)
3.
A Technical Advisor has to be hired as a matter of urgency to help bring the project on track. Such a
position should be advertised nationally, if available, and internationally. The TA would be a SNRM expert
with a track record of strong capacity building [skills], which would be applied to the MEEFT and the PMU
staff, in particular and would aide build a longterm sustainability element into the project implementation
phase.
4.
The evaluation found that the initial project design is still responsive to the key PA-PASZ and SNRM
problematic and it is thus recommended to retain the design framework. Implementation elements can be
adjusted in the context of adaptive planning, and re-phased in line with the request for a 3 year no-cost
extension. The TA shall take leadership in such a process and guide the country team. It is recommended
that the overall project objective, the five outcomes and the major project indicators (22 +2) will be
retained when re-phasing the project. Certain indicators might benefits from minor revisions. Potentially
the outputs should be reviewed with the support of the TA. Esp. outputs 2.2 and 2.3 seem major and
should be further unpacked.
5.
It is further advised to install a policy expert TA at senior level of MEEFT, to aide the full integration of the
PA-PASZ and SNRM concepts into Government policy making, [and the up-scaling of the piloting results
and integration into a systematic policy process,] amongst other.
6.
It is critical to tighten the coordination of SNRM work in the PACZ and PA work under an integrated vision;
it is proposed that this vision be furthered between MEEFT and ANGAP, and then be shared and
furthered with all project partners.
7.
It is recognised that the key implementation activities have to be carried out at the local and regional level.
It is therefore recommended to decentralise project coordination aspects to the regional level, including a
certain level financial authority, to ensure more responsive management of project affairs. The following
points should be taken into consideration, amongst other:
33
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
A strategy for decentralised implementation of the project is needed; such a strategy has to be
developed in a participatory manner with all key stakeholders and with potential implementation
partners
It needs to be recognised that this project is of piloting nature; thus the prerogative is to utilise a
lean and effective implementation arrangement that allows for best performance during a very
limited project implementation period; capacity support for longterm sustainability shall be
considered as part of the project strategy, however cannot lead to sacrificing the piloting success
A tiered implementation approach is recommended, including a strong prioritisation of key
activities to be tested and implemented at local level; the current number of project sites
(reference sites and Community Based Organisations (CBOs/CLBs)) seem to be too large to
ensure effective project implementation.
Site selection should be revisited and based on the needs of the PA-PASZ concept, under the
leadership of ANGAP.
Considering the relatively short life-time of the project, and recognising its piloting nature,
practical implementation mechanisms are sought for. Regional and PA-PASZ specific differences
need to be taken into account when planning such mechanisms. It is recognised that different
approaches may be taken for each PA-PASZ, based on the peculiar contexts of each of the PAPASZs. The capacity of Government extension (CTD) is rated to be currently low; it is
recommended to install intermediaries such as SAGE or other institutions (other national or
international NGOs, e.g. Fanamby, church based networks or other) to aide the successful testing
of the pilot approaches. Relevant capacity support to such organisations shall be provided by the
project and other players.
4.2. Priority strategic performance areas and operational recommendations

Three overall strategic performance areas to be addressed for improved project performance are identified:
A. Vision, Structure & Management
B. Communication, Capacity Building, Knowledge Management & the Role of Science and Research
C. The Priority: Implementation at Regional and Local Levels
A. Vision, Structures & Management

One of the key problem areas of project performance is the lack of vision, guidance and leadership for
implementation of the PA-PASZ concept generally, and the UNDP/GEF project in particular. This may be for a
number of reasons such as weaknesses the initial implementation design and decisions, but needs to be
ameliorated as a matter of urgency. The following priorities should be addressed:
A.1 Building of vision and leadership
Currently there is a lack of a common understanding and vision of the project; instead of trying to address
that problem decision makers (at various levels, incl. national, international) have resorted to blocking
decisions, seriously delaying implementation. There is a tendency to pass on responsibility and playing
the blame game, always referring to decision making responsibilities at other levels of hierarchy instead
of taking responsibility and ensuring that project implementation is moving ahead.
An example it that the project component 3.2 on KM has not been implemented at all after 2 years
since project inception, although KM elements are critical to the overall project performance and
component 2.2. on SNRM. The hiring of service providers has been delayed to an unacceptable extent,
and the various people questioned about this all name different reasons and responsible entities for this
delay. Instead of recognising the underlying problems, prioritising solution finding and implement at least
critical elements of the KM component, without which the project cannot perform, no actions have been
taken.
A significant problem is that even senior project staff and management do not share the same project
vision and do not comprehend the project in its entity. None of the management personnel interacted with
during the mission was in a position to fully explain the ProDoc and subsequent adaptive planning and
34
implementation steps, and the initial project idea has been dwarfted to a very limited intervention. A
particularly severe disconnect exists between national level decision making and regional and local
project realities and priorities.
Recommendation 1: It is recommended that a visioning exercise for the project be undertaken, so that all senior
decision makers and major stakeholders share the same project understanding. Without a firm and consolidated
vision that guides project implementation and development it is impossible to exert leadership. This is particularly
important in the context of increased decentralisation, proposed below, for which excellent leadership from
national level is required. Technical Advise, national or international, may need to be solicited in support of such a
visioning exercise. The exercise should be organised by the PMU, under guidance of MEEFT senior
management. It could become an element of the for the 16 & 17 June 2008 scheduled 2-day planning workshop.
A.2 Progressive integration into national development context (e.g. MAP goals 7 & 4)
Since project design, major policy changes have taken place in Madagascar, and these need to be fully
integrated and embraced by the adaptive management of the project. Partially linked to point A.1, it
seems to be a lack of vision and leadership in the project that lead to a limited understanding of this
important conservation and development investment by GEF with its implementing agencies UNDP and
WB. It is noted that the during 2007 performed EP3 mid-term evaluation had identified a fifth key
challenge to conservation, namely rural development, however, no reference to the contributions of the
UNDP/GEF project was made. Considering that the Madagascar Action Plan (MAP) is now the national
development strategy and is progressively being implemented, it is opportune for the project to identify its
contributions to MAP and to communicate on them. Based on an initial review it can be easily
demonstrated how the project interventions contribute to achieving MAP goals 7 (environment) and 4
(rural development). Such visible alignment within the national development context would also help
address matters such as the recent call by the Minister of MEEFT to focus project implementation on
enhancing rural livelihoods.
Although it was previously argued that this GEF investment is made under Biodiversity Strategic Priority 1
(SP1; Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Areas Systems at National Levels) (First year evaluation,
various reports such as PIR/APR), it is noted that both versions of the ProDoc (English and French)
clearly state that the UNDP project would make contributions to SP 2 (Mainstreaming Biodiversity in
Production Landscapes/Seascapes and Sectors). It may be a strategic decision to include selected SP2
performance indicators at this stage, to ensure that the rural development contributions can be sufficiently
demonstrated.
Recommendation 2: It is recommended to continuously update and align the project context to the evolving
national development framework; this will aide the development and communication of project vision, objectives
and design. It is the role of the Coordinator, under guidance of the Steering Committee, to engage in a national
policy dialogue and ensure that the project interventions evolve together with the overall environment,
conservation and development priorities in Madagascar. This may also include the integration of performance
indicators under GEF Biodiversity SP 2, on Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Production Landscapes/Seascapes and
Sectors.
A.3 Management arrangements and performance
This overall operational area touches on various sub-areas, including
- Overall project management arrangements, dissolvement of CELCO
- PMU
- Steering Committee
The recent decision by the Minister of MEEFT to dissolve CECLO and to integrate project executing more
firmly within the Ministry provides a unique opportunity for the rearrangement and improvement of project
management, however it also comes at an expense of expending more time and resources to a
restructuring process mid-term into the project implementation. For sustainability and also performance
reasons the recent decision can be interpreted as a very useful leadership step to improving
implementation, however it should be cautioned that the project should not have to undergo further such
major disruptions, and UNDP and MEEFT should seek agreement on stability for the future. It is
recommended that the PMU structure be retained as had, although responsibilities may shift (see below).
At this stage the vision of the Minister for the restructuring is not quite clear, however it is anticipated that
35
it will fit well with the recommendations of this mid-term evaluation; in saying this it is noted that the reorientation should also be mindful of and take into consideration the recommendations made during the
First year evaluation of the project13, which, to this date, have received relatively limited attention by
project staff.
With the recent restructuring integration of the UNDP/GEF project under CELCO has ceased, and with it
the prominent role of the Head of CELCO as project responsible. This may indicate a change of roles
and responsibilities of PMU staff. The position of Project Coordinator (PC) in particular, would become
more prominent and the PC would take up more responsibilities. In addition, based on the extensive
observations during the evaluation consultations, a need for top management staff to take up more
hands-on roles was already identified. It is noted that the position of PC is the most prominent and critical
to project performance. A review of the current TORs of the PC indicates that the roles and
responsibilities of the PC may not be spelled out clearly enough, and revision made be required. A clear
performance contract underpinning the TOR should be established for all staff (PMU and other potentially
designated by MEEFT). The coordinator needs to (a) understand all components of the project even is
implementation is outsourced, and (b) is responsible for the synthesis of all programme elements; more
hand-on work on the national level is required and it is recommended that e.g. the TOR of the Coordinator
be amended to include elements of KM and communication. Staff and project management are critical
responsibilities of the Coordinator, and will become even more important if the project implementation
arrangements will become more decentralised in nature (see below).
The project would potentially benefit from the services of a Technical Advisor and other additional support,
esp. to the PC. Because the remaining project implementation phase is relatively short, it may be
advisable to look into pragmatic solutions instead of trying to fill a full time TA position, and part time
solutions could be explored. It is strongly recommend to agree to international support, which should,
however have capacity building and coaching of national staff as primary objective. International support
is recommended as the evaluation clearly identifies a very limited inward vision, with limited technical
understanding; for example, at this stage project staff is too inward looking (at all levels), not really being
used to synthesising lessons learnt from elsewhere in Madagascar or world wide; it would be beneficial to
strengthen the culture of seeking outward support, knowledge and cooperation. A specific capacity
development element for management should be included (see Strategic Performance Areas B).
It is the responsibility of the National Steering Committee to oversee and guide project performance, and
esp. the PMU. It is noted that the NSC has been implemented only haphazardly and has been operating
on an ad hoc basis only. Membership of the NSC has been limited to the key players, mainly CELCO,
SAGE and UNDP, which would come together to take day-to-day management decision in a more or less
formalised manner. This has lead to (i) limited strategic guidance for the project and (ii) limited
stakeholder involvement, project understanding and ownership. Although the concern is understood that
the overall EP3 structures (e.g. Committee Conjoint) would take on such technical and strategic guidance,
this has not happened to date and the UNDP/GEF project suffers from a lack of such leadership. A
number of models can be proposed to ameliorate this issue, and final rearrangements can/ should be in
line with the overall restructuring of the EP3.
Recommendation 3: It is recommended that under the new management arrangements of the project, after
integration into MEEFT, the roles and responsibilities of the PMU staff, esp. the Project Coordinator (PC) are
reviewed and amended to reflect the expanded performance areas (by MEEFT and UNDP). This is also
recommended in view of the proposed stronger project implementation decentralisation efforts, which will
require intensified staff management and strong devolution of responsibilities on one hand, and increasing
communication, capacity building and management responsibilities at the national level, on the other.
Recommendation 4: It is advised to seek additional Technical Advisory services with a strong strategic and
capacity building mandate, which would coach and support national staff for the remaining project
implementation period. Creative models could be explored, to ensure that lengthy recruitment procedures do
not delay project implementation.
Recommendation 5: The National Steering Committee needs to be strengthened to be able to take up
critical leadership and support responsibilities. For example membership should be expanded to include a
wider ranging set of project stakeholders and technical expertise.
13
A great number of the recommendations made during the 2006 evaluation still apply and are not necessarily repeated in this report.
36
A. 4 Project management tools: LFA, TOR, PTA

During the First Year Evaluation special emphasis was placed on furthering the project design and
developing a logical framework and related implementation tools such as annual work plans (PTA) to aide
the systematic project management and adaptive planning and implementation. Overall the guidance
provided has been taken up, and annual planning is conducted based on the LFA. However, it is observed
that the management tool has become a purpose in itself, rather than being a facilitating management
support. For example, the project LFA has been revised so many times, that it is hard to actually decide
which version to use, and PTAs have been drafted, reworked time and again. The key issue seems to be
related though that there is a lack of common project vision and understanding, which has lead to the
management tools to be applied in an excruciating manner. Similarly the development of TORs, another
key management tool, have led to firstly major project delays and secondly to poor performance of the
project, as the requested outputs and products from commissioned work do not satisfy the project needs.
Performance indicators for both PTAs and TORs are mostly verified by reports, this leads to what we have
got now a lot of reports, the content of which is not synthesised in a useful manner and not shared.
An observation is that currently, the contract for the APEX SAGE has been withheld for several months
and payments have been discontinued. Considering the poor preparation of LFA, PTA and TOR, is hardly
the contracted entities that can be held responsible. It should be noted that overall the work of SAGE has
to date produced the most satisfying work in the project. It also needs to be stated, that against previous
recommendations SAGE has not received a longterm contract, and now had to even lay off staff and
close offices. Even if there were concerns about the performance of SAGE, the management decisions
taken seem to be more disruptive than constructive.
Overall, when considering the move towards stronger decentralisation, the management performance
needs to be improved; project cycle planning and other support interventions should be supported.
Recommendation 6: It is recommended to improve project management capacities and to lighten administrative
procedures and burdens; it is envisaged that the development of a common vision will greatly aide in simplifying
management, under strong and common leadership.
Recommendation 7: It is further recommended that project cycle training and other capacity support
interventions should be implemented as matter of urgency, and also include regional project stakeholders (be
conducted in regions) to support decentralisation.
A.5 Decentralised implementation arrangements: responsibilities and roles
The need for a stronger decentralisation of project implementation and management was highlighted
during the evaluation visits in the regions. Technical advise, communication, financial management and
are amongst the key aspects that were mentioned to be improved on the regional level.
Numerous proposals for the implementation of an improved decentralised project delivery were made and
discussed. It is clear that government is seeking more support and also responsibility in executing the
project in the regions, whilst the need for a facilitator for community action was acknowledged and the
work of SAGE was usually reflected on in a positive manner. The through SAGE established project
structures such as the platforms and CLBs would make primary implementation partners.
Some initial propositions for more decentralised implementation arrangements are included in Figure 7
However, it needs to be noted that these propositions are very preliminary in nature. A systematic
assessment of key service delivery needs of the project at the local and regional level is needed, and
based on the functions a new structure can be developed. When doing this it is important to keep the
following points in mind:
- Relatively short lifetime of this project and the need to produce tangible results during the project
phase; separate medium- and longerterm strategies should be explored in parallel
- Establishment of sustainable structures that will operate beyond the project horizon; in this
context it is important for government to revisit the initial mandate foreseen for SAGE (and
ANGAP) and who the CTDs are linked; roles clarification and coordination of all PA-PASZ
activities and of the UNDP and WB GEF components of the project need to be addressed at the
regional level
- Capacity building of relevant support and service providers should be considered as a key focus
37
The project can provide for regional staff to be deployed, however will depend on other service
providers for intensive local level delivery
Need for decentralised planning & budgets; needs specific capacity support
Any proposals made need to be carefully costed and checked against the overall available
budget; a re-structuring of the budget that would reflect the decentralisation move is
recommended
The role of the project is to broker increased investments into the PA-PASZs to promote SNRM
based livelihoods improvements
Role of Regional CPs versus National CP needs ot be clearly established avoid overlaps and
contradictions
EXAMPLE (see also Figure 7, Section C)

Performance Needs:
- programmatic guidance
- facilitation, incl. communication
- implementation and delivery at local level (SNRM, filieres, other)
- financing options
Proposed structures:
- decentralised project execution: regional coordinators situated in gov
- Strengthening of CTDs
- SAGE to retain a facilitation role, however
- Other specialised service providers
- Platforms, regional CP, CBOs/CLBs
Recommendation 8: It is recommended that the project takes a more decentralised implementation approach,
which will include a new implementation structure. Budget allocations are made to the regional level and
administered there. A final new implementation structure has to be based on a strong analysis of performance
needs (form follows function!), and will be developed with key stakeholders (i.e. discussed during 16 & 17 June
workshop). A new structure will build on the already established project governance structures such as the various
platforms, CBOs/CLBs and the Regional Steering Committees.
A.6 Potential no-cost extension and planning of long-term PA-PASZ strategy
Currently the project is scheduled to run for another 2 years; it is asserted that this is insufficient time to
allow for the implementation of the planned activities, mainly as almost an entire year was lost between
July 2007 and June 2008 with most project activities at a standstill. It is proposed to seek a no-cost
extension for the project, considering that at this stage about 80% of funds are still available.
Need to start planning now for after project; MEEFT/Gov integration good; need to start drafting next
phase proposal; would suggest SLM and CCA, with SNRM; or INRM, depending on where there are
funding windows; integrated BD also possible, but probably a bit more difficult to source
Note: WB component coordination seem snot a big deal, as long as GEF project guidance at national
level relatively harmonized and in field good collaboration with ANGAP given; stronger support from this
project needed (e.g. SAGE representation versus ANGAP in South really unbalanced)
Recommendation 9: It is recommended to request a no-cost extension for the project and include the new time
horizon into the planning process.
Recommendation 10: It is further proposed to identify future and long-term strategies for applying the PA-PASZ
concept to Protected Areas management in Madagascar in future, including the formulation of relevant funding
and financing proposals.
B. Communication, Capacity Building, Knowledge Management & the Role of Science and
Research
38
B.1 Priority action on communication; develop and implement communication strategy

