You are on page 1of 19

NAME

ZHOU TAISEKWA

COURSE

EXECUTIVE CERTFICATE IN PROGRAMME &

PROJECT MONITORING & EVALUATION MODULE 4 : PRESANTATION OF MONITORING &

EVALAUTION RESULTS.

LECTURER

MR MUPONDA

QUESTION: Write a report on the performance of the CPWC program for presentation to a panel of donors and parliamentarians. In your report you must highlight the CPWC program and the effectiveness of the organisation in achieving its mandate, taking into account the expectations of various stakeholders of the organisation.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank all the people who supported and provided me with all the information necessary for the completion of this report. Special thanks go to all fellow Monitoring and Evaluation students who are in Group Six for providing important technical information that was used to make this document a possibility. I thank my lecture Mr Muponda who also helped me very much with the technical detail pertaining to report writing.

Contents:

Page

Acknowledgements......................................................................................................14 Table of Contents...........................................................................................................2 Executive Summary.......................................................................................................3 Chapter 1 Introduction & Background...........................................................................................5 Project Goal....................................................................................................................7 Objectives.....................................................................................................................11 Chapter 2 Presentation and Analysis of Data...............................................................................13 Chapter 3 Conclusion....................................................................................................................14 Recommendations........................................................................................................17

List of Tables: Table 2.1 Population changes of key species.................................................................2 Table 2.2 Borehole distributions & there Capacity........................................................3 Table 2.3 Total Budget for the last three years..............................................................5

List of Figures: Figure 1 Proportion of land brought under protection.................................................11 Figure 2 Population changes in key species.................................................................13 Figure 3 Community revenue against Reported poaching cases..................................14 Figure 4 Effectiveness of intervention in bringing down poachers..............................17 Figure 5 Comparison of poaching cases to maize crop yield.......................................20 Figure 6 The amount budgeted and used against Activity...........................................21 Figure 7 Variance Budget for water supply.................................................................11 Figure 8 Variance Budget for project housing.............................................................13 Figure 9 Variance Budget for project materials & suppliers........................................14 Figure 10 Variance Budget for landowner education..................................................17 Figure 11 Variance Budget for Total Conservation & Development Project..............20

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is a report on a Communal Areas Management Project for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) project carried out by the Community Parks and Wildlife Conservation (CPWC) on biodiversity conservation in liaison with Forests and Soil Conservation in 2005 to 2010. It was carried out in Gokwe, Gwanda, Beitbridge, Hwange and Muzarabani. It had operated a network of eight national parks, four wildlife reserves, three conservation areas and one hunting reserves which covers about four million square kilometres. The purpose of the report was to evaluate the performance of the CAMPFIRE project on whether; The project was it sustainable? Did it succeed in increasing population of key wildlife species? Did the project succeed in increasing habitats of wildlife species? Did it create a big area of up to 4 million square kilometres of protected area? Did the project improve community and household living standards? Did the project result in increased crop yield? Did the project led to the increase in revenue?

To carry out the evaluation both qualitative and quantitative data collection methods were used. The analysis of the results were on the quantitative data were statistics were made for the data for the collected data. Findings of the report of the evaluation were that the community participation in protecting the key wildlife species was very successful. It was recommended that the intervention have more information collected before the invention of the project so that it will be measured precisely.

Chapter 1 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Project Background

The project was designed to protect the endangered wildlife species from poachers and create a protected area. The wildlife species would be protected so that there would be a increase in the community members crop yield due to decreased damage by the crop yield. The CPWC organisation was created in 2005 with the aim of obtaining the support of communities members in wildlife conservation by allowing them to benefit from the revenues generated from hunting safaris in the hunting reserves. Background to the creation of this organisation, national parks, hunting reserves, wildlife reserves were not protected and the pouching of wildlife by the local communities was rampant resulting in a very huge decline in key species like elephants, tigers, rhinos etc. these wildlife animals would were also breaking into the local communities and destroying and damaging crops especially maize yields. 1.2 Project Goal

The aim of the project was to obtain the support of the community members in wildlife conservation by allowing them to benefit from the revenues generated from hunting safaris in the hunting reserves. 1.3 Objectives: To increase population of key wildlife species To increase maize crop yield To increase revenue To increase participation of communities in wildlife conservation. To improve habitats of wildlife.

Chapter 2: 2.0 PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

Most of the achievements obtained in the biodiversity sector are not easily quantifiable but those quantifiable are presented below: 2.1 The percentage of protected land agnaist the target area is shown below:

Figure 1: Proportion of land that was brought under protected areas The project managed to protect a total of 1.3 million square kilometres representing 33% of the total targeted area of 4 million square kilometres in a period of 5 years. 2.2 Changes in the population of key Species Table 1.1 Population changes of key species Species Baseline (2005) Current (2010) Tiger 308 3835 % increase 1145

Elephant Rhino

2456 109

9876 1245

302 1042

Figure 2: Population changes in key species There was a general increase in population of key species. There is a phenomenal increase in tiger population with a percentage increase of 1145 and a least percentage increase in elephant population of 302. 2.3 Improving habitats by sinking boreholes. Table 1.2 Borehole distributions and their capacity by district District Number of boreholes Total capacity (ML) Gokwe 2 62 Muzarabani 3 102 Gwanda 5 117 Hwange 2 40 Beitbridge 3 72 Totals 15 393 A total of 15 boreholes were sunk in the 5 districts with an average capacity 26.2 ML/ borehole. 2.4 Assessing efficiency of the intervention.

