Annexes - Download Now DOC

					              ANNEXES

Evaluation of Programmatic Approaches to
  Support for the Environment in Africa
                 1996-2009
             ANNEX 1
             Terms of Reference
    Evaluation of Programmatic Approaches1 to Support for the
                 Environment in Africa, 1996-2009
1. Background
Danida has provided support within environment since the early eighties. The
support has been given partly as support to environment as a cross-cutting issue;
partly as grants to small scale projects funded by individual embassies or
international NGOs and multilateral organizations working on environmental
issues; and finally through bilateral environmental programmes funded either from
the official bilateral Danish development assistance or from the special
environmental support established in 19932.

While most other donors have tended to treat environment solely as a cross-
cutting issue and/or have supported environment mostly through specific project
interventions, Danida has since the mid nineties delivered a large share of the
environment support through bilateral environmental programmes.

The bilateral environmental programme portfolio during the evaluation period has
comprised three different clusters: a) environmental programmes funded by
ordinary development assistance; b) special environmental support programmes
and finally c) environmental activities taken over by Danida following the
relocation of DANCED activities from the Ministry of Environment to the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs after the change of Government in 2001.

The Environmental Sector Programme Support (ESPS) was initiated in five
countries (Bhutan, Egypt, Nicaragua, Bolivia and Nepal). These programmes were
to be based on the general principles for sector programme support (SPS), which
Danida adopted in 1996. The programmes have had an explicit focus on capacity
development for environmental management at various levels and overall
development objectives have often focussed on the important links between
environment and poverty reduction.

The special environmental support programmes were initially started up as
individual environmental projects under the MIKA/MIFRESTA framework.
1
  The term programmatic approach is used in this paper to denote the attempt by Danida to support environment as a
sector but without necessarily using all the elements of a classical SWAp approach. See further explanation in the text
below.
2 The special environmental assistance was originally known as the MIKA-frame (Miljø og Katastroferammen). From

1993-95, the support was targeted at countries above the threshold for countries eligible for bilateral ordinary
development assistance (ODA) and was administered solely by the Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy. From
1996 onwards, MIKA funds could also be used in countries eligible for ODA and a joint strategy was therefore
prepared with a view to ensure coordination of development assistance and the special environmental support. The
frame was later renamed MIFRESTA (Miljø-fred-stabilitet or Environment, Peace and Stability). From 2002 onwards
all special environmental assistance was transferred to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
From 1998 onwards Environment Support Programmes (ESPs) were developed
covering the special environmental support to Zimbabwe, Malawi, Zambia,
Tanzania and Mozambique in Africa and to Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia in Asia.
The ESPs acted as a frame for the individual projects funded by the special
environmental assistance. The programmes and individual projects under these
have focussed to varying degrees on building up capacity in the field of
environmental management at different levels (national, regional, local) and at the
same time aimed at creating results in terms of reducing environmental
problems/protecting the environment while to some extent taking into account
the poverty-environment link.

The special environmental assistance initiated by Danced covered basically
middle-income countries such as Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and South Africa.
These activities were more strictly aimed at promoting improved environmental
management and did not, initially, include a focus on the links between poverty
and environment.

In 2002, the special committee for environmental assistance was abolished and
activities funded under the special environmental assistance have since then
gradually been designed and implemented in accordance with the general rules for
Danish ODA as reflected in the Aid Management Guidelines (AMG; see
www.amg.dk/en). In due time, new programmes funded by the special
environmental assistance have also been initiated e.g. in Kenya (2005).

The portfolio of bilateral environmental programmes has thus been established as
a result of reformulating and merging on-going environmental assistance activities
into programmes of different kinds. Very few programmes were initiated using a
programmatic approach from the very outset, but as old phases of projects and
programmes were phased out, attempts have been made to design the support in a
more programmatic way. This historical development obviously has to be taken
into account in an evaluation of the experience with Danida´s use of
programmatic approaches in the field of environment.

Key elements of the programmatic approach have included:

   a) analysing the national context in which interventions were to take place
      (environmental legislation, institutional set-up, national and local actors)
   b) investigating the possibilities for synergies between activities at different
      levels (policy formulation, enforcement, capacity development at national,
      regional and local levels) and between different sectors and
   c) investigating possibilities for implementing activities in the field of
      environment using national systems and in cooperation with other
      development partners (i.e. increasing alignment and harmonisation).

In the environmental sector support programmes one major distinction for a
programme was the presence of an overall programme steering committee,
programme monitoring frameworks as well as a common strategy for the
implementation of the components of the programmes. The strategy often
referred to a specific approach to capacity development defined according to
DAC´s principles for capacity development in the environment as well as to a
clear sustainable livelihood/poverty reduction approach.

The first Danida guidelines on Sector Programme Support (SPS) were built on the
assumption that the principles of the SPS-guidelines would be applicable to all
different types of sectors. Experience has shown, however, that the principles in
the SPS-guidelines can be more easily used in some sectors than in others. In the
case of environment, the application of the SPS-approach has represented a
number of special challenges. The present evaluation poses an opportunity to
assess the experience gained from using and adapting the SPS-principles to an area
(environment) with special characteristics and challenges (multi-sectoral by nature,
many different institutions and stakeholders, and different levels of political
support).

The experience with the use of a more programmatic approach in the field of
environment by Danida has so far not been subject to evaluation. Meanwhile,
substantial amounts of funds and efforts have been invested in the bilateral
environmental support (see Annex 1 for an overview of allocations to bilateral
environmental support to African partner countries made between 1996 and
2009). This represents in itself a justification for analyzing the experience gained.

Relevant evaluations of Danish development assistance include the general
evaluation of Environment and Development (1996/2) and two evaluations of the
special environmental assistance to Southern Africa and Southeast Asia 3. Sector
support to the environment has also been evaluated as part of country programme
evaluations (Bolivia 2002/2, Nicaragua 2002/7 and more recently in Mozambique,
2008/5). Recent evaluations by other donors (such as UNDP, the World Bank,
IOB etc.) of environmental support also provide valuable information on the
approaches taken by other donors and on lessons learned.

A large body of reviews, PCRs and lesson learned papers on individual projects
and programmes supported by Danida (in Africa and elsewhere) is available and
will provide important background information for the evaluation. Two reviews
of a more cross-cutting nature should also be mentioned: the 2005 review by the
Danish Institute for International Studies on the experience with integration of
environment as a cross-cutting issue in Danish bilateral assistance and the
thematic review from 2009 conducted by the Technical Advisory Services and
focussing mainly on results obtained within the field of environment during the
period 2004-2008.

The current strategy for support to the environment (Danida, 2004) expired in
2008 and development of a new strategy will take place after the high-level
meeting on climate change (COP15) in Copenhagen in December 2009.

3
 Danida´s Environmental Assistance to Southern Africa (2000/7) and Danida´s Environmental Assistance to
Southeast Asia (2003/6).
Against this background, the Evaluation Department (EVAL) in Danida has
decided to initiate an evaluation of the experiences to date related to the use of
programmatic approaches in the field of environment4.

Consultations have been initiated with relevant partner countries on the
possibilities to conduct the evaluation as a joint exercise. Efforts will also be made
to involve other development partners (bilateral and multilaterals) in the
evaluation process e.g. during country field work and/or evaluation workshops.


2. Evaluation Framework
An evaluation of all Danida supported environmental programmes would be an
immense and very difficult task to accomplish due to the differences, both in
circumstances and approach between the various activities. At the same time,
support to development processes in Africa is a high priority of the Danish
government. It has therefore been decided to focus the present evaluation on
experience to date with the application of the programmatic approach to support
in the field of environment on Africa. Experience from elsewhere may be
included, however, as part of the background for evaluating the experience gained
so far and to put the experience from the African partner countries into
perspective.

Two areas will be specifically looked upon, and the OECD/DAC evaluation
criteria as well as the 3Cs (see below) will be applied in the detailed analysis of
these main areas. The focus on selected areas is intended to help Danida and its
partners in development understand the possible value added of using a
programmatic approach in environment support in contrast to focussing only on
a) a project-by-project approach and b) environment as a cross-cutting issue – and
to help foster discussions on how bilateral environmental programming in African
partner countries can become more effective in the future.

3.      Main Purpose

The main purpose of the evaluation is:

      To analyse achievements (results and where possible also impact) and
       challenges from the use of programmatic approaches in the field of
       environment in Danish partner countries in Africa during the period 1996-
       2009 in view of the various challenges (environmental and developmental)
       faced by the countries, and promote lesson learning for future strategies on
       and implementation of environmental support.

4.    Evaluation Focus and Key Questions


4
 Climate change activities will be covered to the extent that such activities have been taken up within the
environmental programme portfolio.
The evaluation will focus on the following areas:

     Results, challenges and experiences linked to the implementation of
      programmatic approaches in the field of environment given the cross-
      sectoral nature of the sector, including lessons learned on the use of
      different modalities (basket funding, project support, use of national
      systems vs. parallel implementation units, linking field experience with
      policy development etc.).

     Capacity development, in particular development of environment and
      natural resource management institutions at central, regional and local
      level, which has been a major component in many bilateral environmental
      programmes in African partner countries.

By focusing on these issues, the evaluation should be able to examine the impacts
of using different delivery mechanisms in the field of environment, and thereby
provide inputs to the upcoming formulation of a new Danida environment
strategy. In view of the up-coming formulation of a new environment strategy, the
evaluation will i.a. analyze the added value of using different forms of
programmatic approaches to support in the field of environment in addition to
the support for environmental safeguards in (other) sector specific programmes5.


Table 4.1 Proposed Key Evaluation Questions

Overall Evaluation Question:

What have been the key lessons learned from the attempts made by Danida to use a
more programmatic approach in the field of environment and natural resource
management in Africa during the period from 1996-2009? Has the approach been
relevant and effective in creating results (and possibly impact) taking into account the
main challenges in the field of environment faced by the partner countries? What value
added, if any, has the intended use of a more programmatic approach had? Against this
background: what recommendations can be made for the future direction of support in
the field of environment and natural resources management?

Specific evaluation questions:

What results (outputs, outcomes and to the degree possible, impacts) have been achieved
from the interventions in the evaluated programmes? And what were the mechanisms of
change that helped created the results, if any?

What special challenges have occurred in the application of the programmatic approach
to the support in the field of environment and natural resource management? Which
drivers and movers have helped move the environmental agenda at country level?

5
 Environment has been a cross-cutting issue in Danish development assistance since the 1980es and to date all
SPSes and other major programmes are subject to an environmental screening procedure. See guidelines for
environmental screening at www.amg.um.dk/en (see under „environmental guide‟).
What has been the experience with the use of different modalities (basket funds, projects,
sector budget support etc) within the programmatic approach as applied in different
environmental programmes? What have we learned about the cost-effectiveness and
possible sustainability of different modalities?


What lessons can be learned from the support to capacity development in the field of
environment at central, regional and local levels?

Have the considerable investments in capacity development resulted in the creation of an
improved framework for environmental management and other results with respect to
capacity development in line with the DAC definition on CDE ? Are environmental laws
and regulations being enforced and if not, why not?

Have the investments in capacity development in environment helped reduce
environmental problems and poverty among the poor?



5. Approach and Methodology
The evaluation will be carried out in accordance with the Danida Guidelines for
Evaluation (MFA/Danida, 2006) and the OECD/DAC Evaluation Quality
Standards. The guidelines require, inter alia that a sound methodology for all
evaluations be used and explained in the evaluation report. The purpose of the
methodology, and the basis on which its soundness is assessed, is to produce
reliable data that allow for valid evaluative judgments that are useful for learning
and decision making.

The evaluation can in some ways be considered a „thematic‟ evaluation, i.e. with a
focus on delivery mechanisms. The delivery of aid is evaluated in terms of the
efficiency by applying a programmatic approach in the development assistance, in
particular in regards to capacity development and decentralisation. The evaluation
should provide knowledge regarding the effectiveness of programmatic
approaches in the field of environment, that is, the degree to which the objectives
have been achieved. In order to thoroughly assess the linkages between the
programmatic approach and the specific achievement of objectives, the
methodology is expected to include aspects of theory-based evaluation, outlining
the programme theory and investigating whether and how the delivery
mechanisms and the results chain (outputs, outcomes and to the degree possible,
impacts) have functioned as expected.

The methodological approach of the evaluation is expected to include the
following main elements:

    Literature review to place the evaluation into context: Review of existing
     best practice papers and evaluations in the field of environment as well as
     of policy papers and other types of documentation by other development
          partners on their approach and experience with environmental support
          (benchmarking).

      Review of the historic development of the Danida support in the field of
       environment, considering the different strategies for environmental
       support, and development of the programmatic approaches since the start
       of the programming activities in 1996 using both literature and key
       informants as a basis for the assessment. Main emphasis will be on the
       period from 2004 onwards.

      Extensive literature review and analysis in order to extract lessons learnt
       and best practices as well as documentation/information regarding results
       achieved from the programme activities in selected programme countries
       (see below). The literature review will include programme documents,
       reviews and completion reports, RAMs, relevant technical reports, etc.

      Interviews with key informants, including Danida staff (HQ and field)
       involved in environmental programming (development and
       implementation) during the evaluation period.

      Review and analysis of the development and objectives of the programmes
       in the selected programme countries as well as of the programme theory
       behind these taking into consideration various challenges faced by the
       partner countries (environmental and developmental challenges to be
       considered). Main focus will be on the three countries selected for field
       work (Egypt, Tanzania and Zamiba), but experience from Mozambique,
       Kenya and South Africa should also be considered (based on existing
       documentation and interviews with key informants in these countries).

      Field work6 in three a priori selected African countries. The three countries
       selected are Egypt (started as SPS programme under ordinary ODA in
       2001), Tanzania and Zambia (where special environmental support was
       initiated in 1999 and 2003 respectively). The field-work will beside from
       analysing the actual implementation and achievements of the
       programmatic activities, also analyse the differences in the approach, and
       benchmark the results from each country.

      Analysis of lessons learned and write-up of draft evaluation report taking
       into considerations the findings from both literature review and field work.

      Stakeholder workshop in an African partner country bringing together a
       broad range of representatives from interested partner country agencies
       (including both government representatives, NGOs and private sector
       representatives); selected development partners etc. The aim of the

6
 Field work is expected to include both interviews at central level (with ministries and other relevant stakeholders)
and visits to relevant locations where decentralised environmental support has been ongoing.
       workshop will be two-folded: a) to give feed-back to the evaluation team
       on the key findings, conclusions and recommendations and b) to discuss
       how the evaluation can be utilized in ongoing and future implementation
       of environmental support and in relevant strategy development processes.

    Write up of final evaluation report and participation in dissemination
     workshop in Copenhagen.

If deemed feasible, a broader e-mail survey covering selected partner countries
where the programmatic approach has been applied, but where field work will not
be carried out, could be included in the evaluation design. The survey should
focus on experience with the formulation and review processes, the benefits of
programming in the field of environment etc.

The methodological approach shall ensure that the following topics are addressed
in depth:

    The possible value added of using the programmatic approach to improved
     environmental management taking into account the interactions (possible
     synergies as well as issues of potential or actual conflict) between national,
     regional and local levels.

    Extent to which analysis of different stakeholder interests have formed
     part of the background for the planning of specific interventions (context
     analysis, political economy of the environment).

    Experience with development of decentralised environmental
     management, in particular with respect to capacity development of
     decentralised environment institutions, and key lessons learnt from
     integrating environmental concerns into ongoing decentralisation and
     other reform processes (e.g. environmental taxing).

