ii
MADAGASCAR
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, OF WATERS AND FORESTS
Terminal evaluation
UNDP/GEF UNDP/TRAC components
Madagascar Second Environmental Program
MAG/96/G31 & MAG/97/003 Projects
Antananarivo, July – August 2003
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AGERAS Appui à la Gestion Régionale et à l'Approche Spatiale
AGEX Agence d'Exécution
AGIR Appui à la Gestion de l'Environnement à travers des Instruments Régionalisés
ANAE Association Nationale d’Actions Environnementales
ANGAP Association Nationale pour la Gestion des Aires Protégées
CAPE Composante d’Appui aux Aires Protégées
CFE Comité de Fonds pour l'Environnement
CFSIGE Centre de Formation aux Sciences de l'Information Géographique et de l'Environnement
CIME Comité Interministériel sur l'Environnement
CGP Coordination Générale des Projets
CI Conservation International
COS Comité d’Orientation et de Suivi
CNE Comité Natonal pour l'Environnement
CNRE Centre National de la Recherche sur l'Environnement
CTD Comité Territorial Décentralisé
CRADES Comité Régional d'Appui au Développement Economique et Social de la région DIANA
DAP1,2,3 Document d'Appui au Programme 1,2,3
DGE Direction Générale de l'Environnement
DGEF Direction Générale des Eaux et Forêts
DGEP Direction Générale de l'Elevage et de la Pêche
DIREEF Direction Interrégionale de l'Environnement , des Eaux et Forêts
DSRP Document de Stratégie pour la Réduction de la Pauvreté
EAP Environnemental Action Plan
EIS Environnemental Impact Study
EMC Environnement Marin et Côtier
ENP Environmental National Policy
EP I, II, III Environmental Program, phases 1, 2, and 3
FID Fonds d'Intervention pour le Développement
FIDA Fonds International pour le Développement Agricole
FOFIFA Foibe Fikarohana momban'ny Fampandrosoana
FORAGE Fonds Régional d'Appui à la Gestion de l'Environnement
FTM National Geographic Institute
GEF Global Environment Facility
GELOSE Gestion Locale Sécurisée des Ressources Naturelles Renouvelables
GIS Geographic Information System
GIZC Gestion Intégré des Zones Côtières
GTDR Groupe de Travail pour le développement Rural
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development
ITF Interimary Trust Funds
IUCN The World Conservation Union
JIRAMA Jiro sy Rano Malagasy ( Electricité et Eaux de Madagascar )
KFW Kreditanstalt Fur Wiederaufbau
MDS Multi-Donor Secretariat
MECIE Mise En Compatibilité des Investissements avec l'Environnement
MGHC
MINENVEF Ministère de l'Environnement, des Eaux et Forêts
MIRAY Name of USAID funded project implemented by a Consortium of Pact, CI and WWF
M&E Monitory and Evaluation
NEAP National Environmental Action Plan
NEX National Exécution
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
ONE Office National pour l’Environnement
OP Operational Program
OSF Observatoire du Secteur Forestier
PA Protected Area
PAGE Programme d’Appui à la Gestion de l’Environnement
PAGS Plan d'Aménagement et de Gestion Simplifiée
PAIR
PCD Plan Communal de Développement
PIIGE Politique, Instrument, Information pour la Gestion de l'Environnement
POLFOR/GTZ Projet "Appui à la mise en oeuvre de la Politique Forestière " financé par la Coopération Allemande
PSDR Programme de Soutien au Développement Rural
PTA Plan de Travail Annuel
REF Biodiversité Recherche Environnementale Finalisée sur la Biodiversité
SAGE Services d’Appui à la Gestion de l’Environnement
SILK
SNRM Sustainable Natural Resource Management
TVA Taxe sur les Valeurs Ajoutées
TELMA Telecom Malagasy
UNDP United Nations Development Program
UNOX United Nations
USAID U.S. Agency for International Development
UTR Unité Technique Régionale
VOI Local Base Communities
WCS Wildlife Conservation Society
WWF World Wide Fund for Nature / World Wildlife Fund (US)
WB The World Bank
Table of contents
Executive summary vi
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Purpose and scope of the evaluation 2
1.2 Methodology of the evaluation 2
2 The program and its development context 3
