open.unido.org€¦ · Web view. The Gabon GEF NAP (Global Environment Facility National Action...

UNIDO Self-Evaluation

GABON GEF NATIONAL ACTION PLAN PROJECT FOR ARTISANAL AND SMALL-SCALE GOLD MINING

UNIDO SAP ID: 140370, GEF ID: 9164

June 2019

Claude Saint-Pierre, UNIDO International Consultant

Gabon GEF National Action Plan Project for ASGM - Evaluation Report


Table of Contents

Foreword................................................................................................................................................1

Executive Summary................................................................................................................................2

1. Introduction...................................................................................................................................7

1.1. Evaluation objectives and scope............................................................................................7

1.2. Overview of project context...................................................................................................7

1.3 Overview of the project..........................................................................................................9

1.4 Evaluation methodology and limitations..............................................................................11

2. Project’s Contribution to Development Results — Effectiveness.....................................................13

2.1 Project’s achieved outputs...................................................................................................13

2.2 Project outcomes and overall effectiveness.........................................................................17

3. Project Quality and Performance.....................................................................................................19

3.1 Design and relevance...........................................................................................................19

3.2 Efficiency..............................................................................................................................23

3.3 Sustainability........................................................................................................................24

3.4 Gender.................................................................................................................................26

4. Performance of Partners..................................................................................................................28

4.1 At project start.....................................................................................................................28

4.2 At project end.......................................................................................................................29

5. Factors Facilitating or Limiting the Achievement of Results.............................................................30

5.1 Monitoring & evaluation......................................................................................................30

5.2 Results-based management.................................................................................................30

5.3 Risks and other factors.........................................................................................................31

6. Conclusions, Recommendations and Lessons Learned....................................................................32

6.1 Overarching assessment and rating table..................................................................................32

6.2 Conclusions..........................................................................................................................33

6.3 Recommendations for Gabon’s National Action Plan for ASGM..........................................34

6.4 Lessons Learned for UNIDO Projects in Gabon and Central Africa.......................................35

6.5 Good Practice for the Preparation of ASGM National Action Plans......................................36

Annex 1 – Logical Framework Indicators at Completion......................................................................37

Annex 2 – Evaluation Terms of Reference............................................................................................38

Annex 3 – Evaluation Framework.........................................................................................................43

Annex 4 – List of Participants in the Evaluation...................................................................................45

Annex 5 – Documents Reviewed..........................................................................................................48


Acronyms

AGC Artisanal Gold Council

ANPN Agence Nationale de Préservation de la Nature

ASGM Artisanal and Small-Scale Gold Mining

CEO Chief Executive Officer

C&W Chemicals and Waste

CGCO Comptoir Gabonais de Collecte de l’Or

CNAP Centre National Anti-Pollution

CSO Civil Society Organization

DG Direction Générale

EMAPE Exploitation Minière Artisanale et à Petite Échelle

EXPART Exploitation Artisanale

GD General Division

GEF Global Environment Facility

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

NAP National Action Plan

POP Persistent Organic Pollutant

SAICM Approche Stratégique de la Gestion Internationale des Produits Chimiques

SDG Sustainable Development Goals

SEM Société Équatoriale des Mines

SME Small and Medium Enterprise

TOR Terms of Reference

UNEP United Nations Environment Program

UNIDO United Nations Industrial Development Organization

USD United States Dollar

USS Université des Sciences de la Santé

WHO World Health Organization


Foreword

UNIDO has undertaken the evaluation of Gabon’s GEF NAP project for artisanal and small-scale gold mining during the March-June 2019 period. The UNIDO consultant in charge of the evaluation has worked in an independent manner, on the basis of the UNIDO and GEF evaluation methodologies.

The UNIDO project manager and project partners in Gabon, CNAP and AGC, have taken part in the evaluation, facilitated access of the evaluator to project documentation, and helped organize interviews with a broad range of ASGM NAP stakeholders. The consultant has invited these project partners and other UNIDO specialists to provide feedback on draft evaluation results, and taken their contributions into account in the final report.

This evaluation report is produced in English. A Powerpoint presentation of main findings, produced upon completion of the visit in Gabon, is available in French.