The Prodoc, as well as the first year evaluation and subsequent PIRs highlight the importance of
communication and the lack thereof in project implementation. The decentralised nature of the project,
the diversity of project stakeholders and the varied implementation arrangements make communication
central to smooth operation. A great deal of implementation bottlenecks could be ameliorated by an
enhanced emphasis on communication. It is important that the PC understand all aspects of the project, is
well informed about all technical aspects of the project and can synthesis, analyse and communicate such
key points; it is essential to retain some of the communication responsibilities within management, and
outsource other.
It is proposed that a major part of the communication element be managed and the responsibility of the
PC, although of course information needs to be availed from all levels and partners. It is important to
uncouple certain communication elements from the KM component, which has stalled for some time now.
In devising a communication strategy the Prodoc and 1 st Year Evaluation should be consulted, as
important propositions for the development of such a strategy are already in place. It is also proposed to
keep the Strategy simple this is a task that can be easily accomplished in a few days including peer
review. Try to analyse in some detail all the various communication bottlenecks, including on the local
level things such as language barriers, difficult infrastructure and dissemination, need for engendered
materials and targeting a.o. and develop realistic outreach and communication plans; currently mainly
through face to face meetings; even if this is needed, then we need to devise a way for best delivery.
Sufficient funds for the effective implementation of the strategy need to be set aside. To aide the
development of the strategy, elements for a knowledge and awareness baseline are included in Annex
11 of this report, based on the intensive stakeholder consultations undertaken as part of the evaluation.
A top priority and useful opportunity would be to assist MEEFT in the improvement of the Ministries
website, with a special focus on the project. Examples of professional and well structured sites, and
critical steps to be taken to develop such an information portal (e.g. end-user surveys, participation and
training of relevant Ministry staff responsible for the longterm updating and maintenance of site) should be
sought for; as a guideline the principle of best possible quality should be followed if local website
designers are not competitive search for outside/ international services. Quality is key to good
communication. Additional examples of easily in-house executed communication tools are provided in
ANNEX 12 (draft design for brochures for the four PA-PASZs), mainly to illustrate what type of products
can be prepared by project personnel and do not require the hiring of e.g. the KM entities.
Recommendation 11: It is recommended that the PC with support and input from other staff and project partners,
develop a project Communication Strategy as matter of priority and implement key elements of it.
B.2 Development of needs based capacity building plan
Capacity building is a key priority for achieving sustainability of the project interventions in the longterm.
Such capacity building or strengthening efforts are required at various levels for a diverse set of project
stakeholders. It would be useful to formalise a capacity building plan, based on the plans prepared at the
various project levels (e.g. CLB PTA, PF plans) so that priority needs can be systematically addressed. It
is also important to demonstrate the capacity building achievements made through the project, as soft
investments such as training, skills development and similar are usually hard to track and impacts difficult
to show. The in ANNEXES 10 and 11 presented ideas for elements for a knowledge and awareness
baseline and capacity building plan (not worked out in detail as data from field consultations not
accessible at time of finalisation of report) should be used as foundation for assessing capacity building
impacts after project duration.
Under the newly proposed and partially established new project implementation arrangements
government partners and esp. relevant CTD, but also partners such as ANGAP and SAGE and the PMU
and project structure members and communities should be targeted by this project. The support of a
technical debate (see below), would be one contribution the project could make.
An example of a tangible capacity building activities for high level decision makers could be the
organisation of an Exposure Visit to for example to Namibia, where concepts such as CBNRM, improved
PA management, co-management arrangement, public-private partnerships and so forth are also being
tested and implemented. Such exposure and related technical debate of best practices and options would
potentially also improve the visioning and leadership element of the project (see A.1).
39
Recommendation 12: It is recommended to support the development and implementation of Capacity Building
Plans for project stakeholders at all levels incl. project management; it is important to design the plans in a way
that impacts of the investments made can be demonstrated, as such soft investments often go underrecognised. The PC should oversee the development and implementation of such a project activity, which could
be part of the KM component.
B.3 Review of Knowledge Management component and implementation of segments; allocation of key
responsibilities to MEEFT and Project Management Unit
EP3 sub-component 3.2 on KM is critical to the performance and implementation of the UNDP/GEF
project. It is important to revisit the full concept of the KM project elements and to recap their full
intension. For example, the KM component ought to establish a practical resource centre for lessons
learnt from this project and the four test PA-PASZs, other examples from within Madagascar, as well as
international experiences, resource materials and lessons learnt. Additionally the KM component is tasked
to facilitate the communication and exchange of information between the various project stakeholders,
including the preparation of well targeted materials e.g. on the community level. The information from the
scientific reports, for example, should be translated into materials that can be easily applied in outreach
activities with local communities.
Recommendation 13: It needs to be recognised that the KM component is quite extensive and requires a diverse
set of skills for successful implementation. It is therefore recommended to break the assignment and outsourcing
of its implementation it into smaller portions, which can then be addressed by various competent service providers
as well as project partners and staff already in place. There is no need to outsource KM as one package. An
additional note brought forward from Strategic Performance Area A is that the reviewed TOR for the assignment
did not sufficiently address the scope and extend to work required. This is to be rectified, if not already done.
B.4 Clarification of role of science research and sourcing to most competent and applicable capacities
(incl. international, as required) and establish peer review mechanism
The ProDoc foresees a strong science element of the project, mainly to ensure that the established
models are rigorous sustainable. At this stage the Scientific and Economics Group has produced some
excellent research baseline, which now awaits application in form of (i) resource monitoring and adaptive
management, and (ii) realisation of NR based businesses. At this stage, the evaluation found that there
are widely differing views on the scope and extend of science and research work needed in the context of
the project, as well as on the appropriateness of the work conducted to date. There seems to be a
mismatch between the high level scientific work and the usually more pragmatic local level application of
monitoring and resource tracking tools and methods, which need to be urgently addressed by the project.
This is an issue that needs to be guided by the vision for the models to be developed, as pointed out in
section A.1.
Key products that should be synthesised and further developed based on the already undertaken studies
(e.g. for the development of filieres) needs to be identified and clearly commissioned through the KM
component. In future the commissioning of any contract, and the development of the respective TOR,
should have a strong communication and KM component (see A.4) beyond the compilation of reports.
This is so that more tangible and recognisable products come out of the commissioned work that do not
just end up in the offices of a few managers.
Considering that it is the PA-PASZ communities that should make use of the tools, at is a worrying
(although quite normal) that there is very limited ownership and understanding of the work undertaken by
the Scientific and Economics Group at this stage. Ownership is also questionable with higher tier
organisation such as ANGAP, who, according to the ProDoc and the M&E plan in the First Year
Evaluation, are the responsible authority for undertaken resource monitoring in the PA-PASZ areas.
During the evaluation mention was made of s suite of already existing resource monitoring tools (e.g.
prepared by ANGAP, WWF, WCS, CI), and, especially as the UNDP/GEF work on this result areas has
come to a stand-still over the past year, these should be applied and perhaps improved as part of this
project, instead of developing parallel systems. Science, technical and technological support to the CTD
and decentralised government monitoring entities (e.g. fisheries, forestry) should be considered.
The ProDoc foresees the input of many more studies and background research to be conducted, amongst
other in areas such as market development of NR-based products, policy research on market constraints
40
and opportunities, economic valorisation, value addition and product development, to name a few. It is
important that the most competent research teams are identified and commissioned to carry out this kind
of work, be it with international input and capacity.
Can identify creative ways of having a national and international panel, with appointed/invited experts;
potentially against payment, e.g. propose an ad hoc technical peer review group (e.g. ANGAP,
representatives of relevant CTD, NGOs/expert organisations working in similar fields SAGE, FANABY,
WWF, WCS, CI -, other project experts (e.g. GTZ, USAID) representatives of the Scientific and Economic
Group, PC, other from expanded SC) to be established. Such review will also help and assist the work of
the coordinator and the NSC and adds credibility to decision taken. The web portal could be a good
medium to facilitate such reviews; face-to-face meetings are costly and not necessarily required.
Recommendation 14: It is recommended to establish a peer review process for any of the products and scientific
work conducted under the project to ensure that outputs are well aligned with the project vision and needs. In the
specific case of the work undertaken by the Scientific and Economic Group, it is important to review the reports
and proposed methodologies and to identify the most appropriate ways ahead for their testing and application. It
is proposed that a an ad hoc technical peer review group (e.g. ANGAP, representatives of relevant CTD,
NGOs/expert organisations working in similar fields SAGE, FANABY, WWF, WCS, CI -, other project experts
(e.g. GTZ, USAID) representatives of the Scientific and Economic Group, PC, other from expanded SC) is
established as a matter of urgency to come up with relevant recommendations for the way ahead, without
delaying the implementation and rolling out of project activities further.
Recommendation 15: Based on the ProDoc and the for the remaining project period identified priorities establish
a tangible science and research plan, that will guide the commissioning of expert studies to be undertaken (PC
under guidance of SC, or peer review mechanism). Include a strategy of how to utilise the information generated
at the planning stage (e.g. in KM context), so that the valuable information will be used and applied. Provide
relevant guidance in TOR.
B.5 Promotion of technical debates and advancement of top priority issues emerging from model
development process; establish peer review and learning mechanism as foreseen in KM component
The need for a technical debate on national level, but also in the regions, is clear; there may be existing
structures can be used and promoted through e.g. organising relevant seminars and preparing discussion
papers on the relevant issues (see ProDoc e.g. on valorisation, market access other research, and key
issues identified during consultations, see below). A key element of the project is to develop SNRM
models; such models can only be really furthered if a technical debate peer review takes place. The
issue papers developed for the EP3 mid-term review are a good venture point and could be used for the
furthering of the concepts.
A number of relevant technical issues were identified at the regional levels and should be brought forward
through national and regional level and interactive debates:
- Innovations of platforms; coordination platforms for service providers and beneficiaries; PFIR:
inter-regional approach; interaction with AP management through Angap
- Dialogues and joint work between MEEFT and MAEP (and Ministry of Justice) trying to clarify
issues such as application of GELOSE and TdG currently under MAEP jurisdiction (e.g.
Mangroves, APMCs)
- Plans de sauveguard with Angap
- PCD verte integration of planning
- Established structures potential use by other RD interventions e.g. through Regional
Government; example: GTZ project in Lokobo ZAPP (Crades or Roseda - check)
- ZAAP Lokobe platform used/invited to provide inputs into policy development for Baei de
Ambara
- Potential for Aquaculture development; discussion paper; probably also on EIAs and SEAs
- Furthering of EP3 mis-Parcours issues papers on GELOSE and TdG applications; analysis of key
bottlenecks e.g. lack of M&E and renewal of contracts by DREEFT; problem of establishing TdG
without clear visions of CLBs of how to use/manage the resources
- Conflicts between DINA and TdG and other; also opportunities
41
Recommendation 16: The project, through the KM component but critical to the advancement of other project
results, should facilitate national and regional level technical debates on key policy issues. A suite of important
topics identified in the ProDoc, other documentation and during recent field consultations can serve as a starting
point. The concept of issue papers could be furthered from the EP3 mid-term review, or other strategies be
developed in line with the KM component and communication strategy, under leadership of the PC and with inputs
from the SCs (national and regional), and the technical peer review mechanism.
C. The Priority: Implementation at regional and local levels

C.1 Regional and local level implementation key focus
All consultations have expressed the need for the project to actually start implementation. Frustrations
that no technical local level actions are being put into place is growing at all levels, including the national
decision makers level, and needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. The evaluation has gone
through some effort to try and identify the key blockages that hamper the implementation and
recommends taking immediate steps to decentralised decision making and making resources flow to the
regional level for facilitation of local action (reflected in project management structure and also budgetary
allocations). Proposals for a new implementation model are included below (Figure 7). Overall Focus
(project management as well as overall implementation) should be changed to be more strongly directed
to support regional and local level implementation; e.g. through making stronger linkages to SAGE work
and have regional level project managers in place; it is important to delegate responsibility and authority
to these levels. Entities such as the Regional Steering Committee and the established platforms should
become more involved in project implementation facilitated by SAGE and the regional coordinator.
Recommendation 17: It is recommended to develop, in a participatory manner with key stakeholders, a strategy
for decentralised implementation of the project, developing s structure that follows function, as outlined in the next
steps. The two-day workshop scheduled for 16 & 17 June, and the results form the evaluation consultations
should be taken into consideration. Any higher tier blockages (e.g. lack of establishment and disbursement of
Community Funds) need to be clearly identified and barrier removal strategies developed.
C.2 Need for priority setting
It is clear that the project capacity is limited and that, to achieve tangible results, priorities have to be set,
within the scope of the ProDoc. One approach can be to develop a delivery strategy that takes a tiered
approach, planning high intensity support to some project sites, and a lower intensity support to others.
Keeping in mind that initially 13 reference sites were established, and SAGE mobilized a much greater
number of CLBs in the ZAAP areas, and, additionally ANGAP has made demand driven requests to
change/ add sites, it is clear that the limited human and financial resources available at this stage, cannot
operate at all sites with the some level of investment.
The aim is to develop as per PA-PASZ, tailor made to really advance the peculiarities of the various
sites/regions/ecosystems (probably as per PF ZAAP), applied a tiered approach the intensity of local
level support keeping in mind that (i) one size does not fit all, and (ii) that real opportunities for generating
tangible results within project generation ought to be identified. This may well require to focus on a very
small number of partner CLBs being selected for intense development of filieres and SNRM tracking and
adaptive management, only. It may well be accepted that certain communities already involved in the
project may not be involved as primary project partners. A conflict management strategy has to be sought
that reduced negative impacts from raised expectations that cannot be met (also related to GELOSE in
general).
Recommendation 18: It is recommended that a tiered implementation approach be developed, and a very few
reference sites/ CLBs be selected for intense piloting of filiere development and SNRM tracking and adaptive
management. Such a prioritisation needs to take place immediately and should be carried out in a consultative/
participatory manner e.g. at the two-day workshop scheduled for 16 & 17 June.
C.3 Clear technical focus on PA-PASZ approach and priorities and related CBNRM models, incl. priority
42
actions on filieres development

