Evaluation of Sustainability Dimension

in Addressing Poverty Reduction

Forestry and Biological Resources Sub-Theme19 January 2011

19 January 20112

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, constraints

19 January 20113

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 study

19 January 20114

Scope

Africa Kenya Mozambique Tanzania Zambia

Asia Laos Vietnam

Western Balkans Central and south

America

International Fora

Forestry AND Biological Resources

19 January 20115

Overall Findings

Positive Strong commitment Substantial funding over

long term Highly competent and

dedicated people - individuals, companies

Good TA levels Useful pilot successes Development Policy

Guidelines for Forest Sector are excellent

Negative Weak inclusion of CCTs Lack of baseline data Limited indicators and

monitoring Finnish Added Value not

well captured Rather centralised

approach

19 January 20116

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 uptake

19 January 20117

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 hard

19 January 20118

Conditionalities

Failure to enforce or impose penalties Zambia Laos Kenya

This has implications for REDD

19 January 20119

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 available

19 January 201110

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 expertise

19 January 201111

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 Africa

19 January 201112

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

SFM

19 January 201113

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 partners

19 January 201114

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 ?

19 January 201115

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 positives

19 January 201116

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 different

19 January 201117

That’s All Folks!!