1


Executive Summary

Evaluation purpose and methodology

1. Gabon in the Minamata Convention. Gabon became a signatory of the Minamata Convention in June 2014. The Government of Gabon has formally declared that artisanal and small-scale gold mining (ASGM) activities in the country are “non insignificant”, in the terms of the Convention. A National Action Plan for ASGM must therefore be prepared. Due to its geographical position and very low population density, the country is exposed to pollution sources from neighboring countries in Central Africa, both through transboundary trade and watershed pollution.

2. The project. The Gabon GEF NAP (Global Environment Facility National Action Plan) project, called NAP-EMAPE in Gabon, was implemented between 2016 and 2019 in the framework of the Minamata Convention on mercury. Its objective was “to improve national capacity and capability for the prevention and management of mercury use, through the preparation of a National Action Plan for the Artisanal and Small-Scale Gold Mining sector.” UNIDO was the GEF implementing agency. The Artisanal Gold Council (AGC) was the executing agency for the whole budget (other than monitoring and evaluation). Gabon’s National anti-pollution center (CNAP), the country’s National Focal Point for the Minamata Convention under the Ministry of Environment and Forestry in charge of Climate Change, was executing partner.

3. Evaluation purpose. This evaluation, as foreseen in the project’s M&E plan, took place at project end. The key question this evaluation provides an answer to is whether the project has achieved its main development objective of strengthening Gabon’s national capacity to fulfill its obligations under the Minamata Convention, therefore contributing to protecting human health and the environment from mercury in artisanal and small-scale gold minin.

4. Methodology. This evaluation is called a self-evaluation in UNIDO’s evaluation methodology. It was coordinated by UNIDO’s project manager. An independent consultant built an evaluation framework on the basis of UNIDO and GEF criteria and evaluation questions, and using the logical framework. She undertook an 8-day visit in Gabon, as well as an extensive desk review of available documents. In total, 27 stakeholders from Gabon, UNIDO, and AGC took part in the evaluation interviews. Draft evaluation conclusions and recommendations were presented at UNIDO. The evaluation report takes into account feedback received from both UNIDO and CNAP.

Project ratings

5. This evaluation assesses the Gabon GEF NAP project as satisfactory. The overall rating is 4. The ratings are highest for effectiveness and relevance: the project partners have completed the GEF NAP project outputs, and attained project outcomes. The actions proposed in the NAP are relevant from a technical, institutional, and policy point of view. So were the decisions made at project start, including the decision to channel all project funds through an international CSO contractor. The sustainability of these benefits, i.e. the likelihood that NAP actions and governance will continue to be in place in the next few years, is relatively satisfactory: national stakeholders have indicated full ownership and readiness for implementation of NAP actions are

2


high. However, securing access to development funding opportunities remains an overarching condition for future NAP implementation.

6. Project partners have encountered some difficulties at design stage, and subsequently overcome them. Evaluation ratings are unsatisfactory for two criteria: the project’s overall design, and the performance of partners in terms of project management and coordination at project entry. On the GEF and UNIDO side, Enabling Activities under the Minamata Convention was at that time managed in a relatively standardized way in various countries. UNIDO has also indicated that Gabon opted for a quick preparation of the GEF grant application, which did not allow for a dialogue on project management options and detailed costs. At project end, the performance of partners is back to a satisfactory level, thanks to improved and direct communication between UNIDO and CNAP, and owing to the priority given to outcomes by all partners. Overall, the project's efficiency remains satisfactory, in spite of some cost increases resulting from difficulties at project start.

