Small Grants for Building Research Capacity Among Tanzanian and Kenyan Students
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CEPF FINAL PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT I. BASIC DATA Organization Legal Name: BirdLife International Project Title (as stated in the grant agreement): Small Grants for Building Research Capacity among Tanzanian and Kenyan Students Implementation Partners for this Project: BirdLife International – African Partnership Secretariat, Nature Kenya, Wildlife Conservation Society of Tanzania Project Dates (as stated in the grant agreement): September 1, 2006 - June 30, 2009 Date of Report (month/year): 31 July 2009 II. OPENING REMARKS Provide any opening remarks that may assist in the review of this report. Acceleration in environmental and habitat degradation, habitat and biodiversity loss, over-exploitation of resources and loss of species are some of the threats facing biodiversity conservation. Concerted efforts are being put in place to overcome these threats through: site protection, site management, invasive species control, species recovery, captive breeding, reintroduction, national legislation, habitat restoration, habitat protection and awareness-raising and communication. However, lack of sufficient biological knowledge, shortfalls in funding, and lack of sufficient capacity still pose a major challenge. This project was developed to fill gaps in biological knowledge while at the same time developing the capacity of a cadre of research scientists. When the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) launched its 5-year conservation programme in the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests of Kenya and Tanzania (EACF), the focus was to address most of these thematic areas. These included improving biological knowledge in the hotspot through research, monitoring, education and awareness raising, integrating and engaging local populations into biodiversity conservation and livelihood initiatives and building the capacity through small scale efforts to increase biological knowledge of the sites and efforts to conserve Critically Endangered Species in the hotspot and connectivity of biologically important patches. This particular project focused on building the research capacity of Tanzanian and Kenyan students, by funding postgraduate research within the EACF, a world-renowned biodiversity hotspot, home to 333 globally threatened species. This was part of CEPF’s 1 US$ 7 million investment in the conservation of the EACF. This mostly came from the early realization that student researchers were not being adequately represented among the CEPF grantees. Yet in most of the developing countries, government allocation to research and academic institutions is still below average making it difficult for students to secure funding to finish their thesis work. In view of this, US$ 200,000 was set aside for Kenyan and Tanzanian postgraduate student research in the EACF. This programme was launched in the last quarter of 2006 with a purpose of ensuring that a comprehensive and complementary suite of small grant projects is in place to address connectivity issues, biological knowledge of sites and the conservation of threatened species. III. ACHIEVEMENT OF PROJECT PURPOSE Project Purpose: Targeted efforts to increase connectivity, biological knowledge, and the conservation of thrteatened species are supported through the Small Grants Programme for student research. Planned vs. Actual Performance Indicator Actual at Completion Purpose-level: 1. At least 16 Small Grants supported by 2007. In total 26 small grants were awarded by the end of June 2009, at an average of $6118 each and ranging from $400 to $9389 in size. 2. At least 10 projects show demonstrable impacts Out of the 26 funded small projects, five (5) on connectivity and biological knowledge by 2008. projects contributed knowledge necessary towards efforts to increase connectivity, 12 contributed to the biological knowledge of particular species (including mollusks , plants, birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians), 10 site-focused studies contributed new knowledge about the sites, and seven (7) addressed other knowledge issues mainly on livelihoods, ecosystem services and climate change. A total of 32 KBAs in the EACF were covered by the studies. Describe the success of the project in terms of achieving its intended impact objective and performance indicators. Firstly, the profile raised for the project led to attraction of a high number (68) of good quality proposals covering aspects of forest connectivity, biological knowledge of threatened species, in addition to community livelihoods, ecosystem services and climate change. A thorough and transparent process was used to select 26 of the proposals for funding. 2 Secondly, the project provided small grants to 26 postgraduate students, 13 from Kenya and 13 from Tanzania to who undertook relevant research in the EACF. This also enabled the individual students to complete their studies. This number of grantees exceeded the initial target of 16 students. Out of the USD160, 000 for disbursement to the various grantees, a total of USD 159, 074 (99.4%) was disbursed. Thirdly, substantial new knowledge on connectivity, key species and sites as well as livelihood and ecosystem services in the EACF was derived from the research undertaken by the 26 grantees. This is summarised in a report (Attachment 1). The outcomes of the grantee research were also profiled in a special issue of the TFCG’s Arc Journal in November 2008. Fourthly, sufficient project monitoring and evaluation measures were put in place and grantees were linked with each other and to the wider network of stakeholders. The project was constantly monitored through a well structured implementation structure consisting of the Coordination Unit and the project implementation team. The grantees were also linked to the wide network of researchers and conservationists as part of information sharing, transfer of skills and expertise. The climax of the programme was when grantees were brought together in a conference in Dar es Salaam Tanzania to share and learn from each others experiences. Proceedings from this conference (Attachment 2) were prepared and disseminated to all the participants. The project also was evaluated through a monitoring and evaluation consultancy (Attachment 3). A review of information generated both on biological knowledge and connectivity was conducted and a synthesis report compiled which showed that the impact of the project is quite significant (Attachment 1). Were there any unexpected impacts (positive or negative)? (1) Small grants were provided to 26 students, much more than the anticipated minimum of 16. (2) A network of grantees was linked to each other and to the wider network of stakeholders in the EACF (3) Scientific conference of the grantees was held, during which they shared research results among themselves and other participants (4) Even though the aspect of co-financing had not been given too much focus at the onset, it emerged that through this project, grantees were also able to mobilize additional resources. Nine (9) grantees reported to have received additional funding for their research totaling US$ 24,458 (ranging between US$ 600 and US$ 5,385). IV. PROJECT OUTPUTS Project Outputs: Planned vs. Actual Performance Indicator Actual at Completion Output 1: The EACF Co-ordination Unit The EACF Coordination Unit: (1) transparently administers the Small Grants Programme, reviewed 68 proposal submissions (and re- including transparent revewing, receipt and submissions where relevant) , including 51 received distribution of funds, issuing of contracts, local during the grant cycle and 17 others later, before an reporting and final evaluation, stakeholder amendment to this project (for extension) was awareness and reports to CEPF. withdrawn by CEPF, and (2) through leadership of BirdLife International, created awareness about the small grants, received and disbursed funds, issued contracts to all grantees, ensured reporting by all 3 grantees and led a process of evaluating the programme in terms of lessons learnt and new knowledge generated. 1.1. At least 6 CU meetings monitor the The CU normally held quarterly meetings. Between small grants for student research the start and end of this project (late 2006 to June programnme by 2007 2009), a total of 10 CU meetings were held both in Kenya and Tanzania. During these meeting, tracking implementation of the small grants for postgraduate students was always one of the main agenda items, 1.2. Materials produced for awareness of Awareness materials were produced at the start of the programme and distributed to at least the project. This was meant to raise the profile of the 20 key stakeholders project and call for proposals. Over 500 posters and cards were printed and distributed widely to persons at academic and research institutions in Kenya, Tanzania and beyond. Electronic versions of the same were posted on TFCG, Nature Kenya and BirdLife websites and circulated via email to an audience of more than 500 contacts on BirdLife’s distribution list. 1.3. At least $ 160,000 distributed to By the end of the project, a total of US$ 159,074 grantees to support Small Grant projects by had been distributed to the 26 funded projects. March 2006 1.4. At least 16 contracts issued to 25 contracts had been signed by the close of grantees by end of 2007 2008. The additional grantee whose project was approved in early 2009 signed his contract in February 2009. 1.5. At least 16 reports received from A total of 23 first progress reports, 11 second grantees by 2008 progress reports and 3 final reports had been