SABONET Mid-Term Review
SABONET Mid-Term Review (MTR) was conducted from 22 January to 5 February 2001
by Mr Jonathan Timberlake (Biodiversity Foundation of Africa, Zimbabwe)
and Dr Alan Paton (Kew, United Kingdom). Fifteen days were devoted to this
task and all ten participating countries were assessed to a greater or lesser
degree. An oral report-back was presented to the SABONET Steering Committee
and interested parties on 5 February 2001 in Windhoek, Namibia.
The aim of the presentation was to discuss the recommendations made by the
Mid-Term Review evaluation team.
An official SABONET Mid-Term Review Report has been prepared by the consultants and submitted to the UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinator for Africa. This article is not the official report, but a summary of the presentation made by the consultants in Windhoek.
main objectives of the evaluation were to
Evaluate progress regionally.
Indicate the benefits to the various institutions.
Indicate the benefits to botanical users nationally and regionally.
Obtain suggestions for modifications to project activities and/or design over the next 14 months.
Develop an “exit strategy” for the existing project.
Determine the strengths and weaknesses of the existing project, and to learn any lessons.
Indicate structure, topics and activities for any future regional botanical project.
team was required to look at
How improved capacity of herbaria can be used in plant conservation and sustainable utilisation.
Whether the needs of users of botanical information had been addressed.
How the project can be justified regionally, rather than as the sum of its national parts and what the regional benefits are.
What priorities should be set for the remaining period of the project, given that not all institutions will achieve all the stated outputs.
It was highlighted that the implementation capacity of participating institutions across the region differs greatly. All the countries had a common goal—conservation and sustainable use of plant resources—but each country may not have the same priorities for immediate objectives or activities.
The need to develop an “Exit Strategy” was also emphasised. This will allow the project to best realise its potential and to provide outputs that can be used as a launch pad for further funding. Project design is a further issue—a process should be put in place to scrutinise the project implementation in order to redesign the logframe and revise the budget allocation. Such an effort will ensure an efficient final project phase.
Electronic Information Systems
National User Workshops
Strengths and weaknesses
—by Jonathan Timberlake & Dr Alan Paton
SABONET News 6.1: 5