# Evaluation criteria RatingB Project design1 Overall design 32 Logframe 4C Project performance1 Relevance 52 Effectiveness 53 Efficiency 44 Sustainability of benefits 4D Cross-cutting performance criteria1 Gender 42 M&E design and implementation 43 Results-based Management 4E Performance of partners1 Performance at project entry 2

2 Performance at project end 4

F Overall assessment 4

Key Evaluation Findings

7. Gabon’s National Action Plan is ready for endorsement; national stakeholders are mobilized. The project has delivered its main outputs and reached its expected outcomes. Three technical assistants (two national experts and an international one) have completed six field missions on ASGM sites, and completed a mercury use inventory as well as a health assessment with close to 200 respondents. Diversified stakeholders were invited early on to take part in a national steering committee and three national workshops. Fifteen out of the twenty-four stakeholders from Gabon met during the evaluation state that they have acquired new knowledge and/or skills in mercury management in artisan gold mining. National stakeholders contributed directly to designing the strategy and prioritization of NAP actions, and ownership of the NAP’s strategy and actions is high. Quantitative evidence provided on the ASGM sector and on the quasi-absence of mercury use was new and useful. Evidence was also provided on the often marginal

3


living conditions of artisan miners and their communities, including women and children. An indirect positive outcome is that artisan gold mining is now perceived as a relevant entry point for environmental health and the planning of public services and settlements in remote Gabonese areas.

8. Combining a multistakeholder approach with coordinated field assessments has ensured the quality of the National Action Plan. The quality of the national workshops and steering committee has clearly contributed to these positive outcomes. Three options on the management of these groups are identified as good practice for the preparation of other NAPs:

Box 1. Good Practice on Stakeholder Participation in the Preparation of NAPs

National steering committee: to ensure continuity, steering committee membership should be nominative and formal. In contexts where decision-makers tend to change their positions, it is also important that members are selected according to their technical expertise. It is also critical that both the mining sector and the agency in charge of the protected areas participate.

Ownership of national action plan: to promote ownership in a multi-stakeholder environment, it is effective and efficient to combine face-to-face discussions when meeting as groups during workshops, together with written contributions through email.

Early dissemination of results: the participation of local communities, environment-oriented civil society organizations, and education professionals can effectively support the dissemination of results through social media and educational programs

9. The goal of preventing mercury use in Gabon has been confirmed as relevant. The surveys have documented presence of a high risk of introduction of mercury use in ASGM. A significant proportion of miners and traders come from neighboring countries and West Africa, where mercury use in ASGM is high. The need for regional, coordinated action is part of the NAP strategy of the NAP — but would be implemented outside of the NAP implementation plan. Surveys would have deserved adaptation to this context but neither UNIDO and AGC, nor the national experts were in a position to clearly state the need for such an adaptation, given that the Minamata Convention promotes the use of global methods for countries with current mercury use in ASGM.

10. Two positive and useful messages throughout the project have been that artisan mining is a professional occupation, and that their communities deserve access to health care and first aid. The first of these messages highlights that artisan gold mining is an occupation requiring skills and deserving recognition through legalization, which will help artisan miners improve their productivity, while continuing to use mercury-free methods. The second one states that artisan miners are exposed to accident and health risks, and deserve access to public services, starting with basic health care and first aid in the event of accidents, which will in turn induce willingness from more artisans to enter a legalization process. Together, these two messages ensure that the needs of more miners and communities are taken into account. Both messages are relevant for women: the Ministry in charge of mines, at a very senior level, supports not only addressing specific health and security risks for women and their families, but also wishes to encourage women to take an active part in formalized mining microenterprises, and/or in the diversification of activities on ASGM sites — a gender mainstreaming approach that was not fully taken on board during the project.

4


11. How alluvial gold mining by artisans interacts with that of small and medium-sized industries remains to be addressed. The NAP fully focuses on artisan miners and their communities. While the Government of Gabon’s priority since 2017 has been investors in semi-mechanized alluvial gold mining, these have largely remained outside the scope of these surveys. To some participants, focusing on artisans helped to better understand the marginal nature of workers in this field and to identify their needs. To others, the absence of evidence about mercury use, health and security hazards, as well as environmental issues in semi-mechanized gold mining is a weakness of the national action plan.