    Achievement of intended outputs, outcomes and results linked to both
     capacity development and specific environmental activities - and
     whether/how this can be related to the applied modalities in
     programmatic approaches, e.g. sector budget support, basket funding, co-
     financing, use of Government financial and administrative systems etc.

    Extent to which the Danish funded support to environment has made a
     difference in the selected partner countries – and if so, elaborate on how
     and why the changes were brought about.

    Extent to which programmes have used national financial systems and
     implementation mechanisms (as opposed to parallel systems) and extent to
     which government/national ownership and sustainability of programme
     activities have improved as a result of the use of programmatic approaches.
         Be cautious about the differences between government ownership and a
         broader national ownership.

     Analyse whether the use of programmatic approaches have resulted in
      improved environmental management and development of safeguards in
      other sectors.

     Extent to which the use of programmatic approaches has resulted in
      lowering of transaction costs related to delivery of support (e.g. resulting in
      improved division of labour between development partners, reduced
      burden on national agents in terms of planning, monitoring and reporting
      on use of development assistance etc).

     Extent to which the use of a more programmatic approach has resulted in
      better coordination with other Danida programmes and other
      development partners in the field of environment and how such efforts
      can be strengthened in future.

At a more general level, the methodology must ensure that the question of
attribution versus contribution is addressed in a systematic manner. Data
triangulation and validation of information shall be considered in all aspects of the
evaluation.

The analysis of capacity development activities and results should take into
consideration the considerable body of literature on capacity development in
environment developed in the 1990es7 and build i.e. on methodological insights
gained from the development of the framework for evaluation of capacity
development supported by EVAL in the period from 2000-20028.

Lessons learned shall be assessed in terms of explicit criteria and conclusions
provided as to whether the lesson was a success/failure or
improvement/deterioration in the initial environmental conditions (e.g. levels of
emission of toxic substances in the transport sector or changes in forest cover if
the intervention concerned is in the forest sector). Other criteria for success could
link to capacity development (improved performance of mandates of
environmental institutions or of decentralized bodies in environmental
management), reduced tensions among stakeholders or poverty reduction among
groups depending on natural resources for their livelihoods. Crucial is the need to
link (sector specific) conclusions to a given specified criterion.

Inspiration regarding sector specific criteria may be found e.g. in the “best
practice” papers for environmental support development by Danida (see Danida

7
 Including the publication on Donor Support for Institutional Capacity Development in Environment. Lessons
Learned. OECD 2000.

8 Boesen, N. & O.Therkildsen (2005): “A results-oriented approach to capacity change, Danida, Copenhagen.
(http://www.um.dk/NR/rdonlyres/780914AD-A4C4-42C2-8039-8115F4CA0DDB/0/KortCDbriefintro.pdf)
Development Forum at:
http://www.danidadevforum.um.dk/en/menu/Topics/EnvironmentAndSustaina
bleEnergy/Environment/ToolsandReferences/GoodPractices/GoodPracticeNot
es).

The evaluation team shall comment on and develop the methodology further as
part of their proposal (bid) and as part of the inception report. Proposals for
improvements/consolidation of the suggested methodology will be welcomed.


5.    Specific Evaluation Criteria and Questions

The OECD/DAC evaluation criteria (relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impacts,
and sustainability) will be applied. Measuring the impacts of using programmatic
approaches in environment support can be a difficult task. However, given the
focus areas outlined above, it is expected that some lessons learnt can be extracted
on the impact of using programmatic approaches in the field of environment. The
other OECD/DAC criteria are well placed to be applied in this evaluation. In
table 5.1 references are given to Danida guidelines as well as to the OECD/DAC
criteria which should be used to answer the overall evaluation question, and the
more specific evaluation questions.

Although the evaluation should use the OECD/DAC evaluation criteria as
guiding principles for the evaluation, the 3Cs (Coherence, Complementarity and
Coordination) approach for the evaluation9 will also be relevant to the analysis.


Table 5.1. OECD/DAC Evaluation Criteria

    Evaluation        Danida                    Questions in relation to the use of
    Criteria          Guidelines                OECD/DAC criteria in the evaluation.
    Relevance         The extent to               1. Has the development and intermediary
                      which the                       objectives of the programmes been
                      objectives of                   relevant and aligned with Government
                      development                     objectives in the field of environment?
                      interventions are           2. Has the environment programme
                      consistent with the             support been aligned with Government
                      beneficiaries‟                  policies and plans, including overall
                      requirements,                   poverty reduction or development
                      needs, priorities               strategies as well as sector policies and
                      and partners‟ and               plans?
                      donors‟ policies            3. Has the support offered been relevant
                                                      for the development of the national
                                                      framework for environmental
                                                      management?

9The 3Cs approach was developed in the pretext of the Maastricht Treaty by EU member states in 2003
for the evaluation for the EU‟s development cooperation policies and operations.
                                       4. Were the specific component activities
                                           chosen by looking into the State of the
                                           Environment reports or other relevant
                                           review of the priority action to be
                                           taken?
                                       5. Did the environment activities in any
                                           way safeguard activities in other
                                           Danida sector activities?
Efficiency      A measure of how       6. Can increased efficiency by using
                economically               programmatic approaches be
                resources/inputs           documented?
                (funds, expertise,     7. Has the use of a programmatic
                time, etc.) are            approach resulted in reduced
                converted to results       transaction costs? And has the use of
                                           recipient country financial management
                                           systems improved the efficiency in
                                           disbursement of funds etc.?
                                       8. Has any increased use national systems
                                           (incl. local management arrangements)
                                           helped improve the implementation of
                                           the environment programmes,
                                           compared with parallel management
                                           arrangements?
                                       9. Have any shared management systems
                                           with other development partners been
                                           used and have they helped reduce
                                           overlapping of interventions, and
                                           smoother implementation of
                                           programmes?
                                       10. Have the costs of implementing
                                           environment programme activities
                                           been shared with other Danida
                                           activities?
Effectiveness   The extent to          11. Has the application of programmatic
                which the                  approaches reinforced the achievement
                development                of programme development and
                interventions              intermediate objectives?
                objectives were        12. To what degree have intermediate
                achieved, or are           objectives been achieved?
                expected to be         13. Has the use of programmatic
                achieved taking into       approaches in support to the
                account their              environment helped increase
                relative importance        effectiveness, e.g. as a result of more
                                           local ownership?
                                       14. Have the capacity development
                                           activities, centrally and locally resulted
                                           in faster and smoother implementation
                                           of the activities?
                                       15. Was the implementation of the
                                           activities more effective by using
                                           programmatic approaches?
                                            16. Have efforts been made to develop
                                                more coordinated and harmonized
                                                support in the field of environment?
                                                What has been the outcome of such
                                                efforts and have they improved
                                                effectiveness in implementation of aid?
 Impacts          The positive and          17. Has the level of ambition in the
                  negative, primary             development objectives been adequate?
                  and secondary                 To what extent were they targeted on
                  long-term effects             measuring and achieving
                  produced by a                 environmental impacts versus other
                  development                   (e.g. social or economic) impacts?
                  intervention,             18. Have the use of programmatic
                  directly or                   approaches improved environmental
                  indirectly, intended          management at the local and central
                  or unintended                 levels? (attribution vs. contribution
                                                issue to be addressed).
                                            19. Which results and effects of the
                                                programmatic approaches can be
                                                documented both with respect to
                                                improved environmental management
                                                in itself, and to the outcomes and – to
                                                the degree possible – impacts hereof.
                                            20. Any lessons learned on which
                                                modalities provide most “value for
                                                money” in the field of environment?
 Sustainability   The continuation          21. Has the use of programmatic
                  of benefits from a            approaches increased the local
                  development                   ownership, both in terms of sustaining
                  intervention after            the financing of the activities and in
                  major development             terms of integration in the local plans?
                  assistance has been       22. Are there indications of increased
                  completed.                    sustainability as a result of increased
                  Probability of long           use of local management systems and
                  term benefits. The            the offset in Government policies and
                  resilience to risk of         plans?
                  the net benefit           23. Has the use of local financial systems
                  flows overtime                resulted in more local ownership, when
                                                it comes to financing and allocation of
                                                government contributions?


The approach of 3C evaluation is given in the table below, with special emphasis
on evaluation of the use of programmatic approaches in the field of environment.

Table 5.2 3Cs evaluation approach in the field of environment

 3 Cs approach    General                 Questions in relation to the use of 3C criteria in the
                  Description             evaluation
 Coherence        There is non-              1. Has the programme approach ensured
                        occurrence of                       coherence between Danida interventions and
                        effects of policy                   Government policies and plans? Has the
                        [intervention] that                 Danida support been given with due
                        are contrary to the                 considerations to Government contributions in
                        intended results or                 the sense that the ODA has not overfunded
                        aims of policy                      specific programme activities?
                        [intervention]                   2. Priorities of environmental interventions to
                                                            pursue same objectives as development
                                                            programmes, i.e. poverty reduction and
                                                            sustainable economic development.
 Complementarit         There is no                      3. Has programme elements, such as Joint
 y                      overlapping of                      Financing Agreements, basket funding or
                        development                         similar arrangements been developed and have
                        assistance in the                   they enhanced the complementarity and
                        environment sector                  ensured best use of funds? Has comprehensive
                                                            overviews of the environmental support in
                                                            particular countries been established and used
                                                            as a foundation for (joint) planning? If not, why
                                                            not? What difference, if any, has the Danish
                                                            involvement made?
 Coordination           That two or more                 4. Has the programmatic approaches used helped
                        development                         foster increased harmonisation and alignment
                        partners harmonise                  in line with the Paris Declaration and the Accra
                        their policies,                     Agenda for Action (AAA) - over and above
                        programmes,                         what individual projects might have done?
                        procedures and
                        practices so as to               5. Has the coordination between Implementing
                        maximise the                        Agencies and the ODA development partners
                        development                         been improved by the application of
                        effectiveness of aid                programmatic approaches in the field of
                        resources.                          environment?
Source: Adapted from www.three-cs.net. Text in […] is added for clarity.



7. Time Table
The evaluation will be launched as soon as possible after the selection of the
consultancy team and not later than 15 September 2009. The draft evaluation
report shall be ready by mid March 2010.

After launching, a Draft Inception Report will be prepared by the Consultant and
circulated for comments among stakeholders and in the Reference Group. The
final Evaluation Report will be prepared based on comments to the Draft
Evaluation Report from stakeholders, reference group members and the
Evaluation Management.


Table 5.1 Tentative Time-schedule (Process Action Plan)

 Time (tentative)               Action                                     Responsible
 1 October 2009         Launching of evaluation             EVAL
 19 October 2009        Submission of Draft Inception       Evaluation Team
                        Report
 23 October 2009        2ndst meeting in reference group    EVAL, Evaluation
                                                            Team, Reference group
                                                            members.
 30 October 2009        Approval of Final Inception         Evaluation Management
                        Report and Work Plan.
 November 2009 –        Field Work and data analysis,       Evaluation Team
 February 2010          including stakeholder workshops
                        in case countries. Field work in
                        Zambia and Egypt is scheduled
                        for November-December 2009
                        while field work in Tanzania is
                        scheduled for early 2010.
 24 – 25th February     Stakeholder workshop in African     Evaluation Team
 2009                   partner country; discussion of
                        preliminary findings, conclusions
                        and recommendations.
 12 March 2010          Submission of Draft Evaluation      Evaluation Team
                        Report to Evaluation Management
                        Group
 By 16 March 2010       Circulation of Draft Evaluation     EVAL
                        Report
 24 March 2010          3rd meeting of reference group to   Evaluation team, EVAL,
                        discuss draft evaluation report     reference group
                                                            members
 26 March 2010          Deadline for written comments to    Evaluation Management
                        Draft Evaluation Report             Group, Stakeholders,
                                                            Reference Group
 16 April 2010           Submission of Final Evaluation     Evaluation Team
                        Report
 April/May 2010         Presentation of evaluation report   EVAL/MEK/MFA
                        in internal Danida Programme
                        Committee + preparation of
                        management response
 June or                Publishing of the Evaluation        EVAL
 August/September       Report and final dissemination
 2010                   workshop in Copenhagen and
                        possibly in partner countries (to
                        be decided).

8. Composition of the Evaluation Team
The Evaluation Team shall consist of international and regional/local consultants
with experience in evaluation of development assistance (i.e. evaluations that
conform to the DAC evaluation definition).

The organisation of the team‟s work is the responsibility of the consultant and
should be specified and explained clearly in the tender. The Team Leader should
be an international consultant.10 The Team Leader is responsible for the team‟s
reporting to and communication with the Evaluation Management, and for the
organisation of the work of the team. The Team Leader will participate in the
Evaluation Reference Groups‟ meetings and other meetings as required.

8.1 Team Qualifications

The evaluation team should cover the following competencies:

Qualifications of the Team Leader:

      Higher relevant academic degree.
      At least 15 years of relevant professional experience including experience
       from Africa and preferably from at least one of the case countries.
      Extensive experience in evaluation of development assistance (three to five
       references). Proven capacity to lead complex evaluations (one or more
       references)
      A profile with major emphasis on either a) institutional aspects, or b)
       technical issues related to environment
      Extensive working knowledge on development assistance policies and
       delivery systems (including strategies of harmonisation and alignment, etc.)
       preferably from Africa.
      Preferably references with experiences in relation to the use of
       programmatic approaches in ODA programming.
      At least three references as team leader for multi-disciplinary teams
      Preferably experience with international development assistance in
       environment
      Fluent in English

The tender shall include four other team members in addition to the team leader:
one international consultant and three regional/local consultants.

Qualifications of the international team member:

      Relevant higher academic degree.
      At least 5 years of relevant professional experience including experience
       from Africa and preferably from at least one of the case countries.
      A profile with major emphasis on either a) institutional aspects, or b)
       technical issues related to environment (if the team leader profile has a
       main emphasis on a) then the international team member should have a
       profile with emphasis on b) and vice versa).

10
    „International consultants‟ are defined as persons with an international background, i.e. a degree from an
internationally recognised university and professional experience from assignments within developing and developed
countries.
    At least three relevant references within the professional task assigned
    Knowledge of development assistance policies, strategies and aid
     management and preferably experience in evaluation of development
     assistance.
    Fluent in English

Qualifications of the regional/local consultants:

    Relevant higher academic degree.
    At least 5 years of relevant professional experience
    Extensive experience from at least one of the three case countries (all
     countries to be covered by the three regional/national consultants)
    A profile on institutional or technical issues related to environment (e.g.
     urban environment, water and sanitation, environmental law, natural
     resources or similar).
    At least three relevant references within the professional tasks assigned to
     each team member
    Knowledge of development assistance policies, strategies and aid
     management and preferably experience in evaluation of development
     assistance.
    Fluent in English

Specific qualifications to be covered by at least one and preferably more of the
team members:

    Extensive experience related to the use of programmatic approaches and
     sector wide approaches in the field of environment. Experience from the
     use of programmatic approaches in other sectors, e.g. water and agriculture
     will be appreciated, as well as the use of sector wide approaches in other
     donor programmes.
    Knowledge of organisational capacity development in environment in
     particular in relation to building of environmental institutions and legal
     frameworks at national level, including experience with the use of technical
     assistance and training at country, programme and sector levels.
    Knowledge of decentralised environmental management. Experience
     should be documented on building of environmental institutions at
     decentralised levels and linkages between the local levels and the national
     institutions.
    Knowledge of financial management and the use of recipient country
     financial management systems. Experience in relation to the application of
     bloc grants and other decentralised financial management systems should
     also be documented. The team should also have experience in relation to
     the use of other financial management systems, such as batch funding
     arrangements, co-financing, budget support, etc.
    Experience with private sector engagement in environment management,
     in particular in relation to private public partnership arrangements,
     outsourcing, the use of voluntary systems (economic instruments, cleaner
     technologies etc.).

