Rwenzori Mountains Conservation and Environmental Management Project, Uganda – Final report (dated February 2010)

Background:

The Rwenzori Mountains Conservation and Environmental Management Project (RMCEMP / the Project) was implemented by WWF in partnership with governmental and non-governmental organisations and local communities. Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA), as the manager of the Rwenzori Mountains National Park (RMNP), was the main partner. The Project is located in the Kasese, Kabarole and Bundibugyo Districts in western Uganda.

The exceptional biodiversity and water catchment values of Rwenzori Mountains are of global, regional and local importance and these values constituted the justification for creating the Park. Rwenzori Mountains was a forest reserve in the past and was gazetted as a National Park in 1991. UNESCO designated RMNP a World Heritage Site in 1994, and the Ramsar Secretariat enlisted RMNP as a Ramsar site (wetland of international importance) in 2009.

RMNP has been under increasing pressure due to high population growth in the region and the corresponding increasing demand for forest resources, agricultural land and other natural resources. For a number of resources the extraction was unsustainable and lead to depletion of natural resources, loss of biodiversity, landslides, soil erosion and reduced water quality and quantity. At the same time, the Park was considered a liability by the local population due to problem animals from the Park, among other things. Following the (eastern DRC / western Uganda) insecurity 1997–2001, when the Park was closed to tourists, UWA did not have appropriate capacity to effectively manage RMNP. UWA was understaffed and lacked the infrastructure and equipment for efficient park management. This constituted a threat to the Park’s biodiversity and water catchment values.

The Project's Purpose is: ‘Integrity and conservation status of Rwenzori Mountains National Park is reinforced by the end of year 5’. Nine project outputs were to produce the purpose.

Purpose/objective:
The main purpose of the evaluation was to analyse and assess the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability of the Project in order to determine if the Project had delivered its intended benefits during the five year project (2004/5–2009). The evaluation would also guide WWF in design of similar future projects and contribute to organizational learning among WWF and its partners.The external final evaluation was commissioned by the WWF Uganda Country Office in cooperation with WWF-Norway and covered the full project period. The evaluation was lead by Mrs. Monica Borner, a Swiss based consultant, with support from Dr. Bob Ogwang, a Uganda based consultant. Both consultants have comprehensive experience from conservation and natural resource management work in Africa. Field work was carried out in late 2009.

Methodology:

The evaluation consisted of literature review, field observations / field visits and discussions with partners, stakeholders and resources people. More than 40 stakeholders, from central and local government institutions, partner organisations, private sector, CBOs and community groups and individuals living adjacent to the RMNP were met. Discussions were held mostly in the absence of project personnel based on a questionnaire, while also being responsive to spontaneously expressed issues. Two feedback meetings were held (in Fort Portal and Kampala), to discuss main impressions and recommendations with stakeholders.

Key findings:

Project design: The design was appropriate to the issues addressed and relevant for WWF, partners and stakeholders and in line with key stated priorities (e.g. RMNP General Management Plan 2004–2014, local government mandates). Some indicators for results were over-ambitious or hard to verify due to missing baseline data of good quality and also weak monitoring by UWA, other partners and the Project.

Achievements overall: The Project had many achievements and largely met its ambitious purpose. Some outputs were not fully achieved, due to limitations in funding (e.g. tourism developments), lack of technical capacity in the project team (e.g. water resources management, sustainable protected area finance) and the slow progress of partners’ work. Some indicators were more than achieved.

Some specific achievements: Park management has been strengthened substantially (output 1). The concept of resource use agreements for local communities to access natural resources inside the Park has been successful (output 3). Financial and non-financial benefits for local communities have increased (e.g. access to in-park resources, revenue sharing (20% of park entry fee allocated to community projects), collaborative boundary management, alternative income generation activities) (various outputs). Environmental action plans (EAPs) have been facilitated in 65 parishes and 13-sub-counties (output 5). 550 farmers have planted 220 hectares with more than 700,000 tree seedlings (output 7).

Some weaknesses and deliveries below expectations: A tourism plan was not produced (assumed the USAID funded Prime West project would) and tourism infrastructure in the Park was not developed due to its very high costs (output 1). A financial management plan was not produced, firstly not done to avoid overlap with WCS’ business plan support and later the consultant commissioned by WWF did not deliver quality (output 2). Water resources management plans were not piloted, partly due to the unclear national

frameworks for integrated water resources management (IWRM) (output 6). Progress on improved transboundary management slower than expected, partly due to instability in eastern DRC and partly due to limited work by UWA (output 8).

Partners’ and stakeholders’ views: Partners and stakeholders generally see the Project as relevant, they appreciate technical and financial support from the Project, they are generally very pleased with the Project and strongly want the Project to continue.

Sustainability: Capacity of partners (e.g. UWA, local governments and communities) was strengthened. Combined with the fact that most activities were within the mandates of the partners, this provided a sound basis for activities to continue beyond the Project’s life.

Lessons learned: Ownership was reinforced and implementation of a large number of activities was assisted by the strong participatory approach built into the Project from design onwards. Strong participation in design also resulted in at times overly ambitious targets as partners and stakeholders pushed for many targets and activities. Conservation activities at local levels were challenging and require short-term incentives for effective participation, which the Project to a large extent ensured.

Recommendations:

Despite many achievements, more time is needed to consolidate some outcomes and a next phase is recommended. The project purpose should be kept, with three main outputs. The first output is strengthening management of RMNP through i) infrastructure development, ii) ecological monitoring, and iii) transboundary cooperation. The second output is restoration and management of the buffer zone, with focus on i) implementation of EAPs, ii) tree planting, and iii) access to short-term funding. The third output is on community awareness and strengthening access to alternatives, through i) access to environmentally friendly income alternatives, ii) good relationships between park management and local communities, and iii) enhanced awareness and sensitised local populations. A separate project was recommended to address sustainable finance, through carbon compensation or payment for ecosystem services.

Comments from the organisation, if any:

Evaluation findings are mostly in line with WWF-Norway’s views and WWF agrees with the overall conclusion that the Project was successful with some impressive results and a few weaknesses. Ideally, the evaluation could had been more analytical to better document cause–effect relations and foster learning. The relatively brief duration of any evaluation means some nuances are lost and at times issues are presented out of proportion with their real importance.

Some of the recommendations are sound and well justified while others are considered by WWF-Norway as either unrealistic or too simplistic. Based on available technical and financial resources, sensible roles for WWF, increased focus on quality documentation and sustainability of results, WWF does not intend to follow some of the recommendations. For instance, the fact that project work has been successful does not mean WWF should scale up. The fact that the Project is well liked and respected and that there are numerous demands among partners and stakeholders that they would like to see the Project address, does not mean the Project should expand into these areas (e.g. tourism development, micro-finance mechanisms). This may spread financial and human resources too thinly rather than focus on quality delivery where WWF can add more value (e.g. park-community relations, community benefits, park management). WWF will not increase project staffing despite the large project area and demands locally. WWF-Norway believes more value can be added through other ways of working based on the good results and unique experiences in Rwenzori.