Although it is important to create an overall and integrated development vision esp. on the local
implementation level, it is important to focus the project activities in the PA-PASZ context other
development support can be delivered through the PFs and the local level community structures, as
appropriate. The concept for project delivery is clearly conceptualised in the Prodoc and summarised in
Figure 6. AT the local level there is a surprisingly high alertness and understanding on this, which
probably reflects a clear delivery of messages by the facilitators (SAGE & ANGAP).
A couple of more technical points are synthesised in the following:
Need to clarify role and approach of science and research; models for integrated systems that have a
participatory component and a science element e.g. carried out through surveys at the CTD level are
needed. For community level work capitalise on already existing tools (e.g. ANGAP, WWF, WCS, CI), as
appropriate; check also international experiences. Results from science and economics group to be used
as practical; need to prioritise all though against the available budget or try and mobilize additional
resources. At this stage the consultations at the local and regional level have clearly shown that there is
no ownership at all of the process; this is probably quite normal, but is a clear indication that for the local
level monitoring etc. something else is needed
Advancement of technical priority issues such as SNRM M&E; adaptive management; SNRM user rights
(GELOSE/TdG, other); establishment of community structures and mobilization; filieres/NR based
business opportunities: integrated models need to be clearly understood by stakeholders, and esp.
management; delivery bottlenecks which are largely with the CTD e.g. DREEFT on GELOSE follow-up,
need to be addressed
Filieres, business and incentive measures: Filieres identified by economics group seem not always to
reflect the local priorities; this needs to be ameliorated; perhaps start develop certain proposed priorities
and add other local level filieres (usually part of CLB PTA or CDP/PDC); others are considered
problematic (e.g. some find the promotion of the utilisation of wood, ever so targeted, quite problematic; to
be integrated into reforestation efforts), need strong peer review and technical support. Overall filiere
development requires actions on many elves, including higher level market related work. Lessons learnt
form other projects (e.g. ecotourism, vanilla, raffia) need to be synthesised and comprehensive
approaches be developed (based on models of Scientific and Economics Group PC should synthesise
and present proposals for discussion at 16 & 17 June workshop, if possible, or table with peer review
groups at a later stage).
Community funds: The initial Prodoc foresees the establishment of community fund for conservation
actions. The UNDP/GEF project is tasked with the establishment of such funds and sourcing of
investments from various donor/ financial sources. At this stage it is recommended to (i) assist
communities in tapping existing funds such as e.g. the SGP, (ii) setting aside an amount of money from
the project funds for community projects, as curernlty less than 20% of the project funds have been spent
and this activity is believed to leverage the necessary buy-in and some successes, and (iii) to prioritise
the development of such a funding mechanisms, in line with the overall model development. Existing
procedures e.g. as from SGP can be adapted to the specific PA-PASZ concept needs in terms of
formulating guidelines for eligibility etc.
Gender, and other development issues, to be addressed as a key concern esp. in filiere development
context through mainstreaming: As already mentioned in other evaluations and consultations the low
engagement of women in the rural areas of Madagascar is shocking, esp. but not only in the South; this
needs to be ameliorated and addressed as integral part of the project strategy. Relevant webbased
resources on engendering should be include din the KM component and relevant discussions be raised at
the various implementation level sthrouhg a strong technical debate. Other environmental and
development concerns need to be addressed/ mainstreamed even into a BD project otherwise it will never
be sustainable. Climate change adaptation is such priority that needs to be considered when e.g.
developing filieres.
Recommendation 19: The in the ProDoc envisioned SNRM models need to be tested and applied at the local
level as matter of priority. It is necessary, at this stage, to engage in a broader technical debate on best practices
and approaches to further, based on the work of the Scientific and Economics Group, but informed by lessons
learnt and approaches taken other projects. The workshop on 16 & 17 June 2008 can serve as a starting point for
such technical discussion and peer review, however the feedback and expert review notion needs to be more
43
formally embedded in the project. It is NOT recommended to implement the proposed elements of a model by the
Scientific and Economics Group without a wider technical debate and review.
Recommendation 20: It is recommended to fast track the establishment of community conservation projects
through the availing of funds. The in the ProDoc foreseen establishment of a Community (Conservation) Fund
should be kick started by investments from project resources and supplemented through assisting partner CLBs in
assessing existing funds such as from the SGP. This is proposed to (i) react to the urgent request of ANGAP to
invest in the ZAAP, and (ii) in parallel to establishing selected filieres, which will potentially be a lengthy process
before generating monetary and in the end conservation benefits.
C.4 Implementation structure elements: SAGE, ANGAP, CTDs, Regional Coordinators, established project
structures and a great diversity of partners!
Overall: The stronger decentralisation focus requires a critical look at the current and future
implementation structures and arrangements. It is clear that a strong community outreach/ facilitation
mechanism is required for the PA-PASZ concept to evolve, not only concerning this project. The initial
idea i.e. spelled out in the ProDoc and stemming from the work of PE2, to establish SAGE as the
Governments key partner to serve as a CBNRM agent, facilitating and coordinating the work of a
multitude of other CBNRM support organisations, should be revisited and debated. It is recommended to
examine the question of what type of institutional arrangements are required to make the PA-PASZ
concept successful esp. taking into consideration nation-wide up-scaling commitments under MAP.
SAGE: Overall the evaluation found that at the local and regional level project partners voiced general
satisfaction with the services rendered by the key agencies SAGE and ANGAP, although the call for
moving beyond mobilization activities was loud and clear. The capacity for delivery of community level
interventions, both from a size and skills perspective were raised, specifically relating to SAGE, and
more so in the South than in the North. The initial mandate of SAGE as the Governments key partner to
serve as a CBNRM agent, should be revisited and debated. At this stage it is clear that (i) SAGE has
developed into an independent NGO which has to find its own financial resources to operate, rather than
into a mechanism for CBNRM coordination; (ii) government support to SAGE as an institution has been
sub-optimal in terms of investments made and has now, for various reasons ceased almost completely. It
is recommended to examine what role SAGE could play in a national approach. This is critical to
determine the level of support that SAGE needs to receive incl. from this project in future, in a fully
committed manner, to allow capacities to develop to be able to deliver on the set out objectives. In order
not to halt project implementation whilst the Malagasy stakeholders have found a more final solution to
the implementation structures, it is important to continue with pragmatic interim solutions.
ANGAP: In terms of the UNDP/GEF project components ANGAP is primarily an implementation partners,
and in certain ways a client, concerned with the furthering of the PA-PASZ concept and finding
conservation solutions that involve the community as caretakers, and provide livelihoods opportunities
that contribute to developing conservation incentives. As such it is important that clear workplans and
agreements between ANGAP and the project be established, e.g. through a Joint Work Plan (JWP). One
key problem, for example, has emerged in that the reference sites identified during the project preparation
do not necessarily conform with the final AP boundaries and priorities any longer. The slow and iterative
AP demarcation process does impact on the ZAAP intervention element of the global GEF support
project. However, it is clear that this needs to be integrated into adaptive planning, as it is a reality that
cannot be changed. The project team is encouraged to continue with adaptive decision making, following
the earlier made suggestion to develop a tiered delivery plan. On the other hand ANGAP has expressed
frustration that the UNDP/GEF component has not delivered any tangible results at the community level
and thus pressures on the newly established PAs is mounting, as well as pressure on the decentralised
ANGAP offices and staff. The fast delivery of the in the ProDoc foreseen Community Funds for
conservation projects are seen as a critical tool for quick responses, which could be implemented in
parallel to the filiere establishment, which will take a much longer time to show tangible results to
communities (See above).
CTDs: At this stage only marginally included in project implementation, mainly through PF membership
and ongoing mandates such as GELOSE implementation (DREEFT); during evaluation consultations
clearly indicated interest and need for stronger involvement in project as implementer and beneficiary.
Depending on overall strategy for delivery on PA-PASZ (see above, SAGE, and partially ANGAP) the role
of DREET, and other entities (e.g. DRDR and DDR at Regional Government) need to be decided on.
44
Amongst other roles in SNRM monitoring have been attributed to various CTDs, however a mandate
conflict concerning PA-PASZs may occur vis--vis ANGAP. One important aspect for planning with
Government is to consider the various Ministries planning cycles if project activities ought to be
mainstreamed into e.g. DREEFT work plans, it needs to be considered that DREEFT planning takes
place towards the end of the year in September/October for the coming year.
Regional Coordinators: Not currently in place, however to aide effective decentralisation it has been
proposed to establish designated regional project coordinators. If these are newly hired project staff,
seconded government staff or persons in the APEX SAGE needs to be established. It is not necessary
that in the various regions PA-PASZs the same solutions are being implemented, and there are degre4es
of freedom to develop implementation mechanism specifically tailored to the special needs and
peculiarities of each region/area. The roles and responsibilities need to be carefully considered on the
regional project implementation plans and priorities; again: form follows function! A key planning
consideration is the cost effectiveness of the proposals; a medium-term project specific solution versus a
longterm approach may need to be sought for.
Established project structures (PFs and CBOs/CLBs): The various governance structures have been
put in place to aid truly decentralised/ devolved project implementation and bottom up processes, and to
promote successful and cost-effective and coordinated service delivery to the community level, a key
challenge to rural development worldwide. This approach needs to be well documented and
communicated to highlight its novel ideas and development potential. At this stage it is also clear that
although the structures have been successfully set up, they do not yet fully perform to their functions. In
the North the PFs have started engaging in some critical policy processes, but overall they require a lot
more operationalisation support. It the contact of the revised implementation arrangements it is important
to recall the roles and functions of the PFs and other established entities (CBOs/CLBs) and to then render
the necessary financial and technical support to make them operational (e.g. start with community funds,
funding for implementation of workplan priorities; assist in brokering information and access to other
funds and cooperation partners through project).
Other project partners and service providers: It is clear that creative strategies for engaging other
service providers in delivering on the PA-PASZ concept is urgently needed. Certain well established
organisation (e.g. NGOs such as SAGE, FANAMBY, WWF, WCS, CI and other donor projects and
partners e.g. GTZ, USAID) need to be sought to collaborate in the project areas. Strong capacities and
collaboration of service providers is key to successful implementation of the AP-ZAPP concept, EP3, and
this specific project, however reviews of PE2 and EP3 mid-term have identified that the overall service
providers landscape is relatively limited in Madagascar at this stage, especially at a regional,
decentralised level. Competent consulting services may be available, however usually services of such
offices are short term in nature and are not usually geared towards longterm local level engagement.
Strategies to find and foster support for local level implementation are needed and it needs to be
recognised that this is a great barrier to rural development per se. Project management at this stage
needs a better understanding of overall service provider landscape and may need to seek international
support as appropriate and use such knowledge for the planning process.
Recommendation 20: At mid-term of the project it is clear that the initially foreseen implementation arrangements
for the PA-PASZ concept with ANGAP and SAGE as central Government agents are seen to be problematic. It is
recommended that this project facilitates a debate on the question of what type of institutional arrangements are
required to make the PA-PASZ concept successful esp. taking into consideration nation-wide up-scaling
commitments under MAP. Based on such a debate medium-term implementation arrangements for this project
shall be agreed to. Because this is a critical step for the project to move ahead it is recommended that this
discussion is initiated at the 2 day workshop on 16 & 17 June 2008, with agreements for project implementation
emerging at that time. Project specific proposals for implementation arrangements needs to be developed in light
of the available budget and the results framework set out in the ProDoc.
Recommendation 21: Concerning SAGE, it is clear that the APEX has made major contributions to the
implementation of the project to date. In-depth analysis of the organisations performance capacities and vision in
terms of the debate outlined in Recommendation 20 may be required. The Organisation should be invited to
engage in the discussion and make tangible proposals for consideration. It is anticipated that SAGEs initial
mandate a coordinator of CBNMR organisations and facilitator of local level implementation activities at the
project sites is highlighted in particular.
45
Recommendation 22: Mechanisms for coordinated outreach activities with ANGAP need to be established within
the project e.g. through a Joint Work Plan. ANGAP is an important discussion partner for furthering the regional
implementation arrangements and needs to be invited to such a debate.
Recommendation 23: Based on the evaluation consultations a first draft implementation structure, based on key
functions to be carried out through the UNDP/GEF project component and linked to the global GEF WB and
UNDP support, has been develop and should serve as basis for further discussions i.e. on 16 & 17 June 2008. It
is important to agree to a model earliest possible to not further delay project implementation.
Figure 7. Outline of proposed process for development of proposals for new local and regional project implementation
arrangements. To be discussed at 16 & 17 June workshop.
Slide 1: Need to prioritise outreach activities in project; cannot support all currently established Reference Sites and Partner CLBs with
intensive service delivery; also need to discuss ANGAP requests for NEW Reference Sites/ CLBs to be involved; need clear agreements. Can
design tier 1 and tier 2 intensity sites, meaning that tier 1 sites will become partners for very intensive project implementation, whilst tier
2 partners will be engaged in more general outreach activities related to communication, selected training, and regarded for upscaling;
would be eligible for Community Funds, for example.
Slide 2: Functions: Before deciding on a revised institutional and delivery mechanism for approach/ project implementation it is important to
recap the key functions that the projects aims to deliver on the regional and local level, and the linkages that are required to ensure
embedment and advancement linked to the national level. Based on these functions proposal can be brainstormed of which (i) existing
institutions, (ii) set up project structures exist to carry out key functions, and identify (iii) potentially new institutions/structures/positions that
strategically would ameliorate project implementation success and contribute to the long term sustainability of the PA-PASZ approach.
46
Slide 3: Based on the discussions (slide 5), key roles and responsibilities for the various identified potential implementation agents need to be
identified.
Slide 4: The new implementation arrangements can then be mapped out based on the previous decision and HR and other requirements can
be planned. It is proposed to institute a project Regional Coordinator to improve the current arrangements. Such a RC could be housed within
the Regional Government, regional decentralised Ministries, or in a organisation such as SAGE or even ANGAP, depending on the longterm
vision on the AP-ZAPP concept. Arrangements in the North and South do not necessarily need to be the same, and can be changed after a
testing phase. It is important to discuss the proposal with the relevant stakeholders to find best and sustainable solutions.
47
5. Lessons learned
Mid-term evaluations aim to identify best and worst practices in addressing issues relating to relevance,
performance and success of the project under assessment to provide relevant guidance for improvement or this
and other GEF interventions.
During the mid-term evaluation of the UNDP/GEF PA-PASZ project three significant lessons learned are
synthesised.
Lesson 1: Best practice local and regional governance structures are vital and often undervalued
The project has invested significantly into the setting up of local and regional governance structures for the project
and ultimately in support of the PA-PASZ concept and SNRM in bufferzones. The systematic support to the
formation of CBOs/CLBs is critical to facilitate local level outreach and successful project implementation. It is
further important that the approach is backed by relevant legislation and government policy, and integrated into
newly revolving structures, as such emerge (in the project case the new Regional Governance structures). It is
important to fully document the processes and lessons learnt to aide easy adaptation of the approaches. The
project has some very interesting successes and lessons learnt to demonstrate, which would need to be
synthesised in much more detail i.e. through the KM component of the project.
Lesson 2: Worst practice lack of common vision can derail project performance
Project implementation stands or falls with its leadership. It is important to ensure that all project partners have a
common project vision, and that especially the responsible management share the same vision. In the case of this
particular project the vision as spelled out in the initial ProDocs is not understood in the same way by key project
players. At the onset of a project is has to be ensured that the vision is clear and continuity in leadership is
required to ensure that a project is not derailed somewhere during implementation.
Lesson 3: Best practice the PA-PASZ concept a novel approach that needs visionary investments
Last and finally it can be said that the PA-PASZ concept in Madagascar is novel in its approach, and driven by the
urgency of reducing the mounting pressures on natural resources in the conservation areas and on adjoining
land. It is important to better communicate the concept and urgent action on the SNRM model development is
supported. The project design seems well attuned to the needs. In the longterm it needs to be realised that much
more intense investments are needed, esp. but not only in the ZAAPs. It is unrealistic to see EP3 and this specific
UNDP/GEF project as exit strategy phase.
48
Annexes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
L
TOR
List of key documents reviewed
List of persons interviewed
Consultation methodology, incl. questionnaire/guidance used
Recommendations from 1st Year Evaluation (D. Roby)
Itinerary
Summary of evaluation work sessions (site visits)
Reference site summaries concept
Assessment: Performance on project objective and results
Knowledge/Awareness baseline concept
Capacity needs self-assessment elements concept
Draft brochure concepts (for decision makers; project promotional)
Photo library concept
49
ANNEX 1: TOR
TERMS OF REFERENCE
FOR
INDEPENDENT MID TERM REVIEW OF PROJECT
SUPPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMME- PHASE III (EPIII)
Country:
UNDP GEF PIMS No.
Project Duration:
Beneficiary Country:
Estimated start:
Start:
Estimated ending:
Executing Agency:
GEF Focal Area:
GEF Strategic Priority:
Madagascar
2762
5 years
Madagascar
2004
June 2005
May 2010
- NEX : Cellule de Coordination du Programme Environnemental 3
- UNOPS
Biodiversity Conservation
Protected Area
In accordance with UNDP/GEF M&E policies and procedures, all projects with long implementation periods (e.g.
over 5 or 6 years) are strongly encouraged to conduct mid-term evaluations.
Mid-term evaluations are intended to identify potential project design problems, assess progress towards the
achievement of objectives, identify and document lessons learned (including lessons that might improve design
and implementation of other UNDP/GEF projects), and to make recommendations regarding specific actions that
might be taken to improve the project. It is expected to serve as a means of validating or filling the gaps in the
initial assessment of relevance, effectiveness and efficiency obtained from monitoring. The mid-term evaluation
provides the opportunity to assess early signs of project success or failure and prompt necessary adjustments.
Madagascar is recognized as one of the 17 greatest mega-diversity hotspots in the world for biodiversity, but
conservation of biodiversity outside of its protected area network remains highly problematic. Protected areas are
increasingly becoming islands of conservation surrounded by fields, grasslands and degraded and severely
degraded natural areas. The transfer of natural resource management rights to empowered communities was
begun under Madagascars Second Environment Program (EPII). This shows great promise, but participatory and
sustainable management of ecosystems and natural resources is severely constrained by the lack of viable
sustainable natural resource management models and the lack of economic incentives to communities for
sustainable management.
The project seeks to address systemic, institutional and individual barriers to sustainable natural resources
management (SNRM), working first at community-based field laboratories in protected areas support zones
(PASZ) to develop replicable productive SNRM models. Secondly, the project is also working at the national level
to mainstream SNRM as a conservation tool through the generation and sharing of knowledge on SNRM through
a network of SNRM practitioners and through a communication programme targeting policy and decision-makers.
SNRM model development is being undertaken in 13 field labs in coral reef/coastal, mangrove and dry
forest/spiny forest ecosystems in PASZ around Toliara in the southwest and around Nosy Be/Ambanja in the
northwest. Existing stakeholder platforms are being engaged to develop strategies for integrating PA, SNRM and
biodiversity conservation into the land use systems and economic life of the PASZ. SNRM marine models are
being directly integrated into the co-management of two new marine parks to be created in the two zones.
The Knowledge Management component is developing and implementing protocols for the systematic collection
and analysis of data on key economic, ecological/technical and institutional aspects of SNRM in bio diverse
50
ecosystems across the country. State-of-the-art summaries, lessons learned and tool kits will be widely
disseminated and policy briefs prepared and communicated to policy and decision makers. The project will allow
SNRM, to be developed as a much more effective tool for biodiversity conservation and sustainable livelihoods in
Madagascar.
1.
Objectives of the Evaluation
According to the UNDP/GEF rules and to the Project Document (PRODOC), a mid-term evaluation will be held.
The process is initiated by the Execution Agencies, CELCO and UNOPS.
As an integral part of the project cycle, the evaluation will analyze the achievements of the project against its
original objectives. The evaluation will consider the effectiveness, efficiency, relevant, impact and sustainability
of the project. It will also identify factors that have facilitated or impeded the achievement of the objectives.
This evaluation will be conducted further to a first support mission, which was completed in 2006. The current
evaluation will assess to what extend the recommendations of this support mission in 2006 have been followed.
While a thorough assessment of the progress of implementation to date is important, the evaluation is also
expected to result in recommendations and lessons learned to assist in defining the future direction of the project.
The following stakeholders will be considered in the mid-term evaluation:
- Ministry of Environment, Forest and Waters and Tourism,
- Local Communities,
- Regions, Districts and Local Authorities
- ANGAP (Association Nationale pour la Gestion des Aires Protges) and SAGE (Service dAppui la
Gestion de lEnvironnement) as the most relevant partners for the project implementation
- EPIII Implementing partners (NGOs, Civil Societies, etc.)
- EPIII National Implementing Agencies
- Private sector (e.g. : Mining Companies)
2.
Scope of the evaluation
The evaluation will in particular, assess:

(i)
Project Design review original project objectives and assess quality of design for delivery of planned
outputs.
(ii)
Project Impact assess achievements of the project to date against the original objectives, outputs and
activities using the indicators as defined by the project document. Assess progress towards attaining the
projects environmental objectives and outcomes at all levels.
(iii)
Project Implementation assess:

Project management arrangements; i.e., effectiveness of UNDP Country Offices, Project Coordination
Unit in implementation of the project
Quality and timeliness of outputs and activities
Financial situation (i.e., budget and expenditure status)
Responsiveness of project management to adapt and implement changes in project execution based on
partner and stakeholder feedback.
51
Evaluation of project achievements according to GEF Project Review Criteria covering: Implementation
approach, Country ownership/Driveness, Stakeholder participation/ Public Involvement, Sustainability,
Replication approach, Financial planning, Cost-effectiveness, Monitoring and evaluation.
3. Products expected from the Evaluation):
The Evaluation should produce a report that will include the assessment results of the following topics:
a. Implementation approach
Review the clarity of roles and responsibilities of the various individuals, agencies and institutions and the
level of coordination between relevant players. In particular, the capacity and performance of the Project
Manager and National/Regional Steering Committees will be reviewed.
Assess the level to which the Logical Framework Approach (LFA) and performance indicators have been used
as project management tools.
Evaluate any partnership arrangements established for implementation of the project with relevant
stakeholders involved in the country/region.
Describe and assess efforts of UNDP in support of the implementing agencies and national institutions.
Make recommendations as to how to improve project performance in terms of effectiveness and efficiency in
achieving impact on both capacity building and the targeted conservation concerns
b. Country ownership/drivenness
Assess the extent to which country representatives (including governmental official, civil society etc.) are
actively involved in project implementation.
Assess whether The Government of Madagascar has maintained financial commitment to the project.
c. Stakeholder Participation and benefits accrued
Assess the level of communities involvement in the project and comment as to whether communities
involvement has been appropriate to the goals of the project.
Review and evaluate the extent to which project impacts have reached the intended beneficiaries.
d. Sustainability
Assess the likelihood of the continuation of the project outcomes/benefits after completion of GEF funding;
and describe the key factors that will require attention in order to improve prospects for sustainability of
project outcomes.
Factors of sustainability that should be considered include; institutional capacity (systems, structures, staff,
expertise etc.), social sustainability, policy and regulatory frameworks that further the project objectives,
financial sustainability (including the options of a Trust Fund considered in development of the project).
e. Replication Approach
Assess the extent to which the projects activities and related opportunities are being taken to scale up lessons
and experiences emerging from the project. Make recommendations of how this could be achieved if
necessary.
Describe the main lessons that have emerged in terms of: strengthening country ownership/ drivenness;
strengthening stakeholder participation; application of adaptive management strategies; efforts to secure
sustainability; knowledge transfer; and the role of M&E in project implementation. In describing all lessons
learned, an explicit distinction needs to be made between those lessons applicable only to this project, and
lessons that may be of value more broadly.
f. Financial Planning
Assess the financial control systems, including reporting and planning, that allow the project management to
make informed decisions regarding the budget.
52
Assess the extent to which the flow of funds has been proper and timely both from UNDP and from the
project management unit to the field.
Evaluate the extent of due diligence in the management of funds and financial audits.
g. Cost effectiveness
Assess compliance with the incremental cost criteria (GEF funds used to finance a component of the project
that would not take place without GEF funding and securing co-funding and associated funding.
Assess the extent to which the project has completed the planned activities and met or exceeded the expected
outcomes according to schedule and as cost effectively as initially planned.
h. Monitoring and Evaluation
Review the projects reporting systems and there efficiency.
Review the implementation of the projects monitoring and evaluation plans including any adaptation to
changing conditions (adaptive management).
4. Evaluation approach
documentation review (desk study);

interviews;
field visits;
questionnaires;
Participatory techniques and other approaches for the gathering and analysis of data.
5. Evaluator:
-
The Evaluator will be an International Consultant experienced in biodiversity issues and rural
development
Language skills: French and English
6. Duration of the assignment

The duration of the assignment will be 4 weeks, including 3 weeks in Madagascar.
5. Expected Outputs
Based on the above points, the evaluation should provide a document of approximately 40 pages indicating what
project activities, outputs and impacts have been achieved to date, and specifically:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Assess the extent to which the project objectives have been met and where gaps are evident
Draw lessons learned from the experiences of the project, in particular those elements that have worked
well and those that have not
Provide recommendations to strengthen the effectiveness, efficiency, impact, implementation, execution
and sustainability of the project.
The document will be made available in French and English.
53
Annex I
Documents to be reviewed
1. Project document
2. Project implementation reports (PIRs) for 2006 and 2007
3. Project quarterly progress reports
4. Field visit reports
5. NEX project audit reports
Annex 2
Proposed Structure of the Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYMS AND TERMS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Executive summary
Brief description of project
Context and purpose of the evaluation
Main conclusions, recommendations and lessons learned
Introduction
Purpose of the evaluation
Key issues addressed
Methodology of the evaluation
Structure of the evaluation
The project(s) and its development context
Project start and its duration
Problems that the project seek to address
Immediate and development objectives of the project
Main stakeholders
Results expected
Findings and Conclusions
Project formulation
Implementation approach
Country ownership/Driveness
Stakeholder participation
Replication approach
Cost-effectiveness
UNDP comparative advantage
Linkages between project and other interventions within the sector
Indicators
Management arrangements
Implementation
- Financial Planning
- Monitoring and evaluation
- Execution and implementation modalities
- Management by the UNDP country office
- Coordination and operational issues
Results
54
Attainment of objectives
Sustainability
Contribution to upgrading skills of the national staff
Recommendations
Corrective actions for the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the project
Actions to follow up or reinforce initial benefits from the project
Proposals for future directions underlining main objectives
Lessons learned
Best and worst practices in addressing issues relating to relevance, performance and success
Annexes
- TOR
- Itinerary
- List of persons interviewed
- Summary of field visits
- List of documents reviewed
- Questionnaire used and summary of results
- Co-financing and Leveraged Resources
55
ANNEX 2: List of key documents reviewed

-
Project document (WB/UNDP GEF, English)

Project document (PNUD, French)
First Year Evaluation Report, Dr. Dominque Roby
Project implementation reports (PIRs) for 2006 and 2007
APR 2006, 2007, 2008
Selected Field visit/ mission reports
NEX project audit reports
Madagascar Action Plan, 2006
Evaluation PE2
Evaluation PE 3 mi-parcours, 2007
GEF country portfolio evaluation Madagascar, 2008
Communication, Le Ministre MEEFT et PNUD, April/May 2008
PTAs (e.g. SAGE), various project contracts and TORs for consultancies and of key staff
Selected reports from various project outcomes (see below)
SAMPLES OF THE FOLLOWING:

Produits des groupes d'Experts en 2006
C3EDM (conomie)
* rapport trimetriel livrable
* prestation sur mandat gestion communautaires GDRN
Ocan Consultant (Ecosystme Marin et Ctier Nord-Ouest)
* livraison du rapport N 02
SPROGES (Ecosystme Marin et Ctier Sud-Ouest)
* rapport d'expertise
*rapport de diagnostic approfondi avec CD
* rapport diagnostic corrig
* rapport de diagnostic dfinitif (04 exemplaires)
* rapport d'expertise sur l'approche GIZC
* rapport de diagnostic prliminaire
* prestation de services sur rapport diagnostic prliminaire
BIODEV (Forts sches)
* rapport d'avancement
* rapport initial (04) avec CD
Produits de SAGE en 2006 a 2008
2008
* produits finaux
* finalisation des produits livrer du PTT3 2007
* avenent la convention de services (anne 2007)
* convention de services
* programme pluriannuel et PTA 2008
* rapports finaux suivant la Convention
2007
* rapports intermdiaires et pr-finaux PTT2
* complment dossier rapport d'activits intermdiaires et pr-finaux PTT2
56
* Ajustement des rsultats RO 841 et 843