The tenders should clearly state what qualifications are covered by the proposed
team members.

9. Other Tender Specifications
The tenders should clearly state which of the proposed team members cover
which of the above qualifications.

Eligible consulting companies or institutions are those that have not been
involved in the preparation, appraisal, implementation or review of activities
related to the Danish supported Environmental Programmes in Africa. Minor
contracts for Danida in Africa with a total value of less than DKK 3 million will
be accepted. Previous evaluation experience from Africa will also be accepted. In
case of joint ventures, the criteria applies for the joint venture as a whole.

The individual team members in the evaluation team must not have been involved
in the preparation, appraisal, implementation or review of activities related to the
Danish supported Environmental Programmes in Africa, apart from minor
assignments of a total duration of less than six person-months over the evaluation
period. However, individual consultants who have been involved in strategic
assignments (including assessments or implementation of the Danish supported
environmental programme or support programmes) will not be eligible under any
circumstances. Finally, individual team members must not have direct attachment
to the implementing organizations.

The Candidate, and in the case of the Candidate being a consortium each legal
entity, must have a code of ethics and a business integrity management system
based on an international recognized model or system.

Tenders should specify how they will manage the evaluation team and ensure
optimal use of resources in the team.

The evaluation of the composition of the team will be based on criteria such as:
    Relevance and complementarity of qualifications of the proposed
      Evaluation Team (international and regional/local)
    Relatively equal gender distribution in the Evaluation Team
    Balanced input at head office level and in country case studies.
    Team-leader to participate in all country case studies to ensure some
      harmonisation in the approach and reporting.

10. Inputs
The total budget for the consultancy services is a maximum of DKK 2.3 million.
This includes all fees and reimbursables required for the implementation of the
contract, including stakeholder workshops in the case-study countries.

A budget of DKK 120,000 shall be allocated from the maximum amount for the
services for expenditures (hotel, travel expenditures, per diem etc.) related to the
envisaged stakeholder workshop in a selected African partner country. A lump
sum of 300,000 DKK for evaluation workshops in the case-study countries to
facilitate stakeholder feed-back on preliminary findings from case-study reports
(validation of evaluation findings) shall also be set aside from the maximum
amount for services. Funds for workshops in case-study countries may also be
transferred directly to a national institution acting as counterpart to EVAL if so
decided.
EVAL will cover the expenditures for meetings in the Evaluation Reference
Group, printing of the final evaluation report and dissemination activities.
Participation of the team-leader in the dissemination meeting in Copenhagen after
publishing of the report shall be at the expense of the consultancy firm, while
EVAL will cover costs related to any additional dissemination activities as and if
agreed upon.

11. Evaluation Principles, Management and Support
The evaluation will be supervised and managed by an Evaluation Management
Group comprising EVAL, and one or more representatives from institutions from
partner countries with a mandate in evaluation of development cooperation11.

The evaluation will be carried out by an independent Evaluation Team selected
through an international tender.

An Evaluation Reference Group will be established for the evaluation and will
comprise representatives from selected embassies, the Environmental Secretariat
(MEK) and the Technical Advisory Services (TAS) in Copenhagen as well as
resource persons from the Danish and possibly international resource base. If
need be, reference groups may be established in the countries selected for field
work.

11.1     The role of the Evaluation Management Group

The management group will be responsible for managing the evaluation process
with EVAL taking a lead role.

 The tasks of the Evaluation Management Group are to:

      Finalize TOR for the evaluation and initiate tender procedures with the
       MFA contract office

11By the time of finalizing the TOR the participant in the Evaluation Management Group from Egypt had been
identified, while identification of representatives from Tanzania and Zambia was still ongoing.
    Participate in the selection of Evaluation Team based on received tenders
     (MFA contract office chairs the selection committee which is assisted by
     an independent tender consultant.)
    Coordinate with all relevant evaluation stakeholders.
    Ensure that quality control is carried out throughout the evaluation
     process.
    Provide feed-back to the Evaluation Team. Comment on and possibly
     approve draft versions of the inception report, work plan, progress reports
     and the evaluation report.
    Organise and chair meetings of the Evaluation Reference Group.
    Organise, facilitate and participate in evaluation workshops including at
     least one open dissemination workshop towards the end of the evaluation.
    Organise the presentation of the evaluation results and the follow-up.
    Advise MFA departments and representations on the evaluation as well as
     coordinate internal MFA contributions (EVAL).

11.2   Role of the Evaluation Team

The DAC evaluation principles of independence of the Evaluation Team will be
applied. The Evaluation Team shall be external to the development partners and
implementing agencies, and the Evaluation Team shall not have previous
involvement in the development interventions related to LDCF.

The Evaluation Team will carry out the evaluation based on a contract between
MFA and the incumbent company/institution. The Evaluation Team will:

    Prepare and carry out the evaluation according to the ToR and the
     approved Inception Report and Work Plan.
    Be responsible to the Evaluation Management for the findings, conclusions
     and recommendations of the evaluation.
    Report to the Evaluation Management Group regularly.
    Coordinate meetings and field visits, and other key events.
    Organise stakeholder workshops in case-study countries and the
     stakeholder workshop on overall findings, conclusions and
     recommendations towards the end of the evaluation process.
    The Team Leader is responsible for the team‟s reporting, proper quality
     assurance, and for the organisation of the work of the team. The Team
     Leader will participate in the Evaluation Reference Groups‟ meetings and
     other meetings as required.

11.3   Role of the Evaluation Reference Group

An overall Evaluation Reference Group (ERG) will be established and chaired by
EVAL. The mandate of the ERG is to provide advisory support and inputs to the
evaluation, e.g. through comments to the draft TOR, draft inception report and
draft evaluation reports.

The ERG will include members from relevant Danida departments (TAS, MIL,
UDV and others) and selected resource persons from the Danish and possibly
international resource base (NGOs and researchers).

The reference group will to a large extent be a virtual reference group. This will
make it possible to also include representatives of Danish embassies and their
partners (implementing agencies in the selected countries) in the reference group
and thus ensure broader feed-back on draft reports etc.

The tasks of the ERG are e.g. to:

       Advise on methodological issues including comments to the draft
        inception report.
       Comment on progress reports and draft evaluation reports.
       Support the implementation, dissemination and follow-up of the agreed
        evaluation recommendations.

Reference groups may also be established in the partner countries where case
studies will be conducted. Decisions on whether to establish such groups will
depend on the buy-in and interest in the evaluation by national institutions (e.g.
PEMA in Egypt).

12.     Outputs of the Evaluation

The following outputs are expected from the evaluation:

       Inception Report and Work Programme. The inception report will produce (i) a
        detailed report based on a literature review of existing best practice in the
        field of environment on the use of programmatic approaches, (ii) A
        synopsis of the experiences in the three a priori selected countries based on
        desk review of key documents and interviews in Copenhagen with key
        informants from TAS and other relevant departments (iii) a detailed work
        plan, and, if needed (iv) recommendations for revision of the Terms of
        Reference.

       Draft Evaluation Report and Final Evaluation Report. The main output will be
        an evaluation report (in the range of 50 – 60 pages excluding annexes)
        outlining the findings in relation to relevance, efficiency, effectiveness,
        sustainability, and impacts (or results/effects) as well as the three Cs.

       The evaluation report will provide recommendations on (i)
        recommendations in relation to the future environment development
        assistance efforts (new environmental strategy and other relevant
         processes) and (ii) improvements to the programme formulation and
         implementation guidelines in the field of environment.

       Draft summary for wider distribution (4 pages only, based on executive
        summary in the main report). The structure of the summary should comply
        with similar summaries issued by EVAL on other evaluations and will be
        complemented by a brief management response before being issued.


13. Requirements for Home Office Support by the Consultant

The Evaluation Team‟s home office shall provide the following, to be covered by
the Consultants fees:

       General home office administration and professional back-up. The back-
        up activities shall be specified.

       Quality assurance (QA) of the consultancy services in accordance with the
        Evaluation Team quality management and quality assurance system, as
        described in the Tender. Special emphasis will be given to quality assurance
        of draft reports prior to the submission of such reports.

       Implementation of the business integrity management plan, as described in
        the Consultants application for qualification, in relation to the present
        evaluation. This implementation shall be specified

The Tenders shall comprise a detailed description of the proposed QA, in order
to document that the Tenderer has fully internalised how to implement the QA
and in order to enable a subsequent verification that the QA has actually been
carried out as agreed.

The Tenderer should select a QA Team, envisaged to consist of minimum two
persons, to be responsible for Head Office QA. The members of the QA should
not be directly involved in the evaluation. Their CV should be included in the
Tender. The QA team should have the similar competence and professional
experience as the Evaluation Team.

All QA activities should be properly documented and reported to the Evaluation
Management.


14.    Information and Data provided by the Client

Reference is made to Danida Procurement Guidelines – For award of service
contracts according to the EU-Directive, October 2006
(http://www.danidacontracts.dk)
The following background documents will be made available to the Tenderers
together with the Tender Document:

    Evaluation Guidelines, MFA/Danida, October 2006 and relevant Danida
     evaluations mentioned in these TOR are all available on-line at:
     http://www.evaluation.dk

    Quality Standards for Evaluations, OECD/DAC, 2006 (available on-line:
     http://www.oecd.org)

    Current strategies for Danish development assistance, support in the field
     of environment, reviews etc. can be down-loaded from www.amg.dk/en;
     www.danidadevforum.dk or via www.um.dk

15. Alternative Tenders
Alternative tenders will not be permitted.

16. Agreement of Exclusivity
The Consultant is not allowed to impose agreement of exclusivity on national sub-
consultants.

17. Other relevant documentation
The successful consultant/evaluation team will be provided with a CD-rom
containing background documentation on Danish funded environmental
programmes in relevant programme countries.
Annex 1: Overview of environment programs in Africa (as per 23 June 2009, tentative).
Egypt          Tanzania            Zimbabwe – Mozambique            Zambia            Kenya         South Africa (urban
(ESPS          (ESPS from 2007)    (MFS           (ESPS from        (ESPS 2008) (ESPS from          environment programme
since 2000)                        projects)      2006)                             2006)           from 2005)

.806 (387,4       104.1.MFS.29 (180     1.MFS.5       .806 (180 mio)   806-100 (120   806 (100      MFS.16 (14,11) ProDoc
mio.)             mio.)                 (14,8 mio.)   ProDoc a.o.      mio.)          mio)          MFS.18 (15,322 mio.) No
ProDocs a.o.      ESP 2000 ProDoc       No ProDoc     ESP 2001         Draft          ProDoc a.o.   ProDoc
104.Egypten.2     1.MFS.10 (10 mio.)    1.MFS.6       ProDoc           ProDoc,                      MFS.8 (16 mio.) No ProDoc
3 (63,9 mio.)     1.MFS.15 (23,12       (18,6 mio.)   1.MFS.10 (10     CompDes                      MFS.20 (14,87 mio.) ProDoc
ProDoc            mio.)                 ProDoc 1998   mio.)            ESP 2003                     MFS.19 (17 mio.) No ProDoc
.27 (31,11        ProDoc                hard copy     1.MFS.3 (40,48   Pro Doc                      MFS.39 (15,65) No ProDoc
mio)              1.MFS.11 (19,9        EVAL          mio.)            MFS.3 (17,4                  MFS 24 (18,54 mio.) ProDoc
ProDoc            mio.)                 1.MFS.8       ProDoc           mio.)                        MFS.13 (12.10 mio.) No
.24 (36,9 mio.)   ProDoc                (24,9 mio.)   1.MFS.12 (43,1   ProDoc, PCR                  Prodoc, PCR
ProDoc            1.MFS.12 (18.9        Component     mio,)            MFS.4 (16,7                  MFS.10 (11.67) No Prodoc
.26 (79,6 mio.)   mio.)                 Des 1999      ProDoc           mio.)                        MFS.23 (28,06) No ProDoc
No ProDoc         ProDoc                1.MFS.3       1.MFS.15 (37     ProDoc                       MFS.12 (13,554 mio.) No
.36 (15 mio.)     1.MFS.6 (16,3 mio.)   (16,3 mio.)   mio.)            MFS.5 (50                    ProDoc
No ProDoc         ProDoc                No ProDoc     No ProDoc        mio.)                        MFS.60 (13,7 mio.) ProDoc
.22 (27,8 mio.)   1.MFS.4 (19,9 mio.)   1.MFS.4       1.MFS.4 (77,7    ProDoc,                      MFS.66 (17,839) ProDoc
ProDoc            No ProDoc             (14,5 mio.)   mio.)            Review                       MFS.3 (13,586) No ProDoc
.20 (23 mio.)     1.MFS.16 (19,4        No ProDoc     ProDoc           806. (20                     MFS.69 (10 mio) No ProDoc
No ProDoc         mio.)                               1.MFS.14 (37     mio.)                        MFS.99-06 (14,124 mio.)
                  ProDoc                              mio.)            ProDoc                       ProDoc 1998
                  1.MFS.17 (19.9                      No ProDoc                                     MFS.65 (15,1 mio.) ProDoc
                  mio.)                               (CompDes)                                     2002
                  ProDoc                                                                            MFS.47 (27,5 mio.) ProDoc
                  1.MFS.3 (33,2 mio.)                                                               2001
                  ProDoc                                                                            MFS.70 (45 mio.) Component
                  1.MFS.9 (31,5 mio)                                                                Des 2003
                  ProDoc                                                                            MFS.57 (44.9 mio.) hed tidl.
                  1.MFS.23 (34,3                                                                    104.SAR.1.DANCED.c/3
                  mio.)                                                                             ProDOc 2002-04
No ProDoc           104.n.528.MFS.2 (30,39 mio.)
1.MFS.22 (57,5      Component Des 2006
mio.)               MFS.80 (220 mio.) ProDoc
ProDoc
104.N.445.MIKA.1.
(18,89 mio.)
ProDoc
           Annex 2
           Study Methodology

The use of a Phased Approach
1.     Based upon the evaluation objectives and the scope of work described in the
ToR, and discussions with key stakeholders during the inception phase, the Evaluation
was planned and carried in three phases:


 Phase One: The Inception Phase took place from September to October 2009 and
  included:
    - Mobilization of team members and work planning for the inception phase.
    - Review and assessment of relevant and available documents.
    - Preliminary key informant interviews (Danida Staff and former Advisors)
    - Development of an overview of key stakeholders involved in the implementation
        of the Danish supported environmental programmatic activities in the three
        case countries.
    - Development of a draft semi-structured interview guide
    - Development of detailed logic models and indicator frameworks for first case
        country to be visited (Egypt)
    - Preparation and launching of Blog site
    - Meeting with the Evaluation Reference Group
    - Drafting of the Inception Report.

