Independent Evaluation of the Inception Phase of CACILM Executive Summary BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF CACILM The overall goal and objective of the Central Asian Countries Initiative for Land Management (CACILM) Multi-country Partnership Framework (CMPF) are the restoration, maintenance, and enhancement of the productive functions of land leading to the improved economic and social well-being of those who depend on these resources while preserving the environmental functions of these lands in the spirit of the U.N. Convention to Combat Desertification and Drought (UNCCD). The CMPF has two major sets of activities: (i) implementation of the National Programming Frameworks (NPFs) for sustainable land management in respectively Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan; and (ii) multi-country activities to support the implementation of the work program under the CMPF and to build capacity in sustainable land management (SLM). The expected results in terms of impact, Outcomes and Outputs are provided in the CACILM Logical Frameworks Matrix (Logframe), including for the Inception Phase. This has been developed into a Logframe for the CMPF support project, which provides the basis for this evaluation. The key Outcomes from this Logframe relevant to the inception phase are;  

Improved capacity of institutions in Central Asia to adopt integrated land-use planning and management Long-term, sustained, and harmonized commitments of financial and human resources through mainstreaming of SLM in donor programs for Central Asia

The expected Outputs are:     

Efficient and effective coordination of the implementation CACILM Multicountry Partnership Framework Efficient and effective coordination of the implementation of NPFs in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan Sustainable Land Management Information System (SLMIS) designed, developed, and operated SLM Research designed and Implemented Knowledge Management System established

It is to be noted that this Logframe does not include Outputs related to Capacity Building, which was a key part of the original Logframe and vehicle for achieving the Outcomes listed above. CONTEXT AND PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION Considering that the Inception Phase is coming to a close in 2009, it is necessary to conduct an independent evaluation of overall program implementation during this phase in accordance with the Global Environment Facility (GEF) requirements. In addition to

i

evaluating CACILM performance against planned results, the evaluation is expected to identify challenges and opportunities associated with implementation, and to propose effective solutions to overcome identified barriers, as well as, the means for replicating and scaling up successful implementation modalities. An independent evaluation consulting team was recruited to prepare the evaluation and report to the 3rd CACILM Steering Committee. The Terms of Reference for this evaluation was shared with the Steering Committee by the Multicountry Secretariat (MSEC). The CACILM Steering Committee will use the results of this evaluation as a means to make necessary changes for improving achievement of CACILM’s objectives as it moves to the Full Implementation Phase. It is anticipated that this evaluation will inform GEF Secretariat on the progress made and pave the way for consideration of the 2nd tranche of GEF financing in the context of CACILM being the first GEF Country Programming Partnership (CPP) initiative. MAIN FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED The evaluation team’s overall finding is that CACILM is a distinct initiative in the context of the UNCCD that has brought together a diverse range of partners from both the Central Asian Countries (CACs) and development cooperation partners under a common framework of action for advancing the adoption of SLM as a means to improve local communities’ livelihood opportunities and for strengthening ecosystem services. It has successfully established a network of multistakeholder National Coordinating Councils (NCCs) and supporting National Secretariats (NSECs). Furthermore, CACILM has established a capacity to provide multicountry activities that can support the implementation of SLM at both national and subregional levels. For scaling up activities however it is imperative that the NCCs and NSECs are further strengthened to be able to support mainstreaming of SLM into national policies, regulations, institutions and budgetary processes for implementing respective National Programming Frameworks (NPFs). We find that all countries and the great majority of participants see the CACILM system as a valuable achievement at both national and multicountry levels for advancing the principles and approach of SLM. We also find that development cooperation partners consider this capability should be further enhanced to enable investments to flow to SLM as originally intended under the Strategic Partnership Agreement for UNCCD Implementation in Central Asian Countries (SPA) and when CACILM was subsequently designed as a GEF CPP initiative. While significant progress has been made in achieving expected Outputs during the Inception Phase, it is too early to see Outcome level changes, for example, relating to “improved capacity of institutions in Central Asia to adopt integrated land-use planning and management” or the establishment of an “integrated approach to land-use planning and management used in 100% of relevant public investment projects”. The questions asked during this evaluation have tried to elicit responses that show how well is the process of CACILM deployment on track to achieve these medium to long-term Outcomes. Both the successes and failures with CACILM deployment as it relates to contributing to achieve expected Outcomes, as well as, Outputs provide critical lessons for the next

