AMMENDED PROJECT LOGICAL FRAMEWORK AS ACCEPTED BY TPR PROCESSES 1999.

 

HIERARCHY OF OBJECTIVES

INDICATORS

MEANS OF VERIFICATION

ASSUMPTIONS

Overall Objective

To reduce the rate of loss of forest biodiversity in specific cross border sites of national and global significance in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania

 

 

No further species extinctions recorded

Threat Index shows significant decrease for all sites. The area of forest cover does not decrease. All biological communities maintain integrity and are regenerating.

 

Long term verification AFTER project finish. Threat index possible on completion. Air photo / land sat imagery show long term trends. No cases of degazettement or encroachment recorded.

 

Sustainable national and local development inputs working, which continue to support BD.

No catastrophic climatic or natural event takes place

Trained people available to implement, including empowered communities.

Immediate Objectives

 

A. An enabling environment in place  at key cross-border sites which  supports the sustainable use of biodiversity

 

 

Legal/policy frameworks at regional, national and local levels in place and supportive of biodiversity conservation.

These frameworks are implemented at ground level. The capacity (knowledge, skills, attitudes) of site district officials has increased.

Involvement of local communities in decision-making in Environment Committees and JFM processes.

 

 

 Policy documents and legislation, at both national levels and district and lower levels.

 

District DDC records. Reduced incidence of illegality through increased vigilance reports at all levels.

 

Community records, field evaluation

 

 

Willingness to participate in conservation exists in communities and agencies.

Policy support to BD continues

Donor interest maintained.

Appropriate staff in place.

Modern valuation methods accepted for forest resources.

 

B. Resource demands brought into balance with supply at key  sites

 

Forest management plans approved and in place, which contain frameworks for regulated use of key resources.

Level of regeneration of key natural resource species has increased.

Level of use/extraction of key natural resources considered sustainable.

 

 

 

 

 

Forest management plans with much emphasis on biodiversity.

 

Field records of key species and communities.

 

Adequate alternative technologies can be found and are accepted by people.

Strategies for sustainable use can be brokered between people and agencies.

Communities buy into BD conservation plans.

 

 

 


OUTPUTS

INDICATORS

MEANS OF VERIFICATION

ASSUMPTIONS

A1 Regulatory /development

agencies at local level (in key sites) promote  sustainable use of biodiversity

 

A2 Local communities participate fully in resource conservation at key sites

 

 

A3 Compatible and effective policy and legal frameworks in place at key sites

 

 

 

A4  Cross-border conservation issues are effectively addressed

National and District agencies maintain or increase funding and staff allocations for conservation related issues in target sites.

 

Communities involved in conservation decision making through Environment Committees and JFM/CFM processes.

 

New/revised supportive policies and legislation in place at target sites.

New guidelines and byelaws support BD conservation at site levels.

 

All district site-pairs have effective cross-border discussion mechanisms that include conservation as an agenda item.

District and national disbursement data. Staff listings.

 

 

Minutes of Committees at different levels. Partner information. Field evaluation.

 

Policy and bye-law pronouncements etc at different levels.

 

 

 

Minutes of District Meetings, and records at national level. Views of East African Community sought.

 

Government maintains overall support to conservation.

 

 

Potential partners participate with conflicts resolved.

 

Stakeholders agree that conservation incentives >> than disincentives.

 

Project partners share vision and meet capacity targets

Local communities invest NGOs support regulatory frameworks.

Political integration continues

B1 Participatory management plans for key biodiversity sites  approved and implemented

 

B2 Alternative  and less destructive resource use strategies  adopted, which reduce  negative impacts on biodiversity

 

 

B3 Alternative income strategies that reduce biodiversity impacts are  adopted by local communities

Participatory forestry management plans are approved and in place. >75% of recommendations implemented at all sites

 

Majority of households in target villages are using alternative resource use strategies to reduce non-sustainable resource use.

 

Increasing %s of people (men and women) are using alternative income generation activities

 

Examination of documents, and field evaluation.

 

 

Questionnaires with partners. See site plan processes for details. Field evaluation.

 

 

Questionnaires with partners. See site plan processes for details. Field evaluation.

That income earning alternatives will be maintained after the project

 

Alternatives are acceptable to people AND that they reduce non-sustainable practice (the ICDP dilemma!).

 

Local communities accept new packages.


 

 ACTIVITY CLUSTERS

INDICATORS

MEANS OF VERIFICATION

ASSUMPTIONS

A1.1 Increase awareness of local agencies at key sites on biodiversity values and conservation importance.

 

 

 

A1.2 Develop capacity of local agencies at key sites to address conservation issues.

 

 

A1.3 Develop/strengthen local Environmental Committees (ECs) at key sites.

Proportion of local officials aware of biodiversity values in key forests is over 90%. Understanding among local agency staff on biodiversity values increased significantly.