   Phase Two: The Fieldwork Phase took place in the period from November 2009 to
    March 2010, and included:
     - Further development of country-specific logic models and indicator frameworks
         for Zambia and Tanzania based on the “pilot” experience from Egypt and
         further insight into the programming context in the two countries through
         interviews with key resource persons.
     - Identification of stakeholders to be visited in Zambia and Tanzania. This, as well
         as other mission planning issues, were discussed through a video-link with the
         embassies in Zambia and Tanzania, prior to the fieldwork.
     - Development of detailed fieldwork mission programmes.
     - Fieldwork mission to Egypt (November 2009), Zambia (January, 2010) and
         Tanzania (February – March, 2010), including interviews with stakeholders;
         focus group discussions; visits to project sites; collection of additional
         documentation.
     - National (in-country) workshops at the end of each fieldwork mission, where
         preliminary results and lessons were presented and discussed with stakeholders.
     - Analysis and write up of country-specific findings in three separate stand-alone
         reports

2.      In addition to the specific field work activities, other evaluation activities were
carried out in parallel during this period:
      - Key Informant Interviews with staff in Danida HQ.
      - A Blog site was continuously up-dated.
      - Interviews and document review for three other secondary case study countries
         (Mozambique, South Africa and Kenya).

    Phase Three: The Analysis and Reporting Phase included:
      - Finalizing of the case country reports and circulation for comments
      - Drafting of the Evaluation report
      - Planning of the Key Stakeholder Workshop in Nairobi on 11 and 12 May 2010

3.      The Draft Evaluation Report was submitted to Evaluation Management Group
on 2nd May, 2010 and will be presented and discussed at a Key Stakeholder Workshop in
Nairobi on 11 and 12 May 2010. Representatives from Government, civil society and the
Danish embassies from all six case study countries will attend as well as Danida HQ staff
and other donors. The focus at the workshop will be on discussion and development of
lessons learned and recommendations for future Danish support to the environment in
Africa based on the analysis carried out by the Evaluation Team together with other
relevant experiences presented by development partners.
4.     After the Workshop in Nairobi, a three week period will be given to provide
written comments to the draft report. The Final Draft Evaluation Report will be
submitted to the Evaluation Management Group by 21 June 2010.


1.1     Methodology tools
5.      Danida Guidelines for Evaluation (MFA/Danida, 2006) and the OECD/DAC
Evaluation Quality Standards (www.oecd.org/dac/evaluationnetwork) underpin the
methods and standards followed in this Evaluation. In terms of the analytical approach,
the evaluation fieldwork has been based around the five OECD-DAC standard
evaluation criteria (relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability) as well
as the 3Cs (coherence, complementarity and coordination). These criteria are explained
in the Terms of Reference in Annex 1 (Table 5.1), and are defined in the report
preceding presentation of findings in each Chapter.


6.      The following methodological tools have been applied:

Document Reviews
7.      A wide range of internal Danida documents were consulted including programme
documents, studies, progress reports, reviews and Programme Completion Reports
(PCRs). In additional a number of relevant external documents, web-sites and studies
have been analysed (see Annex 2) for cross referencing and best practices. A standardised
questionnaire was deployed at each of the three in-country workshops where responses
were collected (the results are included in the discussions in this report and summary
findings in Annex 3).

Key Informant Interviews
8.      The qualitative evaluation methods applied during the case country visits have
mainly included Key Informant Interviews and Focus Group Discussions with a range of
key stakeholders. The interviews included one-on-one exchanges, video conferences or
telephone interviews with individuals who have a position in relation to Danida‟s
environmental support. Semi-structured interview guides were used to guide the
interviews, in order to ensure that information would be gathered in a consistent manner,
covering all relevant evaluation areas. Key stakeholders interviewed included:

-       Danida HQ staff
-       Danida Embassy staff
-       National, regional and local governmental staff (from case countries)
-       Other donors previously or currently active within the environmental field (in
           case countries)
-       Former and current Danish Advisors and resource persons
-       Other key stakeholders within the case countries (representatives from the
           civil society, the private sector, consultants, researchers etc.)

Case country visits
9.      Three case study visits (Egypt, Zambia and Tanzania) were carried out. The visits
was initiated with document review, identification of stakeholder groups within the
countries as well as selected interviews with former Danida Advisors and Danida HQ
staff.
10.     As part of the case country visits, visits were carried out to selected sites, mostly
demonstration projects and decentralised environmental units. These visits provided
useful insight into how effective the interventions have been in promoting changes and
improvements in local environmental conditions and management.

In-country Workshops
11.     An in-country key stakeholder workshop was held at the end of each case
country visit with the purpose of validating preliminary findings as well as gathering
additional views and evidence through facilitated group work discussions. The
workshops were attended by a total of 130 persons.


       Egypt: The workshop was attended by 54 participants representing a diverse
        group: EEAA managers, the Danish Ambassador, PEMA, Ministry of Industry
        and Trade, Ministry of International Cooperation, Minister of Agriculture and
        Land Reclamation, International Finance Corporation, the Embassy of
        Netherlands, Regional Branch Offices and Environmental Management Units
        Governorate staff, NGOs and consultants.
       Zambia: The workshop drew 45 participants from local authorities in Mumbwa
        and Itezhi Teshi, Ministries including Tourism, Environment and Natural
        Resources , Local Government, Mines and Minerals Development, and
        Agriculture. Embassies of Finland and Norway, community resource boards,
        international (WWF) and local NGOs and civil society organizations (WCS,
        Kafue Trust), Lusaka City Council, private sector representatives from waste
        removal and wildlife management, and a traditional leader from Mumbwa
        District.
       Tanzania: 31 participants with representation from government ministries, the
        Danish Embassy, forestry staff from the Ministry and Districts and urban
        municipal staff (Morogoro, Iringa); as well as several NGOs (TNRF, TATEDO,
        IDGE), CBOs, the private sector (Enrst & Young, Diligent Consulting, and a
        traditional leader from Uluguru, Morogoro.

In-country workshop survey
12.     As part of the workshops, a questionnaire was distributed to all participants who
were asked to fill it in anonymously. The aim of the questionnaire was to capture a larger
and broader sample of views from various key stakeholders which would allow for a
quantitatively based assessment of ratings. A total of 66 responses were collected broken
down as shown in Table 2.


Table 1. Survey Responses from Workshop Participants by Country and Type
                                Egypt        Tanzania         Zambia       Total
Central Govt                      9             4               5             18
Local Govt                        5             5               7             17
NGO/Civil Society                 0             7               6             13
Donor                             0             1               1              2
Private                           6             3               3             12
Other                             3             0               1              4
Total                             23             20              23           66



Blog site
13.     The present Evaluation assignment has involved diverse, geographically
separated groups of stakeholders. To meet this challenge, the Evaluation set up a blog
site in November 2009 (see: www.devonnick.wordpress.com) with the following
aims:

           Publishing and updating the timetable of the Evaluation, including field
            dates
           Introduce the team members, reference group members
           Share workshop papers and presentations
           Share key background documents already available in the public domain
           Allow comments and views to be posted on Evaluation questions
           Allow upload of documents, suggested sources or agencies to contact

Regional Stakeholder Workshop
14.     A Regional Stakeholder Workshop will be held in Nairobi on 11 and 12 May
2010 to review the findings from the Evaluation as well as to discuss learning‟s and
recommendations for future Danida support to the environmental field. In the workshop
will participate the Evaluation Management Group, representatives from the Danish
embassies and selected national institutions in the African countries covered by the
Evaluation, key persons from the Danida HQ, as well as key resource persons and
experts working with other development partners.
1.2     Data Analysis
15.     As indicated in the section above, the Evaluation has drawn evidence and data
from a variety of different sources: Review of data and documents, key informant
interviews, focus group discussions, case country visits (including site visits) as well as in-
country and regional workshops. All three case country visits were carried out using a
common analytical framework to enable comparison across the countries, despite the
fact that each case country represented a unique and specific country context.

Triangulation of data
16.     One of the benefits of combining country missions with key informant
interviews and extensive document and data review is that data triangulation can be used
as a main tool for the analysis. Through data triangulation the Evaluation has verified
findings from different sources and methods to increase the credibility and robustness of
the analysis.
17.     The Evaluation has used triangulation of evidence in different ways and at
various levels to ensure validity. Primary evidence was collected on the same areas and
assessed against the same criteria from two key primary sources: Key informant
interviews and case country visits. Secondary evidence was collated from the programme
related documentation as well as from other relevant documentary sources.
18.     Drawing on these sources, the Evaluation team has sought to overcome the lack
of a system in Danida for aggregating scores or ratings by developing their own
evaluative judgements. Thus, the team has applied rankings to a range of criteria for
relevance and effectiveness in a systematic manner to a set of ESPs and their
components (see Error! Reference source not found.Table 3, Error! Reference
source not found.Table 5 and Annex 4) in an effort to summarise areas of strong and
weak performance. In this way, the Evaluation has sought to build a firmer evidence base
for lessons learning and recommendations.
19.     These judgements and other findings from the three case country visits were
validated at the in-country stakeholder workshop at the end of each mission, as well as
through written feed-back from the Evaluation Management Group, the Reference
Group, Danish embassy staff and others. In this way it has been possible for the
Evaluation to triangulate evidence from the different sources and evaluation instruments
based on the same framework and evaluation questions.




1.3     Key Challenges and Limitations

Limited availability of Baseline Data, Performance Indicators and
Evaluation Results
20.    A key concern for the Evaluation has been a general lack of relevant baseline
information, performance indicators and independent evaluation studies. This has limited
the possibility to analyse „before and after‟ or „with and without‟ scenarios and therefore
provided particular challenges to the Evaluation in the attempt to assess outcomes and
impact from the Danida supported interventions.


Qualitative judgements
21.    Following the above-mentioned data limitations, the Evaluation has to a large
extent had to rely on perceptions of different stakeholders based on their particular
experience and interpretations. Whenever possible, perceptions have been validated with
information across different groups and, where possible, also with documentary sources.
These were used in forming the team‟s own judgements as described above.

Influence from other policy and programme interventions
22.      The complex nature of environmental interventions, and the varying degree of
coordination and harmonisation among donors within the environmental field has made
attribution of results to Danida‟s support difficult. The features of a programmatic
approach by themselves make attribution more difficult than other traditional project
modes. The report tries to address this by identifying aspects where Danida support has
had the most evident link to results, even though this may be in the delivery of short-
term outputs or in areas where Danida has tended to operate independently.


Differences in context and programming between African Countries
23.     A particular challenge related to this study is to bring out generic findings, lessons
and recommendations from the three different country scenarios, as well as from the
three other environmental programme countries in the region, given the very different
contexts found. While the case studies have provided the opportunity to make a first-
hand assessment of experiences from environmental programming that, in some cases,
are repeated across countries, other findings may not be representative. The analysis has
sought to identify findings that coincide across case countries and can be considered to
be of more generic nature. But the report also aims to include specific issues that arise
from more isolated case evidence where these add new or contrasting findings.

Relatively short duration of case county and field visits
24.     Each case country visit had a duration of approximately two weeks, including the
one-day in-country workshop. This obviously presents some limitations to how
extensively the Evaluation could cover Danida‟s 15 years of presence in the
environmental field in each country. In addition, due to often long in-country travel
distances and time constraints, the Evaluation had to limit time for field visits to 2-4 days
per country, giving a rather restricted and partial view of actual achievements on the
ground. Despite strong efforts, the Evaluation managed to meet only very few senior
governmental officials in each case country. This created a challenge in all countries to
get a sound perspective from the government side.

Different experiences (time-wise) across countries with the application of a
programming approach within the environmental field
25.     There is considerable difference in relation to how long time the use of a
programmatic approach for environmental programming has been applied within the
countries covered by this Evaluation. This provides certain challenges for the Evaluation,
and in particular for those countries where the use of a programmatic approach within
the environmental field has only been in use for a shorter time period, experiences from
the interventions are obviously more limited, in particular in terms of outcomes and
impacts.
                                         Annex 3
                                    Bibliography
General
Batley et al., (2006) Joint Evaluation for Budget Support, 1994-2004, , Univ. of
Birmingham

Boesen, N. & Therkildsen, O. (2005) A results-oriented approach to capacity change,
Danida.

Cowi / IIED (2009) Evaluation of the operation of the least developed countries fund
for adaptation to climate change.

Danida (November 2009) Analysis of Programme/Project Completion Reports 2007-2008,
Evaluation Dept.

Danida (April 2009), Aid Effectiveness in the Environmental Sector – Focus on Ownership
and Alignment

Danida, (2009) Evaluation of the Decentralisation of Danish Aid Management, Goss Gilroy
Inc/Orbicon a/s.

Danida (May 2009) Thematic Review of Special Interventions for the Environment 2004-08

Danida (July 2009) Danida Environment Guide.

Danida (2008) Linkages between biodiversity management, Indigenous peoples’
rights and the emerging consequences of climate change.

Danida (July 2008) Urban Development and the Poor: Lessons learned from Danish
Assistance to Southern Africa.

Danida (April 2008) Review Report, Special Interventions in Support of Gender
Equality and Women’s Empowerment in Danida Bilateral Assistance.

Danida (April 2008) Thematic Review of Mainstreaming of Cross-Cutting Issues.

Danida (2008) Annual Report

Danida, (July 2008) Urban Development and the Poor, Lessons learned From Danish
Assistance to Southern Africa, Technical Note

Danida (2007), Africa Strategy.

Danida (April 2007) Annual Performance Report, 2006.

Danida (April 2006) Monitoring and Indicators in the Sector of Environment and NRM.
Danida (January 2006) Environmental Sector Programming. Good Practice Guide

Danida, (2006) Guidance Note on Danish Support for Capacity Development

Danida (2005) A Results-Oriented Approach to Capacity Change, Nils Boesen,
Process & Change Consultancy, Ole Therkildsen, Danish Institute for International
Studies

Danida (August 2004) Environment Strategy, Strategy for Denmark’s Environmental
Assistance to Developing Countries, 2004-2008.

Danida (2004) Tools for Assessment of Poverty-Environment Links in Poverty
Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP).

Danida (March 2003) Performance Management in Danish Development Assistance –
Framework and Action Plan 2003 – 2004. Quality Assurance Unit.

Danida (July 2000) Danida’s Environmental Assistance in Southern Africa.

DIIS (2005) Integrating Environment as a cross-cutting issue in Danish Development
Assistance.

Gos Gilroy/Orbicon (2009) Evaluation of the decentralization of Danish Aid
Management.
Rambøll (1996) Evaluation of the Danida Plan of Action for Environment and Development –
Synthesis report.


Country specific
Egypt
Danida (2008) Comparison between EEAA capability in 2001 with EEAA capability
in 2008, EEAA

Danida (February 2007) Review Aide Memoire.

Danida (November 2007) Mena Centre for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficient,
final proposal.

Danida (July 2007) Environmental Sector Programme, Progress Report.

Danida (Jan 2007) SDEM Annual PR No.1.

Danida (July 2007) Environmental Protection Fund, Progress Report.

Danida (January 2006) ACI Progress Report No. 10,

Danida (August 2006) ACI Progress Report No. 11.
Danida (July 2006) Environmental Sector Programme, Progress Report.

Danida (2006) Environmental Sector Programme Annual Progress Report.

Danida (September 2006) Assessment of Programme Support.

Danida(Jan 2006) SDEM, PR No. 1.

Danida (Aug 2006) SDEM PR No. 2.

Danida September (2006) PMU mini review note.

Danida (September 2005) Support to Decentralised Environmental Management.

Danida (2005) Adjusted Sector Policy Support Document to Environment Sector.

Danida, Decentralised Environmental Management, 2000-2005

Danida (August 2005) ACI Progress Report No. 9.

Danida March 2005 Decentralised Environmental Management, Progress Report 8.

Danida July 2005 Decentralised Environmental Management, Progress Report 9.