ii

phase. While there are many successes that can be discussed the following are some of the qualitative successes that the team would like to highlight: 1. There is a willingness among partners to continue to engage in CACILM despite some of the challenges and setbacks that have been experienced. This is a clear indication that partners see the important potential of CACILM as a driver of change and that without it, a business-as-usual scenario would prevail. 2. Deployment of the 1st set of on-the-ground investment projects have been undertaken albeit with significant variations in speed that provide insight into some of the unforeseen challenges; 3. Establishment of institutional structures such as NCCs and Secretariats at Multicountry and National levels as well as governmental endorsements have been obtained for several of them; 4. In-kind contributions from CACs; 5. Convening of 2 Steering Committee meetings with full attendance including GEF Sec; 6. Keenness to move to the next phase and scale up activities; 7. International recognition of CACILM as a success story in the UNCCD context While the above successes can be celebrated there are two general areas of concern that need to be addressed if some of the challenges are to be overcome and the next phase optimised: 1) Institutional and governance structures (NCCs, NSECs, MSEC and SPA); and 2) Project Developers, Implementers and Executors. 1.) Institutional and Governance structures: We find that most participants expect the NCCs and CACILM Steering Committee to be more proactive in advancing the objectives of the NPFs as was intended in the original CACILM Program Implementation Arrangements as quoted below: “The councils’ main functions will be to: coordinate the overall implementation of projects and activities mandated by the NPF; supervise implementation of the activities that are the direct responsibility of each council; monitor the performance of all projects and activities and report to the CACILM steering committee; and review and endorse proposals for consideration by the CACILM steering committee. The councils will be supported by national secretariats” Many interviewees expressed the view that the search for funds and implementation of NPFs requires a much more strategic approach on the part of the NCCS, MSEC and NSECs than it has been possible for them to provide. Many members of the steering committee also feel they are not yet functioning well enough to “be responsible for overall direction of the CMPF” as described in the CMPF Program Implementation Arrangements; or to fulfil their functions in  the strategic development of the CMPF on the bases of lessons learned from the process, and the  policy dialogue, A significant number of members of both the Steering Committee and NCCs expressed the view that the Steering Committee and NCC meetings are not well structured to facilitate examination of critical issues but focus more on administrative details and to some extent function as ‘rubber stamps’ for proposals put forward by the Secretariats.

iii

The discussions surrounding these issues above with several steering committee members reveal a grey area around expectations for the NSECs / NCC system in several regards. The grey area centres mainly on the lack of an articulation of the “strategic” orientation of these bodies for advancing the policy reform agenda, undertaking mainstreaming activities and resource mobilisation. These need to be resolved before the next stage. We recommend that the organisation and support for the NCCs and Steering Committee be reviewed by a sub committee of the Steering Committee to make explicit the strategic, operational and administrative services of the MSEC and NSECs. This will enable the NPFs to be implemented more systematically and strategically for achieving multiple objectives and help scale up the next phase. We find, and many NCCs and NSECs concur, that although some progress has been made, the NCCS are yet to influence the SLM policy debate in each country in a direct way and this will need to change for SLM to be mainstreamed in each country as consistent with both intended Outcomes indicated in the Logframe above. The reasons, which have also contributed to delays in the Inception Phase, are threefold: i)

We find that there has been a prioritisation of work in the Inception Phase to largely administrative functions and the NSECs are not well equipped to undertake larger duties. While this was necessary given the need to get many of the activities off the ground, the strategic issues that should have been taken up by the NCCs were largely set aside. In this regard, we find the National Secretariats were not well guided for providing the intended level of support to the NCCs in advancing the strategic reform agenda of CACILM. We recommend the Lead Agency together with a group of SPA and CACs representatives assist the Chair of each NCC to review staffing, status, TORs and appropriate resources of their respective NSEC. In addition, we find that the location of the NSEC in Almaty in Kazakhstan is hindering their ability to support the mainstreaming of SLM through the key ministries who are located in Astana. This is important to the achievement of both Outcomes in the Logframe. It also hinders their ability to liaise with some significant donor partners and with the Chair of the NCC and many members. These factors may be significant additional reasons why in the case of Kazakhstan the NCC/NSEC relationship is not optimal. As such, we recommend the NSEC in Kazakhstan be located in Astana to enable them to be in closer communication with their host Ministry and other ministries important in mainstreaming SLM

ii)