12. The many obstacles to the implementation of the NAP health strategy require innovative approaches. The health survey has documented the very low presence of public services in the remote areas where ASGM is located. Alternative solutions are needed, but the health strategy of the NAP falls short of clearly preparing for this and taking into account the fact that only a small population, around 3,000 Gabonese miners and their families, is concerned. This questions the feasibility of the ‘Health, hygiene, security, environment and vulnerable populations’ actions listed in the plan. Three alternative options have been identified through interviews. Further dialogue with the Ministry of health would allow ASGM communities to be targeted through the ongoing reform of health services in rural areas. Conversely, the NAP outreach activities could cover all issues faced by ASGM communities, from health to legalization, provided new CSO partners are invited. The current version of the NAP has not defined a clear outreach strategy. A third approach would be to mobilize companies which are active in semi-mechanized gold mining to contribute to delivering education and health services to artisan miners and their families.

Recommendations and Lessons Learnt

13. The evaluation provides six recommendations for implementation of the Gabon national action plan for artisanal and small-scale gold mining. These recommendations are designed for the Government of Gabon, UNIDO and AGC.

Conclusions Recommendations

Gabon’s National Action Plan is ready for endorsement, national stakeholders are mobilized.

The National Action Plan should be approved without delay, the first projects should be prepared.

Quality was ensured by combining a multistakeholder approach with coordinated field assessments.

Maintain dual management and coordination during NAP implementation: (1) national coordination, (2) field operations.

A relevant goal, prevention of mercury use in Gabon, has been confirmed.

Pursue the prevention of mercury use through regional, transboundary initiatives, and an inclusive approach to ASGM-related migrants in Gabon.

Moving towards more professional artisan producers, and ensuring artisan miners’ access to health care and first aid, have been two positive messages.

Launch pilot projects for professional artisan miners, through consultation with target groups.Seek balance with broader actions targeting communities in ASGM sites.

Interaction between artisans and small and medium industries in alluvial gold mining in Gabon remains to be addressed.

Invite industrial investors to participate in NAP pilot projects, possibly as part of Gabon’s “green gold” value chain development.

5


The many obstacles to implementation of the NAP health strategy require innovative approaches.

Cover health, first aid, and, wherever possible, primary education.Mobilize the Ministry of health, CSOs specialized in first aid, and enterprises operating in remote sites.

14. Evaluation results also provide lessons learned for future UNIDO projects in Gabon and Central Africa:

· Dialogue: an initiative undertaken in partnership with a beneficiary country government deserves being prepared through a phase of open dialogue between the two parties, to explain and take into account country specificities.

· Field project approach: when part of the project activities take place in remote rural areas, the dialogue phase of the project design should enable parties to adapt activities to such areas and prepare outreach activities. This can be achieved at no additional cost, through an inception phase in the field by the contractor.

· Expert teams: the added value of hiring national experts is maximized when a small number of individual specialists, each from a different sector, work together with an international team leader for the length of the project, and directly participate in the field work.

· Evidence-based approach: devoting a first phase of intervention to the production of evidence before launching capacity building activities is a valid approach whenever consensus around an environmental problem needs to be built, and provided national experts are present in the country.

· UNIDO project management: the added value of UNIDO’s project managers is to help project partners focus on outcomes, follow up on risks, adjust priorities when needed, and resolve issues often encountered in the course of project implementation. This requires continued direct communication throughout the project implementation.

6


1. Introduction

1.1. Evaluation objectives and scope

15. Objective and scope. This evaluation provides an assessment of the Gabon GEF NAP (Global Environment Facility National Action Plan) project in the framework of the Minamata Convention on mercury. The assessment is based on a set of evaluation criteria predefined by UNIDO (Annex 2: Terms of Reference; Annex 3: evaluation framework). The key question this evaluation provides an answer to is whether the project has achieved its main development objective of strengthening Gabon’s national capacity to fulfill its obligations under the Minamata Convention, in order to contribute to protecting human health and the environment from mercury in artisanal and small-scale gold mining (ASGM). The scope of the evaluation is the project itself. Decisions made by GEF, UNIDO, or AGC before project preparation, or at program level for a series of projects, are outside the scope of this evaluation.

16. Identification of lessons learnt. A second, equally important objective of the evaluation is to identify lessons learnt for the preparation of other ASGM national action plans, as well as good practice for enhancing design and management of further UNIDO projects.