Danida (2005) Environmental Sector Programme Annual Progress Report.

Danida (May 2005) Assessment of Programme Support.

Danida (May 2005) Review Aide Memoire.

Danida (2004) Pilot Project of Support to Decentralisation of Environmental
management in Governorates and Environmental Management Units.

Danida (March 2004) Decentralised Environmental Management, Progress Report 6.

Danida (2004) Environmental Sector Programme Annual Progress Report.

Danida (October 2004) Review Aide Memoire.

Danida (October 2004) Assessment of Programme Support.

Danida (2000 and 2004) Achieving cost effective compliance in Industry with
Environmental Regulations.

Danida (April 2003) Review Aide Memoire.

Danida (2002) Communication for Environmental Management.
Danida (2000) KIMA Fertiliser and Ferrosilicon Plant Pollution Prevention and
Control.
Danida (December 2000) Country to Country Agreement.

Danida (2000) Final Sector Policy Support Document.

Italian Cooperation (2006) Egyptian-Italian Environmental Cooperation Program, A
Capacity Building Program in support of Egyptian Ministry of State for
Environmental Affairs (MSEA)/Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency (EEAA) 2004-
2008, Brochure

NSCE (2007) Gender Assessment, Environmental Management in Governorates of
Beni Suef and Aswan

MSEA / EEAA (2009) Egypt State of Environment Report, 2008

Kenya
Danida (April 2010) Environmental Programme Support, 2006 – 2010, Lessons
learned, 1st draft.

Danida (December 2009). Programme Document, Final. Natural Resource
Management Programme 2010-2014

Danida (December 2009) Environmental Policy and Management Component.
Natural Resource Management Programme 2010-2014

Danida (December 2009) Component 2, Support to Arid Lands Resource
Management. Natural Resource Management Programme 2010-2014.

Danida (December 2009) Subcomponent 3.1, Community Based Environment and
NRM. Natural Resource Management Programme 2010-2014.

Danida (December 2009) Subcomponent 3.2, Private sector participation in NRM.
Natural Resource Management Programme 2010-2014

Danida (2008) Review Aide Memoire, Joint Sector Review.

Danida (2007) Joint Review of the Environment Programme Support (EPS) Kenya.

Danida (May 2006) Policy Development (2006) Component Description.

Danida (May 2006) Final Community and Civil society Component Description.

Danida (May 2006) Environmental Sector Programme Support 2006–11, Final Draft
Reappraisal Report.

Danida (February 2005) Formulation of the Environmental Sector Programme
Support 2005–2010, Kenya, Debriefing Note.

Danida (September 2005) Draft Report, Fact Finding Environmental Sector
Programme Support 2006–2010.
Danida (October 2005) Draft TORs, Environmental Sector Programme Support,
Kenya 2006–2010.

Danida (2005) Final Programme Document, 2005–2006.

Danida (2005) Capacity Development for Decentralized Environmental Management.
Component, Formulation Mission.

Danida (2005) Integrated Coastal Zone management component Coastal Zone
Management.

Danida (June 2004) Identification Mission, Environment Sector Programme.

Danida (May 2004) Identification Mission, Environment Sector Programme,
Debriefing Note.

Danida (November 2004) Environment Sector Programme Support 2005–2010,
Concept Paper.

Danida (2004) Environment Sector Programme Support 2006–11, Appraisal Report.


Mozambique
Danida (April 2008) Completion Report: Support to Integrated Coastal Zone
management, Phase 2.

Danida (2006) Review of the Urban Components under EPS, Environmental
Management in 7 Municipalities and Environmental Management Strategy for the
Greater Maputo Area

Danida (October 2006) Completion Report for Support to Urban Environmental
Management in 5 Municipalities of Mozambique.

Danida (October 2006) Inception Review of the Environmental Programme Support
Mozambique.

Danida (October 2005) Programme Document EPS 2006–2010.

Danida (October 2005) Support to Env. Management in 7 Municipalities.

Danida (October 2005) Coastal Development Component.

Danida (October 2005) Institutional Strengthening of MICOA.

Danida (October 2004) ESPS Appraisal.

Danida (October 2002) Support to Environmental Management Strategy for the
Greater Maputo Area, Final.
Danida (July 2001) Draft Final Programme Support: Environment Programme
support, Mozambique.

Mokoro & Ecorys (September 2008) Evaluation of Development Cooperation
between Mozambique and Denmark, 1992-2006, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.


South Africa
Danced & Midrand Municipality (2000) Evaluation of Mid Rand Green City Project.

Danida (2009) UEMP project reviews.

Danida (2008) Review Aide Memoir.

Danida (2008) South African cities network, Sustainable cities.

Danida (2008) Assessment of Country Programme.

Danida (2007) Review Aide Memoir.

Danida (June 2006) Component 3, Municipal Support, Inception Report.

Danida (April 2006) Component 1, National and Provincial UEM Inception Report.

Danida (2006) National waste management strategy, project completion report.

Danida (2006) Assessment of Country Programme.

Danida (2006) Urban Environmental Management booklet.

Danida (September 2005) Final appraisal report for urban environment management
programme.

Danida (September 2005) Urban Environment Management Programme Document.

Danida (September 2005) Component 1, National and Provincial UEM, Component
Description.

Danida (September 2005) Component 2, Knowledge Management and Civil Society
Support.

Danida (September 2005) Component 3, Local Government Support, Draft
Component Description.

Danida (November 2004) Concept Paper Environmental Support Programme.

Danida (2000) Assessment of Country Programme.
Danida (Dec. 2000) Evaluation, Danida‟s Assistance to Southern Africa

Tanzania
Akida, A. (2007). What is the National Forestry and Beekeeping Database? The Arc Journal.
21,    pp. 34- 35. Tanzania Forest Conservation Group. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Arnold, J. E. M. (2001). 25 Years of Community Forestry. Forest and People. FAO. Rome.

Anders Arvidson (March 2009) Report from DPGE workshop on climate change
coordination in Tanzania. Stockholm Environment Institute, Africa Centre, Dar es
Salaam.

Assey et al. 2007. Environment at the heart of Tanzania’s development:Lessons from Tanzania’s
National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty (MKUKUTA). Natural Resource Issues Series
No. 6. International Institute for Environment and Development. London, UK

Blomley, T. (2006) Mainstreaming Participatory Forestry within the Local Government
Reform Process in Tanzania. Gatekeeper Series No. 128. International Institute for
Environment and Development, London, UK.

Blomley, T. & Ramadhani, H. (2006) Going to scale with Participatory Forest Management:
early Lessons from Tanzania. International Forestry Review, 8: 93-100.

Blomley, T and Ramadhani, H. (2007). Participatory Forest Management in Tanzania. An
overview of status, progress and challenges ahead. The Arc Journal, 21. Tanzania Forest
Conservation Group, Tanzania.

Blomley, T., Pfliegner, K., Isango, J., Zahabu E., Ahrends, A., Burgess, N. (2008) Seeing the
Wood for the Trees: Towards an objective assessment of the impact of Participatory Forest
Management on forest condition in Tanzania. Oryx. 42(2), 1–12

Danida (April 2010) Review Aide Memoir, ESPS.

Danida (November 2009) Joint Technical Review EISP

Danida (August 2009) Simmors, completion report.

Danida (November 2008) Review Aide Memoir, ESPS.

Danida (October 2008) Review Aide Memoire, Participatory Forestry Management.

Danida ( July 2008) Inception Report, EMA.

Danida (October 2008) UDEM Technical review.

Danida (January 2007) Urban Development and Environmental Management.
Component description.

Danida (September 2007) Review Aide Memoir, Tanzania's Sustainable Wetlands
Management Programme.

Danida (2007) EMA Implementation Support Programme 2007.
Danida (2007) Sustainable Morogoro Completion Report.

Danida (2007) Sustainable Iringa Completion Report.

Danida (2007) Sustainable Moshi Completion Report.

Danida (2007) Final Appraisal Report Environmental Sector Programme Support
(2007–2011).

Danida (2007) Environmental Sector Programme Support.

Danida (2007) ESPS concept note

Danida (2007) Denmark’s Development Assistance to Tanzania 2007 to 2011.

Danida (2006) Concept Note: Environmental Sector Programme Support Tanzania
2007 to 2012

Danida (2006) Sustainable Tanga Completion Report.

Danida (August 2005) Joint Review Report, Participatory Forestry Management
Programme Tanzania.

Danida (June 2005) Technical Review of Danida Support to Sustainable Cities
Program.

Danida (March 2005) Sustainable Tanga and Morogoro Programme. Project reviews.

Danida (2005) Review of Phase 1 of SIMMORs project.

Danida (November 2004) Sustainable Iringa Project – Phase 2 (Jan. 2005–Dec.
2006).

Danida (November 2003) Mema, Project completion report

Danida (2003) Sustainable Mwanza Completion Report.

Danida (October 2002) Component Description, Participatory Forest Management
(2003–2007).

Danida (March 2002) Sustainable Mwanza Programme. Project review.

Danida (2002) Sustainable Arusha Programme. Project review.

Danida (2002) Sustainable Iringa Programme. Project review.

Danida (March 2001) Sustainable Tanga Programme. Project formulation.

Danida (May 2000) Component A2: Village Based Forest and Woodland
Management in Lindi Region.
Danida (2000) Component A1: Sustainable and Integrated Management of the
Malagarasi–Muyovozi Ramsar Site (SIMMORS).

Danida (2000) ESP 2000 to 2003 programme formulation

Danida (1998) Mema, Project formulation document

Danida (1994) A Developing World

Dougill A, Soussan JG, Springate-Baginski O, Kiff E, Dev OP and Yadav NP (in press 2010)
Impacts of community forestry on farming system sustainability in the middle hills of Nepal in
Land Degradation and Development. University of Leeds, NRI and Oxford Forestry Institute.

Ernest and Young (October 2009) Value For Money Audit, Participatory Forest Management
and Sustainable Wetlands Management Programme, Draft Final.

Hobley, M. (Ed.) (1996). Participatory forestry: the process of change in India and Nepal.
Rural Development Forestry Study Guide 3. Oxford. Overseas Development Institute.

Lund, J.F and Ø.J. Nielsen. (2006). The Promises of Participatory Forest Management in
Forest Conservation and Poverty Alleviation: The Case of Tanzania.

Lund, J.F. (2007a) Is Small Beautiful? Village level taxation of natural resources In Tanzania.
Public Admin. Dev. 27:307–318

Lund, J.F. (2007b). Money Talks: CBFM and Village Revenue Collection in Iringa District.
The Arc Journal, 21. Tanzania Forest Conservation Group, Tanzania.

Lund J.F and T. Treue. (2008). Are We Getting There? Evidence of Decentralized Forest
Management from the Tanzanian Miombo Woodlands. World Development Vol. 36,

C. Luttrell and I. Pantaleo, (2008), Budget Support, Aid Instruments and the Environment,
The Country Context, Tanzania Country Case Study, by, ODI and ESRF.

Meshack, C.K and Raben, K. (2007). Balancing Costs and Benefits, Rights and
Responsibilities in the Management of Catchment Forests. The Arc Journal, 21. Tanzania
Forest Conservation Group, Tanzania

Milledge, S., Gelvas, I. and Ahrends, A. (2007), Forestry, Governance and National
Development: Lessons Learned from a Logging Boom in Southern Tanzania. TRAFFIC
East/Southern Africa.

MNRT (2008). Participatory Forest Management in Tanzania. Facts and Figures. Forestry
and Beekeeping Division. 13pp

Nelson, F and Blomley, T (2007). Eating from the same plate. Integrating Community based
wildlife and forest management. The Arc Journal. 21:11-13. Tanzania Forest Conservation
Group, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

NIRAS (2008) Joint Review of Participatory Forest Management Programme, by for MNRT,
Danida, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Finland, World Bank.
Nshubemuki et al., (Editors). Proceedings of the First Participatory Forest Management
(PFM) Research Workshop: Participatory Forest Management for Improved Forest Quality,
Livelihood and Governance. June 2009.

Orbicon / Gos Gilroy (2007) Impact Evaluation of HIMA, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Pfliegner, K. & Moshi, E. (2007). Is Joint Forest Management viable in protection forest
reserves? Experiences from Morogoro Region. The Arc Journal, 21:17-20. Tanzania Forest
Conservation Group, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Treue, T and Lund, J.F. (2008). Are we getting there? Evidence of Successful Participatory
Forest Management, Copenhagen University.

Univ. of Copenhagen, (2007) Decentralised Forest Revenue Collection: Evidence from
Tanzania, Development Briefs

URT (2001). National Forest Programme 2001 – 2010. Dar es Salaam. Tanzania. Forestry
and Beekeeping Division, Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism.

URT (2002). The New Forest Act. No. 14 of 7th June 2002. The United Republic of Tanzania.
Dar es Salaam. Tanzania.

Vice Presidents Office (October 2009) GBS-PAF Annual report for 2009

Wily, L. (1998). Villagers as forest managers and governments “learning to let go”. The case
of Duru Haitemba and Mgori Forests in Tanzania. Forest Participation Series, No 9.
International Institute for Environment and Development.

Wily, (2000) Land tenure reform and the balance of power in Eastern and Southern Africa.
Natural Resource Perspectives, 58. Overseas Development Institute.

Wily, LA and Dewees, P, (2001) From Users to Custodians: Changing Relations between
People and the State in Forest Management in Tanzania. World Bank Policy Research
Working Paper No. 2569.

Woodcock, K., C.K. Meshack and C. Bildsten (2006). Review of TFCG-Facilitated
Participatory Forest Management in the Eastern Arc and Coastal Forests of Tanzania. TFCG
Technical Paper No 12. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. 1-115 pp


Zambia
Child B, Dalal-Clayton B 2001, Lessons from Luangwa: The Story of the Luangwa Integrated
Resource Development Project, Zambia. Wildlife and Development Series 13.

CONASA information leaflet – unpublished, undated;

Conservation Lower Zambezi (2010) Post Danida Funding report. Unpublished.

Conservation Lower Zambezi (2005) Newletters January – April 2005 and September-
December, 2005.

Conservation Lower Zambezi (Undated) Information Brochure: CLZ Working to Conserve
Lower Zambezi National Park.
Cowi (July 2006) CBNRM Programme: Market Access Study Report.

Cowi (2006) Environmental Overview Report 2006.

Cowi (2006) Environmental Sector Support Programme 2008 – 2010, Draft Identification
Report.

Cowi (2006) CBNRM Component: Support to Micro-Project and Income Generating
Activities in the Itezhi-Tezhi District, Zambia. Draft Mission Report.

Danida (2009) Review Aide Memoir, ENRMMP.

Danida (2009) Iteshi Teshi Completion Report.

Danida (September 2008) ENRM and Mainstreaming Programme. Formulation
document.

Danida (July 2008) Safari Guide Training in Lower Zambezi. Completion report.

Danida (January 2008) ZAWA Capacity Building. Completion report.

Danida (January 2008) CBNRM Mumbwa District. Completion report, Consolidation
Phase.

Danida (2008) Lusaka waste management project., Phase B. Completion report.

Danida (December 2007) NRM Component. Completion report.

Danida (2007) CBNRM Mumbwa District. Completion report.

Danida (2007) Report of the Performance Review of the Pilot Phase of the Natural Resources
Consultative Forum (NRCF).

Danida (2007) Denmark‟s Development Assistance to Zambia, 2007 to 2011.

Danida (2007) Environmental Sector Programme Support Document, 2008–2010.