We find the CACILM Steering committee and the MSEC is not providing enough guidance and support to NCCs to actively engage in mainstreaming of SLM in the ways summarized in the CACILM Framework logframe referred to above. This additional support may consist of stimulus to produce more strategic issues papers, to embark on more proactive debate on SLM issues

iv

and to engage donors, the private sector and others in discussions about support for CACILM. We recommend that the Lead Agency refocus its support of the Steering Committee to enable it to consider and discuss more strategic issues and to give more support to the NCCs. This is consistent with their function to “provide guidance and assistance for further policy dialogue within CACILM and the further strategic development of the CACILM initiative” described in the CMPF-SP Project Document. We recommend the Steering Committee be provided with more material on key issues and have more meetings on sites where valuable lessons for CACILM are available. We consider the Steering Committee should invite more targeted NCC members and NSECs to attend meetings as observers. We recommend the TORs for the MSEC be revised accordingly. We also consider it desirable that the MSEC is fluent in English and Russian, this is based on stakeholder expressed views that providing more strategic and political advice to the Steering Committee requires fluency in Russian by all key appointees. We observe that many donor members of the Steering Committee have other means of influencing the mainstreaming of SLM, for example through respective development programming frameworks of UNDP, UNEP, IFAD, ADB and WB, and importantly, with bilaterals such as Germany, Canada and Switzerland. We recommend the Steering Committee consider asking such partners to promote CACILM also through their publications in this way and that CACILM is identified in these publications by these partners. iii)

We find that CACILM is not well understood outside its immediate circle of national participants and outside its immediate circle of donors. This reduces the ability of NCCs, supported by NSECs, to mainstream SLM into country policies, programmes and projects. We find this lack of awareness also inhibits the creation of a feeling of being part of a ‘CACILM family’ in the sense of a group having common objectives in the region and this too reduces the ability of the partnership to mainstream SLM and gain additional support and new donor members to CACILM. This need can be addressed by more active promotion by NSECs and NCCs but we find a need for improved promotional material and promotion tailored to domestic and some international markets. We recommend increased support be provided to the Knowledge Management Project (or through some other project) to better articulate and promote CACILM in the region and in selected international media. This should be planned in cooperation with the Capacity Building Project to avoid duplication and to harmonize the messages.

v

We recommend consideration be given to sub-contracting this promotional activity in each country to improve language penetration, adding local languages and to modify media to stakeholder targets. 2) Project Developers, Implementers and Executors, and Management and Coordination arrangements: We find that there have been some difficulties coordinating the activities of partners or participants that are also contractors under CACILM and these have contributed to delays or failures to achieve Inception Phase objectives. These difficulties come from two directions; (i)

Many donor institutions are accustomed to activity or input based contracts rather than output or results based contracts, (output based contracts are considered to provide a much better incentive to produce the intended results in the intended time). The lead agency has set about renegotiating the arrangements to make them easier to supervise but this has not always gone smoothly leading to delay. We recommend future contracting with donor contractors be approached with as much care setting up contracts with participants as would be the case with completely separate private contractors, but before the project or activity is expected to begin.

(ii)

The Multi Country Capacity Building Project, which we find as one of the most crucial Inception Phase projects in CACILM, has yet to be operationalised. It has been managed from UNDP Bratislava assisted by country offices of UNDP in CACs situated away from the MSEC. This has posed some difficulties with communication. There is wide spread perception among collaborators and the MSEC that they have not been kept adequately informed on progress by UNDP despite at least 2 meetings organised by UNDP to discuss the Capacity Building Project. Unfortunately the delay in starting this project has impacted seriously on all other parts of CACILM as capacity development was widely expected during this phase. There is a need for UNDP to allay fears and to expend greater effort in adopting a more speedy and open process so as to avoid, seriously impacting the effectiveness, efficiency and cost effectiveness of the whole program during the next phase. This finding is unexpected as the CMPF anticipated that “the CACILM secretariat will also be responsible for supervising capacity building during CMPF implementation”. The discussions with various members of the Steering Committee around these issues indicate a significant grey area surrounding the duties of the MSEC to coordinate overall activities under CACILM. This grey area needs to be clarified and new TOR specified, if necessary, for the next phase.