17. Project partners in the evaluation. Evaluation results are produced for GEF, UNIDO, CNAP (the National Anti-Pollution Center under Gabon’s Ministry of Forestry and Environment in charge of Climate Plan, and more broadly the Government of Gabon and AGC, the Artisanal Gold Council). GEF was the project’s funding agency through its Trust Fund, under the GEF 6 Chemical & Waste program. UNIDO was the GEF implementing agency and therefore has assumed full responsibility for the project vis-à-vis GEF. CNAP was the executing partner and is the national focal point for the Minamata convention, while the Ministry is the overall GEF focal point. AGC was the GEF executing agency, responsible for project execution in line with its contract with UNIDO.

1.2. Overview of project context

18. Gabon in the Minamata Convention and other conventions. Gabon became a signatory of the Minamata Convention in June 2014. Before that, the Government of Gabon was actively involved in the preparation of the convention. The Government of Gabon has formally declared that ASGM activities in the country are “non insignificant” in the terms of the Convention. Under Article 7 of the Convention, a National Action Plan must therefore be prepared. Gabon is also a signatory to a range of international and regional conventions to reduce pollution from chemicals and waste. Due to its geographical position and very low population density, the country is exposed to pollution sources from neighboring countries in Central Africa, both through transboundary trade and watershed pollution.

19. ASGM policy context in Gabon. The Government of Gabon has conducted a series of initiatives to regulate artisanal and small gold mines, which are summarized in the NAP document. The Ministry in charge of mines (now the Ministry of water, energy, and mining resources development and industrialization) has had an Artisan Mines Office for a long time, overseeing gold and other mining activities. Previous initiatives to modernize or regulate ASGM in Gabon

7


have had modest results, and only a minority of miners have registered under the artisan holding status (exploitation artisanale, or expat). SEM, the national public enterprise (or agency in its own words) in charge of managing the country mining assets, was created in 2011. Gold was listed as one of the country’s strategic industrial resources in 2016, and priority is given since 2017 to investments into mining exploration and modernized alluvial gold mining, which are mostly made by foreign operators. Table 1 below lists recent events in these strategies and policies that have influenced the GEF NAP project.

Table 1. Project Context Timeline

Year Event

1976 CNAP is established

1994 UNIDO starts working on ASGM

2008 Gold boom in protected areas of Minkébé

2010 Countries start negotiations towards Minamata

2011First UNEP guidance document for ASGM NAPs

SEM is established

2013 Minamata Convention on Mercury is adopted

2014CGCO establishes gold purchase centers

Gabon ratifies Minamata Convention

2015 Mining Law forbids use of mercury and cyanide

2016AGC first project mission (May)

“Gold Plan”: gold is listed as a strategic resource

2017

Project launch workshop (March)

Minamata Convention enters into force — COP 1 (September)

Gold Law — New strategy supporting semi-mechanized alluvial gold mining

Project field surveys

2018

NAP formulation workshop

New Minister of Mines

Gold sector activities are suspended, census of ASGM

Minamata COP2 (November)

2019

NAP validation workshop (January)

New Minister of Mines

Final draft NAP — Project ends

Minamata COP3 (November)

Color code:

: international events : national events : project timeline

8


20. Anthropogenic mercury pollution in ASGM. Gabon banned the use of mercury and cyanide through its 2015 Mining Law, one year after having signed the Minamata Convention. Before the project began, mining sector stakeholders assumed that almost no mercury was in use in Gabonese gold mining, since all gold currently exploited is alluvial gold. Ten years ago, however, a gold rush in Minkébé National Park ten years ago led to a documented case of mercury use. The area was then closed to any visitors. A significant proportion of artisan gold miners come from neighboring Central African countries and West Africa, where mercury is broadly used, and small traders and jewelers are almost all from these countries. The Government of Gabon is developing a “green gold” strategy, through which gold produced in the country would gain value from its environmental quality.

21. Social context of ASGM. The NAP surveys describe how ASGM involves a limited number of workers and communities in Gabon. The number of artisan gold mining workers is assessed at 3,000. Previous estimates were at 7,500–10,000. Families involved in ASGM account for around 3% of Gabon’s non-urban population (0.4 million people). ASGM in Gabon is a sector in the terms of the Minamata Convention, but not an economic sector per se. ASGM communities live in remote locations. The NAP surveys describe how some of them are stable communities combining villages close to roads and seasonal mining camps, while others are temporary communities. The extent to which ASGM workers and their families are affected by poverty was a matter of debate during the preparation of the NAP. What is confirmed is their marginal status. Communities are often affected by low land tenure security. The project’s health surveys have demonstrated that they are also exposed to malaria and water and sanitation issues, and that they have low access to public education and health services.

