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
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
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.