The lesson leant here is that coordination of the design of such a vital project should in future be in much closer contact with the MSEC and NSECs to enable more regular and informed monitoring and liaison. This is so assistance can be provided as needed and other dependant activities coordinated better. The

vi

Evaluation Team has been made aware that a different arrangement is under consideration for the implementation of this project with closer linkages with the MSEC and NSECs. We strongly recommend that this vital project be given the highest attention by the Steering Committee and that it ensure planned liaison meetings are held and action items are followed through. OTHER FINDINGS EVALUATION

AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

REACHED

DURING

THE

i) With relation to the SPA there is a call for increasing the number of donor partners who are actively working in the subregion. In view of the wish to obtain new donor members to the CACILM partnership we recommend the results of the donor analysis to be undertaken by the GM under the Capacity Building Project, are used by MSEC to coordinate targeting of likely new members in country by NSECs, and internationally by the GM or other delegates of the SPA. ii) We find that the ongoing successful review of M&E requires additional support in the next phase. We recommend a review of the medium term development path for M&E to reassess the potential and cost effectiveness of monitoring the achievements of each NPF by all actors in SLM, CACILM or otherwise. We recommend a review of the potential for direct monitoring of changes in resource conditions in key locations in each country and for trend analysis. We recommend the MSEC look for opportunities to use M&E to test design assumptions and provide other institutional adaptive learning services to improve planning over time. iii) We find that each country would like to increase the scope of CACILM to include the climate change sector in terms of promoting SLM as a vehicle for adaptation and mitigation. We recommend a study of this potential, if it has not already been done, by the lead agency or any other interested partner and that the linkages between climate change and land degradation be articulated as part of the Knowledge Management Project as discussed above. There is a need for taking into consideration an appropriate geographic scale and timeline for concentrating and sequencing projects if adaptation measures to predicted climate change are to be adopted. This will enable both increased opportunities for additional investment and the CACs to take further advantage of the multicountry capability of CACILM to address significant challenges. iv) We also find that each country would like to widen the scope of CACILM to include water use - in essence water use efficiency - since water is also closely connected to land degradation. We find there are proposals to establish a drought centre in Uzbekistan and a suggestion for dryland research centre in Turkmenistan, also looking at the productive and ecological service use of secondary drainage water.

vii

We recommend a study of these proposals, if it has not already been done, to better inform a decision as these ideas are not yet agreed between the countries. The objective cited here is also to increase the availability of investment and to make additional use of the CACILM multi-country capability. If agreement is reached then we recommend the Knowledge Management Project be asked to articulate this potential as well for promotion. v) We find there is strong interest in developing new financing mechanisms for CACILM in the long term within each country. Various options have been suggested; including by some donors pooling resources in line with the Paris Declaration, promoting the marketing of ecosystem services from each country and different collaborative arrangements targeting specific donors. We recommend a review of financing options as an extension of assistance provided by the GM through the Capability Building Program. We note that each country has some potential to provide its own cofinancing in various ways and that this too must be explored. ASSESSMENT OF RESULTS OF PROJECTS The TOR specify assessment of achievement of projects impacts against indicators in the Log Frame. We have done this in a table below linking expected Outcomes to reported results and all of our recommendations to address perceived shortcomings and barriers It emerged early in the evaluation that delays in several projects impacted on other projects. Since the reasons for this may have lessons for the future we have also summarised overall progress against planned Outputs from the 2008 work plans and included a column on intended output from the current Support Project log frame to enable the two to be linked. The composite tables show many delays pointing to possible problems in the next phase. As such, we have analysed the reasons in a table 3 below to provide some guidance in coming up with remedial actions. This is because, although delays are common in development activities, one of the possible advantages of a long term programmatic approach such as CACILM is that it can provide assistance in avoiding or addressing delays with preparation - a potentially significant advantage for new donors and other partners in bilateral projects that help reduce transaction costs. We have also recommended some corrective action at the end. TABLE 1: ACHIEVEMENTS OF EACH MULTI-COUNTRY PROJECT Name project