22. Existing links between the NAP project partners. GEF funds the preparation of Minamata Convention NAPs through various implementing agencies including UNIDO. UNIDO is currently managing the preparation of several NAPs. CNAP has worked before with UNIDO to prepare it first National Implementation Plan for the Stockholm convention on POPs (and has revised this plan during the 2017–2019 period). UNIDO has a twenty-five year experience accompanying ASGM projects. AGC is a long-term partner of UNIDO in this field, and it prepares NAPs in collaboration with different GEF Implementing Agencies. AGC specializes in ASGM and promotes artisan mining as a sustainable activity. AGC, which has a civil society organization (CSO) status, also leads the development of mercury management methodologies and appropriate mining technology.

1.3 Overview of the project

23. Overall project objective. The GEF NAP project is an Enabling Activity for Gabon’s participation in the Minamata Convention. Its objective, as defined in the GEF project document, is “to improve national capacity and capability for the prevention and management of mercury use, through the preparation of a National Action Plan for the Artisanal and Small-Scale Gold Mining sector”. The GEF NAP project was called NAP-EMAPE project by the Gabon-based project partners, EMAPE being the French acronym for ASGM.

24. Project structure. The project’s logical framework defined three components. Under component 1—“improved understanding of ASGM sector and strengthened capacity” (68% of the GEF grant)—a national coordination on ASGM was to be established, information on mercury

9


impacts from ASGM disseminated, and quantified assessments conducted in three fields: ASGM and its current use of mercury, health on ASGM sites, and an institutional assessment of the health sector. A health strategy for ASGM and mercury was to be designed on that basis. Under component 2—“NAP finalization for endorsement” (18% of the GEF grant)—national stakeholders were to be consulted on the NAP in its draft and final versions. Component 3 related to project monitoring and evaluation.

25. Project budget. The GEF project grant was USD 500,000, of which 91% were budgeted for the above three components, and 9% for project management. As of mid-2019, this budget has been fully allocated. Project activities took place at the national level, with fieldwork across the country. The budget has mostly funded three technical assistants (two national experts and an international one), six field missions on ASGM sites (three for a mercury use inventory, three for a health assessment), and three national workshops. Completed project expenditure was almost similar to the GEF approved budget. The cost of national coordination and information dissemination increased by around 10%, which was compensated for by an equivalent reduction in the cost of the ASGM sector analysis.

Table 3. Project Budget based on the Proposal for GEF Funding

Project components Project output

GEF financing (in USD)

Partner contributions

(in USD)(3)

Approved (1)

Actual (2)

1. Improved understanding of ASGM sector and strengthened national capacity

Information disseminated and national coordination on ASGM established

60,000 66,563 16,000

National comprehensive analysis of ASGM sector

180,000 173,837 52,000

Health institutional and capacity needs assessment

50,000 50,000 25,000

Rapid health assessment; public health strategy

50,000 50,000 25,000

2. NAP finalization for endorsement

Draft and final NAP, stakeholder feedback

90,000 90,000 25,000

3. Monitoring and evaluation 25,000 25,000 6,000

Project management 45,000 44,600 12,000

Total (in USD) 500,000 500,000 161,000

Of which:

Government of Gabon 0 0 (4) 50,000

UNIDO 50,000 50,000 31,000

AGC 450,000 450,000 80,000

10


Sources: (1) GEF project document, UNIDO project budget breakdown (initial and at completion). (2) UNIDO-GEF grant disbursement (SAP database). (3) Partner contributions are listed as promised cofinancing in the GEF project document. UNIDO’s contribution took the form of monitoring activities, with two country visits. (4) AGC’s contract with UNIDO was partly used to finance the national workshops and NSG secretariat (estimated amount based on interviews: USD 50,000).