Assessingefficiencyof intervention
140 120 100 num of ber pa hingreported oc cs a es 80 60 40 20 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 c munity rev om enue (US ) D y =0.0045x +34.664 R =0.03
2

Figure 3: Shows Number of poaching cases reported against community revenue share. The intervention in improving community participation in wildlife conservation was 3% successful.

Effectivenes of intervention in bring down poaching s ing 16 0 14 0 12 0 10 0 80 60 40 20 0 0 10 20 30

R eported cas es

y =-2.175 +160.5 x 2 R =0.94 37 40 50 60 70

Tim (Months e )

Figure 4: Effectiveness of intervention in bringing down poaching. The intervention in improving community participation in reducing poaching was 94% successful.

2.5 Statistics of yield and reported cases of poaching.

Figure 5: Comparison of reported cases of poaching and crop yield/tonne per year As there was progress in protecting the key wildlife species, there was a marked decrease in the number of reported cases of poaching and also a marked increase in maize yield.

2.5

Project Budget Analysis over the last three years.

Table 1.3: Total budget for the last three years. 2008 2009 2010 Actu Budg Actu Budg Actu Budg Total Total al et al et al et Actual Budget 1000 Field staff salaries 8000 0 8000 8000 4000 4000 20000 22000 Project Housing 6900 6000 5800 5000 4600 5000 17300 16000 Water Supply 5000 3000 5000 4000 4000 3000 14000 10000 Landowner Education 2000 2000 3000 5000 0 3000 5000 10000 School Fees Subsidies 2000 2000 0 0 0 0 2000 2000 Project Travel 0 0 2000 1000 1000 1000 3000 2000 Project Materials 2000 2000 2000 2000 0 3000 4000 7000 Total 259 2500 258 2500 136 1900 65300 69000

Conservation

00

00

00

Am ount ($)

Fi el d

30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0

C t C tre os en 2010 Actual 2009 Actual

st a Pr ff s oj al ec ar La t i nd W Ho es Sc ow ate usi To P ho ne r S ng ta roj ol r up l C ec Fe Ed p on t M es uc ly se a a rv te P Sub tio at ria ro s n io ls je idi n a ct es an nd T d S ra De up ve vp pl l t P ies ro je ct

2008 Actual

Figure 6: Shows the amount in USD against the Activities for actual budget.

Table 1. 4 Variance as a percentage of the budget

Field staff salaries Project Housing Water Supply Landowner Education School Fees Subsidies Project Travel Project Materials and Supplies Total Conservation and Development Project

200 8 20 -15 -67 0 0 0 0 3.6

200 9 0 -16 -25 40 0 100 0 -3.2

2010 Total 0 9 8 -8 -33 -40 100 50 0 0 0 100 28.421 05 -50 43 5

Project Housing

200 8 -15 200 8 -67

200 9 -16 200 9 -25

2010 Period 8 -8 Overal 2010 l -33 -40

Water Supply

Landowner Education

200 8 0

200 9 40

Overal 2010 l 100 50

School Fees Subsidies

200 8 0

200 9 0

Overal 2010 l 0 0

200 8 Project Travel 0 200 8 Project Materials and Supplies 0

200 9 100 200 9 0

2010 Total 0 -50

2010 Total 100 43

Total Conservation and Development Project

200 8 3.6

200 9 -3.2

2010 Total 28.421 05 5

Figure 7: Variance Budget for water Supply

Figure 8: Variance Budget for Project Housing

Figure 9: Variance Budget for Project Materials and Suppliers.

Figure 10: Variance budget for Landowner Education.

Figure 11: Graph for Variance Budget for total conservation and development project

Chapter 3: 3.1 Conclusion

The CAMPFIRE project was a success as evidenced by the increase in land under the protected areas. There was a marked progress in protecting about 33% of the total countrys land. The progress was also evidenced by a marked decrease in reported cases of poaching and an increase in average yields of maize in 5 years. There was no proper collection of data for its baseline survey as there was variance in data presentation as shown on key wildlife species were data may be categorised as male and female but in some animals were not specified. The projected achieved its goal of obtaining support from community in wildlife conservation and environment protection and at the same time assisting rural development through sustainable use of wildlife. 3.2 Recommendations:

Monitoring and Evaluation of project should have defined time of conducting it. In these cases probably it should have been done annually to check on the progresses of the project intervention. It should also have a high frequency on the collection of data to improve efficiency on data analysis. In order for monitoring and evaluation to be successful there was suppose to be targets on each intervention so as to check on project success. Baseline data is important for an intervention to be monitored successfully as this will be used to asses impact of the project.