SLM Information System

of

Achievements & Comments on expected result by December 2009 (2008 Operational Plans)

Expected output in current CMPF support project logical framework

Evaluator comment on completion in 2009

Achievements include ADBFAO Agreement completed. FAO in action, first workshop undertaken. SLMIS international and

SLMIS designed, developed, and operated

Some staff express doubt about completion on time, unable to form an opinion on completion.

viii

national consultants engaged. NSIUs established in all CACs and commence data collection. (not all operating well however) Interviewee comments: Delayed start, 2008 completion target of 31 March 2009 unlikely. Negative comments about training

SLM Knowledge Management

Achievements include Workplan implemented. Knowledge Network components established. ADBIFPRI Agreement completed for ‘Economic Analysis of SLM’. Environmental Atlas team mobilized by ADB. MSEC + NSEC trained and contribute to CACILM Website.

Knowledge management system established

Although the dissemination aspects of this project are criticized due to the language restrictions and web site performance, it may meet targets within 2009.

Sustainable land management research designed and Implemented

Drought has seriously impacted on prospects for meaningful results being reported in 2009

Interviewee comments: Underway but 2008 completion target of 31st March 2009 unlikely. Widespread negative comments about dissemination. SLM Research

Achievements include MSEC assisted NSECs and ICARDA Projects. PIUs strengthened relationships. SLM-R Demonstrations are underway at pilot sites in all 5 CACs. Related GIS and Socioeconomic activities underway

SLM-R Research Prospectus endorsed by MSEC.

Interviewee comments: Delayed start but underway and mostly popular, lack of resources is a problem for the contractor SLM Multi Country Capacity Building

Achievements include Could not be assessed due to unavailability of UNDP personnel for interviews. Interviewee comments: Program not yet submitted to GEF. Serious impacts from this delay

Not listed in current CMPF Support project

Completion date will need to be extended post-2009. The fact that this vital project is not listed is significant as its influence on the overall program is profound.

ix

The situation with individual projects in each country is more variable, there are some perceived successes but many projects are delayed and at least one has been cancelled. We conclude that a start has been made and that there may be some results that can be publicised by the end of 2009. However we have not inspected any projects on-the-ground as per the scope of the TOR. Included below are also two projects that are part of CACILM but not assisted by GEF. TABLE 2: ASSESSMENT OF ACHIEVEMENT WITH INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS Name of Project and country Demonstrating Sustainable Mountain Pasture Management In Susymymr Valley Kyrgyz Southern Area Dev Kyrgyz

Implementation status Reportedly almost on time

Reported achievements Good baseline and thought to have lessons for law and practice

Comments on national perceptions Considered a success

Cancelled

Nil

Land Improvement project Uzbek Eco-systems stabilisation Uzbek

Delayed but underway Underway. Had to be re-planned

Some drains cleaned to date Nil

Rural Dev Tajik

Delayed. Finalisation of contracts. Start up underway Well underway

Nil to date

Was considered to be potentially a good project. Significant disappointment. Considered likely to be a good project Still doubts by a NCC member and some staff about this project due to lack of community commitment Considered likely to be a good project

Development of local Jamoats demonstration of local experience on combat to land degradation, Southwest of Tajik (Shatruz) Sustainable rangeland management project Kazakh Capacity Building and On-the-Ground Investments for SLM Turkmen SLM project in Tajik in the Pamirs (without GEF finance) SLM project in

Delayed. Underway

Underway

Delayed through institutional reasons but now under way Under way

Has lessons on local implementation

Considered a success

Likely to have lessons on community involvement Likely to have lessons on techniques

Considered likely to be a success

Likely to have lessons for high mountain pasture management May have lessons for

Optimism for this project

Optimism about this project

Optimism for this project

x

Kygryz

Pasture management

We find the reasons for delay can be characterised in ways that point to different solutions, as in table 3. TABLE 3 ANALYSIS OF THE REASONS FOR DELAY Assessed reasons for delay or cancellation Inadequate proposals -serious delay in renegotiating operating contract -delays in selecting national agencies and obtaining data Started on time but slow in execution