2.1 Program start and duration 3
2.2 Problems that the second phase of the Environment Program seeks to address 3
2.3 Immediate and development objectives 4
2.4 Major stakeholders 4
2.5 Beneficiaries 5
2.6 Expected and Observed Results 5
3 Findings and Conclusions 7
3.1 Project Formulation 7
3.1.1 Country ownership/Driveness 7
Consistency with national environmental and development agenda, and with national/sectoral development plans 7
Outcomes incorporation into national and sector development plans 8
Involvement of country representatives in project identification/planning/implementation 8
Government commitment to the program 8
3.1.2 Implementation approach 9
Logical framework 9
Project adaptation to changing conditions 10
Partnerships in implementation arrangement 10
Changes in project design 10
Overall project management 11
Adequacy of the intervention strategy 12
3.1.3 Stakeholder participation / Public involvement 12
Information dissemination 12
Consultation and stakeholder participation in the design, implementation and evaluation of program activities 13
Stakeholder participation 13
Partnership development between various program stakeholders 13
Compliance with commitments towards local stakeholders and involvement of stakeholders 13
Consulting and seeking for experience, NGOs, community groups, public and private sectors knowledge and skills, and the academic institutions for conception, implementation and assessment of the project activities 14
3.1.4 Potential for replication 14
Knowledge transfer 14
Expansion of demonstration project 14
Capacity building 15
3.1.5 Cost effectiveness 16
Compliance with the incremental cost criteria 16
3.1.6 Linkages between project and other interventions within the sector 16
Partnership strategy 16
3.2 Implementation 18
3.2.1 Financial Planning 18
Actual cost by activity 18
Financial management 19
Quality of financial controls, including reporting, and planning 20
GEF grant and co-financing 20
3.2.2 Monitoring and evaluation 21
Quality of initial M&E plan 21
Effectiveness of implementation 22
Quality and use of relevant impact indicators 22
Lessons learned for the design and implementation of other similar M&E systems 22
3.3 Results 23
3.3.1 Attainment of objectives 23
Development objectives 23
Immediate objectives 24
3.3.2 Sustainability 25
Establishment of financial and economic instruments and mechanisms to maintain benefits beyond GEF assistance 25
Development of policy and regulatory frameworks that further the project objectives 25
Incorporation of environmental and ecological factors affecting future flow of benefits 26
Development of appropriate institutional capacities 26
3.3.3 Raising awareness amongst stakeholders for biodiversity and environment sustainable management 27
Achieving social sustainability by mainstreaming project activities into the economy or community production activities 27
Achieving stakeholders consensus regarding courses of actions on project activities 27
3.3.4 Contribution to upgrading skills of the national staff 27
4 Recommendations 28
4.1 Corrective actions for the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the project 28
5 Lessons learned 30
ii
Executive summary
1. Introduction
An independent evaluation of the UNDP supported components of the second phase of the Madagascar environmental program (EP II) was conducted by an independent team composed of an international consultant and a national counterpart, commissioned by the UNDP Country Office in Madagascar. The present document presents the key findings of their evaluation.
The Environmental Program was elaborated to implement the national Environmental Action Plan in three phases over a period of 15 years. The EP II, executed from 1997 to 2003, had adopted a program approach and was multi-donor funded. The total budget envelope for EP II was 150 000 000 USD. UNDP contributed to EP II with its own resources (TRAC: 1 626 448 USD) and with GEF funds (8 000 000 USD).