Danida (October 2006) Review Aide Memoire, Natural Resources Management
Component.

Danida (October 2006) Natural Resource Management Study – Supplementary
Information (1st Draft).

Danida (September 2006) Environmental Information Study, 1st Draft.

Danida (September 2006) Rapid Urban Environmental Assessment Report.

Danida (September 2006) Environmental Overview, (1st Draft).

Danida (September 2006) EE Activities in Zambia.
Danida (September 2006) ESSP 2008–2010, Draft Identification Report. Incomplete
draft.

Danida (July 2006) Environmental Identification Process – Environmental Sector
Programme Support 2008, Institutional Study. First draft.

Danida (February 2006) Draft recommendations from SEA Identification Mission.

Danida (February 2006) Mumbwa Community Based Natural Resource Management Project.
Review and Lessons Learned.

Danida (2006) CBNRM Mumbwa Project. Consolidation Strategy. M. Kokwe.

Danida (2006) CBNRM Mumbwa Project. Scenarios for Management Structure and
Mandates. M. Kokwe.

Danida (2005) Natural Resources Management Component. Component Description.

Danida (November 2004) Special Environmental Assistance (SEA) 2005–2007.

Danida (2004) Natural Resources Management Component. Appraisal.

Danida (2003) Lusaka Waste Management Project, Phase A. Completion report

DSI (2004) Fact-finding mission to GMAs North of Kafue NP and to Itezhi-tezhi District.
Brian Child, Charles Phiri and Samuel Maango.

ECZ (2007) Strategic and Business Plan, 2007-11

ECZ (2006) National Set of Indicators for Environmental Reporting and Assessment in
Zambia.

ECZ (2005) Institutional Assessment; Environmental Information Management in Zambia.

ECZ (2001) State of Environment in Zambia 2000, Lusaka-Zambia.

Finnish Consulting Group (October 2009) Assessment of the MTENR Financial Management
Systems.

GRZ (2009) Client Service Charter, MTENR.

GRZ (April 2007) Joint Assistance Strategy for Zambia.

GRZ (2007) National Policy on Environement.

GRZ (2007) Report on the monitoring and evaluation visit to the NRM component project
areas in Iteshi-Teshi, Mumbwa and Lower Zambezi.

GRZ (June 2006) The Fifth National Development Plan, Final Draft.

GRZ (2005) National Policy on Environment, Final Draft, MTENR.
GRZ (2002) MTENR Strategic Plan: Strategic Plan for the Ministry of Tourism, Environment
and Natural resources (2002 – 2006).

GRZ (2000) State of Environment Report in Zambia.

GRZ / MTENR (1998) Policy for National Parks and Wildlife In Zambia.

Hamilton, K et al. (2009) Economic and Poverty Impact of Nature-Based Tourism, NRCF.

IUCN (2006) IUCN Zambia Country Programme Strategy 2005-2008.

NRCF (2007) The real Economic Impact of Nature Tourism in Zambia.

NRCF (2008) The impact of wildlife management policies on communities and conservation
in game management areas in Zambia.

Royal Danish Embassy, Lusaka (2007) Danish Development Assistance in Zambia.

RobinS (2006) NRM Project Socio-economic study 2006. Natural Resources Management
Project Socio-Economic Baseline Study.

UNDP (2009) Assessment of Development Results. Evaluation report.

WWF (2009) Collaborative Management of Natural Resources with special attention to
WWF future engagement in Mumbwa District. Unpublished.

ZAWA 2005: Zambia Wildlife Authority Annual Report 2004.

ZAWA (2005) Programme for the Development of Kafue National Park as a Model of
Sustainable Economic Use and Biodiversity Conservation in a Management Extensive
Environment 2005-2009.

ZAWA (2004) Quota Setting and Monitoring of Hunting Manual, Zambia Wildlife Authority
Wildlife Management Guides No.1.

ZAWA 2003: Zambia Wildlife Authority Annual Report 2003.
        Annex 4
Secondary Country Studies
                                                  South Africa

Environmental support to South Africa started in 1995 and has covered a wide variety of sub-
sectors and approaches. A Regional Programme of Integrated Water Management was
implemented from 2004-06 with a value of 39 million DKK. Within South Africa, in 2002, the
Urban and Environmental Management Programme (UEM) was established.


                                                     South Africa
                                 Expenditure on environmental assistance in
                                 S.Africa from 1999 to 2010

                    250
     Millions DKK




                    200



                    150



                    100



                     50



                      0
                          <1999 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


It covers the following themes:1) Air quality, providing support for the implementation of the
national air quality act at provincial and municipal levels.
2) Environmental health, providing support to the functions that monitor and enforce
environmental health.
3) Sustainable planning, supporting the integration of environmental planning into broader
planning processes
4) Sustainable energy, promoting energy management by supporting renewable energy sources as
well as a number of strategies and pilot projects
5) Waste management, supporting the implementation of the waste management bill at national
and municipal levels.

The national and provincial partners of the programme are the Department of Environmental
Affairs and Tourism, the Department of Health, Western Cape Provincial government, Gauteng
Provincial government and KwaZulu-Natal Provincial government.

Five municipalities have been nominated to be special partners for pilot projects. These are City of
Cape town, City of Johannesburg, Ehurhuleni municipality (East Rand), eThekwini municipality
(Durban), Sedibeng District municipality (Vaal Triangle).
A programme steering committee approves on an annual basis the suggested projects and fund as
“on budget support” activities prioritized by partners within the institutions‟ business plan, as
“short term technical assistance” for funding of urgent technical expertise or for solutions for
specific challenges within the partner institution and finally for a number of research activities. The
steering committee is chaired by the Deputy Director General of Ministry of Environment.

Since 2006 more than 400 projects have been supported through the partners across all the
thematic areas.

Examples of projects implemented by the partners include:




Project Name                    Focus Area             Implementing           Status
                                                       Partner

Verification of priority        Sustainable planning   City of Johannesburg   Completed – methodology is
conservation areas                                                            used to collect data in other
                                                                              similar areas

Food and safety of              Environmental          City of Durban         Completed – trained and
informal traders                health                                        registered caterers are selected
                                                                              for city functions

South African Air Quality       Air quality            Ministry of            Due to be completed in July
Information System                                     Environmental          2010
                                                       Affairs
Solar water heaters in          Sustainable energy     Western Cape           Completed – developing
vulnerable communities                                                        methodology to roll-out to
                                                                              other similar areas
Review and permitting of        Waste management       Ministry of            Completed
waste disposal landfill sites                          Environmental
                                                       Affairs
Retrofit of municipal           Sustainable energy     City of Ekurhuleni     Completed – building used as
building                                                                      energy efficiency education
                                                                              centre
Green technologies at Sustainable planning             City of Durban                   Completed
Moses Mabhida + training
grounds
Retrofits in 700 low cost       Sustainable planning   City of Johannesburg   Due to be completed in
houses in Cosmo                                                               August 2010
Promotion of cleaner fires   Air quality              Nova     Institute     - 1st phase completed in 2009,
to reduce in-door                                     NGO                      2nd phase to be completed in
pollution                                                                      Nov 2010

Environmental education      Sustainable planning     Delta Environmental       Completed – developing
in schools                                            Centre - NGO              methodology to roll-out to
                                                                                other schools

Low carbon cities and        Sustainable              Research Institutions     Due to be completed in 2011
climate change impact        energy+Climate
                             change

Urban forestry (tree         Climate change           City of Durban            90% completed
planting +food crops)

Knowledge management         Cross cutting issue      South African Cities      Ongoing
and networking                                        Network




Donor coordination and alignment

There is no established donor group discussing and coordinating the environmental support to the
government. Danida is seen as being the most influential donor to the environment, although the
budget size of the programme (220 mil DKK) is less than 1% of the national budget for
environment.


Evidence and lessons learned

An internal “beneficiaries questionnaire review12” undertaken in 2009 looked in detail at 39
different smaller pilot projects within all five thematic areas. The review in general claims a fair to
high effectiveness in especially waste management results and capacity development. On a scale
from 1 (inadequate) to 5 (Excellent) a majority of projects were scored as either adequate (3) or
good (4) with a smaller number scoring 5.

Three out of six project reviewed under the waste management focus area was judged to have
good to excellent chances of being sustainable, two was judged to have adequate chances and one
was not scored.

The programme claims success in building the capacity of especially municipal staff. This success is
seen as having mainly been achieved by adopting a learning by doing approach through the
placement of external TA personnel and the availability of risk willing capital. This claim is
supported by the results of the 2009 review of pilot projects. Out of 6 reviewed capacity building
projects four reports to have seen good to excellent tangible benefits and two achieved adequate
benefits. All six projects expects excellent to good chances of that the project will be replicated
successfully in the future.

12
  Projects reviewed May 2009, UEMP. Resource file supporting the knowledge management objectives of the UEMP
aimed at sharing information and lessons among the programme partners.
The influence of the programme on the national waste management plan is seen as a major
success. According to reports the national plan was inspired by the lessons learnt and experiences
gained by the programme.

As the UEM will be phased out in 2011, the programme management is preparing to assess the
results and impacts of the support. No comprehensive “lessons learned exercise” or independent
evaluation has to date been carried out. Several of the RAMs (2006 and 2008) stressed the need for
developing a qualitative M&E system.

Lacking independent assessments and based on interviews with the environmental counselor and
the programme officer at RDE in Pretoria as well as available annual RAMs and CAs the
programmatic experiences and lessons learned in SA can be summarized as:

      The programme was designed to be well aligned to SA government procedures and have
       funded activities within nationally or locally approved activity plans. This is seen as being
       the key to much of the success of the support as it allows flexibility in line with
       government institutions.
      So-called “mini-programmes” being focused and budgeted specifically to projects are more
       efficient and delivers faster than open-ended programmes where the funds are transferred
       via the national treasury and not being activity linked.
      The investment in net-working gives stonger partnerships amongst and in-between
       government agencies, communities and the private sector.
      To achieve sustainability and replicability of a large programme requires effective and close
       programme management efforts.


New Country strategy

A new country strategy for SA was published in June 2010 by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Future Danish support to environment in SA will primarily be focused on climate change issues,
regional water resource management and sustainable energy – where possible with a private sector
focus. At the time of writing the strategy has only been published in Danish.
(http://amg.um.dk/en/menu/PoliciesAndStrategies/CountryRegionalStrategies/OtherCountries/
SouthAfrica.htm
                                            Mozambique Case Study

Background
Mozambique is rich in natural resources (forest, coastal and mineral resources)13 and combines
high economic growth with important environmental challenges including: the need to manage in a
sustainable way the numerous natural resources in order to avoid over - exploration and assure
benefits for local communities and future generations, and the manage the industrial and energy
mega-projects (coal, gas, oil, aluminium etc) and reduce their impact on environment. Mozambique
faces high vulnerability to cumulative effects of natural disaster and climate change consequences:
Mozambique is one of the most exposed countries in the world.

By 1992, Mozambique had experienced
at least 15 years of economic disruption
and decline. Hazardous waste and
pollution were accumulating and natural
resource depletion was threatening
livelihoods. The Ministry for
Coordination of Environmental Affairs
(MICOA) was formed in late 1994, and
the Environment Law promulgated in
1997. In 1992, Denmark established
„Mifresta‟ (the Environment, Peace and
Stability Fund) to assist with the
funding of environmental initiatives.
For a number of reasons, including the
perception that Mozambique was less
seriously affected by environmental
problems than its neighbours, the
programme was slow getting started.

Over the entire evaluation period,
environmental management received
4% of Danida disbursements (DKK
193 million).

Environmental projects and
programmes
From 1996, the main aim of Danida‟s support was strengthening the capacity of the
national environmental agency to fulfil its regulatory responsibilities. For most of the
period, the work was project-based, despite efforts by the RDE to develop a programme
approach.

The Environmental Programme Support (EPS) was finally launched in 2006, consisting
of several decentralised components linked by one dealing with overall policy and
planning at central level and appropriately aligned disbursement arrangements14.

The new programme (2006–2010), has a total budget of DKK 220 million15, with 180
13 Natural capital accounts for 50 % of total Mozambican wealth (25 % in African countries, 2% in industrialized countries):
Adapted from a MICOA / AFD study.
14
   A similar structure as that established in Tanzania under the ESPS
million coming from new appropriations and the remainder from unspent funds from existing
projects. The following three areas are being supported: (i) strengthening of MICOA; (ii) urban
environment in 7 cities in the North; (iii) natural resource management in Sofala and coastal
zone management Inhambane and Gaza. The reduction from five to three components reflects a
change in presentation and management arrangements rather than a reduction in the scope of the
programme. Coastal Development and Env Mgt of Maputo were dropped.


                                                       Mozambique
                                    Expenditure on environmental assistance in
                                    Mozambique from 1999 to 2010

                        60
         Millions DKK




                        50


                        40


                        30


                        20


                        10


                         0
                             <1999 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


Danida‟s support has focused on the following overlapping aspects of environment management:

Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM): In the initial phase (1997-2000), Danida aimed to
develop MICOA‟s competence in ICZM, to establish models of good practice and to improve
environmental health. The project undertook the execution of pilot projects which were found to
be beyond MICOA‟s capacity and remit. In Phase II (2000-04), assistance was better aligned to
national and local government institutions and, with the help of international TA, it made progress with
the piloting of community-based natural resource management.

By contrast, the Lake Niassa ICZM Project (2001-04) undertaken by MICOA, but with very little
international TA, was a failure. It was designed when the provincial directorate had the required
personnel, but when these were transferred elsewhere it was unable to continue. Renewed efforts
are being made with an ICZM component under the Environmental Programme Support.

Management of Hazardous Waste: Between 1997 and 2001 Danida aimed to assist GOM to comply
with international agreements and dispose of imported obsolete pesticides domestically, principally
through high-temperature incineration in a converted cement kiln. This drew opposition from
environmental groups, concerned that Mozambique would become the focus for toxic waste
disposal from other countries. RDE eventually instructed the Danish contractor to re-export the

15
     The Nairobi workshop presentation by Erasmo Nhachungue from MICOA stated DKK 225 million.
waste for incineration in Europe. Following this, Danida provided MICOA with support for
Integrated Industrial Pollution Prevention (IIPP) (2000-06). The purpose was to reduce the
negative impact of industrial pollution by establishing a waste management system and enabling
MICOA to assess and monitor the generation and safe disposal of hazardous waste.

Urban Environmental Management (UEM) (2002-06): Phase I of the project was to
improve living conditions of the poor in the urban areas of Mozambique by the reduction of
environmental threats. The project was based in Nampula in Northern Mozambique and involved
five cities (similar to Tanzania‟s SCP). It was based on the recognition that their environmental
problems negatively affect the livelihoods of very large numbers of people. Technical expertise was
developed in MICOA‟s Centre for Sustainable Development at Nampula, which focuses on the
built environment. TA was managed by Danish consultants. The main project outputs were
environmental plans and small projects (e.g. water and sanitation, solid waste management, etc.).
The project has been followed up under the EPS in which closer attention is being paid to the
alignment of disbursement arrangements with government systems and to harmonisation and
partnership with other bilateral donors16.

Mokoro Assessment17
Danish assistance to Mozambique for environmental management started in 1996 using Mifresta
funds for purely project-based assistance to resolve specific environmental problems, and gradually
moved to a more programmatic approach.

ICZM The overall approach to ICZM adopted over the ten-year period (1996-2005) was probably
over-ambitious and lacked sufficient focus on so-called „hot spots‟ and local community
involvement. Despite considerable efforts on Danida‟s part, ICZM, especially the Lake Niassa
project, remained a vision rather than an operational activity.