* rapports finaux des activits 2006
* rapports finaux des activits 2006 (un autre envoi)
2006
* rapport intrmdiaire des activits de SAGE
* rapport d'avancement des activits de SAGE
* livraison du 1er lot des rapports intermdiaires et finaux
* livraison du 2me lot des rapports intermdiaires et finaux
* rapports pr-finaux des activits de SAGE
* indicateurs de rsultats
[Requested but not accessed at this stage : Produits de MC2S, c'est le Bureau d'tudes qui a fait la composante
gestion des connaissances en 2005 et 2006.
* Rapport phase prliminaire avec annexe et CD
* Liste bibliographique nationale et internationale du catalogue des ouvrages prsents par WWF (04)
* CD contenant rapport 1e trimestre et 2me trimestre
* rapport prliminaire version amliore
* CD contenant version amliore des produits
* remise de 02 rapports
* rapport 1er trimestre aprs avis de CELCO
* plan de redressement et amlioration des documents GDRN et gestion des connaissances.]
57
ANNEX 3: List of persons interviewed

Nom et fonction
M. Harison RANDIARIMANANA, Minister MEEFT
M. Joelisoa RATSIRARSON, Secrtaire Gnral
M. xxx, Director Planning
Mme Fara Rakotaririna
Mme Ivannie RABENITANY
Mme Patricia RAMAROJAONA, Charge de Programme
M. Corneille AGOSSOU, Reprsentant Rsident Adjoint
M. Xavier LEUS, Reprsentant Rsident
M. Nik SEKHRAN, Regional Technical Advisor , UNDP/GEF Pretoria
M. Guy RAZAFINDRALAMBO, Coordonnateur PE III
Mme Hanta RABEFARIHY, Coordinatrice Technique du Projet
Mme Helivelo RAMAMONJISON, Financial Manager
Mme Vololona RAKOTARININA, Administrative Assistant
M Teddy RAKOTONDRAZFY, Driver
Mme Claudine RAMIARISON, Directrice Gnrale
M. Clestin HENRI, Responsable Suivi-valuation Technique du Projet
Mme Naritiana RAKOTONIAINA
Mme Jocelyne RASOANIRINA, Coordinatrice Rgionale
M. Jean Charles PISO, Responsable Antenne Nosy Be
Responsable Lokobe
M. Mamsoud RAJAOFERA, Maromandia
M. Haingo RASOLONIRINARIMANANA, Responsable Antenne Diego
Mme Nina BORY, Coordinatrice Rgionale
M. Charles Alfred RAKOTONDRAINIBE, Directeur Gnral Adjoint
M. Herijaona ANDRIAMANANTENASOA, Directeur des Oprations
M. Jocelyn RAKOTOMALALA, Directeur Inter-Rgional Sud
M. JAOTERA & M. MOUSTAFA , ANGAP North
Mme Eulalie RANAIVOSON, Directrice Technique
M. Zbigniew KASPRZYK, Directeur
M. Aime Andriarimananan RASAMISON, Directeur Gerant
M. Jean Marcel MIANDRISOA, Managing Director
Other Scientific et Economique Groupe
M. Jeannot RAMIARAMANANA, Directeur et autres membres de lquipe
M. Bruno RAMAMONJISOA, conomiste
M Lieutenant-Colonel ANdre RANDRIAMANESY, Chef de Rgion Sofia
M Georges Eugne RAMANANTSOA, SG de Rgion Sofia
M. xxx, Directeur DREEFT
M. xxx, xxx DREEFT
M Jean de Dieu RAVELOSON, SG de Rgion Diana
Mme xx, DREEFT Diana
Mme xxx, Chef de Rgion Sud-Ouest
M. Malement LIAHOSOA, Directeur Dveloppement Rgional
M. xxx, Directeur DREEFT, Atsimo Andrefana
Mme Chantal MILAMANANA, DREEFT, Atsimo Andrefana
M. xxx, Directeur DRDR, Atsimo Andrefana
Mme Lisa GAYLORD, Directeur Bureau Environnement et Dveloppement Rural
58
Organisation
MEEFT
MEEFT
MEEFT
MEEFT
MEEFT
PNUD
PNUD
PNUD
UNDP/GEF
CELCO
CELCO, PMU
CELCO, PMU
CELCO, PMU
CELCO, PMU
SAGE
SAGE
SAGE
SAGE
SAGE
SAGE
SAGE
SAGE
SAGE
ANGAP
ANGAP
ANGAP
ANGAP
Ocean
Consultant
Ocean
Consultant
Biodev
Madagascar
Consulting
Andry
International
Consulting
C3EDM
C3EDM
Rgion Sofia
Rgion Sofia
DREEFT, Sofia
DREFFT, Sofia
Rgion DIANA
DREEFT, Diana
Rgion Atsimo
Andrefana
Rgion Atsimo
Andrefana
Rgion Atsimo
Andrefana
Rgion Atsimo
Andrefana
Rgion Atsimo
Andrefana
USAID
Madagascar
Nom et fonction
Mme Anitry Ny Aina RATSIFANDRIHAMANANA, Directeur de Conservation
Dr. Christopher HOLMES, Conseiller Technique Principal
M.
Mme Olina Hajamaina, Programme Protection et Gestion Durable des
Ressources Naturelles
Dr. Pascal Lopes, Programme Protection et Gestion Durable des Ressources
Naturelles
M. Serge Rajaobeline, Secretaire executif
*Membres de PF-ZAAP Maromandia
*Membres de PFR ED Sud
*Membres de FIMIMANO - Comit intercommunal de dveloppement Anakao
*Membres de FIMAMI (Mikea)
*Membres de PFIR Nord
Prince Arana IV (Maromandia)
*Full lists of participants are available and will be included by the PMU in the meeting minutes.
59
Organisation
WWF
Madagascar
WCS
WCS
GTZ
GTZ
FANAMBY
ANNEX 4: Consultation methodology, incl. questionnaire/guidance used

UNDP/GEF PE3 Madagascar Mid-term Evaluation
Evaluation interview/consultation concept
25 April 24 May 2008
Dr. Juliane Zeidler
1. Main objectives of evaluation consultations

The main objectives of the mid-term evaluation include to:
(1) assess progress of implementation to date
(2) identify critical issues that should be addressed to aide the successful finalisation of
the project over the coming 2 years, i.e. leading to the achieving the overall
project objective, planed outcomes and outputs
(3) identify best practices and project areas that are particularly successful
(4) in a participatory manner identify possible solutions to existing problem areas
(5) make practical recommendations for relevant adjustments that would aide the
successful project implementation
2. Different target levels for evaluation consultations
The evaluation methodology is varied, depending on the various evaluation objectives and
the diversity of stakeholder groups.
2.1 On the national level the following key stakeholder groups are being consulted:
Grouping
1. Management & direct
implementation
Listings (indicative)
MINENVEF
CELCO
ANGAP
SAGE
UNDP
Committee de pilotage
(national level)
Science & Economics
Group of Experts
Key evaluation areas

- project design
- project impact
- project
implementation performance to date
- participatory solution
finding
2. Associated services
Consultants/ Bureaux
de recherch or
service
3. Relevant
environmental
organisations & donors
WB
GTZ
USAID
CI
WCS
WWF
4. Potential new service

partners
Fanamby
WWF
- project design
- project impact
- project
implementation
Qualitative inputs into
evaluation
- project design
- project impact
- project
implementation
- general directives
- participatory solution
finding
60
Methods
- initial
qualitative
consultations/
fact finding
- formal review
templates
- participants in
regional and
local level
consultations
- final debriefing
discussion
- qualitative
consultations/
focal discussion
- qualitative
consultations/
focal discussion
- qualitative
consultations/
focal discussion
2.2 Field consultations will take place in both the northern and southern target areas. On
the regional and local level it is the following project institutions that will be consulted
(see attached programme, Annex 1):
a. Committees de pilotage (2 regional)
b. Platforms (2 north, 1 south)
c. Selected pilot sites/ communities (out of 13)
The final representation/membership at each of these institutions is to be confirmed with
Project Coordinator, Ms. Hanta Rabefarihy and field staff of SAGE.
3. Elaboration of tools: regional and local level
3.1Meeting/ work session program
All regional and local interactions are facilitated on site by SAGE. Representatives of the
project management level and the international consultant take part in the field visits
and in elements of the programme.
Each meeting/ work session is designed to contain the following elements:
a. Introduction by Project Coordinator (incl. technical site introductions; see Annex 2
moved to ANNEX 6 of this report), supported by SAGE
b. Institutions self introduction and presentation
c. Evaluation session (mixed group work and individual private sessions)
d. Next steps future outlook, based on locally developed (and regional) workplans
and priorities
3.2Evaluation sessions
1. General
understanding
1.1 Project objective
1.2 Own role in project
1.3 Purpose of
evaluation exercise
2.Self description/
overview of project
activities so far
2.1 Local level
2.2 Regional level
2.3 National level
3. Performance
evaluation and
solution finding
where required
3.1 Project design
3.2 Project impact
3.3 Project
implementation
4. Next steps - future
Committees de
Pilotage
- group discussion
Platformes
- group discussion
- group discussion
- group discussion
- group discussion
- group discussion
- group discussion and

evaluation exercises
- questionnaire (selected
focal questions on 3.1 to
3.3)
- selected individual
interviews (at least 3 in
each region; more on
request)
- in plenary; to be

- questionnaire (selected
focal questions on 3.1 to
3.3)
interviews (at least 3 in
each region; more on
request)
- in plenary; to be

interviews
61
Site de references
- in plenary; to be
outlook
- Prioritization of
activities based on
prepared plans und
current/ updated needs
facilitated by project
coordinator and SAGE
Sessions 1 and 2 primarily serve the setting of the scene to get all members warmed up
for the evaluation exercise (session 3). However, these sessions will also provide a
qualitative assessment of project understanding (technical and organisational/
management) and thus provide useful information on project impact and implementation
success.
Session 3 will provide a more systematic evaluation input and focus on:
Committees de Pilotage
Question domain:
A. General project impact on
Capacity of beneficiaries
(individual & institutional)
o Regional
o Local
Livelihood improvements
Conservation of NRs and

BD in ZAAP
Conservation success in
AP
Improved conservation
and sustainable use
service delivery
(decentralised extension
services)
Platformes
Question domain:
A. General project impact on
Capacity of beneficiaries
(individual & institutional)
o Regional
o Local
Livelihood improvements
Conservation of NRs and

BD in ZAAP
Conservation success in
AP
Improved conservation
and sustainable use
service delivery
(decentralised extension
services)
Methodology:
Powerpoint/printed
questionnaire
Ratings (probably GEF scale)
Qualitative
remarks/descriptions
Question domain:
B. Institutional development
and support & content
Reference sites
Platforms/service
providers
AP-ZAAP interface
Quality of NR monitoring
programmes (scientific
group)
Quality of economic/
development proposals
(economic group)
Mobilisation component
Policy and legal

framework
Regulations and
enforcement
Methodology:
Powerpoint/printed
questionnaire
Qualitative
Question domain:
B. Institutional development
and support & content
Reference sites
Platforms/service
providers
AP-ZAAP interface
Quality of NR monitoring
programmes (scientific
group)
Quality of economic/
development proposals
(economic group)
Mobilisation component
Policy framework
Regulations and
enforcement
Methodology:
Powerpoint/printed
Methodology:
Powerpoint/printed
questionnaire
62
Site de references
Focus on local level
implementation
1. Formation
2. NR monitoring
3. NR and livelihoods projects
1. Formation
- Institution well established?
- Just representation?
- Statutes satisfactory?
- Opportunities to participate
and benefit?
- Benefit sharing
arrangements?
- Quality of facilitation
support ?
- Skills development?
- Information facilitation?
questionnaire
Qualitative
Question domain:
C. Information and training
Reference sites
Platforms/service
providers
AP-ZAAP interface
NR monitoring (scientific
group)
Livelihood opportunities
(economic group)
Skills development
Project per se
Other (e.g. information on

environment and NRM)

Qualitative
Methodology:
Powerpoint/printed
questionnaire
Qualitative
Needs assessment
Question domain:
D. Project implementation
and execution
Implementation
arrangements and
capacities (MINENVEF,
PMU, SAGE, ANGAP,
platform members)
Functioning of various
organs including
Committee de Pilotage
Other potential partners
Priorities for remaining

project phase
Methodology:
Powerpoint/printed
questionnaire
Qualitative
Needs assessment
Question domain:
D. Project implementation
and execution
Implementation
arrangements and
capacities (MINENVEF,
PMU, SAGE, ANGAP,
platform members)
Functioning of various
organs including
Platforms
Other potential partners
Priorities for remaining

project phase
Methodology:
Powerpoint/printed
questionnaire
Qualitative
Priority assessment
Methodology:
Powerpoint/printed
questionnaire
Qualitative
Priority assessment
Question domain:
C. Information and training
Reference sites
Platforms/service
providers
AP-ZAAP interface
NR monitoring (scientific
group)
Livelihood opportunities
(economic group)
Skills development
Project per se
Other (e.g. information on

environment and NRM)
2. NR monitoring
- Participation possibility in
model development process?
- Model understandable?
- Model needed?
- Types of tools that would be
helpful?
- Methods for communication/
tool delivery?
- Advise for application and
adoptability?
- Who can help?
- Quota setting and regulation
responsibilities?
- Quality of facilitation of
component so far?
- Proposals for improvement?
- Potential additional
partners?
3. NR and livelihoods
projects
- Plans represent community
priorities?
- Economic study
known/useful?
- If deviating from plan proposals for own priorities?
- Key constraints
- Support needed
- Useful component?
- Quality of facilitation of
component so far?
- Proposals for improvement?
- Potential additional
partners?
Session 4 is included to ensure that the project represents itself proactively and forward
looking. This is important as evaluations are often misunderstood as being policing
rather than supportive. It is critical to instil some enthusiasm in all project members and to
set the scene for effective and dynamic continuation of implementation.
63
ANNEX 1 Potential template for site descriptions (under preparation by Project

Coordinator)
Reference sitesZAAP
AP
Sud
AP1
Nord
AP2
AP3
AP4
Name
Marine/terrestrial
Key ecosystems to be
protected
Key data/ information
Primary conservation
value
Key threats to
conservation
Name
Marine/terrestrial
protected
value
Key threats to
conservation
Name
Marine/terrestrial
protected
value
Key threats to
conservation
Name
Marine/terrestrial
protected
value
Key threats to
conservation
Site/communit
y1
Site/communit
y5
Site/communit
y7
Site/community
Background
Name
(socio-economic)
Land use systems
threats
Key NRM and
conservation
opportunities
10
TBC
TBC
TBC
Site/communit
y6
Site/communit
y8
Site/community
11
Site/communit
y9
Site/community
12
Project
interventions to
date
NR monitoring
programme
NR management
and livelihoods
projects identified
Priority activities
(to be filled out at
workshop)
.
Site/communit
y2
TBC
Site/communit
y3
TBC
TBC
TBC
TBC
Site/communit
y4
TBC
TBC
Site/community
13
TBC
TBC
64
65
ANNEX 5: Recommendations from 1st Year Evaluation

Recommandations
Les recommandations sont prsentes dans le rapport au fil du texte, la suite des observations
qui les motivent. Elles sont ici reprises sous les titres des sections auxquelles elles se rapportent.
4.
Cohrence des actions programmes et mises en uvre relativement aux
orientations et la planification (objectifs, rsultats et indicateurs) prsentes dans le
document de projet
4.1
Objectifs de dveloppement et objectifs immdiats
R.1 Il est recommand que les noncs suivants des objectifs de dveloppement et immdiats
guident la planification, le suivi et lvaluation du projet :
Objectif de dveloppement du projet : La gestion des ressources naturelles et la protection de la
biodiversit dans les corgions critiques sont tablies sur des bases relles et durables avec la
participation active des populations locales et des autres parties concernes, en mme temps que
les dimensions environnementales sont effectivement intgres dans la prise de dcisions
politiques et les dcisions dinvestissement.
Objectif immdiat du projet : Des systmes de gestion durable des ressources naturelles sont
tablis et renforcs dans les zones dappui aux aires protges.
4.3
Concepts et termes cls

4.3.3 Laboratoires de terrain
R.2 Il est recommand que les sites de rfrence soient dlimits pour circonscrire lespace au sein
duquel seront cibles les ressources naturelles qui feront lobjet des mesures de gestion et de
conservation par les communauts ainsi que du suivi et de lvaluation de lefficacit des mesures
de gestion et de conservation. Il est possible que certaines des mesures prendre en vue de
rduire les pressions majeures sur ces ressources doivent tre conues et appliques lextrieur
des sites de rfrence.
4.3.4 Modles reproductibles de gestion durable des ressources naturelles
R.3 Il est recommand que le projet cherche dvelopper des approches en vue de concevoir des
mesures transposables de gestion des ressources naturelles plutt que des modles reproductibles
de gestion des ressources.
Considrant quelles seront mises en uvre ou appliques par les communauts locales, ces
mesures doivent tre conues pour demeurer simples et requrir peu de moyens.
4.4
Gestion administrative
4.4.1 Dlais des procdures
R.4 Il est recommand la CELCO :

de mettre en place le comit de pilotage dans les meilleurs dlais pour appuyer le plan de
reprise incluant la reprogrammation ;
dintgrer au comit de pilotage une cellule technique restreinte compose de reprsentants
de chaque groupe dintervenants (SAGE, scientifique, conomiste) qui ont une parfaite
comprhension des dfis de la conservation de la biodiversit et de la GDRN Madagascar,
des rsultats attendus du projet et de la continuit PE II-PE III pour fournir des orientations
techniques au projet
de mettre en place les comits de pilotage locaux pour chaque aire protge.
4.4.3 Attribution de contrat pour SAGE
R.5 Il est recommand la CELCO de confier directement SAGE les tches qui relvent de son
expertise, sans appel doffre, pour la dure du projet.
66
4.4.4 Attribution dun contrat pour la ralisation de la composante Gestion des

connaissances
R.6 Dans le cadre du plan de reprise du projet, il est recommand la CELCO de confier la
composante relative la gestion des connaissances une institution nationale prenne et
consolide conformment aux recommandations de latelier du 28 septembre 2006, et qui rponde
aux critres noncs.
4.5
Planification
4.5.1 Programmation annuelle
R.7 Il est recommand la CELCO dlaborer un PLAN DE REPRISE en se servant du plan global de
travail comme cadre pour effectuer la planification annuelle 2007 et reprogrammer les activits du
projet en vue dassurer latteinte des rsultats attendus.
R.8 Il est recommand la CELCO de prparer le plan de travail annuel de travail selon le modle
prsent lannexe 8 et de prparer les fiches de sous-rsultats selon le modle prsent
lannexe 9. La version lectronique des matrices a t transmise la direction de la CELCO.
R.9 Il est recommand la CELCO dtablir les termes de rfrence pour les ententes contractuelles
sur la base de la planification annuelle prpare de manire concerte avec lensemble des
intervenants.
R.10 Il est recommand au PNUD de donner la possibilit la CELCO de reprogrammer la ralisation
du projet et den assurer la mise en uvre jusqu lvaluation mi-parcours laquelle, en fonction
de la progression du projet, valuera la pertinence dune extension de la priode de mise en uvre.
4.6
Suivi et valuation du projet