The development objectives of the EP II, according to the Staff Appraisal Report – Madagascar Second Environment Program (World Bank, 1996) which applies for EP II, as a whole are: i) reverse current environmental degradation trends and promote sustainable use of natural resources, including soil, water, forest cover, and biodiversity, ii) create conditions for environmental considerations to become an integral part of macroeconomic and sectoral management in Madagascar.
The immediate objectives of the UNDP supported components were initially formulated as:
1. Sustainable development and management of the marine and coastal areas.
2. Regional planning and local management of natural resources
3. Environmental Research / Biodiversity inventory and market-oriented biodiversity sustainable exploitation
4. Elaboration and communication of environmental policies, strategies and instruments.
In February 2002, UNDP support was restructured. The first development objective of EP II was recrafted, referring to “reducing” instead of “reversing” current environmental degradation trends. Immediate objectives were reformulated as follows:
1. Integrated approaches for sustainable development are adopted by the population through the integration of the environmental concerns in the design of regional, inter-communal and communal development plans.
2. Marine and coastal ecosystems potentialities are managed in a sustainable manner.
3. Policies, instruments, and information for an integrated environmental management are elaborated and implemented.
UNDP/GEF initially provided support to three operational EP II components: Support to regional management and spatial approaches (AGERAS); Environmental applied research / Market-oriented sustainable utilisation of biodiversity (REF/Biodiversité); Marine and coastal environment (EMC). UNDP (TRAC funds) provided support to the reinforcement of the institutional and legal framework for the marine and coastal environment, and therefore in support of the operational EMC component. After the reorganization of EP II in 2002, GEF/UNDP support was programmed into institutional and operational components, including the operational activities of the three previous components and of another one, called GELOSE (transfer of resource management rights to local communities). The institutional component refers to “Environmental Policy, Instruments, and Information” and remained under the execution of ONE (National Environment Office).
The mandate of the AGERAS component was to provide support to the development of a decentralized, multi-level participatory planning process (regional or inter-communal, communal, and local base communities) integrating environmental concerns into planning and using geographic/spatial planning tools. The mandate of the Biodiversity component included environmental research and biodiversity inventories, the development of policy and legal instruments for biodiversity and the commercial/market development of biodiversity products. The EMC component was created to develop methods for the management of coastal zone resources, for supporting participatory planning for marine and coastal pilot areas and for reinforcing national policies and strategies for coastal zone management. The GELOSE component related to the implementation of a new law enabling transfers of natural renewable resource management rights to local communities.
2. Ouputs
Elaboration of a national policy and strategies:
§ Finalisation of the national biodiversity strategy
§ National strategy for integrated management of coastal and marine resources
§ National policy for the sustainable development of the coastal zone and implementation of legal texts
§ Framework and strategy for sustainable development and management of the coastal zone
§ Small island management strategy
§ Strategy for the creation of marine and coastal protected areas
Elaboration of legal texts:
§ Intellectual property rights for biodiversity prospecting law (submitted)
§ Application decree of the Environmental Charter relating to the National policy for the sustainable development of the coastal zone
Elaboration of management plans for specific resources or issues:
§ Three pilot models of coastal zone development and management plans
§ Pilot model of no-take zones for reef fisheries (3 voluntary marine reserves)
§ Local management plans for: Mangroves, Tourism, Pollution reduction and prevention
§ Models for the management of pastures, fishery resources, and forest resources
Participatory process for environmental management:
§ Transfer of renewable natural resources management rights to local communities (
§ Creation, development of capacities and/or support to multi-level participatory planning structures (18 regional or inter-communal, communal, and local base communities) integrating environmental issues with economic and social development
§ Elaboration of PCDs (77 Communal development plans)
§ Elaboration of inter-communal or regional priority programs to address territorial environmental questions (15 completed plans)
Development of tools and guides for:
§ the transfer of natural resources management rights,
§ the elaboration of PCD and “green” PCD;
§ the elaboration of simplified planning and management plans.