Pesticides18 : With regard to the disposal of obsolete pesticides, the change of strategy to re-
export the waste significantly increased costs, but to a large extent met the project‟s immediate
objectives of ridding Mozambique of unsafely stored waste scattered throughout the country. The
overall objective of equipping the country with the capacity to dispose of hazardous waste
domestically, mainly by high temperature incineration, was not accomplished. The subsequent
assistance with IIPP helped the formation of a public-private partnership agreement for the
establishment of a landfill facility for hazardous waste and to provide technical advice and
assistance for its construction and operation. However, the work was frequently hampered and
delayed by changes in MICOA‟s management and related organisation, which contributed to the
decision by Danida not to continue with the support of IIPP activities under the EPS.

UEM A completion report of Phase I of the UEM project, submitted by the contractor in 2006,
assessed the performance of the project as „satisfactory’, both in terms of the achievement of the
immediate objectives and the fulfilment of the overall objective of poverty reduction. It stated that
it was not feasible to relate overall socio-economic changes in the cities to the local improvements
obtained. On the other hand, the planning and implementation of the projects had demonstrated
what could be achieved by the authorities and provided a basis for capacity building, (was) the
immediate objective. It was recognised that the municipalities needed to give more attention to
improving planning and budgeting and to widening their tax base.


16
   A somewhat similar approach to that adopted by UDEM in Tanzania.
17
   Points drawn are mainly from the Evaluation of Co-operation b/n Denmark and Mozambique 1992-2006, By Mokoro and
Ecorys Sept. 2008 and the associated Working Paper 6 (Martin Adams).
18
   This was a specific issue to Mozambique and of less relevance to our study.
Weak H&A
The search for a coherent strategy for the resolution of the country‟s environmental difficulties
has been made difficult by the lack of harmonisation and alignment and the fragility of
institutional arrangements19. Relations between the RDE and the ministry have been marred by
misunderstandings, particularly relating to the management of aid funds20.

“dispute with MICOA over much smaller sums caused a long hiatus in the environment
programme”

Capacity Building
Danida assistance to environmental management in Mozambique has focused on building the
capacity of institutions at national and provincial level. Despite the efforts of Danida and other
donors, the capacity of MICOA remains weak. Only when international consultants have had a
strong hand in the management of projects have the immediate objectives been met21. Further,
where donors have stepped back from such direct involvement, results have been disappointing.
The low political priority accorded to environmental management in Mozambique probably lies at
the heart of the problem. It has resulted in a chronic lack of leadership, management and
professional capacity in the sector22.

Weak M&E
However, the archives yielded few independent reviews of the various environmental management
projects funded by Danida and other donors (a finding noted in most of the other countries
studied). This is a handicap for a meta-evaluation of the type attempted by DME. Because it aims
to cover a fifteen-year period, the evaluation is reliant upon objective contemporary evaluations of
specific interventions.

Immediate objectives of almost every Danida-funded environmental project seem to have included
„building capacity‟. Yet, quantitative and qualitative information on the outcome of such efforts in
terms of the development of skills and competence of national personnel is very scarce23.

In urban env. mgt, with regard to improvements in public health and the proportion of poor
people with improved access to services, it is reported that no monitoring was done „because of
the associated complexity and financial costs‟

Pressure to prepare quickly
The process was made more difficult by the wide scope of the envisaged EPS and the
speed with which it had to be negotiated, prepared and appraised. In retrospect, those involved –
MICOA and RDE and the consultants and interviewed by DME - recall the tight schedule
imposed 24and the constraints created for consultation and participation. The urgency arose from
the MFA in Copenhagen, anxious to wrap up the process and deliver the long-awaited programme
approach to environmental assistance, the expenditure for which was earmarked by the Danida
Board in November 2005.

19
   As in Zambia and Tanzania
20
   There is something of a parallel here with the Value for Money studies in Tanzania, where concerns over slow disbursements and
low commitment occurred in the Environmental Institional Strengthening Component and the Forestry and Wetlands Components
of the ESPS in 2009.
21
   An experience that was also noted in Tanzania.
22
   A strong statement but echoed in Egypt, Zambia and in Tanzania to some extent though there is evidence of stronger
commitment to the environment in these countries.
23
   Also true in Tanzania and Zambia
24
   Another example of tight deadlines from MFA driving the pace of formulation in a complex programme design (cf. ENRMMP,
Zambia).
Since the Krawack report in 2004, Danida has expressed its interest in greater
harmonisation by linking up with the Austrians and the Swiss. The Swiss have supported 5 cities, 3
of which have also been assisted by Danida. The Austrians are working with 2 cities. The three
donors are in the process of developing a flexible joint programme, described as „a sort of
municipal SWAp‟ (an MoU was signed with mayors of 13 cities).

Financial problems
The CZM project had financial irregularities: Phase II became paralysed by financial problems
inherited from a bridging phase in 1999–2000. When much-delayed and
much-needed technical assistance arrived for Phase II, more time was lost with suspension of
funding by RDE due to irregularities in MICOA‟s financial accounts25. This had serious knock-on
effects with the implementation of the ICZM component under EPS. In relation to this problem,
one commentator noted that “In the three years between 2002/3 and 2005/6 Danida lost their
way in the environmental sector [i.e. in ICZM]. Danida lost time, influence and credibility.”

Conclusions
MICOA summarised the most recent situation in a presentation at the Danida evaluation Nairobi
workshop in May. It was stressed that on a positive perspective the Danida programme is guided
by Mozambique‟s sector policy and strategy and there is a certain degree of government
ownership. Danida uses government systems: all DANIDA funds are registered on the state
budget, following the GoM planning cycle (CFMP and PES) and reporting (BdPES) formats.
Financing has become larger and more predictable and dialogue has improved. In terms of
furthering the programmatic approach, there still remain difficulties in harmonizing provincial
programmes with national treasury procedures and the GoM electronic financial system
(SISTAFE). The streamlining of funding arrangements between donors and government
interested in the environment are still under discussion and are yet to reach a budget support
modality as in other sectors, while questions as to how to integrate the environment into other
sectors and how to pursue climate change adaptation remain key.




25
  Similar situations arose in Zambia and Tanzania. How to handle this problem? Indicates a need to be sure that capacity exists to
follow proper financial procedures, that manuals / rules are in tune with local capacity.
                                              Kenya Case Study

Background:
The Environment Programme Support (EPS) in Kenya was initiated by the end of 2006 after a
lengthy design process that started in 2004 and involved several consultant teams. One factor that
contributed to a prolonging of the design period was that the first appraisal of the draft
programme document was negative.



                                                      Kenya
                                Expenditure on environmental assistance in
                                Kenya from 1999 to 2010

                    25
     Millions DKK




                    20



                    15



                    10



                     5



                     0
                         <1999 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

The EPS comprises three components:
Component 1: A Policy Development Component anchored in the Ministry for Environment and
Natural Resources (MENR) that focuses on the facilitating and coordinating role of the MENR
within the ministry, between ministries and between the private sector and civil society. The
objective of this component is to improve the governmental policy framework for environmental
monitoring.


Expected outputs from Component 1:
Output 1.1: New environmental policy/strategy document prepared with broad stakeholder
participation
Output 1.2: Crosscutting environmental issues incorporated in selected sector plans and strategies
Output 1.3: MENR capacity to monitor and mainstream Poverty and Environment issues
strengthened
Output 1.4: A National Environmental Education and Awareness Initiative developed and
implemented
Status on implementation: Successful development of a Draft Environmental Policy (EP), a
National Climate Change Response Strategy (NCCRS) and the Environmental Education and
Awareness Initiative (EEAI). The formulation of a NCCRS is a recommendation from the draft
EP. The direct impact from the EP and the NCCRS is subject to approval and follow-up. Indirect
results have been obtained through large and broad consultation processes, including a broad
institutional involvement within the Ministry. Limited progress within this component has been
made in terms of mainstreaming of environmental issues in to public and private sector planning.


Component 2: A Strategic Environmental Management Component under the National
Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) that focuses on institutionalising strategic
environmental assessments (SEA‟s) in selected key lead agencies and on NEMA‟s obligations
towards natural resource management. The objective of this component is to enhance NEMA‟s
capacity to support environmental management.


Expected outputs from Component 2:
Output 2.1: Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) institutionalised in selected key agencies
Output 2.2: Decentralised environmental management capacitated in at least 20 districts following
an overall flexible NEMA strategy guiding all decentralised environmental management
Output 2.3: ICZM planning and management modalities developed and piloted through a joint
effort between NEMA and relevant stakeholders
Output 2.4: A capacitated NEMA with appropriate management and financial systems in order for
it to effectively and efficiently fulfil its mandate and roll
Output 2.5: Improved compliance and enforcement of environmental regulation [added during the
inception phase]

Status on implementation: Good progress has been made on enforcement and compliance of
environmental regulation and institutional support to the National Environmental Management
Agency (NEMA). One of the drivers here have been attachment of Police Officers to NEMA and
the subsequent establishment of an Environmental Police Unit, which has been working in
partnership with NEMA since July 2008 on regulatory issues. This has enhanced NEMAs
reputation as an environmental regulator and enabled them to more effectively enforce their
power. The institutional support provided by EPS has allowed for an organisational development
of NEMA, including a revision of the strategic plan. Limit progress has been made on
institutionalisation of SEA, decentralisation of environmental management and on ICZM.


Component 3: A Community and Civil Society Component managed from the Community
Development Trust Fund (CDTF). The component focuses on strengthening civil society to
influence national policies, implement projects addressing local environmental problems and
documenting best practices. The objective of this component is to create awareness and build
capacity in the civil society in undertaking natural resource management projects and
environmental management.


Expected outputs from Component 3:
3.1: Awareness and advocacy campaigns on poverty-environment linkages provided by selected
NGOs/CBOs to support environmental policy formulation and ICZM development;
3.2: A programme of community projects implemented to address local environmental problems,
improve livelihoods and demonstrate innovative approaches and partnerships for community
environmental management; and
3.3: A package of training modules, planning tools and partnership models for community
participation in decentralized environmental management prepared by Civil Society Organisations
and communicated to GoK agencies at national and local levels.


Status on implementation: The implementation of output 1 and 2 of this component has overall
been successful in using existing structures for channelling of funding to communities. The
Community Development Trust Fund (CDTF) set-up has been used. CDTF was established in
1996 and has since been further developed with support from EC. CDTF has two branches: a
Community Environmental Fund (CEF) and a Community Development Programme (CDP). EPS
has used CEF, which is based on a demand and partnership approach (with CBO‟s). The packages
of training modules have not progressed much.


EPS is funded by Danida (100 million DKK) and SIDA (67 million DKK), through a silent
partnership where Danida is managing SIDA environmental funds. In September 2008, Danida
initiated the identification for support of a Natural Resource Management (NRM) programme as a
next phase of EPS. The NRM Programme was approved by the Danida Board in December 2009.
The first 6 months of 2010 (until July) will include the completion of EPS and the inception phase
of the NRM programme. With the decision to close down EPS by July 2010, the programme will
be stopped 18 months before initially planned.


Relevance: The EPS support has responded to relevant environmental circumstances facing the
country which were initially not in the programme design e.g. EPS provided opportunities for
relevant, timely and flexible support to the climate change agenda in Kenya as the political
attention was emerging. The EPS has also been timely and relevant for contribution to both
institutional capacity development and policy processes within relevant environmental insitutions.
Alignment: EPS is aligned to government policies and strategies, including the Ministry‟s Strategic
Plan (but not to Vision 2030 that was formulated after EPS). EPS also aligned to existing
structures for community support (trust fund). The Government and Danida are however using
different formats for reporting.
Harmonization: EPS have been implemented by Danida in a partnership with the Government of
Kenya and in a silent partnership with Sida. In addition, there has been coordination of activities
and made use of structures previously or currently supported by other donors (Trust Fund
structure supported by EC and activities related to the Enforcement and Compliance activities
were taken over from DfID, who left the environmental sector).
Sustainability: The 18 months shortening of the programme period, means that a number of the
planned programme activities will not be implemented. Although a number of the activities from
EPS will fully or partly be carried over to the new NMR programme.
Coordination: Limited coordination and harmonization between the 3 programme components
has taken place. Therefore, potential synergies between the components have not been
materialised.
Flexibility: EPS has demonstrated flexibility to adapt to changes and new initiatives. Examples of
this are the Compliance and Enforcement, the Environmental Education and Awareness Initiative
(EEAI) and the National Climate Change Response Strategy (NCCRS) that were not included in
the original programme document. A combination of large flexibility in programme
implementation and a lack of clear programme indicators and an operational M&E system in place
may however have contributed to limitations in effectiveness and programme performance (see
below).
Financial Management and Reporting: National financial structures used but financial reporting
procedures are not harmonized between (two different formats are used, one for the Government
and another for the donor)
Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E): There has been limited progress on establishing of an
operational M&E system for the programme.
Effectiveness: In the first Review Aide Memoire (Inception Review, 2007) it was emphasized that
there had been limited progress on important EPS activities during the first seven months of
programme implementation (the inception period). The second Review Aide Memoire (2008)
noted that progress had since improved substantially but that production of outputs and funds
disbursements were still lagging much behind the expected. After a little more than 3 years of
implementation 60% of the originally planned time for programme implementation has passed but
only 40% of the funding were disbursed26.
Performance: As part of a Lessons Learned exercise of EPS27 an estimate was also done of the
EPS performance achievements. It was concluded that the overall EPS programme performance
has been a challenge to assess due to lack of EPS programme indicators and limited progress in
M&E activities. Through a weighted estimate it was however assessed that after 3 years of
implementation (60% of the time) only 30% of the EPS objectives and 50% of the results had
been achieved.
Capacity Building/institutional development: As part of the inception phase a functional analysis
was carried out which has contributed to the implementation of organisation reforms at the
MEMR and the establishment of an Environmental Directorate. This is considered a major
achievement for the Ministry. Through EPS substantial funding and resources have been provided
for internal use in the MEMR, however the results in terms of improvements in external relations
and service delivery are yet to be demonstrated. It must however be recognised that time has been
rather short for EPS supported activities to deliver outcomes, although the establishment of the
Environmental Directorate is providing a scope for improved service delivery by MEMR.
Programme Management and Decision making:The programme management and the lines of
decision making has been unclear and, as a result here of, not efficient.
Key Lessons Learned from EPS:
- The programme has demonstrated strong benefits from working through partnership models
(examples: cooperation with Police on compliance and enforcement of environmental regulations
and with communities through CEF)
- The decision to reduce the programme implementation period from 5 years to 3 ½ years has led
to a loose of momentum. EPS was slow in the beginning but was getting pace. This is faded out
again in the end due to the focus on the new programme (NRM), where a slow beginning is most
likely to take place. The MEMR is gradually gaining implementation capacity and improved
understanding of how EPS can be utilized to support MEMR strategy. The next years of EPS
would therefore have looked promising in terms of performance delivery.
- The uupport to capacity development should aim at developing institutions and their service
delivery rather than individuals. This is particularly the case for institutions with high staff
turnover. Likewise, EPS has demonstrated that there is need to incorporate capacity building at
different institutional levels, including among institutions who are not involved directly in the
implementation of the programme. In addition, capacity development support should be linked
directly to the priority outputs and the performance targets of the institutions.