4.6.1 Indicateurs de rendement
R.11 Il est recommand au projet dadopter les indicateurs suivants :
Les indicateurs dimpact et deffet pertinents du projet FEM (ils sont indiqus dans le cadre de
mesure du rendement propos en annexe 5).
Les indicateurs correspondant aux questions pertinentes du GEF Tracking Tool for GEF
Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Priority One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Areas
dvelopp par la BM et le WWF doivent tre intgrs dans le systme de suivi du rendement du
projet comme indicateurs dimpact. Leur valuation doit tre faite conjointement avec lANGAP
au moment de la cration de laire protge, mi-parcours du projet et la fin du projet.
LANGAP a dj complt les valuations de base pour les aires protges de Lokobe et de
Mikea. Aucune valuation na encore t mene pour Sahamalaza et pour le littoral de Tular
cette valuation pourra tre mene conjointement par ANGAP et le projet. Les questions
spcifiquement pertinentes aux contributions du projet sont les suivantes : 5, 7, 10, 11, 21, 22,
23a, 23b, 23c, 27a, 27b, 29, 30.
4.6.2 Cadre de mesure du rendement
R.12 Il est recommand la CELCO
dorganiser une rvision participative du cadre de mesure du rendement propos lannexe 5

du rapport, avec lensemble des intervenants impliqus dans la mise en uvre du projet,
dvaluer et allouer les ressources ncessaires pour assurer le suivi et lvaluation de la

progression du projet sur la base de ce cadre
didentifier ou de recruter un responsable du suivi des rsultats oprationnels et de la mesure

des effets et impacts pour assurer lvaluation interne du projet PNUD/FEM dAppui au PE III
suivant le cadre de mesure du rendement propos.
4.6.3 laboration du PIR
R.13 Il est recommand la CELCO dadopter la structure logique prsente dans le prsent
rapport, soient les objectifs, les rsultats attendus et les indicateurs du projet, pour la prparation
des PIR des prochaines annes.
67
4.7
Communication
R.14 Il est recommand la CELCO dadopter une stratgie de communication pour le projet
rpondant des objectifs dfinis et dvaluer les ressources requises pour sa mise en uvre en
termes de ressources humaines et financires.
La stratgie a t labore conjointement avec la CELCO ; la tenue de latelier du 28
septembre en fait partie. Les cots de mise en uvre de la stratgie doivent encore tre
dtermins pour tre en mesure de faire les prvisions budgtaires affrentes. La stratgie
de communication est prsente lannexe 6.
R.15 Il est recommand la CELCO dassurer une reprsentation adquate du projet aux runions
du comit conjoint du PE III, en prvoyant au moins la participation de la coordination technique.
R.16 Il est recommand la CELCO de faire le suivi ncessaire pour dvelopper les collaborations et
rduire les empitements en fonction des informations rcoltes au cours de latelier de promotion
du projet tenu le 28 septembre 2006.
R.17 Il est recommand au CoTP dassurer lenvoi systmatique des rapports de progression du
projet (administratifs et financiers) au MINENVEF et de formaliser les contacts avec les
reprsentants du ministre sur le terrain.
5. Prise en compte des recommandations mises lors de la prparation du PE III
R.18 Il est recommand la CELCO de prsenter les recommandations des missions de suivi et
dvaluation du projet la Coordination Gnrale des Projets du MINENVEF et au Comit de pilotage
qui les examinera systmatiquement et verra assurer le suivi des recommandations quil
acceptera.
6. Synergie et complmentarit du projet et de lANGAP dans les zones dintervention
R.19 Il est recommand la CELCO et lANGAP daccentuer leurs efforts de communication, de
systmatiser les changes dinformation concernant les 4 aires protges vises par le projet FEM,
et lANGAP de simpliquer dans le comit de pilotage national du projet, les dclinaisons locales
du comit de pilotage pour la gestion des aires protges et, lorsque appropri, dans les runions
de coordination du projet.
R.20 Il est recommand que le projet examine le choix des sites de rfrence de terrain en
concertation avec ANGAP pour assurer que les produits (mesures de gestion durable des ressources
naturelles et mise en place des structures de concertation en priphrie des aires protges) seront
cohrents avec la gestion des aires protges et quils pourront tre transposs dans les plans de
gestion de conservation des aires protges marines et ctires.
R.21 Il est recommand que les collaborations ou partenariats concernant lune ou lautre des 4
aires protges vises par lappui du FEM, soient le Parc marin du rcif de corail de Toliara / NosyVe, laire protge terrestre de la Fort des Mikea, le Parc national de Lokobe et le Parc marin de
Sahamalaza / Nosy Radama, soient tablis pour tre complmentaires aux initiatives prvues dans
le cadre du projet conjoint FEM BM-PNUD et viter de sy substituer, moins quil en soit convenu
autrement par lANGAP et par la CELCO.
7. Coordination des activits ralises par les diffrents intervenants (SAGE,
Scientifiques, conomistes) en vue datteindre des rsultats communs dans le cadre du
projet PNUD-FEM
7.1
Coordination entre les intervenants du projet PNUD-FEM
R.22 Il est recommand que chaque organisation qui intervient dans la mise en uvre des activits
du projet identifie un interlocuteur de haut niveau pour assurer la coordination. Si lorganisation est
membre du Comit de pilotage national, il serait prfrable que cet interlocuteur en soit aussi le
reprsentant au sein du comit.
R.23 Il est recommand la CELCO de dynamiser la mise en uvre du projet sur le terrain
pour que les changes ncessaires entre SAGE, ANGAP, les scientifiques et les conomistes
du projet, les gestionnaires communautaires, les structures de concertation aux diffrents
niveaux, les responsables administratifs locaux de la gestion des ressources naturelles, et
68
les autres partenaires du projet autour des questions concrtes de conception des mesures
de gestion durable des ressources naturelles et de dveloppement des filires soient
fructueux,
permettre que les contributions de chacun des acteurs intervenant dans le cadre du projet
soient coordonnes de manire opportune,
et coordonner leurs interventions auprs des communauts, des structures et des autorits
locales et rgionales.
R.24 Il est recommand que SAGE assume un rle de facilitation et de coordination locale des
acteurs du projet, notamment pour les interventions menes auprs des communauts
7.3
Assistance technique
R.25 Il est recommand la CELCO dvaluer les besoins en capacits dans les domaines
dintervention du projet et de recruter des experts internationaux pour des missions de court
moyen terme en vue dapporter leur expertise aux diffrentes quipes impliques dans le projet et
de contribuer dvelopper les capacits nationales dans les domaines o des lacunes existent.
9. Capacit des structures de concertation tre des co-gestionnaires en vue de la
R.26 Raliser une tude pour dterminer quel serait le statut lgal appropri pour le noyau excutif
ou un sous-groupe actif dune structure de concertation qui leur permettrait de raliser des
prestations de services en vue de gnrer des bnfices dont un pourcentage fixe serait vers dans
un fonds propre la structure de concertation. De tels revenus pourraient assurer le
fonctionnement du bureau excutif et pourraient couvrir les frais ncessaires la mobilisation de la
structure de concertation lorsque cette mobilisation est requise. Ce droit de faire des bnfices
pourrait tre accord au noyau excutif ou un sous-groupe actif sous condition de poursuivre la
coordination et le suivi de la mise en uvre des activits ou des projets qui contribuent mettre en
oeuvre la planification environnementale effectue avec lappui du PE (II et III) et de dynamiser le
processus de concertation en assurant la mobilisation de lensemble des reprsentants prvus dans
la structure de concertation lorsque requis pour la planification et la mise en uvre du
dveloppement.
10. Orientations/recommandations relatives aux inventaires biologiques
R.27 Il est recommand au CoTP de sassurer que les termes de rfrence des scientifiques
concernant les travaux dinventaires biologiques permettront de fournir les informations prsentes
dans cette section et de sassurer de luniformisation des mthodes dinventaire dans les diffrents
sites de rfrence lorsquelles sappliquent aux mmes types de ressources.
Table : Responses to recommendations made during 1st Year Evaluation and their relevance to date (this is
complementary to a in-depth report prepared by the PMU)
Rec. Response
Rec. Response
R.1
The overall development objective is fine adn
R.15 Representation mainly through Head of
in line with the ProDoc.; for the project
CELCO; will/should now change in line with
objective it is recommended to accept the text
new project structures; it is recommended that
from the 1st Year evaluation, which has also
the PMU is directly represented;
been reflected in the PIRs
Committee Conjoindre has not been operational
for a while
R.2
Done by Scientific Group for 13 sites; new
R.16 Not clear
issues arise due to evolving needs by
ANGAP
R.3
Recommendation still valid; related to need for R.17 Still relevant; stronger peer mechanism required
common vision and understanding of SNRM
Models; needs to be revisited
R.4
Proposed project structures basically not
R.18 Not clear, but has probably taken place
operational; should be urgently revisited
(based on 1st Year and Mid-term evaluation
reports)
69
R.5
R.6
R.7
R.8
R.9
R.10
R.11
R.12
R.13
R.14
Not implemented; only annual contract based

on annual workplans; should be revisited
pending the final implementation
arrangements; overall it is agreed that
longterm commitments have to be made in
partnerships, whilst also keeping performance
quality check
Not acted upon; urgent
R.19
ANGAP and MEEFT have to develop common

vision and then ensure that all project partners
can follow same line; ANGAP should potentially
resume stronger coordination function and
authority esp. on regional level for project
R.20
It is observed that a great deal of planning has

taken place, however not always well guided;
needs to be dealt with more pragmatically
As R.7 above
Done, however partially poorly executed
(quality of TOR)
Related to R.7 and R.8 above; sub-optimally
executed
Reflected in indicators, PIR and mid-term
evaluation report; need to improve M&E Plan,
esp. monitoring related data collection and
updating as well as responsibilities
See R. 11 to be improved
R.21
To be redone; sites have to be needs driven; it

is realised tha this is a process up to the time
when all PAs can really be finally demarcated; it
is realised that this requires outmost flexibility
by this project - and a portion of pragmatism
Partially addressed; to be continued and
improved
Partially done; not fully systematically

followed-through
Outstanding; urgently needed
R.27
R.22
R.23
To be improved; very relevant

To be improve4d; very relevant
R,24
Partially done; to be updated in line with new

implementation arrangements
To be improved; very relevant
R.25
R.26
70
Partially done; to be updated in line with new

implementation arrangements
Done, but testing and implementation to be
improved
ANNEX 6: Itinerary
Draft field programme (prepared by Project Coordinator and SAGE in consultation with
others)
PROGRAMME DE MISSION DEVALUATION : ZONE NORD
JOUR
Lundi
Mardi
DAT
E
05
mai
06
mai
HEUR
E
04H
19H
09H
14H0
0
Mercre
di
Jeudi
Vendre
di
Samedi
07
mai
08
mai
09
mai
10
mai
09H0
0
15H0
0
10H0
0
16H0
0
08H3
0
11H3
0
12H3
0
09H0
0
20H0
0
ACTIVITE
Dpart dAntananarivo par voiture
Arrive Antsohihy
Rencontre avec la Rgion
(Chef de Rgion et DDR)
Rencontre avec DREEFT
Rencontre avec Maire
LIEU
Ramassage
domicile
Antsohihy
Maromandia
Rencontre avec le Prince

Retour sur Antsohihy ou cap vers Ambanja
Sance de travail avec la PF/ZAAP Sahamalaza
Visite de site de rfrence et changes avec les communauts
locales de base
Sance de travail avec la PF Interrgionale nord
Maromandia
Ankitsika
Ambanja
Sance de travail avec le Comit de pilotage rgional nord

locales de base
Retour sur Antananarivo par terre
Antsatrana
Transfert vers Nosy-Be
Ankify
Sance de travail SAGE
Nosy-Be
Retour sur Antananarivo par avion
Aroport de
Fascne
Ambanja
PROGRAMME DE MISSION DEVALUATION : ZONE SUD

JOUR
Lundi
Mardi
Mercre
di
Jeudi
Vendre
DAT
E
12
mai
13
mai
14
mai
15
mai
16
HEUR
E
04H0
0
09H0
0
14H0
0
09H3
0
10H0
0
07H0
ACTIVITE
Dpart dAntananarivo par voiture
Dpart dAntananarivo par avion
Rencontre avec DREEFT
Rencontre avec DIR/ANGAP
locales de base
Sance de travail avec la PF/ZAAP Mikea
Nuite Ifaty
Sance de travail avec la PF Rgionale sud
Dpart sur Nosy-Ve
71
LIEU
Ramassage
domicile
Ivato
Toliara
Ranobe
Ankililaoka
Ifaty
Toliara
di
mai
0
14H0
0
Samedi
17
mai
06H3
0
09H0
0
Visite de site de rfrence

Sance de travail avec la PF/ZAAP Nosy-Ve
Nosy-Ve
Anakao
Nuite Anakao
Retour sur Toliara
Sance de travail avec le Comit de pilotage rgional sud
Retour sur Antananarivo par avion et/ou par terre
72
Toliara
ANNEX 7: Summary of evaluation work sessions (site visits)

Full transcripts and minutes of meetings to be finalised by PMU. Initial results include:
(1) PF ZAAP Ankililaoka (Nord)

1. IMPACT GENERAL DU PROJET
1. Capacit des bnficiaires
Insuffisance de capacit
- en matire dlaboration de plan damnagement
2. Amlioration des activits socio-conomiques
Pas damlioration visible
3. Conservation des ressources naturelles et biodiversit
Conservation trop loigne de lAP
4. Impact sur la conservation dans les AP
Impact constat : diminution des pressions
5. Amlioration des services fournis en faveur de la conservation et dveloppement
pour les autres acteurs
Amlioration constate de la collaboration avec les partenaires
2. DEVELOPPEMENT INSTITUTIONNEL ET AUTRES APPUIS
1. Ralisation au niveau des sites de rfrence
Remise des matriels aux VOI
Sensibilisation : utilisation du vondro et du bambou Ranobe et Amboboka
2.
Ralisation au niveau des PF en matire dinterface AP/ZAAP

Kraft
3.
4.
Qualit des programmes de suivi des ressources naturelles (par les scientifiques)
Bonne qualit
Amlioration du dveloppement socio-conomique
5. formation
rien signaler
6.
Application des textes mis en vigueur

pas dapplication (cas de 536 longrines et 600 madriers Anjabetrongo)
3. INFORMATION ET FORMATION : besoins

Sites de rfrence
Amlioration de la gestion
Connaissances des sites de rfrence
Plate-forme :
73
Connaissances des textes en vigueur
Suivi des ressources naturelles :

Leadership : lobbying, technique de montage de Projet
Opportunit de dveloppement conomique :

Connaissances des ressources naturelles et des zones protger avec formation sur la
conservation
Capacit sur lauto-promotion

Aptitude au montage de Projet
Besoins dun appui en techniciens : ex : apiculture et pisciculture
Sur le Projet :
Informations trs dtailles sur le Projet
Autres :
Connaissances des autres Projets oeuvrant dans le secteur Environnement dans la rgion
4. MISE EN UVRE DU PROJET

Partage des rles et responsabilits des acteurs
Rles et responsabilits non partags
Point de vue des structure actuelles
Collaboration non dfinie entre les diffrents acteurs
Recherche de partenariat
Mise en place de vulgarisateurs agricoles et agents forestiers :
o Transfert de gestion
o Renforcement de capacits des PF
5. PRIORITES
Rsolution avec les problmes du charbon
Reboisement
Application des travaux des recherches (filires )
(2) PF ZAAP Mikea (Sud)

STRUCTURE DU ZAAP NORD
Aot 2007
- FIMAMI
- MITOHIMAFI
- FIMIHARA
- VOI
STRUCTURE DU PF/ZAAP NORD
Octobre 2007
Collge : autorite/ notable/ oprateurs conomiques/ reprsentant bureaucrate/
agriculteurs/ leveurs/ associations
Domaine dintervention : de Fiherenana Mangoky (19 communes)

74
5 personnes par commune composes dun Prsident, dun rapporteur et de Conseillers

(Commission IEC, commission scurit, commission dveloppement, commission Finance)
ROLES ET RESPONSABILITES DU PF/ZAAP NORD
Recevoir les procs-verbaux des communauts et/ou structure

Grer des conflits
Recherche de solutions aux problmes
Dveloppement des zones conserver
Collaboration avec les autorits locales
Elaboration du PTA
Montage de Projet
REALISATIONS DES PF/ZAAP NORD
mise en place du bureau

PTA labor
visite des autorits locales
gestion des conflits
reboisement
renforcement de capacit en matire de :
o plan damnagement
o gestion des conflits
o mise jour des textes GIZC
o planification
PROBLEMES RENCONTRES
Moyens de dplacement
Moyens financiers
Mesures daccompagnement insuffisantes par rapport la rduction des pressions au niveau
des ressources naturelles (exploitation de charbon de bois)
Solution propose par la Rgion : transformation des bois de la fort dAntanimieva
en charbon de bois
Existence de feux de brousse (feux sauvages et feux provoqus) lintrieur et lextrieur
de lAP
Dfrichement lintrieur de lAP
Exploitation illicite lintrieur de lAP surtout
Existence de voyants-voyants
Souhait du PF : mise en place permanent dun agent forestier dans la zone
Souhait du PF : mise en place rapide du ZUC et ZOC
Manque de sensibilisation pour le transfert de gestion / demande dj au niveau de lANGAP
MESURES ALTERNATIVES :
Remis au niveau du SGP
75
(3) PF ZAAP Nosy Ve/Anakao (SUD)

1. IMPACT GENERAL DU PROJET
Capacit des bnficiaires
Manque de capacit
Amlioration des activits socio-conomiques
Possibilit damlioration
Conservation des ressources naturelles et biodiversit dans les ZAAP
Amlioration de la protection de lenvironnement autour de lAP
Impact sur la conservation dans les AP
Rien signaler
Amlioration des services fournis en faveur de la conservation et dveloppement
pour les autres acteurs
Amlioration constate
2. DEVELOPPEMMENT INSTITUTIONNEL ET AUTRES APPUIS
Sites de rfrence
Reboisement
Mise en place de laboratoire
Ralisation au niveau du PF en matire dinterface AP/ZAAP
Ralisation non dfinie
Qualit des programmes de suivi des ressources naturelles (par les scientifiques)
Bonne qualit
Amlioration du dveloppement socio-conomique
Possibilit damlioration
Formation
Formation sur la gestion des conflits
Application des textes mis en vigueur
as dapplication
3. INFORMATION ET FORMATION : besoins
Pour les sites de rfrence
Besoins de renforcement de capacit

Pour les Plate-forme :
Besoins en appareil de communication (radio, BLU)
Suivi des ressources naturelles :

Besoins en techniciens
76
Opportunit de dveloppement conomique :

Besoins en appareil relatif la conservation
Capacit sur lauto-promotion

Besoins de formation sur le montage de Projet
Besoins en techniciens experts
Sur le Projet :
Formation sur le management
Autres :
Formation pour toutes les parties prenantes
4. MISE EN UVRE DU PROJET
Partage des rles et responsabilits des acteurs

Prise de responsabilits constate au niveau des acteurs
Point de vue sur les structures existantes

Bien structure
Autres partenariat
REEF DOCTOR
5.PRIORITS
Plein pouvoir pour le PF
Financement
Dotation en appareil relatif la conservation
(4) Platform Inter-regionale (PFIR) (Nord)
PFIR
Plate Forme Interrgionale SOFIA/DIANA
SANDOKO
PF/ZAAP ANKIBA
PFED NosyBe
CRADES Ambanja
ROSEDA Ambilobe
1re Commission
Planif/Suivi/Eval
- ZENY Jacques
- RasolofomananaR.
Bureau E.
1 Pdt
1 Vice Pdt
1 SG
1 Trsorier
PF/ZAAP SAHAMALAZA
AMIZA Akaramibe
Maetsamalaza Maromandia
MEVAMAMY Befotaka
VOLAMAITSO Ambolobozo
Tsaravintana
Anorontsangana
COMITE DE COORDINNATION
2me Commission
3me Commission
Gestion de conflits,
Communication Lobbying
Rglementation textes Plaidoyer
Dina
-
Donn
Arnaud
77
Toussaint J.P
DDR Sofia
- Edmond Ramadany
- TIARIM
- ZAMANY Ruffin
Lucie
Radinera
Camille
Abdel Kadert
Jean de Dieu
Boto Ignace
Robert Guy
Mandiny R.
A.G
B.E.
COMITE DE COORDINNATION
1re commission
2me commission
3me commission
LES COMPOSANTS PFIR