Nature of implementing contractor Participant FAO, is also a contractor,

Comments on possible solutions

Executing agent ADB is also a contractor

SLM Research (multi country)

Very slow start, poorly prepared activities based proposal

Donor Partner ICARDA is also the contractor

SLM Multi Country Capacity Building (multi country)

Still has not started -delays in recruiting and in sub studies for preparation Apparently successful start up and implementation

Executing agent UNDP is also the contractor

Provide separate reporting line to Steering Committee sub- committee including a NCC representative as liaison Devote additional time in preparation to negotiate results based contracts -appoint NCC member as liaison Provide separate reporting line to Steering Committee sub committee including NCC representative as liaison Appoint NSEC to steering committee to improve monitoring links

Cancelled

Name of project

SLM Information System (multi country)

SLM Knowledge Management (multi country)

Demonstrating Sustainable Mountain Pasture Management In Susymymr Valley Kyrgyz Southern Area Dev Kyrgyz

Executing Agent is UNDP with independent contractor(s)

Land Improvement project Uzbek

Underway and nothing stands out as problem

Eco-systems stabilization Uzbek

Some reported problems with design and some national disquiet

Executing agent, ADB but they would have had an independent contractor Executing agent ADB who have an independent contractor Executing agent UNDP who have independent contractor(s)

Rural Dev Tajik

Difficult national tax

Executing

Devote additional time in preparation to negotiate results based contracts -appoint NCC member as liaison and member of project steering committees

Apparently poor liaison between Executing Agent and Government

Appoint NSEC to steering committee to improve monitoring links Appoint NSEC to steering committee to improve monitoring links, use NCC member where a problem emerges Appoint NSEC to steering

xi

laws and other conditions

agent, ADB who have an independent contractor Executing agent UNDP who have an independent contractor

committee to improve monitoring links, use NCC member where a problem emerges Appoint NSEC to steering committee to improve monitoring links, use NCC member where a problem emerges

Appoint NSEC to steering committee to improve monitoring links, use NCC member where a problem emerges Appoint NSEC to steering committee to improve monitoring links, use NCC member where a problem emerges

Development of local Jamoats – demonstration of local experience on combat to land degradation, South-west of Tajik (Shatruz) Sustainable rangeland management project Kazakh

Has apparently gone well

Reportedly gone well

Executing agent UNDP who have an independent contractor

Capacity Building and On-the-Ground Investments for SLM Turkmen

Reportedly gone well

Donor partner GTZ who are also the contractor

In general the delays demonstrate the challenges that are inherent in deploying a large initiative such as CACILM and are to be expected. In the body of the report we have identified some of the common challenges that have been faced and possible ways in which to overcome them, these are referred to in the right hand column above. In general however, while proposed solutions vary with implementing agent a possible lesson to be leant here is that contractual relationships should be clear and reflect separation between the donor and implementing role. A second lesson is that the NCCs/NSEC system provides a possible source of addressing implementation problems. That is if NCCs/NSECs can help solve problems getting approvals and mobilizing projects then this would be a definite attraction for donors to increase their work within the CACILM framework. This point cannot be stressed enough as it goes to the core of the added value of having a coordination framework such as CACILM. Table 4 below provides a consolidated overview of the CACILM Monitoring Framework and assesses the different levels of Impact, Outcomes and Outputs against the stated Performance Targets/Indicators where possible and integrates the Evaluation Results, Comments and Recommendations.

xii

TABLE 4: DESIGN AND MONITORING FRAMEWORK – RESULTS

Design

Performance Targets/Indicators

Actual Results

Summary

Comment and link to recommendations in this evaluation

Impact

Restoration,

No net increase in the area of degraded

maintenance and

land in each land management class

Not detectable

Impact level – not expected to be achieved until the post CACILM period

enhancement of the productive functions

10% reduction in the total area of degraded

of land in Central

land

Asia to improve the economic and social

Improved welfare of those relying on land

well-being of those

resources

who depend on these resources, while preserving the environmental functions of these lands in the spirit of UNCCD Outcome

Improved capacity of

Integrated approach to land-use planning

The achievements establishing

Impact Level – complete success here is not expected until

and management used in 100% of relevant

the CMPF-IS, CMPF-KM and

CACILM completion.

public investment projects.

