Evaluation of Sustainability Dimension in Addressing Poverty Reduction

  • 416 views
Uploaded on

Purpose of the evaluation: …

Purpose of the evaluation:
Identify the contribution from the approach of supporting sustainable economic, ecological and social development adopted in ODA towards the overall poverty reduction goal of the Finnish development policy

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
416
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3

Actions

Shares
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Evaluation of Sustainability Dimensionin Addressing Poverty Reduction Forestry and Biological Resources Sub-Theme 19 January 2011
  • 2. Purpose of the evaluation  Identify the contribution from the approach of supporting sustainable economic, ecological and social development adopted in ODA towards the overall poverty reduction goal of the Finnish development policy  Results, achievements, lessons, constraints2 19 January 2011
  • 3. Overall Approach  Synthesis evaluation ⇒ Earlier evaluations plus  Sub-evaluation of the energy sector  Sub-evaluation of forestry and biological resources sector  Parallel evaluation of Concessional credits  Two phases ⇒ Desk study ⇒ Field study3 19 January 2011
  • 4. Scope  Africa  Western Balkans ⇒ Kenya  Central and south ⇒ Mozambique America ⇒ Tanzania ⇒ Zambia  International Fora  Asia ⇒ Laos ⇒ Vietnam  Forestry AND Biological Resources4 19 January 2011
  • 5. Overall Findings  Positive  Negative ⇒ Strong commitment ⇒ Weak inclusion of CCTs ⇒ Substantial funding over ⇒ Lack of baseline data long term ⇒ Limited indicators and ⇒ Highly competent and monitoring dedicated people - ⇒ Finnish Added Value not individuals, companies well captured ⇒ Good TA levels ⇒ Rather centralised ⇒ Useful pilot successes approach ⇒ Development Policy Guidelines for Forest Sector are excellent5 19 January 2011
  • 6. Overall Conclusion  Hard to discern impact on poverty  In respect of the three pillars of sustainability: ⇒ Good social impact ⇒ Neutral ecological impact ⇒ Limited economic impact  Good examples of pilots and local interventions but not translated into wider impact and uptake6 19 January 2011
  • 7. Intervention design  Limited investment in identification and appraisal missions, especially on CCTs  System of developing interventions within MFA  Tendency to overestimate capacity in some partners  Limited baseline information, restricted indicators and monitoring  Multi-donor approaches make attribution hard7 19 January 2011
  • 8. Conditionalities  Failure to enforce or impose penalties ⇒ Zambia ⇒ Laos ⇒ Kenya  This has implications for REDD8 19 January 2011
  • 9. Information and Coordination  Often a major weakness in partner countries  Finland has good track record (e.g. in its international work)  Problems with archives, limited abstraction, not making full use of what is available9 19 January 2011
  • 10. Modalities  Wide range used, method of selection not always clear  Beneficial to review this in detail and develop a more formal system for selection  Multi-donor trust fund, EFI and FAO links all successful  Again centralisation and better use of in- country expertise10 19 January 2011
  • 11. Finnish Added value in Forestry  Generic added value is evident – good governance, human rights, conflict resolution ⇒ Planning, information, inventory ⇒ Education, training, skills building ⇒ Industry and adding value ⇒ Farm forestry ⇒ Linking national and international processes  Note the erosion of technical expertise, especially in Africa11 19 January 2011
  • 12. Forestry and Biological Resources  Biological resources support often quite small interventions  Good links in more recent interventions (e.g. Mozambique, Central America)  CBD – UNFCCC – UNFF – Forests Europe – NFPs – linkages  SFM12 19 January 2011
  • 13. International Arena  Finland provides a good model for its national response to international obligations and in country coordination  Useful to share this with partners and support their improvement – note internal coordination is often very weak in partners13 19 January 2011
  • 14. Recommendations from 2003  Finnish added value ?  Smaller number of partners   Forestry development strategy   More intensive appraisal, CCTs X  Mainstream Logical Frameworks   Improve coherence with wider policies   Separate controlling and directing functions X  Increase availability of complementary skills X  Widen skills transfer and building ?14 19 January 2011
  • 15. How to go forward?  Administrative issues  Intervention design and delivery  Need for economic activity, increased production, increased added value  Need to secure much wider uptake of positives15 19 January 2011
  • 16. Climate Change  Possibility of much increased finance but ⇒ Payments by results ⇒ National versus local  Need for realism – CDM, MRV  Good work on CFM – benefit sharing?  Forestry as a revenue earner?  Plantations  Technical knowledge and standards  Sub-divide partners, needs are very different16 19 January 2011
  • 17. That’s All Folks!!17 19 January 2011