26
   Danida and Sida supported Environmental Programme Support (EPS) Programme (2006-2010) Kenya - Lessons Learned of EPS
(1st Draft, April 16, 2010, by Michale Linddal)
27 As above.
-Weak programme management and limited incentives for cooperation among the programme
components has contributed to missed opportunities for obtaining of synergies across the three
components.
-EPS has demonstrated some clear advantages from making use of a flexible programming
approach. In terms of effectivenes and efficiency, it is however important that the flexibility is
proporly balanced with concrete milestones and an operational M&E system.
-Cross-cutting themes are causing particular challenges to environmental programme interventions
and will require special interventions. E.g. gender equality is not explicitly in the EPS programme.

Documents:
-   Danida and Sida supported Environmental Programme Support (EPS) Programme (2006-
    2010) Kenya - Lessons Learned of EPS (1st Draft, April 16, 2010, by Michael Linddal)
-   EPS Lessons Learned Report (MEMR, March 2010)
-   MEMR comments on Michael Linddals Zero Draft Report of 23 March, 2010 (MEMR, 13
    April 2010)
-   EPS Programme Document (2006)
-   Review Aide Memoire (Inception review, 2007)
-   Review Aide Memoire (2008)
   Annex 5
Workshop Survey
          Has the enforcement of environmental legislation in Egypt,
          Tanzania and Zambia improved compared to five years ago?
100%
 90%
 80%
 70%
                                                                 Other
 60%
 50%                                                             Worse
 40%                                                             No improvement
 30%
 20%                                                             Minor
 10%                                                             Major
  0%
       Central Local   NGO Donor Civil Private Other
        Govt Govt                   Society
                          Institution


         Has the cooperation between different line ministries and the
       Ministry of Environment in Egypt, Tanzania and Zambia improved in
                              the past five years?
100%
 80%
 60%
                                                                   Other
 40%
                                                                   No improvement
 20%
                                                                   Minor
  0%
                                                                   Major
       Central Local      NGO Donor Civil Private Other
        Govt Govt                  Society

                             Institution



            Has the public awareness of environmental issues in Egypt,
                 Tanzania and Zambia risen in the past five years?

100%
 80%
 60%
 40%                                                                       Other
 20%                                                                       None
  0%                                                                       Minor
        Central   Local     NGO     Donor        Civil Private Other       Major
         Govt     Govt                          Society

                                  Institution
        What score would you give the interventions in your country for
              achieving objectives (as % of those who answered)?
100%

80%

60%
                                                                Unsatisfactory
40%
                                                                Less Satisfactory
20%
                                                                Satisfactory
 0%                                                             Very Satisfactory
       Central   Local    Donor    Civil Private Other
        Govt     Govt             Society

                            Institution


        What score would you give the interventions in your country for
            achieving sustainability (as % of those who answered)?
100%

80%

60%
                                                                Unsatisfactory
40%
                                                                Less Satisfactory
20%
                                                                Satisfactory
 0%                                                             Very Satisfactory
       Central Local     NGO Donor Civil Private Other
        Govt Govt                 Society

                            Institution



        How do you rate Danida's overall support to the environment in
        your country compared to other development partners (as % of
                           those who answered)?
100%
 80%
 60%
                                                                Unsatisfactory
 40%
                                                                Less Satisfactory
 20%
                                                                Satisfactory
  0%
                                                                Very Satisfactory
       Central Local     NGO Donor Civil Private Other
        Govt Govt                 Society

                            Institution
        Has the enforcement of environmental legislation in Egypt,
        Tanzania and Zambia improved compared to five years ago?

100%
 80%
                                                           Other
 60%
 40%                                                       Worse
 20%                                                       No improvement
  0%                                                       Minor
             Egypt       Tanzania        Zambia
                                                           Major
                        Country



       Has the cooperation between different line ministries and the
           Ministry of Environment in Egypt, Tanzania and Zambia
                       improved in the past five years?
100%
 80%
 60%                                                       Other
 40%
                                                           No improvement
 20%
                                                           Minor
  0%
            Egypt        Tanzania        Zambia            Major
                        Country



        Has the public awareness of environmental issues in Egypt,
             Tanzania and Zambia risen in the past five years?
100%
80%
60%                                                                    Other
40%                                                                    None
20%                                                                    Minor
 0%                                                                    Major
              Egypt           Tanzania            Zambia
                              Country
        What score would you give the interventions in your country
          for achieving objectives (as % of those who answered)?
100%

80%
60%                                                                     D
40%                                                                     C
20%                                                                     B
 0%                                                                     A
               Egypt             Tanzania             Zambia
                                Country



        What score would you give the interventions in your country
         for achieving sustainability (as % of those who answered)?


100%
 80%
 60%                                                                    D
 40%                                                                    C
 20%
                                                                        B
  0%
                                                                        A
               Egypt             Tanzania             Zambia
                                Country



       How do you rate Danida's overall support to the environment in
       your country compared to other development partners (as % of
                          those who answered)?
100%
 80%
 60%                                                                    D
 40%                                                                    C
 20%                                                                    B
 0%                                                                     A
               Egypt             Tanzania             Zambia
                                 Country
                        Annex 5
   Evaluation of Adherence to Programmatic Criteria for
Environmental Support Programmes in Case Study Countries
           Evaluation of Adherence to Programmatic Criteria for Environmental Support Programmes in Case Study Countries

Criteria              Egypt                            Zambia                                                        Tanzania
                      ESP                              1st ESP: NRM /LSW             ENRMMP                          1st ESP                      2nd ESPS
                                                                                                                     PFM + SCP                    UDEM + EISP
1.   Strengthening    Weak: Though some                Good : Targeted poor          Fair: Limited evidence so       PFM Good : Targeted          Fair / Weak: indirect
     the capability   investments at governorate       communities in Game           far that design will directly   villages to manage forest    support through national
     of the poor      level were designed to           Management Areas and in       impact on poor. Future          reserves                     and local structures to
                      benefit the poor, most           peri-urban Lusaka             success will depend on          SCP Good: Targeted poor      improve urban waste
                      benefits likely to be indirect                                 how the Interim EF and          urban dwellers to manage     management, which would
                      and longer term.                                               the CSO fund selection          local waste collection       benefit poor.
                                                                                     criteria allow these funds                                   EISP Weak: focus more on
                                                                                     to target poor.                                              national capacity building in
                                                                                                                                                  ministries for environmental
                                                                                                                                                  management with long-term
                                                                                                                                                  benefits to the poor
2.   National         Good: Programme explicitly       Fair: Recognised the          Fair : In principle well        PFM Good: was designed to    UDEM Weak: Though on
     ownership        supports Law 4, and EEAA         primacy of the NEAP, and      aligned, but govt.              build on legislation, FBD    paper UDEM concept
                      policy statements.               sought to build local         ownership has not been          committed                    supported, PMO-RALG did
                      However, Danida funding of       ownership through             very strong so far or wide                                   not take sufficient
                      activities was strongly seen     community boards and          across stakeholders,            SCP Fair: used sustainable   ownership
                      as additional aid funds, and     councils. LSW based on        especially outside              cities concept but had
                      were tightly controlled by       local govt and health         MTENR, and even within          limited national linkages    EISP Fair: While EMA
                      TA                               legislation                   MTENR                                                        support was a govt.
                                                                                                                                                  initiative, the Act was new
                                                                                                                                                  (2004) and wider govt.
                                                                                                                                                  commitment less strong
3.   Capacity         Good: Capacity                   Fair: mainly local capacity   Good : Capacity                 PFM Good: built              Fair - UDEM & EISP
     development      development at various           development of local govt.    development is a central        community and district       design criticised for lack of
                      levels                           & communities                 focus though exact              ownership                    detailed inst. capacity
                                                                                     approach still depends on       SCP Fair- training at        assessment but both have
                                                                                     assessments that are yet to     municipally and community    extensive CB support and
                                                                                     be done.                        level                        aimed to follow GoT
                                                                                                                                                  Capacity Building
                                                                                                                                                  Programme (2005) in terms
                                                                                                                                                  of mainstreaming
4.   Long time        Fair: Programme ran for 7        NRM Weak: 3 years then        Weak : Programme                PFM Good: continued          UDEM Weak – 4 yr time
     perspective      years with major redesign        extensions before closure     designed to run for 4           support over 12 yrs          frame, and with slow results,
                      half way through. With           LSW: Fair: 2 phases over 5    years only                      SCP Weak: each city          RDE may cancel and merge
                      Danida exiting from Egypt        years but then discontinued                                   received a fixed period of   with WB Strategic Cities
                      no possibility of extending                                                                    support of 3yrs or 5yrs      Project
                      support
                                                                                                                                                  EISP: Fair – 5 year
Criteria                  Egypt                            Zambia                                                        Tanzania
                          ESP                              1st ESP: NRM /LSW                ENRMMP                       1st ESP                      2nd ESPS
                                                                                                                         PFM + SCP                    UDEM + EISP
                                                                                                                                                      timeframe (to match
                                                                                                                                                      Mkukuta)
5.     Coordinated        Weak: EEAA coordination          Weak: Danida funded both         Fair: 4 donors joined        PFM Fair: Finland, WB and    Weak: although planned for
       support            of donors not strong –           components alone                 programme but only 2 of      Norway funding in            other donors to join, there
                          different projects run                                            these funding so far.        complementary way            was no agreement in place at
                          without complementarity                                           Norway may not fund,         SCP Weak: no other donor     start up
                          (except for linkage between                                       and UNDP has limited                                      For EISP, though basket
                          SEAM and ESP).                                                    resources. No other                                       funding proposed, this has
                          Donor coordination                                                donors (esp larger ones                                   not taken off and funding
                          essentially information                                           have shown interest so                                    has been inadequate
                          exchange, with no joint                                           far).
                          analysis
6.     Works at           Good: Provided support for       Fair/Weak: NRM worked at         Good: Provides support       PFM Good: combined           UDEM Good – design
       multiple levels    national frameworks/             local level, though some         for national frameworks/     community, district and      involves explicit links
                          systems as well as               linkage with NRCF to             systems as well as           national actions within      between PMO-RALG and
                          components for sub-sectors       national level, but little       components for sub-          policy framework             LGAs
                          (in private sector and           interaction between them.        sectors and through the
                          governorates) and for local      LSW also limited linkages        Interim Environmental        SCP Weak: mainly at city     ESIP Fair: focus more on
                          demonstration and capacity       between city and national        Fund and the CSO fund        level, with poor links to    MDAs (mainstreaming of
                          building                                                          for local demonstration      PMO-RALG & other             line ministries) and setting
                                                                                            and capacity building        national bodies              up of EMUs at LGA level
                                                                                                                                                      was deferred to later in the
                                                                                                                                                      design28.
7.     Accountability     Fair: Danida procurement         Weak: NRM components             Fair: Basket-funding         PFM Good: Designed to use    Good: Govt. leads on
       &                  and financial systems took       managed by Danida: little        offers possibility for       local govt systems           management structures and
       Transparency.      precedence, though local         use of GRZ systems, though       Zambian procurement                                       funds flow through GoT
       Use of local       financial and audit systems      District was co-signatory.       and financial systems to     SCP Fair – using municipal   systems (though concerns
       systems            were used and local              National coordinator initially   be used, but considerable    systems though managed by    about efficiency has led to
                          procurement for smaller          housed in RDE and not part       assistance needed to         TA                           Value for Money studies by
                          purchases. Weak capacity of      of MENR                          enhance the capacity of                                   Danida)
                          EEAA planning and M&E            LSW – designed as separate       local systems.
                          meant that ESP developed         unit, later adopted by LCC
                          its own reporting system         as semi-autonomous
8.     Common             Fair: ESP was managed with       Weak: different components       Fair: MTENR is managing      Fair: FBD managed            Weak: The ESPS comprises
       programme          a PMU placed within              to be supported separately,      ENRMMP, led by               programme, though results    three different sub-sector
       management         EEAA, so operating as a          and under different              Planning Dept, but some      framework driven by          components with no
       and result         normal project. But co-          ministries (Local Govt for       issues over weak             different donor. Joint       common management and
       structure          management between TA            Urban Env, and MENR for          leadership in Ministry and   reviews were planned and     separate results frameworks.

28   Though in fact EMUs were set up in 90% of LGAs by 2009 and their funding has became a PAF indicator.
Criteria            Egypt                            Zambia                                                          Tanzania
                    ESP                              1st ESP: NRM /LSW                 ENRMMP                        1st ESP                         2nd ESPS
                                                                                                                     PFM + SCP                       UDEM + EISP
                    and EEAA was appreciated         NRM)                              difficulty of keeping         took place
                    and seen as more integrated                                        statutory bodies on board.    SCP Weak: each city
                    than other projects.                                               Results framework is good     designed as separate project
                                                                                                                     though under
9.   Integrated     Initially weak but improved      Weak: urban and NRM               Initially weak but            PFM Good – local, national      Fair: All components were
     components     later. 7 components at the       aspects had little integration,   improving. On paper           and research components         implemented within the
                    start with little connection     though NRM aspects were           ENRMMP has strong             integrated in Danida            GoT systems. But the ESP
                    between some of them.            linked to each other              inclusion of various actors   programme and took over         components were not
                    Synergy expressed on paper                                         (on steering committees)      from earlier projects           particularly integrated with
                    (e.g. between central and                                          and capacity building is      SCP Weak – separate             each other. Budgets could be
                    local levels), but less                                            available for all MDAs.       projects were not integrated    transferred between
                    integration in practice due to                                                                                                   components if needed, and
                    administrative/political                                                                                                         an ESPS management
                    differences between central                                                                                                      budget allowed for reviews,
                    government and governorates.                                                                                                     studies.
                    EEAA maintained full
                    control of ESP, and early
                    devolution has reversed.
                    EPF has not delivered much
                    outside of Danida EMG.
                    Limited EEAA funds reach
                    EMUs, who largely depend
                    on governorate for resources.
10. Allows Policy   Weak. Limited evidence that      Weak: focus was on local          Weak so far. Limited                        Fair: the anchoring of
                                                                                                                     PFM Fair : dialogue though
    dialogue        ESP was designed by              environmental work with           evidence that ENRMMP                        UDEM in PMO-RALG
                                                                                                                     FBD and national steering
                    Danida for policy influence.     limited national dialogue         has been used by Danida                     should have brought policy
                                                                                                                     committee (NFPSC)
                    Although support for a           thru NRCF.                        (or SAG members) for                        influence, except that PMO-
                                                                                                                     SCP Weak – lack of a
                    strategic plan for EEAA was      LSW also did not focus on         policy influence. But                       RALG was known to be
                                                                                                                     channel to influence national
                    proposed by ESP reviews,         building policy dialogue          Senior Govt officials                       weak and with a large
                                                                                                                     policy – no urban ministry
                    no such strategy was                                               represented on Steering       as such       reform agenda
                    requested or prepared.                                             Committee                                   Good: choosing to work
                                                                                                                                   trough VPO and EWG
                                                                                                                                   structure
Acronyms: NRM: Natural Resource Management, ENRMMP: Environment and Natural Resources Mainstreaming Programme; PFM: Participatory Forest Management; SCP:
Sustainable Cities Programme; UDEM: Urban Development and Environmental Management Framework; EISP: Environmental Management Act – Implementation Support
Programme. EMG: Environmental Management for the Governorates, EEAA: Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency, NRM: Natural Resources Management, SAG: Sector
Advisory Group, EMU: Environmental Management Unit, RBO: Regional Branch Office, LSW: Lusaka Solid Waste

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:8
posted:7/12/2011
language:English
pages:72