CMPF-R multi country projects

13

institutions in Central

discussed below is a

However some important impacts can be observed during the CACILM period;

Asia to adopt

All monitoring and evaluation reports of

contribution towards achieving

integrated land-use

relevant public investment projects meet

this outcome

planning and

CACILM standards.

management



in terms of changed planning practice might be expected in the next phase

The establishment of the



in terms of improved capacity for strategic direction

CACILM System of Steering

of the NCC, NSEC,MSEC SPA system, change

Improved land use practices adopted by no

committee, NCC and

should emerge fairly soon

fewer than 50% of land-using households.

associated secretariats is a

100% increase in research budgets

significant achievement towards

soon as part of an evolution towards

this outcome.

comprehensive monitoring.



Improved M&E should be come apparent fairly

100% increase in SLM budgets in disasterpreparedness programs

However perceived short

Recommendations

comings in

We have found barriers or problems in the last two of these

Institutional and

governance structures (NCCs,

areas and have made recommendations as follows;

NSECs, MSEC and SPA) is

We recommend that the organisation and support for the

seen as a short coming in

Councils and Steering committee be reviewed by a sub

establishing good strategic

committee of the Steering Committee and strengthened to

direction of this CACILM

enable a more strategic direction of the NPFs to be given as

system

activities pick up in the next phase. We recommend the Lead Agency together with a group of SPA and CACs assist the Chair of each NCC to review staffing, status, TORs and resources of their respective NSEC. In addition we recommend the NSEC in Kazakhstan be relocated to Astana to enable them to be in closer communication with their host Ministry and other ministries

14

important in mainstreaming SLM

Long-term, sustained,

Sustained average annual disbursements

The establishment of the

Some impact toward this outcome might be detectable

and harmonized

for SLM multicountry activities

CACILM System of Steering

within the CACILM period in terms of;

commitments of

committee, NCC and



Evidence of shared understanding of the content

financial and human

Complete accounting for all donor-

associated secretariats is a

resources through

implemented SLM activities in the region

significant achievement towards



Accounting for investments in SLM

this outcome.



Inclusion of SLM into Donors programs



Evidence of strategic thinking in NCC and other

mainstreaming of SLM in donor

Shared understanding about the technical

programs for Central

content of proposed SLM interventions

Asia

However perceived short comings in

of proposed SLM interventions

meetings

Institutional and

Inclusion of SLM in donors’ assistance

governance structures (NCCs,

Recommendations:

programs

NSECs, MSEC and SPA) is

In addition to the recommendations above to strengthen the

seen as a short coming in

CACILM system w have recommended the following to

establishing good strategic

address perceived limitations in addressing this outcome;

direction of this CACILM

We recommend increased support be provided to the

system towards this outcome.

Knowledge Management Project (or through some other project) to better articulate and promote CACILM in the

There is apparently not yet a

region and in selected international media. This should be

shared understanding of

planned in cooperation with the Capacity Building Project to

proposed SLM interventions

avoid duplication and to harmonize the messages.

and this is impacting on the

We recommend consideration be given to sub-contracting

ability of NCCs and NSECs to

this promotional activity in each country to improve language

mainstream SLM as envisaged

penetration, adding local languages and to modify media to

under this outcome. This is a

stakeholder targets.

strategic issue

15

We recommend that the Lead Agency refocus its support of the Steering committee to enable it to consider and discuss more strategic issues and to give more support to the NCCs.; This is consistent with their function to “provide guidance and assistance for further policy dialogue within CACILM and the further strategic development of the CACILM initiative” described in the CMPF-SP Project Document. We recommend the Steering Committee be provided with more material on key issues and have more meetings on sites where valuable lessons for CACILM are available. We consider the Steering Committee should invite more targeted NCC members and NSECs to attend meetings as observers. We recommend the TORs for the MSEC be revised accordingly. We also consider it desirable that the MSEC is fluent in English and Russian, this is based on stakeholder expressed views that providing more strategic and political advice to the Steering Committee requires fluency in Russian by all key appointees. We recommend the Steering Committee consider asking such partners to promote CACILM also through their publications in this way and that CACILM is identified in these publications by these partners. We recommend the results of the donor analysis undertaken by the GM, are used by MSEC to coordinate