Pilot approaches to market-oriented sustainable utilisation of biological resources outside protected areas:
§ Production of native silk based on the conservation of an endemic forest species, tapia (Uapacea bojeri) and the re-introduction of an endemic silkworm (Bombyx madagascariensis);
§ Management of raffia (Raphia ruffa) palm stands based on sustainable harvest techniques and respect for market quality standards;
§ Sustainable use and marketing of traditional herbal medicines.
Information system:
§ Development of a biodiversity database on commercially useful species (250 species);
§ Biodiversity inventories for the western dry forest (Mikea forest), two eastern rainforest corridors, raffia palms
3. Development of the national institutional capacity in the field of participatory environmental management
Initially, the National Environment Office (ONE) was the executing agency of EP II. The creation in January 2002 of the NGO SAGE (Service d’Appui à la Gestion de l’Environnement) resulted from the fusion of the operational elements of four (4) components that were previously under the management of ONE. The fusion of the components into SAGE stimulated the process of transferring natural resource management rights to local communities and increased its visibility through its integration with marine and coastal management systems and sustainable biodiversity market development activities, based on participatory planning. This institution functions as a decentralised structure with one central unit and six regional technical units, allowing a better interaction with field operations.
The team is competent, dynamic and highly motivated to move forward. It gathers professionals from diverse horizons covering a range of management disciplines. In a very short time, SAGE has reached a high level of maturity which is demonstrated by their recent initiative to undertake an in-depth business planning process to assure the future of the organization within and beyond the time frame of the environmental program.
The development of national institutional capacities such as SAGE’s promotes the appropriation by the country of its own development, the development of Malagasy institutional memory and increases the benefits from projects experiences. However, SAGE was initially created without a clear vision of its role on the national scene in the environment field and without a clear indication of the timeframe to reach its financial and operational autonomy. Until now, SAGE was fully supported by EPII funds; there is a need to diversify the funding base, and assure the continuation of current operations relying on SAGE expertise. Before the end of EP II support, SAGE must complete a detailed business plan clearly clarifying its long term intervention niche based on its specific strengths and expertise, in order to assure its long term institutional sustainability.
4. Evaluation of objectives achievement
4.1 Development objectives
i) Reverse current environmental degradation trends and promote sustainable use of natural resources, including soil, water, forest cover, and biodiversity (rating: satisfactory)
The EP II has succeeded in slowing down ecosystem degradation trends and biodiversity loss therefore contributing significantly to the achievement of this development objective. This is clearly illustrated by four studies[1] comparing the rates of change of forest cover inside and outside EP II intervention zones, or inside and outside protected areas, using Landsat images between 1993 (or 1994) and 2000. The results of these studies are coherent and indicate that the annual rate of forest loss outside protected areas or outside EP II intervention areas is twice, or more, the rate of forest loss within EP II intervention areas. This is a strong evidence that EP II has globally contributed to the reduction of threats to biodiversity, although a more focused approach would have increased the visibility of the results and made them more tangible.
One of the most powerful effects of the EPII lies with the contractual transfer of renewable natural resources management rights to local communities throughout the country. These transfers of management rights are initiated on demand from local populations. Where carefully structured, and with accompanying capacity building support, the transfers have resulted in the removal of the heaviest pressures on ecosystems (deforestation, tavy fires, bush fires, destructive fishing practices, etc) and in the rehabilitation of degraded sites (reforestation), as agreed with local communities in their contract. Such positive effects have been observed in most sites visited by the Evaluation Team, slowing environmental degradation trends. They result from the local communities’ good will to take the responsibility to preserve the natural resources within their territory, based on their understanding of their dependence upon these resources or of the services they provide. This behaviour and attitudinal change is also a prime result of EPII as well as the inversion of the environmental management approach from repression to enticement. In various sites, transfers of management rights have been accompanied by market-oriented biodiversity utilisation support, which has reinforced the population’s motivation for resource conservation.