- Administration territoriale
- Les oprateurs conomiques
- Les lus
- Les projets ou Programmes de dvpt
- Les notables
- Les oprateurs de financement
- Les services techniques
- Les Communauts locales
- Les ONG
- Les Associations
LES MISSIONS DU PF/IR
- Assurer la planification, suivi et valuation au sein des ZAAP
- Appuyer la rsolution des conflits et litiges lis la GDRN dans les ZAAP
- Elaborer, proposer une stratgie pour amliorer lapplication des textes, conventions dans
les ZAAP
- Appuyer la mobilisation des financements pour la mise en oeuvre des activits
environnementales et de dveloppement dans les ZAAP
- Mener la communication de lobbying et le plaidoyer dans les ZAAP et au niveau rgional
- Assurer la cohrence et la complmentarit des actions
- Amliorer ce qui existe
- Assurer un dveloppement quilibr (communes, Fokontany, )
- Faire le suivi de la mise en oeuvre et lvaluation des impacts
- Contribuer lamlioration des conditions de vie de la population locale
- Assurer la gestion des R.N renouvelables transfres
- Porter appui la ractualisation et la mise en oeuvre des P.C.D Apports daides
ncessaires aux Communauts locales de base
PF/IR SANDOKO
Cre le 07 novembre 2007 Antsohihy (SOFIA/DIANA)
Plate Forme de rflexion et dchanges entre
- DIANA - Lokobe et Tanikely
- SOFIA - Sahamalaza
Objectif :
- gestion durable des ressources naturelles
- conservation durable des ressources naturelles
- amlioration du niveau de vie des communauts dans la zone dintervention
Rglement : statut et rglement intrieur
78
Mode dintervention : sur la base de

- changes mutuelles, plaidoyer
- communication
- rflexion et conception mutuelle
Runions :
- bureau : runion trimestrielle
- A.G. : runion annuelle (aot ou septembre)
Objectif court terme :
- sortie dun bulletin dinformation Feonny zavaboahary (La voix de la nature) parution
trimestrielle
Constat :
La collaboration de travail avec SAGE est apprcie
Souhait :
- renforcement de la collaboration
- appui matriel et financier
Les acquis : renforcement des capacits et formation en
- planification
- gestion de conflits
- amnagement de lespace
- communication
- leadership
- technique dorganisation
- technique de ngociation
Il reste la formation sur le montage de projet
79
ANNEX 8: Reference site summaries concept

At the onset of the evaluation it was found that information available for the various project intervention areas (PAPASZs), reference sites and partner CBOs were scattered in a great number of reports. It was thus suggested
that overview sheets be prepared, that would also serve the production of information materials on the project at a
later stage. Ms Hanta Rabehafiry (Project Coordinator) prepared initial drafts during the evaluation visit, and final
summaries are currently under preparation.
EXAMPLES:
(1) AP 1 - MIKEA
AP
Reference sitesZAAP
Sud
AP1
Site/communit
y
Name : MIKEA
Marine/terrestrial : Terrestre
Key ecosystems to be protected : Forts sches et pineuses
Key data/ information : 170.000Ha en AP Temporaire
Primary conservation value : 140.000Ha de forts, population autochtone
Key threats to conservation : coupe illicite aux fins de charbon et champ de culture, trafic
des faunes endmiques, pntration de la civilisation moderne
Site/communit
y1
Site/communit
y2
Site/communit
y3
RANOBE
AMBOBOKA
SEPT LACS
Background
Name :
Key data/
information (socioeconomic)
96 tots 538
habitants
42% analphabtes
90% des mnages
vulnrables
(0,25USD per
capita/jour)
Inscurit (vol de
bufs)
Insuffisance eau
potable
Plusieurs groupes
ethniques
Land use systems
Cultures vivrires :
manioc, mas, patate
douce, lojy
Culture de rente :
canne sucre
Elevage : bovins,
ovins, caprins
Pche continentale
Collecte et vente RN
vondro (cypraces),
tubercules, katrafay,
miel
Exploitation du bois
(usage mnager,
mdicinal, rite
ancestral, vente)
Exploitation minire
par Ilmnite
Madagascar
Ressources
threats
13,5Ha/an
dgradation pour
cause exploitation
illicite, sauvage, feu
96 tots 744
habitants
42% analphabtes
90% des mnages
vulnrables
(0,25USD per
capita/jour)
Inscurit (vol de
bufs)
Insuffisance eau
potable
Plusieurs groupes
ethniques
80
de brousse
Chasse pour
consommation des
lmuriens, tenrecs,
Key NRM and
conservation
opportunities
7.848,5ha de forts
avec 90 espces
floristiques dont 12
endmiques
faunes endmiques :
Amph.& reptiles :
87,5%
Oiseaux : 53%
Mammifres : 80%
Project
interventions to
date
NR monitoring
programme
Suivi technique :
Suivi cologique :
Suivi socioconomique
NR management
livelihoods
projects
identified
Diagnostic des
ressources et
milieux : menaces,
pressions
Inventaire biologique
Evaluation des
stocks
Identification des
filires
Etude de march
Suivi de
lexploitation : quota,
mthode de coupe,
dbardage,
stockage
Faune : observations
priodiques des
paramtres
biophysiques, , suivi
des impacts de
lexploitation sur
lcosystme
Flore : idem + suivi
des plantations de
remplacement
Observatoire socioconomique :
volution des
budgets du VOI,
mnages, gestion
des conflits)
Suivi intgration
rgionale de la filire
(commerce,
partenariat)
Rglementation de
lexploitation du bois
(rduction, arrt de
lexploitation
sauvage), Protection
des espces en voie
dpuisement (quota
de prlvement)
Rgnration et
reconstitution de
lhabitat (respect des
zones de coupe)
Appui en matire de
debouchs pour les
vondro, tubercules,
katrafay, miel
81
Appui
lamlioration des
techniques
dexploitation des
bois
Priority activities
workshop)
Filire Bois doeuvre

et de construction :
production
dquarris
Arofy , Kapaipoty
Katrafay , Magnary,
Monongo (formation
sur litinraire
technique, appui
pour lacquisition de
matriels)
Filire Vondro et
Bararata :
organisation du
transport jusquau
lieu de vente
(Mangily et Toliara)
(2) AP 3 : SAHAMALAZA/ILES RADAMA
AP
Reference sitesZAAP
Nord
AP3
Site/communit
y
Name : SAHAMALAZA/ILES RADAMA

Marine/terrestrial : Marine et ctire
Key ecosystems to be protected : mangroves
Key data/ information : 26.035Ha en AP avec statut officiel
Primary conservation value : mangroves et sites sacres, espces endmiques rgionales lmuriens (akomba
mangamaso) ; ibis sacr, 7 espces de mangroves endmiques
Key threats to conservation : exploitation illicite des bois de mangroves et pche illicite industrielle et pche
artisanale illicite en provenance de Nosy-Be, pratique du tavy et feux de forts dans les ZAAP, transfert de gestion
non effective, absence dactivits alternatives rmunratrices
Site/communit
y1
Site/communit
y2
Site/communit
y3
SEPT LACS
ANKITSIKA
Ile de Berafia
Antsahampano
Antsatrana
Background
Name :
Key data/
information (socioeconomic)
Land use systems
516 habitants
97 pcheurs
188 agriculteurs
19 autres mtiers
Plusieurs ethnies
Inexistence
dinfrastructure de
sant de base
3200 habitants
540 mnages
998 pcheurs plein
temps
95 agriculteurs
Pche : crabes
essentiellement
(91), petits poissons
plagiques et
poissons deaux
ctires (17)
Culture de riz :
rizire et tavy
Culture vivrire :
mas, manioc
Elevage : zbus et
Pche aux crevettes,

avec
accompagnement
petits poissons
plagiques et
poissons deaux
ctires
Pche aux crabes
Pche aux gros
poissons plagiques
Pche aux
Plusieurs ethnies
Inexistence
dinfrastructure de
sant de base
82
chvres
chevaquine (par les

femmes et les
enfants)
Culture de riz : sur
tavy
Culture vivrire :
anacarde, manioc
Elevage : volailles
Primary
conservation threats
Dgradation des
mangroves cause
de la coupe de bois
pour droit dusage
et destruction des
terriers des crabes
au crochet, peu de
repousse
Surexploitation des
ressources en
crevettes
Crise au niveau
mondial : forte
conccurrence, dclin
des prix du march
international
Dclin du
rendement de
production de petits
poissons
(surexploitation)
Pche aux crevettes
par les migrants
quips en engin de
pche
Key NRM and
conservation
opportunities
Superficie de
mangroves non
encore bien
dtermine avec
partie intrieure
encore intacte, sans
aucun signe
densablement ou
de pollution
Superficie de
1000Ha mangroves
avec partie intrieure
intacte et en bonne
sant
500ha de zone de
pche traditionnelle
1200 ha de forts
secondaires, de
ravinala et de zone
de culture
Bon tat du stock

des crabes (taille
garde sur 15 ans)
Flore :
04 espces de
paltuviers
Flore :
04 espces de
paltuviers
Project
interventions to
date
NR monitoring
programme
Suivi technique :
Faune : oiseau (5 sp
dont 3 endmiques)
mammifres
terrestres (2sp)
reptiles (2sp)
mollusques (4sp)
crustacs (4sp),
poissons (9sp)
Diagnostic des
ressources et
milieux : menaces,
pressions
Inventaire biologique
Evaluation des stocks
Identification des
filires
Etude de march
Faune : oiseau (1
sp) mollusques
bivalves (2 sp)
mollusques (1sp)
crustacs (4sp),
poissons (7sp)
Diagnostic des
ressources et
milieux : menaces,
pressions
Inventaire
biologique
Evaluation des
stocks
Identification des
filires
Etude de march
suivi journalier de la
production
halieutique
(2 fois par an HS et
suivi journalier de la
production
halieutique
(2 fois par an HS et
83
Suivi cologique :
Suivi socioconomique
NR management
BS)
Suivi permanent des
ressources (cahier
de pche et de
vente des pcheurs)
Inventaire des rcifs
et mangroves :
recherche des
espces
faunistiques
endmiques, rares
et vulnrables, des
espces
envahissantes
BS)
Suivi permanent des
ressources (cahier de
pche et de vente
des pcheurs)
Inventaire des rcifs
et mangroves :
recherche des
espces faunistiques
endmiques, rares et
vulnrables, des
espces
envahissantes
suivi biostatistique
aux fins de
propositions des
mesures
damnagement de
la pcherie de
chaque ressource
suivi biostatistique
aux fins de
propositions des
mesures
damnagement de
la pcherie de
chaque ressource
Enqute cadre
village :
Mode dexploitation,
dorganisation,
commerce,conflits
Prservation de
ltat de mangroves
Enqute cadre
village :
Mode dexploitation,
dorganisation,
commerce,conflits
Prservation de ltat
de mangroves
Application de
larrt ministriel
portant sur le mode
dexploitation des
crabes
Respect de larrt
ministriel portant
sur le gel de pche
sur la crevette ctire
dans la zone
Introduction de
nouvelles
techniques de
pches aux crabes
Retrait de lengin
pige, modification
du maillage des filets
Application de
larrt ministriel
portant sur le mode
dexploitation des
crabes
Maintien de leffort
de pche aux petits
poissons plagiques
et revue des mailles
des filets
Exploitation
rationnelle des
crabes encore
abondance par
lintroduction
dengins de pche
performants
(palangres, balance)
Mesure rgalienne
pour adresser la
surexploitation des
crevettes par les
pcheurs migrants
Oprationnalisation
du systme ZAC
travers les platesformes
And livelihoods
projects
identified
Pche au filet des

poissons
Priority activities
Pche aux crabes
Reconversion de
certains pcheurs de
crevette en pcheurs
de crabes
Pche la ligne
palagrotte aux crabes
Pche au filet periky
aux poissons
Pche la ligne aux
poissons
Pche aux crabes
Pche aux crabes
84

workshop)
dans chenaux de
mangroves et en
mer (formation des
pcheurs, appui
lacquisition des
matriels de pche
et la
rgularisation du
circuit de collecte)
(formation sur les

techniques de pche,
la conservation et le
stockage, information
sur la rglementation
en vigueur,
acquisition de
matriels et
quipements de
pche adapts,
organisation de la
commercialisation
voire lexportation)
85
ANNEX 9: Assessment: Performance on project objective and results

Detailed assessment table that served the analysis of evaluation data.
Objectif du projet : Des systmes de gestion durable des ressources naturelles sont tablis et renforcs dans les zones dappui aux aires protges.
Indicateurs14
Baseli
ne
Target
Progrs raliss au 30 juin 2006
Progrs raliss au 31 mai 2008
Indicateur 1:
SNRM
not
part of
develo
pment
planni
ng in
comm
unties
At least
one fully
functioning
multistakeholde
r platform
with
capacities
for
integrated
developme
nt planning
exist for
each PASZ
10 Plans Communaux de
Dveloppement sont en cours de
rvision pour vrifier lintgration des
considrations environnementales et
sassurer que les plans de
dveloppement aux diffrents niveaux
au sein des zones dappui aux aires
protges sont cohrents avec
lapproche de gestion intgre des
zones ctires (GIZC).
La gestion
durable des
ressources
naturelles
compatible avec
la conservation
de la biodiversit
est intgre dans
les plans de
dveloppement
des zones
dappui aux aires
protges.
La reprsentativit de 4 structures de
concertation a t value en termes
gographique et de parties prenantes.
Leur capacit laborer des plans de
dveloppement conformes
lapproche GIZC a aussi t value.
No.(?) partner CLBs have been established in the four AP/ZAAP systems; Xxx of them have work plans
4 PF ZAAPs established with constitution and workplans
1 PFIR (North), 1 PFR (South) established; PFIR has workplan, PFR workplan to be established, priorities
identified
Inputs into PCDs; 10 Green PCD exist (by 2006 10 PCD vertes; same figure recorded in 2008)
4 GIZC plans integrate relevant communities (Nord 15, Sud 5; see reference in APR 2008)
Participatory evaluation with committee members at all levels indicates
o
Good ownership and interest
o
Understanding of project objective to be conservation of NRs & AP
o
Got involved in some very relevant work (esp. in relation to policy debate)
o
Need to now get more involved in practical work
o
More information and capacity support needed to address mandate
o
Seen as useful governance plat form by regional government (not necessarily limited to NR and
AP-ZAAP)
Capacity needs assessment partially reflected in workplans, and in outcomes of consultative meetings
(May 2008; reference meeting reports)
Strong work of SAGE to be recognised; needs reinforcement of outreach capacities
14
The PIR 2006 establishes baseline levels and target levels for all indicators; additional indicators and their baseline and targets were included in the PIR 2007; current indicator 7 was
newly introduced in PIR 2007
86
Indicateurs
Baseli
ne
Target
Indicateur 2:
Weak
instituti
onal
capacit
y and
seriou
s
govern
ance
issues
Strategies
for
improved
enforceme
nt &
oversight
of SNRM
related
laws/
regulations
are
completed
for each
PASZ
Une valuation participative de

lefficacit des rglementations
traditionnelles (dina) et administratives
auprs des structures de concertation
a permis didentifier les contraintes et
de faire des recommandations pour
amliorer leur mise en vigueur dans
les zones priphriques des aires
protges.
Dina system largely applied esp. in Northern areas; generally well accepted and seen as beneficial;
however some problems with lack of authority to prosecute offenders (e.g. people from outside that come
in to the Mangroves to cut wood at Sahamalaze) at this stage (participatory evaluation); absence of
systematic documentation and synthesis of experience, which should be a priority for GM
Mixed experiences and views on GELOSE experiences at sites beneficial (participatory evaluation); CLB
and other local and regional representatives found system generally useful and are interested in expanding
it, however major bottlenecks identified include (i) limited capacity by MEEFT/DREEFT to follow up on
M&E and extension of contracts, (ii) in certain areas no real benefits from Transfer of Management
realised, communities need guidance on how to capitalise on opportunity as well as guidance on
responsibilities; absence of systematic documentation and synthesis of experience, which should be a
priority for GM
ANGAP is experimenting with additional models (e.g. payment for services; to be included in
experimental design as appropriate (joint planning with ANGAP); absence of systematic documentation
and synthesis of experience, which should be a priority for GM
In Northern areas (through PFIR) addressing of mandate conflict in Mangrove areas, which are managed
by MAEP/DRDR whilst GELOSE is implemented under MEEFT/DREEFT; PFIR has facilitated dialogue
and furthered joint experimental approach; absence of systematic documentation and synthesis of
experience, which should be a priority for GM
Similar issues relating to MPA in Southern area (Nosy-Ve/Toliare) arising between MAEP/DRDR and
MEEFT/DREEFT, however still in the early identification phase; absence of systematic documentation and
synthesis of experience, which should be a priority for GM
SAGE, an association established during PE2 in support of MEEFT to facilitate community interaction and
engaged as project implementer of the PNUD-FEM component has successfully established the required
community structures; however the contract and annual workplan of SAGE for 2008 has not been
extended by MEEFT; at this stage (May 2008) there seems to be very limited political support for SAGE as
currently operating and sustainability issues of the approach need to be urgently addressed
Overall implementation capacity of STD (Extension Services) seen to be extremely limited, and an
improved strategy has to be put into place; MEEFT has recently taken new strong leadership on this
element (see letter to PNUD, dated early May); regional ownership and interest generally quite well
developed and could be strategically supported in future
Involvement of PF members in relevant policy development (example Baie de Ambaro; GIZC)
Les cadres lgal

et institutionnel
de la gestion
durable des
ressources
naturelles sont
tablis
87
Indicateurs
Baseli
ne
Target
Indicateur 3:
Les plans de
conservation sont
dvelopps et mis
en uvre
Isolatio
n of
Pas
surrou
nded
by
forest,
bush
field or
severe
ly
degrad
ed
ecosys
tems
that
are not
ebing
allocat
ed to
conser
vation
compa
tible
land
uses
Participator
y planning
and joint
manageme
nt of
PASZs
Les inventaires des ressources

naturelles (en vue didentifier la
biodiversit prsente, faune et flore,
valuer les tailles des populations et
dterminer les seuils dexploitation
durable des espces cibles) et les
enqutes socioconomiques auprs
des mnages sont en cours.
Les rsultats des inventaires et de
lvaluation des besoins en
connaissances permettront dorienter
le dveloppement des systmes de
gestion pour une utilisation durable
des ressources naturelles.
Local level (CLB) conservation plans integrated into overall CLB workplans; in certain cases (participatory
evaluation, qualitative) the conservation component seems very strong and an overall god understanding
of the conservation objective of the project and the AP-ZAAP system is quite well understood amongst
community members and other PF representatives (see knowledge/awareness baseline Annex 10)
Scientific support surveys were conducted during 2006/2007, and finalised in July 2007; they are basically
reports on inventory/status data and recommendations for monitoring methods, however since completion
of the baseline work no follow-up has taken place (since July 2007); this is probably for various reasons (i)
scientific baselines and methods, not applicable to participatory local level monitoring in current form; (ii)
could be used for STD, if institutions ready for such expert input; (iii) may need to commission follow-up
studies if current capacities not sufficient to embrace methodologies; project should seek for pragmatic
solution; at this stage simply blocked since about 1 year; seen to be very damaging for project
ANGAP has developed own methods, which at this stage seem not compatible/aligned with work
undertaken in this component (PNUD-FEM); recommendations for Joint Work Plan and closer technical
collaboration have been made during participatory evaluation; also true for work carried out by other
service providers (e.g. WWF, WCS); GM component should facilitate better coordination and exchanges to
ensure (i) limited duplication, (ii) high technical quality, (iii) efficient use of resources
88
Indicateurs
Baseli
ne
Target
Indicateur 4:
La superficie
couverte par les
mangroves dans
les 2 zones
dintervention du
projet est
maintenue au
niveau de celle de
2004
correspondant
2 209 km2
2,209
km2 in
2004
2,209 km2
Donnes non disponibles
No data provided.
However, overall SAGE has engaged with xxx CLBs and relevant CLB networks in the areas concerned (APZAAP Sahamalaze & Lokobe) and the participatory evaluation (qualitative) indicates an overall god level of
understanding of conservation value in the areas, as well as the overall notion is that conservation efforts have
increased and are successful (reference: minutes from workshops)
Indicators 4.a and 4.b proposed in PIR 2007 based on work of Scientific group:
Description
of indicator
4a.The
surface
within the PA
and the dry
and spiny
forests in the
PASZ is
maintained
at the 2006
level.
4b. The rate
of recovery
of living
coral is
maintained
at the 2006
level in the
southern
and northern
area of the
project
Baseline level
Target level
Level at 30 June 2007
Forest surface:
140,000 ha, within a
surface of Protected
Area of 200,000 ha
Reference site
Forest in ha.
Amboboka: 1,286
Ranobe: 7,530
Sept Lacs: 4,513
Still to be determined
in agreement with
ANGAP
Mikea Forest temporarily

protected: 170,000 ha (limits of
PA still under establishment by
ANGAP)
Reference site
Forest in ha.
Amboboka: 1,286
Ranobe: 7,530
Sept Lacs: 4,513
Southern Area:
Nosy Ve
Aquarium A: 30% of
2006
Ifaty
Jardin des Roses:
50% of 2006
Northern Area:
Degraded area reef
platform between
10% and 30%.
Area more or less
intact:
Reef front between
60% and 75%
Nosy Ve
Aquarium A: 40%
Ifaty
Jardin des Roses:
60%
Nosy Ve
Aquarium A: 30% of 2006
Ifaty
Jardin des Roses: 50% of 2006
Degraded area:
Reef platform
between 20 and 40%
Degraded area:
Reef platform
between 10 and 30%
Area more or less

intact:
Reef front between 60
to 75%
Area more or less intact:

Reef front between 60 to 75%
Reference site
Forest in ha.
Amboboka: 1,286
Ranobe: 7,530
Sept Lacs: 4,513
No monitoring/assessment data available after June 2007! Activity discontinued/blocked since July 2007.
Mikea park boundaries verified since June 2007; Nosy Ve boundaries currently under revision.
Important to link to actual community and regional level conservation activities implemented; here baseline
model for M&E established.
The final M&E plan is required; some baseline values seem problematic, as well as targets seem not always
well set; god framework to work from, but could do with some improvement. Of course the actually monitoring is
NB. The quality of ANGAPs monitoring system needs to be established, as well as that of other indicated
partners.
89
Indicateurs
Indicateur 5:
Lvolution dans la
prsence et/ou
labondance
despces
indicatrices au
sein des niveaux
suprieurs de la
chane trophique,
telles les espces
prdatrices de
grande taille de la
famille des
Lutjanidae
Baseli
ne
Target
Les rsultats des inventaires effectus

dans les sites de rfrence de terrain
par les scientifiques permettront
didentifier les espces indicatrices
ainsi que les donnes de rfrence sur
labondance des populations dans les
sites de rfrence. Les mthodes pour
en assurer le suivi seront aussi
dtermines.
Indicator values established in PIR 2007 based on work of Scientific group:

Baseline level
Southern area
Nosy Ve
Aquarium A :
Family of Lutjanidae: 3
species; Lethrinidae: 2
species
Zone north
Families of Lutjanidae:10
species; Lethrinidae: 4 species
Target level
Nosy Ve
Aquarium A :
Family of Lutjanidae: 3
species; 4 other families
Nosy Ve
Aquarium A :
Family of Lutjanidae: 3 species
Lethrinidae: 2 species
Families of Lutjanidae:10
species
Families of Lutjanidae: 10
species; Lethrinidae: 4 species
Although the indicator framework is generally rated as useful, certain questions arise e.g. in term of can we
actually expect the increase the families present over the time period? Is the established system practical?
Existing monitoring systems (e.g. ANGAP) need to be checked.
90
Indicateurs
Indicateur 6:
La
prsence/absence
despces
indicatrices
(maintenue,
accrue ou
diminue selon le
type despce
indicatrice15) dans
les sites o la
conservation et la
GDRN sont mises
en oeuvre
(indicateur dfini
sur la base des
recommandations
des scientifiques)
Baseli
ne
Target
Les rsultats des inventaires effectus

dans les sites de rfrence de terrain
par les scientifiques permettront
didentifier les espces indicatrices
ainsi que les donnes de rfrence sur
labondance des populations dans les
sites de rfrence. Les mthodes pour
en assurer le suivi seront aussi
dtermines.

Baseline level
Zone Southern: Forest
Nb sp flore endmic
Amboboka: 17
Ranobe
: 12
Target level
Nb sp flore endemic
Amboboka: >=17
Ranobe
: >=12
Nb sp flore endemic
Amboboka: 17
Ranobe
: 12
Nb sp fauna endmic
Amboboka: 61
Ranobe
: 74
Zone South: EMC Nosy Ve
Aquarium A Degradation indicator
species:
- Acanthaster plancii: 06
individuals
- Echinometrix diadema: 25
individuals
Nb sp faune endemic
Amboboka: >=61
Ranobe
: >=74
Nb sp faune endemic
Amboboka: 61
Ranobe
: 74
Nosy Ve
Aquarium A
Degradation indicator species:
- Acanthaster plancii: 01
individual
individuals
Nosy Ve
Aquarium A
Indicator of degradation:
- Acanthaster plancii: 06 individuals
individuals
Degradation indicator species

Diadema set osa
Between 20 and 22
individuals/m2
Endangered species: 1 whale
specie (Megapteres)
Degradation indicator species :

Diadema set osa
between 20 and 22 individuals/m2
Endangered species: 1 whale specie
(Megapteres)
North Zone
Degradation indicator species
Diadema set osa
between 20 and 22 individuals/m2
Endangered species: 1 whale
specie (Megapteres)
Species under strong pressure
from fishing:
Family of Chanidae: 1 sp
Family of Holothuries: 5 sp
Family of Raies: 1 sp
Family of Crabs: 1 sp
Family of Lutjanidae 2 sp ;
Family of Lethrinidae: 2 sp
Family of Mugilidae: 1 sp
Family of Teraponidae:1sp
Family of Salmonidae:1 sp
Species under strong pressure

from fishing: 1 sp
Family of Lutjanidae 2 sp ;
Species under strong pressure from

fishing:
Family of Chanidae: 1 sp
Family of Lutjanidae 2 sp;
The indicator system seem quite strong, however can we actually expect the increase of endemic species over
the time period? Would we not rather need other indications like the 20 to 22 individuals per m2 seems okay. Is
the established system practical? Nedd to check also other existing monitoring systems (e.g. ANGAP).
Les espces indicatrices peuvent inclure des espces menaces dont on souhaite maintenir ou accrotre labondance par la
conservation, des espces qui subissent une pression non durable dont on souhaite maintenir ou accrotre labondance, des espces
indicatrices de la dgradation du milieu ou du dsquilibre de la chane trophique ou des espces introduites envahissantes dont on
souhaite rduire labondance. Ces espces et les objectifs de gestion et de conservation seront dtermins par les groupes de
scientifiques le plus tt possible.
91
15
Indicateurs
Indicateur 7:
Amlioration de
lindice defficacit
globale de gestion
des 4 aires
protges
appuyes par le
FEM
Baseli
ne
Target
Lvaluation de base de lindice

defficacit globale des aires
protges de Lokobe et de Mikea a
t effectue par lANGAP.
Lvaluation de cet indice pour les
aires protges de Sahamalaza et du
littoral de Toliara/Nosy Ve sera
effectue conjointement par lANGAP
et le projet.

Baseline level
IEG 2005
Mikea Forest: 0,25
Lokobe: 0,57
N.B.
Sahamalaza and Toliara/Nosy-Ve
no baselines recorded
Target level
Will be established by
ANGAP.

IEG 2006
Mikea Forest: 0,29
Lokobe: 0,56
Sahamalaza: 0,00
N.B.
Toliara/Nosy-Ve not completed as yet
Is the established system practical? How compatible are they with ongoing work at ANGAP?
92
Indicateurs
Baseli
ne
Target
Indicateur 8:
Nombre de
mnages dont les
revenus
proviennent de la
collecte de
ressources
sauvages et qui
participent la
gestion durable
des ressources
naturelles dans les
deux zones cibles
du projet
3,000
house
holds
21,500
households
Donnes actuellement non disponibles
Indicator values established in PIR 2007 based on work of Economic group:

Baseline level
3,000 households
Southern forest area:

Nb Reference sites: 02
Households with newly created
income derived from biodiversity
enterprises):
Amboboka (total households 143)
Bois: 15 households (10%)
Typha: 29 households (20% of )
Ranobe (total households 96)
Bois: 24 households
Typha: 77 households (80%)
North Zone EMC
Number of reference sites: 07
Households with newly created
income derived from biodiversity
enterprises:
Number of households: 180
(10 to 15 households by site for 12
biodiversity enterprises)
Zone South EMC
Reference Site: 03
Nb households: 120
(10 to 15 households per sites for
8
biodiversity enterprises)
Target level
21,500 households

The values offered below by the
project team, are taken from
households that will participate in
community enterprises developed by
the project.
Number of reference sites

:>=02
Amboboka
Bois: 70 households
Typha: 100 households
Ranobe
Bois: 96
Typha: 96
Amboboka
Bois: 0 households
Ranobe
Bois: 0 households
Number of reference sites >=07
Number of households:
>= 1,569
Number of households: 00
Number of reference sites:

>=03

Number households: 00
Number households: >=5878
Filieres not implemented to date! Activity discontinued/blocked since July 2007.

Is the established system practical?
93
Indicateurs
Baseli
ne
Target
Indicateur 9:
Prise en compte
de la position des
communes dans la
gestion des aires
protges
travers des
structures de
gestion
participative
pleinement
oprationnelles,
illustr par le
pourcentage de
COSAP qui
respectent leurs
droits et
obligations tels
que dfinis dans
les plans de
gestion des aires
protges
0%
80%
PIR 2007 states following : In March 2007, Sahamalaza received official certification as a marine and coastal
protected area, with full support by local communities, thanks to intense work by IEC. The next phase,
establishment of the COSAP, being carried out progressively, with work and back up by IEC, and consequently,
is not yet, to date, fully operational.
Indicateur 10:
Renforcement des
communauts en
GDRN travers la
pleine excution
des dispositions
GELOSE/GCF, tel
que mesur par le
% des
communauts
ayant bnfici de
transferts et qui
ont protg leurs
ressources avec
succs la fin de
la priode de
probation de 3
ans. Le succs de
la protection des
ressources est
dtermin lors des
valuations
programmes
avant le
renouvellement
des contrats
0%
Comment on the indicator: Is it practical to establish %? How many COSAP are there and how many will be
established?
80%
PIR 2007 states following : The evaluation of the resource management transfers (GELOSE) of the 13 reference sites has
not yet been carried out. It is the responsibility of the Ministry of Environment, Water and Forests. The Ministry of
Environment, Waters and Forests Min. Env. EF-is informed of the situation. Within the context of internal
restructuring/reorganization, it is expected that the Minister carry out actions henceforth.
Comment on indicator: Is it practical to establish %?
94
Indicateurs
Baseli
ne
Target
Indicateur 11:
% des utilisateurs
qui considrent
que les services et
produits pour la
gestion des
connaissances en
GDRN rpondent
leurs besoins
0%
70%
PIR 2007 states following : The relocation of scientific and economic research vis a vis the communities and the local
and regional authorities has allowed one to judge the conformity of the stakeholders regarding the project. 89,22% are
globally satisfied.
Indicateur16
Comnent on PIR data: generally it is nonsense to establish a percentage such as 89,22% in this context
Comment on indicaotor: Is it practical to establish %? What is the reference point? Need acknowledge
awareness baseline (see Annex 10)
Comments from evaluation meetings: generally in May 2008 at local level no ownership and engagement
valuation
Ralisations au 31 Mai 2008
du progrs
Rsultat 1 La GDRN et la conservation de la biodiversit sont amliores dans les zones dappui aux aires protges par leur intgration dans la planification du dveloppement
Indicateur 12:
There exist:
At least 1 multi
Existing platforms (from PE2) re-structured and mandates
Une stratgie de renforcement des
- A plan for the
stakeholder
updated;
capacits ciblant les besoins spcifiques
Pourcentage
spiny forest
platform (forum)
4 PF ZAAPs with constitution and workplans operational

est en cours dlaboration sur la base de
daugmentation
(Ala Maika)
{with ANGAP as a
1 PFIR (North), 1 PFR (South) established; PFIR has

lvaluation
des
capacits
des
structures
des budgets du
but it does not
member} with
de concertation.
workplan, PFR workplan to be established, priorities
PE III et du
relate
capacities for
identified
dveloppement
Un plan de dveloppement pour la zone
specifically to
integrated
PFIR/PFR strong multi-stakeholder representation; ANGAP

rural qui sont
tampon
du
Parc
National
des
Mikea
the interest
development
plays strong role in both areas; NOGS and other
allous aux
couvrant
plusieurs
communes
est
en
zone.
planning exist for
development partners currently largely absent, as private
actions prioritaires
cours dlaboration par lANGAP avec
- draft plans
each PASZ, plus
sector; according to participatory evaluation do not
identifies
lappui de WWF.
have been
one regional forum
currently see the use of participating; need to ensure that
travers des
developed for
(platform) for each
Les plans labors seront
such can be demonstrated in future (e.g. good work
planifications
the forest of
Zone.
ventuellement intgrs dans les plans
outputs/ influence in decision making and policy setting);
participatives du
Mikea
de gestion de conservation dvelopps
evaluation assessment indicates that a number of
dveloppement
7 operational
pour chaque aire protge. Le cadre de
participants do not fully understand the project or the role
intgrant la
platforms, with a
planification qui en rsultera servira de
and mandate of the PF at this stage; need to ensure active
conservation de la
regional group or
base pour rorienter les investissements
support to structures for a while; priority needs identified
biodiversit et la
coalition per zone
pour le dveloppement
(see meeting notes)
GDRN
8 development
7 community based structures are operational: North plans of PASZs

PFED, CRADES, ROSEDA, South - PTEDS, FIMAMI,
FKMB, FIMIMANO
4 GIZC development plans are elaborated for Nosy- Be,

Ambanja Anakao/Soalara /Saint-Augustin and the
Manombo coastal areas (integrating relevant communties
Nord 15, Sud 5; see reference in APR 2008) ; they will feed
into the development plans for integrated ZAAPs
management plans.
16
Baseline
Targets
Ralisations au 30 juin 2006
Baseline and targets only established in PIR 2006

95
valuation
du progrs
Indicateur
Baseline
Targets
valuation
du progrs
Indicateur 13:
Diminution du
nombre
dinfractions
judiciaires grce
la mise en
vigueur des
textes relatifs
la GDRN et la
surveillance
effectue par les
plates-formes
des parties
prenantes
No historical
base-line data
on registered
legal
infractions on
environment.
% of conflicts
registered that
have been
resolved through
the multistakeholder
platforms.
Dans le cadre du comit conjoint du

PE III, des commissions mixtes Forts
Mines et Environnement Pche ont t
mises sur pied pour valider les
propositions de rglementation et
assurer lintgration des enjeux
environnementaux. La commission
Environnement Pche est
oprationnelle au niveau rgional dans la
rgion de Diego (zone Nord) sous
lautorit des ministres concerns. Des
recommandations sont faites pour
accrotre le rle du projet dans ces
comits.
Une valuation participative de lefficacit

des rglementations traditionnelles et
administratives auprs des structures de
concertation a permis didentifier les
contraintes et de faire des
recommandations pour amliorer les
mcanismes de mise en vigueur, par un
meilleur mcanisme dinformation pour
rapporter les infractions, ce qui permettra
aux structures de recourir des appuis
adquats lorsque ncessaire.
Des efforts additionnels sont requis pour

tablir les donnes de rfrence pour les
infractions et pour mettre en place un
systme communautaire de surveillance
et de mise en vigueur socialement
acceptable.
S
valuation globale du rsultat 1
valuation
du progrs
The progressive incorporation of regulations within the

management systems tested at one marine and coastal
reference site level (Nosy Sakatia) and one at the forest
ecosystem level (Ranobe) reference site have led, after 6
six months of application, to a reduction of more than half
of the number of infringements and a third of PV
established for MCE as well as a reduction of 1/6 and half
of the PV for the forest area. The base level is that of 2005.
Conflict management training has taken place in all PF
ZAAPs and members incl. on the CLB level (participatory
evaluation) are satisfied with training and request further
It has been mentioned that the application of the Dina is
still not always well regulated and also CLBs with GdT
demand more regulations and authority to prosecute
trespassers; currently they mainly have to contact e.g. the
DREEFT office to report individuals that do not follow the
NRM guidelines of the CLB and the Ministry has limited
capacity to react; poor communication access is a further
problems, although the use of mobile phones has greatly
improved communication
Key recommendation elements:
o
Continued support to structures through SAGE
o
Improved STD esp. DREEFT
o
Development and application of support
regulations (sub-result 1.3)
o
Improvement of infrastructure/ logistic problems
through project (e.g. community funds)
o
Need to establish funding mechanism and
broker investments! - part of sub-result (1.2)
o
Maintain and populate workplans for structures
MS
Rsultat 2 Les approches dveloppes dans les sites de rfrence de terrain pour dfinir les mesures appropries de conservation de la biodiversit, de GDRN et pour le dveloppement de filires de
biodiversit durables et rentables, sont reproduites dans les zones dappui aux aires protges
96
Indicateur
Baseline
Targets
Indicateur 14:
- 6 of the coral
reef
laboratories
have
established
basic rules
(dina) to put
an end to
destructive
practices
- 2 laboratories
in mangroves
have simple
community
based
management
systems
- some of the
laboratories in
the forests
have simple
zoning plans
Management
plans and systems
for biodiversity
compatible SNRM
systems are in
place in replication
(pilot) sites
Les contrats de transfert de gestion

(GELOSE) auraient d tre valus par
le Ministre avec lappui du projet, mais
loutil dvaluation navait pas encore t
dvelopp.
Nombre de
structures de
gestion
communautaires
qui mettent en
oeuvre des
mesures durables
et rentables de
gestion des
ressources
naturelles qui
contribuent la
conservation de la
biodiversit dans
chaque
cosystme, en
plus des
communauts
concernes par
les 13 sites de
rfrence de
terrain
valuation
du progrs
Les mesures de gestion des ressources

naturelles sont un des rsultats attendus
des mandats des groupes de
scientifiques et dconomistes pour la
premire anne du projet. Leur travail na
dbut quau dbut de juin 2006.
None of the
baseline
initiatives can
show
ecological or
economic
sustainability.
97
Elements for SNRM approaches which define the

management and/or conservation measures developed
(reports from scientific and economic research) at all 13
reference sites;
Research covers three types of ecosystems: coral reefs,

mangroves and dry and spiny forests; previous GEF review
apparently praises level of scientific quality (have not seen
reference; based on a verbal account); need for well
established peer review process/ technical debate that
informs decision making
A number of critical bottlenecks:

o
urgent need for practical application; currently
level of work not applicable at community level
as is; need to develop a strong strategy of how
to deal with the scientific work, e.g. as input to
STD expert monitoring
o
research not embraced by community members
or other stakeholders (participatory evaluation)
Currently parallel development of NRM approaches