16

targeting of likely new members in country by NSECs, and internationally by the GM or other delegates of the SPA We recommend a study of the potential to broaden the scope of CACILIM into Climate Change and that the linkages between climate change and land degradation be articulated as part of the Knowledge Management Project as discussed above. We recommend a study of the proposals to widen the scope of CACILM into Water Use Efficiency, to better inform a decision as these ideas are not yet agreed between the countries. We recommend a review of financing options as an extension of assistance provided by the GM through the Capability Building Program. We note that each country has some potential to provide its own co financing in various ways and that this too must be explored. Outputs

1.1 Efficient and

Timely disbursement of funds and reporting

effective coordination

Progress to wards achieving

Success in achieving this output would be observable in the

each of these immediate

success of the program and its constituent multi country

measures of outputs has

projects.

of the implementation

Quality of project monitoring and evaluation

occurred although all can be

CACILM Multicountry

reports

improved

Some problems and barriers have been observed

Performance monitoring systems

We observe that the quality of

Recommendations

established

Project monitoring and

We recommend future contracting with donor contractors

evaluation reports is improving

be approached with as much care setting up contracts with

Partnership Framework

17

with each reporting cycle.

participants as would be the case with completely separate private contractors, but before the project or activity is

There are still reported

expected to begin.

difficulties disbursing funds for

We recommend a review of the medium term development

some Multi-country projects

path

for

M&E

to

reassess

the

potential

and cost

effectiveness of monitoring the achievements of each NPF A performance monitoring

by all actors in SLM, CACILM or otherwise.

system is not yet established

We recommend a review of the potential for direct

but is being worked on

monitoring of changes in resource conditions in key locations in each country and for trend analysis. We recommend the MSEC look for opportunities to use M&E to test design assumptions and provide other institutional adaptive learning services to improve planning over time. We recommend these possibilities of refining contracting procedures CACLM and its partners based on experience in the Inception Phase for be considered

1.2 Efficient and

National projects submitted, approved, and

The establishment of the

Success in achieving thee outputs should observable in all

effective coordination

implemented in timely manner

CACILM System of Steering

three of these indictors

of the implementation of NPFs in

committee, NCC and Timely disbursement of funds and reporting

Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz

significant achievement towards

Republic, Tajikistan,

Performance-monitoring systems

Turkmenistan, and

established

Uzbekistan

associated secretariats is a

these outputs.

However perceived short comings in

Institutional and

18

governance structures (NCCs, NSECs, MSEC and SPA) is seen as a short coming in establishing capacity to implement the NPFs

We observe that national projects are being implemented although there are delays and differences between countries

We observe that a performance monitoring system is being developed

2.1 SLMIS designed,

SLMIS functional in all CACs

developed, and operated

This project is under way it is not clear that all design is

Multicountry SLMIS collating and analyzing

complete but SLM-IS centers

national M&E data

have been established in all CACs

Land degradation baseline established Collation of Data has SLMIS providing reports on key land

commenced analysis is not yet

degradation indicators

occurring

A land degradation baseline is

19

at n advanced stage of preparation

SM_IS reports on key land degradation indicators is also in an advanced stage of preparation although there may be some disagreement with some 2.2 Sustainable land

Research prospectus developed

management research designed

The research prospectus has been developed

Research projects initiated

and Implemented

Research projects have been Workshops, scientific meetings, reports, and

initiated in all CACs

pilot SLM schemes Some workshops have been held and reports developed, Drough6t may prevent much reporting of results for 2009 2.3 Knowledge

Knowledge management plan developed

management system established

The Knowledge Management plan has been developed

CACILM: LEARN becomes operational A new Natural resource ATLAS Knowledge products disseminated

product is being developed

A knowledge dissemination

20

system has been established although there are complaints about its functionality for CAC conditions Capacity Building

Capacity Building project planned approved

Has not been achieved This

We strongly recommend that this vital project be given the

Project (not in CMPF-

and in action

has a serious impact on

highest attention by the Steering Committee and that it

virtually all of the above

ensure planned liaison meetings are held and action items

expected outputs and outcomes

are followed through.

SP Logframe)

21