Final Evaluation of the Regional Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) Capacity Building Programme for Southern Africa

Background:
This programme was established to address the challenges facing CBNRM in Southern Africa, such as policies which were not explicitly inclusive of communities in wildlife management and benefits; or, where there was policy, limited implementation of it, or poor monitoring of natural resources. This was addressed through the establishment and strengthening of civil society networks which then worked to lobby government and advocate for improved policy and / or implementation. The programme was implemented in six countries namely Botswana, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

Purpose/objective:
The goal of the programme was: “Improved rural livelihoods at the household level attained through sustainable management of natural resources by communities in southern Africa.” [1]

[1]Goal as stated in the original project log frame was “Contributing to poverty alleviation and sustainable livelihoods at rural household level from management of natural resources by communities in Southern Africa” and the Purpose as stated in the original log frame was “CBNRM adopted as a mainstream strategy for rural development in Southern Africa”. The modification helped to clarify focus and there was no material divergence from the original intention.

  The programme Purpose was: “CBNRM principles, policies and practices adopted as a mainstream strategy in Southern Africa for sustainable natural resource management in a manner that promotes equitable access to use and management of natural resources.”

Methodology:
A team of two independent consultants carried out the evaluation guided by the ToRs, an evaluation matrix and a work plan.  The evaluation was based on the findings gathered from a review of relevant documents, face-to-face interviews with stakeholders in four of the six participating countries, skype / email interviews with stakeholders in the other countries (not visited), and field visits to sites in three of the four countries visited.

Key findings:
• The programme delivered good value for the 11-year financial investment given the regional scope of the programme, the range of activities implemented, the range of stakeholders engaged and the multiplier effect (of capacity, training and policy reforms)
• The programme was relevant to CBNRM stakeholders in participating countries, to WWF, to environmental Multilateral Environmental Agreements and to Norwegian Development policy.
• The programme contributed towards achieving its goal of improved rural livelihoods and it fulfilled its purpose.
• The programme successfully facilitated the process of anchoring and reinforcing CBNRM policy and practice into Government structures and adoption of its principles in development plans. Botswana and Namibia now have stand-alone CBNRM policies whilst Malawi, Namibia and Zambia incorporated CBNRM into National Development Plans. CBNRM principles have been adopted in the mining, agriculture and water sectors.
• The programme unlocked funding and opportunities for collaborative engagements at national and regional levels.
• The programme created, formalised and strengthened communities of CBNRM practice at national and regional levels in the form of National Forums and SACF respectively. There is high probability that all Forums in the countries will continue to exist beyond the programme.
• The Forums raised US$2.56 million to complement Norad/WWF-Norway funds in the last four years. This also provides a good measure of organisational capacity.
• The programme promoted and initiated participatory mechanisms for measuring and recording the contribution of CBNRM across the region using Performance Monitoring and Evaluation and Management Orientated Monitoring Systems (MOMS).
• The programme is highly replicable and the approach should replicated to strengthen civil society and promotion of partnerships and coalitions for knowledge sharing, learning and advocacy around several issues, e.g. MOMS and incorporating CBNRM into mining, energy, water and other sectors across the region and in Africa.

Recommendations:
Forums should:
a) Sustain critical monitoring activities such as MOMS, PME, CBNRM status reports.
b) Strengthen the non-wildlife businesses of CBNRM.
c) Engage the private sector in a targeted manner, to promote the CBNRM agenda.
d) Partner with academic and research institutes for product development and general research to refine CBNRM approaches.
SACF should:
a) Expedite the registration of SACF;
b) Retain at least one person with multiple skills to maintain coordination activities.
c) Align to SADC and other regional programmes to justify funding for CBNRM;
d) Raise funds to produce a publication on experiences from this programme.
WWF ROA should:
a) Consider to continue hosting the SACF at minimum support costs to enable it to fortify in its new structure at least for a year.

Comments from the organisation, if any:
We believe this is a good evaluation report, professionally undertaken, with sound findings. We are pleased with the findings and that this eleven year Norwegian investment has resulted in achieving, for the most part, the outcomes envisioned.
WWF-Norway will continue to promote the mainstreaming of CBNRM principles and practice into our work and that of our partners, and to integrate the learnings from this programme into our activities.