SAGE (community level) versus scientific and economics
group; needs to be brought together;
As already indicated previously, SAGE may not have the

technical know-how for implementation of scientific
rigorous systems; but scientific and economic group does
not sufficiently reach out and serve community level needs
neither; need to identify improved mechanism of delivery
and perhaps institutional arrangement
Pertaining problem that management staff in project does not
fully understand the models envisaged, thus are unable to take
adequate decisions for implementation of next steps; this,
amongst other, has led to the complete stand-still of the
component (application of SNRM systems) (contracts fro
scientific and economic group probably quite rightfully so were
not renewed in July 2007)
valuation
du progrs
Indicateur
Baseline
Targets
Indicateur 15:
Diminution du taux
de perte de
couverture
forestire dans les
zones dappui aux
aires protges
relativement aux
tendances
observes pour la
priode de
rfrence.
Forest cover
loss rates in the
Toliara region
have always
been among
the highest
ones in the
country.
A SNRM system,
that includes a
monitoring and
evaluation
component thus
enabling the
measurement of
coverage, is kept
for each field lab.
(pilot area).
Les groupes de scientifiques doivent

tablir les situations de rfrence pour la
couverture forestire et sa qualit.
[expanded to
ecosystems in
PIR/ impact
indicators above/
apply here too]
No established
criteria for
defining
appropriate
institutions for
SNRM.
Capacity
assessments
are not done in
any organized
fashion
valuation
du progrs
The capacity of
community
institutions for
SNRM are
assessed annually
& modified as
needed.
PIR results assessment too positive/ enthusiastic; does not

reflect May 2008 working reality
Foundation work of scientific/ economics group useful,
however needs a lot of refinement and adaptation for
relevant application esp. at community level
Science foundation fine for technical/ expert surveys; could
be integrated into CTD and capacity building activities for
government and other institutions?
No measures in place yet to support the communities in the
application of SNRM; a close partnership interaction, based
on the structures put into place to be implemented; most
CLB and PF work plans contain elements of CB and the
evaluation visit has allowed for further noting of CB needs
(self identification) with a great number of stakeholders
(annex plans; meeting minutes (not available at time of
evaluation submission)
Various SNRM systems proposed by science and
economics group; should be applied to the development of
the filieres/ NR product based community enterprise
proposed with the scientific and community monitoring and
evaluation (e.g. wood biodiversity products for the 3 forest
reference sites; other community enterprises linked to the
marine ecosystem have been proposed taking the
complexity of the context into consideration (carbon
production problem, illicit wood exploitation, forestry
governance). Other biodiversity product based community
enterprises linked to lagoon ecosystems coexisting in the
reference sites (see site descriptions once forthcoming) as
well as other alternatives (agro forestry) have also been
proposed in order to preserve the ecosystem.
Comments:
13 new reference sites have been proposed by ANGAP within
the Mikea PASZ in view of reinforcing scientific, economic and
socio-organisational support to the development of PA as well as
its conservation.
98
valuation
du progrs
Indicateur
Baseline
Targets
Indicateur 16:
Absence of
reliable
scientific data
on indicator
species
The presence of
indicative species
for the target
ecosystems is
verified.
Presence maintained
for health ecosystem
indicator species on
all field reference
sites.
Les inventaires raliss par les groupes

de scientifiques doivent permettre
lidentification des espces indicatrices
appropries et ltablissement de leur
tat de rfrence dans les sites de
rfrence de terrain.
Prsence ou
absence
despces
indicatrices de la
sant cologique
dans les sites de
rfrence de
GDRN
valuation
du progrs
Indicator species identified by scientists for each of the 13

reference sites (cf. indicator N6)
Is the list provided is practical? Need a peer review /
technical debate mechanism for project work of this nature
Need also proper GdC / KM support here lack of review
of international and other national experiences, which could
greatly enhance the product
Need to compare also with other ongoing work esp. work
already done at ANGAP, as ANGAP will probably, together
with community and MEEFT/DREEFT do monitoring; for
sustainability this element has to be addressed as a matter
of urgency; at this stage it seems that ANGAP has no
ownership of the proposed system
PIR 2007 states: A scientific and community based
monitoring system developed with support from the
communities and fishermen. According to my assessment
we are very far from having such a system
Sub-results 2.4 on wild species (potentially CITES) not
addressed in particular; recommendation could be to
actually leave out for the time being, other than a site
where this comes up as real opportunity

MI
Rsultat 3 Les systmes de gestion participative des aires protges marines et ctires sont amliors grce lintgration des mesures de GDRN
Indicateur 17:
There
are
Co-management
La dlimitation des APMC par lANGAP
Scientific and economic data on ecosystems of the

only
plans
plans for MPAs
nest pas encore complte.
reference sites in the PASZ of the MCPA are available (cf.
Des plans de
developed in
based on the best
Le mandat des groupes de scientifiques
indicator N5 and 6)
gestion
part or draft
scientific and
et dconomistes comprend la fourniture
Needs peer review technical debate; may serve ANGAP to

participative bass
forms.
technical input are
des lments scientifiques qui doivent
improve and develop the conservation and joint
sur les
developed.
servir de fondements aux plans de
management plans of the MCPA with the communities.
connaissances
dveloppement et de gestion.
(PIR too positive)
scientifiques sont
No measures in place yet to support the communities in the

oprationnels pour
application of SNRM; systems not aligned to other tools
toutes les aires
(ANGAP, WWF, WCS), which might, in comparison be
protges marines
more appropriate given the target
et ctires
PIR 2007: Data collected by SAGE for the 2 MCE

reference sites in the PASZ of Sahamalaza/Iles Radama
and Lokobe of the northern area in order to establish jointly
with ANGAP and the communities the guidelines for the
complementarities of the management plans; have not
really seen this
No work currently ongoing; basically since July 2007; lack

of technical guidance; need to ID responsible bottleneck;
currently mainly an ever changing pointing of fingers; e.g.
blocking of GdC/ KM component;
No work recorded/ visible at reference site visited; need to

consult with community meeting notes
Project contributions unclear
99
valuation
du progrs
MU
Indicateur
Baseline
Targets
valuation
du progrs
Indicateur 18:
Lefficacit des
zones
prlvement zro
est dmontre par
lvolution dans la
prsence et/ou
labondance
despces
indicatrices des
niveaux
suprieurs de la
chane
alimentaire, telles
les espces
prdatrices de
grande taille de la
famille des
Lutjanidae, au
sein et hors des
zones de pche
One small notake zone

(marginally
functional) was
set up in NosyVe.
At least one notake zone

established
through sciencebased criteria on
optimal size,
spacing, %
coverage & on
socio-economic
criteria is
established for
each local
community-based
management unit.
Les zones prlvement zro nont pas

encore t dlimites.

I
Rsultat 4 La production de connaissances amliore lefficacit de la gestion des ressources naturelles Madagascar
100
valuation
du progrs
Scientific and economic data of the 10 marine and coastal

ecosystems reference sites are available although they
must be completed.
Needs peer review technical debate; may serve ANGAP to
improve and develop the conservation and joint
management plans of the MCPA with the communities.
(PIR probably too positive, as there are no indications of
application of research)
No further work undertaken since July 2007; who would be
responsible to discuss with ANGAP?
X-ref indicator 15: According to ANGAP, the current
reference sites are not sufficiently representative to provide
scientific, economic and socio-organisational data.
Therefore ANGAP has proposed new reference sites for
Sahamalaza/Iles Radama (just recently has been officially
inaugurated) and the MCPA of Toliara/Nosy-Ve where the
delimitation is currently underway (expected completion by
end of 2008; relevant motivation to be included/ workshop
item (decisions on sites/ priorities) . In the RNI Lokobe the
status is currently evolving towards a MCPA with the
marine component extended to Nosy Tanikely.
Any no take zone implemented?
Systems not aligned to other tools (ANGAP, WWF, WCS),
which might, in comparison be more appropriate ; project
contributions not clear at all
I
Indicateur
Baseline
Targets
Indicateur 19:
A fairly large
number of field
practitioners
are working on
SNRM
throughout the
country, but
without
systems which
are organized
for knowledge
generation and
sharing
A national facility
for collecting,
analyzing, and
distributing SNRM
related knowledge
for practitioners
and decision
makers is
established &
effective.
La composante Gestion des

connaissances du projet a t confie au
bureau dtudes MC2S/Galaxie
Consulting en novembre 2005. Leur
contrat a t rsili en juillet 2006, en
raison de rsultats jugs insatisfaisants.
Linventaire des connaissances lies la
GDRN Madagascar doit tre complt
par les autres groupes impliqus dans le
projet.
Un systme de
gestion des
connaissances
permet de
rassembler et
danalyser les
informations
conomiques,
cologiques,
sociales et
techniques
relatives la
GDRN pour les
principaux
cosystmes de
Madagascar.
Indicateur 20:
Suffisamment
dinformations et
de connaissances
sont accumules
pour permettre de
transposer les
approches
permettant de
concevoir des
mesures de
gestion durable et
rentable des
ressources
naturelles dans
les principaux
cosystmes
naturels de
Madagascar.
Inadequate
knowledge on
sustainable
natural
resource
community
based
management
among the
stakeholders
at various
levels,
regarding the
coral reefs, the
lagoons, the
spiny forests,
the
mangroves,
and the other
natural
ecosystems in
Madagascar.
valuation
du progrs
Ltude sur la situation actuelle de la

GDRN effectue par le bureau dtude
prsente lvolution du concept de
gestion environnementale Madagascar,
avec une approche historique. Cette
analyse ne rpond pas aux besoins
spcifiques du projet. Les connaissances
actuelles disponibles auprs des
institutions qui contribuent la
production de connaissances sur la
GDRN dans les zones I et II (Universits,
institutions de recherche, services et
directions administratifs, ANGAP, SAGE,
WWF, WCS, et le PSDR) ont t
values. Une information succincte est
fournie sur les capacits des institutions
collecter et analyser des donnes,
grer des documents et sur leurs
utilisateurs. Les documents concernant
la GDRN sont recenss (rfrence,
rsum, emplacement) en fonction des
sites de rfrence pour lesquels les
informations sont pertinentes.
A national network
of SNRM
practitioners and
information/database
managers is
identified and
established
Les enqutes ralises par

MC2S/Galaxie Consulting auprs des
maisonnes et des associations locales
(VOI) ont permis de
mieux connatre leurs perceptions
sur les causes fondamentales de la
dgradation des ressources,
contribuer documenter les impacts
des transferts des droits de gestion
valuer de manire succincte la
mise en uvre des plans de gestion
locaux
mettre jour les connaissances des
pressions sur les cosystmes dans
les sites de rfrence de terrain
identifier les acteurs impliqus
localement dans la GDRN.
101
No work done at all; apparently services of initial firm

commissioned unsatisfactory (I had asked to have a look at
it, but have not had access to their work at this stage);
since 2007 blockage of recruitment apparently because
UNDP NY office had procurement problems (not advertised
internationally)
PIR 2007: Validation of terms of reference of the entity in
charge of knowledge management has been achieved.
I saw a set of ToRs (which apparently were not the latest,
but the only one I was given), and they were really terrible;
outputs requested from the full consultancy are 12 reports!
This reflects the difficulty of management at top level and
needs to be addressed as matter of urgency
Revert to GdC TORs in Prodoc, which describes expected
work quite well; also: recommendations in various UNDP
mission reports and initial evaluation; why were these
previous recommendations not implemented/ responded
to?
Recommend to split into several contracts (see details
under Strategic Theme B); certain work elements should
be retained as responsibility of project management unit, to
ensure that team takes ownership and is well informed (i.e.
used as management tool)
Input elements e.g. on knowledge baseline, information
and knowledge and CBN needs; certain quick instruments
such as photo library, reference site descriptions, overview
maps, brochures; some examples of international work etc.
provided through this evaluation (references)
PIR 2007: The SNRM models and the data collected by

scientists and economists are shared by all stakeholders and
partners in the project. (Through regional and national
workshops and sent to partners and beneficiaries).
This information and knowledge are brought together by SAGE
and shared with local stakeholders through support to the
development of the Communal Development Plan and the GIZC
(Integrated Coastal Management plan).
The recruitment process for an institution which will consolidate
a national network of SNRM is currently underway
PIR information very positive; none of the above really

rings true based on the evaluation; although some data
and information sharing effects have taken place there is
absolutely no ownership of the work on the local and
regional level, not even national
Almost one year after PIR 2007 finalisation recruitment

process is still underway
None of the sub-results has been addressed (4.1 or 4.2)
valuation
du progrs
Indicateur
Baseline
Targets
valuation
valuation
du progrs
du progrs
MS
HI
Rsultat 5 Le partage des connaissances relatives la GDRN auprs des parties prenantes contribue amliorer lefficacit et la durabilit de la gestion
Indicateur 21:
No basic
An information
Les connaissances traditionnelles des
PIR 2007: First step is achieved:
survey has
management
diffrents acteurs impliqus dans la
The results of the research and work produced for the
% de praticiens de
been
system for sharing
gestion des ressources naturelles dans
development of sustainable natural resource management and
la GDRN qui sont
conducted,
knowledge on
les sites de rfrence de terrain sont
use are shared and explained to regional and local authorities,
satisfaits des
and there is no
SNRM with SNRM
values par SAGE.
ANGAP and decentralized state services at the regional
connaissances
appropriate
practitioners is
workshops. The electronic version of the results (CD) is offered
gnres et
formal training
established &
to allow their use at all levels.
partages.
provided in
functional.
Unfortunately I found no evidence of the above; this can be

Madagascar
Possibility of
so as the PIR was produced at the time when the results
with regard to
quantifying the
were just forthcoming and now almost a whole year without
the
ecological and
any follow-up has passed; the participatory evaluation
development
socioeconomic
sessions make no mention of the work, but if prompted
of SNRM
impacts of the
people remember the work and the feedback sessions
models
sustainable
Sustainability serious concern

management of
Refer to evaluation points under Result 4; lack of GdC/KM

natural resources
team etc.
A multistakeholder,
knowledge sharing
communication
strategy is
completed.
Indicateur 22:
No survey has
Mainstreaming of
Les dossiers destins aux dcideurs et
No explicit work done (GdC/KM); no policy briefs, although

% de
been
SNRM objectives
aux responsables de politiques nont pas
evaluation process IDs key issues that have been
responsables de
conducted, but
in the strategy
t prpars puisque les contributions
addressed at local level and should be discussed at
politiques et de
findings reveal
documents for the
des scientifiques et des conomistes
various levels
dcideurs qui ont
inadequacy of
development of
pour lidentification des enjeux de GDRN
Technical debate urgently needed

une
communicatio
the country
ntaient pas disponibles.
However, work of SAGE at local/ regional level and certain

comprhension de
n on SNRM
Aucune enqute na encore t mene
interactions with various project staff and associates has
base des
towards
Eight policy briefs
sur le niveau de comprhension des
led to some level of awareness on project (see from
questions de
decision and
prepared each
dcideurs et responsables de politiques
participatory evaluations)
GDRN.
policy makers
year on key issues
sur les enjeux de GDRN.
related to SNRM.
The estimated
number of policy &
decision-makers
reached thro a
variety of
communications
media increases
each year.
HI
HI
Note: Les progrs du projet sont valus selon les indices suivants : HS - hautement satisfaisant, S - satisfaisant, MS - marginalement satisfaisant, MI - marginalement insatisfaisant, I - insatisfaisant, HI
- hautement insatisfaisant
102
ANNEX 10: Knowledge/Awareness baseline concept

Why is it important to establish what people know and what not?
It is important to establish the level of understanding and knowledge amongst project partners prior to engaging in
project activities. This is particularly so for three reasons:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
to be able to develop well suited awareness raising and capacity development interventions, targeted
specifically at knowledge gaps and needs and specific target groups,
to establish a knowledge baseline and a Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) plan, which would allow
measurement of improvements i.e. based on the project interventions (i.e. several project indicators
esp. under outcomes 4 and 5 would require a baseline assessment), and
to pace project interventions in line with the awareness and capacity building activities that are really
needs based.
In the context of the PA-PASZ project, it is proposed to utilise the transcripts of the intensive recent evaluation visit
to a majority of project intervention areas as a basis to establish a knowledge baseline for the project. The
meeting minutes and existing workplans e.g. of the various platforms should suffice to develop a sounds
communication strategy, that would entail awareness raising and capacity building aspects (capacity building is
further dealt with in ANNEX 11). The PMU should be responsible for documenting the discussions and integrate
them into work under Knowledge Management outcomes.
103
ANNEX 11: Capacity needs self-assessment elements concepts

Similarly to the recommendation made in ANNEX 10, it is suggested that the PMU use existing information from
the systematic evaluation field visits and from existing workplans of platforms and other entities to draft elements
for a systematic capacity building programme for the project. A good amount of unanalysed and underutilised
information is available to complete such an important task and no further field visits my be required to actually
come up with a useful framework. The self-assessment component has been very strong both at local and
regional levels. Additional useful support information can be gathered from various reports from SAGE.
104
ANNEX 12: Draft brochure concepts (for decision makers; project

promotional)
Two layouts for a brochure were developed and discussed with regional representatives. In the following the draft
design for AP 2 Toliara/Nosy Ve is included. The brochures would target decision makers and provide an overview
of each of the four project pilot AP-ZAAPs. They further communicate the overall project concept.
They are a practical example of communication activities that the PMU can spearhead.
105
106
107
108
109
ANNEX 13: Photo library concept

During the field consultations more than 600 photographs are taken to support the communication strategy for the
project. A photo library is an essential ingredient for a strong communication component. Currently all
photographs are uploaded on the internet at the below links, using PICASSA freeware. The PMU should establish
an own databank and PICASSA account, label all photographs and make them available to all project
stakeholders. The databank should be systematically expanded with contributions from all interested project
partners.
You are invited to view Juliane's photo album: Madagascar Nord

Madagascar Nord
Northern Madagascar - Lokobe & Salamazhe APs and Zaaps May 5, 2008
by Juliane
UNDP GEF project mid-term evaluation northern pilot areas May 2008
View Album
Play slideshow
If you are having problems viewing this email, copy and paste the following into your browser:
http://picasaweb.google.ca/juliane.zeidler/MadagascarNord?authkey=BPjoRAc5__M
To share your photos or receive notification when your friends share photos, get your own free Picasa Web Albums account.
You are invited to view Juliane's photo album: Madagascar Sud

Madagascar Sud
Southern Madagascar - Tulear May 13, 2008
by Juliane
>From southern field trip May 2008 UNDP GEF evaluation mission; photos by Teddy &
Juliane
View Album
Play slideshow
If you are having problems viewing this email, copy and paste the following into your browser:
http://picasaweb.google.ca/juliane.zeidler/MadagascarSud?authkey=xXXsMdRXrv0
To share your photos or receive notification when your friends share photos, get your own free Picasa Web Albums account.
110

UNDP-GEF Madagascar Mid-Term Evaluation - FINAL DRAFT 230608

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

UNDP-GEF Madagascar Mid-Term Evaluation - FINAL DRAFT 230608

Uploaded by

Copyright:

PA-PASZ CONCEPT (Protected Areas & PA Support

Conducted for: UNDP

Acronyms and terms

Association Nationale pour la Gestion des Aires Protges

Level of outcomes3/Niveau de rsultat

Establishment of stakeholder participatory

Some important background work undertaken,

Some important background work undertaken,

Identification of key implementation bottlenecks, which have led to slow progress in

1.3. Methodology of the evaluation

WB : +/- US$9 Mio (GEF) (plus UNDP:US$4,5 Mio (GEF) &

Two subsidiary development objectives (as specified in EP3)

1.3 Improved application/implementation of SNRM policies through effective

See PIRs 2006 and 2007.

5.2 Un systme dlaboration et de distribution de dossiers pour informer les principaux

2.4.2 Intervention design & stakeholders

2.4.3 Institutional arrangements

Regional and local level implementation

2.4.4. PA-PASZ level intervention design (local level)

3. Findings and Conclusions

Table 2. Progress of project according to its overall objective (11 indicators)

Progress at 31 Mai 200810

SNRM not part

A number of key achievements have been made with

SAGE, an association established during PE2 in

Overall implementation capacity of CTD (Extension

Local level (CLB) conservation plans integrated into

No specific data was made available during the

However, overall notion is that conservation efforts

Additional indicators 4.a and 4.b proposed in PIR 2007

No monitoring/assessment data available after June

A key problem pertaining in the project is that most AP

A solid and well performing system of SNRM

Progress at 31 Mai 2008

Indicator values were established in PIR 2007 based

No monitoring/assessment data available after June

The quality of the indicator and the set baseline should

Established/ proposed system seems to be

Indicator values were established in PIR 2007 based

No monitoring/assessment data available after June

The quality of the indicator and the set baseline should

Established/ proposed system seems to be

Indicator values were established in PIR 2007 based

No monitoring/assessment data available after June

The quality of the indicator and the set baseline should

Established/ proposed system seems to be

Indicator values were established in PIR 2007 based

No monitoring/assessment data available after June

Reference to work of economic group during

Progress at 31 Mai 2008

Progress data in terms of % not provided during

No knowledge / awareness baseline has previously

Overall it is noted that the KM component has not been

Progress data in terms of % not provided during

Progress data in terms of % not provided during

A solid and well performing system of

PFIR/PFR strong multi-stakeholder

A number of relevant development

The progressive incorporation of

Conflict management training has

Some progress with application of

A great number of tangible

Overall evaluation of Outcome 1

Baseline and targets established in PIR 2006

None of the baseline

Forest cover loss rates in