 

Forestry and relevant agencies with greater capacity to intervene in conservation, and interventions taking place (see site plans)

 

At least 80% of villages have functional E Committees, with adequate gender balance. ECs meet quarterly or more, with minuted actions and decisions. The decisions are positive to BD.

 

Questionnaire, Evaluation.

Content of DDC minutes

Content of Steering Committee minutes and output.

 

 

Lists of equipment.

Extent of field work in quarterly reports. See Site Plans.

 

 

Field questioning at villages and ward levels. EC minutes from village and ward. Evaluation. Check with NGO partners.

THESE ARE LINKED AT CLUSTER LEVEL TO INDIVIDUAL SITE PLANS

A2.1 Strengthen links between communities and government at  sites

 

 

 

A2.2 Develop capacity of CBOs/NGOs at key sites to engage effectively in conservation and development

 

A2.3 Develop effective processes and institutions for collaborative resource management

Frequency of joint consultations has increased. CBO NGO involvement has increased. Attitudes towards each other improved.

 

More conservation/development activities are planned and undertaken by CBOs.

 

 

JFM and CFM activities are initiated, with govt involvement & acceptance

Minutes of DDCs, ward and village EC. CBO presence and field checking. Questions to partners. See site plans.

 

Minutes of Committees. Field testing at community level. Check with partner NGOs. See site plans

 

 

Village processes for CFM JFM  stated in EC minutes. CFM/ JFM agreements, social contracts and contractual mechanisms exist.

 

A3.1 Promote political support for conservation at key sites

 

 

A3.2 Modify policies at  key sites to support conservation

 

A3.3 Promote integrated land use planning at key sites

Level of inclusion of biodiversity issues in political agendas at regional, national and district levels.

 

Increased Number of local guidelines and byelaws supporting conservation

 

Conservation and sustained use practices incorporated into local land-use plans at key sites.

Press statements. Presence of elected MPs, Councillors in ECs.

 

 

Checking minutes of District and ward meetings.

 

Guidelines from District and ward and village levels contain such practices

 

A4.1  Facilitate cross-border issues at national level..

 

A4.2 Facilitate cross-borders issues at site / district level..

 

National Steering Committees and Environment Agencies discuss cross-borders issues. Policies and laws contain cross-border issues

Frequency of meetings between district conservation agencies (at least 6 monthly), and interaction between communities started around BD issues

Meetings minutes, policy documentation, regional guidelines.

 

B1.1 Collect and analyse relevant information on biodiversity conservation/management at key sites

 



B1.2 Develop processes/institutions for participatory planning and implementation of biodiversity conservation strategies

   


B1.3
Develop biodiversity conservation plans for key sites.

Biodiversity surveys conducted on major taxa and resources at key sites

Action research conducted to fill gaps

 

Management plans are in place, with CFM and JFM modalities included.

 

 

Management plans include specific conservation action and sustainable use plans for important BD resources

Reports are available for such taxa, and field research output reports. Reports used in the field.

 


Management plan contents verified. Field questions, evaluation, See site plans

 

 


As above. Focus on sub plans for species conservation and sustainable use. See site plans

 

B2.1 Collect and analyse relevant information for improved resource use/management at key sites.

 

 

B2.2 Develop processes/institutions for participatory planning and implementation for improved resource use/management strategies.

 

B2.3 Develop systems for improved resource use/management at sites.

Resource Use Strategies to cover all sites, and the majority of target resources are identified and tested. (See site plans).

 

Partnership activities developed with 2 plus NGO CBO Private partners at each site, addressing resource use strategies for Key BD products.

 

Improved resource use strategies are accepted within communities, with participation of partner NGOs (see site plans).

Documents setting out results, strategy processes with partners, See site plans

 

 

Partnership documents eg MOUs and reports from partners. See site plans.

 

 

Strategies in place in village communities with % of households. Field testing. Partner reports.

 

B3.1 Collect and analyse relevant information for alternative income generation at key sites

 

 

B3.2 Develop processes/institutions for participatory planning and implementation of alternative income generation initiatives

 

B3.3 Develop alternative income generation/livelihood options at key sites

Alternative Income Strategies to cover all sites, and the majority of resource user groups, tested. (See site plans).

 

Partnership activities developed with at least two NGO CBO Private Sector partners at each site, addressing AIG strategies.

 


AIG strategies are accepted within communities, with participation of partner NGOs (see site plans).

Documents setting out results, strategy processes with partners, See site plans

 

 

Partnership documents eg MOUs and reports from partners. See site plans.

 

 

Strategies in place in village communities with % of households. Field testing. Partner reports.

 

 

 

NOTE: The detail of Indicators and Assumptions comes within the site plans and site log frames. The site plans feed into these larger and more generic log-frame documents.

Back to Discussion Notes Page