26. Project timeline. Enabling activities financed by GEF are defined for a period of 24 months of implementation. Various delays have resulted in a total implementation period of 3 years and 9 months. The ASGM assessment started in May 2016. In-country activities paused for 9 months at the request of Gabon and UNIDO until early 2017, in order to clarify project management modalities. Implementation was further delayed by unavailability periods for two of the three national consultants, and by the Government of Gabon’s decision in autumn 2018 to suspend all gold mining activities including ASGM. Delays and their consequences are reviewed from the point of view of efficiency (Section 3.2) and performance of partners (Section 4).

Table 2. Project Timeline

Milestone Date

Submission to GEF June 19, 2015

Project CEO endorsement/approval date June 2015

Project implementation start date October 1, 2015

Original expected implementation end date (indicated in GEF CEO endorsement/approval document)

August 31, 2017

Revised expected implementation end date March 30, 2019

Evaluation completion and expected implementation end date June 30, 2019

1.4 Evaluation methodology and limitations

27. Evaluation timing and institutional setup. This evaluation was carried out under the responsibility of UNIDO, as part of the NAP project’s M&E activities. It took place just before project end, as initially planned. It was undertaken by one independent UNIDO consultant.1 All key parties associated with the project were consulted and kept informed throughout the evaluation. The UNIDO project manager, CNAP and the AGC consultants in Gabon provided the consultant with project documents and helped organize stakeholder interviews. The consultant undertook interviews in an independent manner.

28. Evaluation activities. A total of 27 interviews were then conducted, of which 24 took place during an 8-day visit in Gabon. These interviews were held with a broad range of stakeholders (Table 4, and Annex 4 for more detail). In addition, two discussions were held with the CNAP and AGC teams, to identify lessons learnt.

Table 4. Stakeholder Interviews

1 Claude Saint-Pierre, baies Ltd, [email protected]

11


Stakeholder Category Organizations Number

Project partners in Gabon CNAP, AGC experts 5

Government of Gabon Mining, health, economy, rural-urban planning, SMEs, ANPN (National Agency for National Parks)

10

Public enterprises SEM 3

Civil Society and education 2 national CSOs, 1 international CSOUSS (Health Sciences University)

5

Project partners outside Gabon UNIDO, AGC 3

29. Evaluation methodology. The methodology combined GEF evaluation guidelines with UNIDO’s methodology for self-evaluation. Evaluation criteria and their subdivision in evaluation questions are based on UNIDO’s evaluation framework, which applies to all projects managed under the organization. The project is reviewed and rated for each evaluation criteria. An intervention logic was recreated on the basis of the logical framework, taking into account discussions with project partners during the evaluation. The intervention logic diagram is analyzed in Section 3.1 (Relevance). Logical framework indicators were assembled from project documents and interviews. Annex 1 shows all indicators.

30. Incorporation of feedback. This evaluation’s findings, draft conclusions and recommendations were discussed with UNIDO’s environment division and evaluation staff in Vienna, Austria on June 4, 2019. Participants are listed in Annex 4. The final version of this report takes into account feedback received during that meeting and from CNAP. The AGC team was also invited to provide comments.

31. Limitations. Activities in Gabon took place in Libreville only. No ASGM site could be accessed, in part due to evaluation time constraints, and because all formal ASGM activities in the country are temporarily suspended since autumn 2018. The evaluation takes into account the fact that local government, local public services, artisanal gold miners and their communities, small-scale gold miners, and the media are stakeholders in future NAP implementation despite the fact that none of these groups were met with. The AGC team in Gabon, which had just come back from an ASGM site for the pilot project, provided additional feedback from that site.

32. Definition of performance. This evaluation reviews the “performance” of the GEF NAP project. This term, which is used in UNIDO’s evaluation methodology, may be misleading. What is reviewed is whether the project was a useful development initiative (Section 2) and whether it could have been implemented in a better way to increase this usefulness (Section 3). The evaluation is not a review of compliance with the Minamata Convention. The evaluation focuses on results, not on difficulties and delays encountered during the process. In Section 4, which analyzes the “performance of partners”, i.e. project implementation, the points of view of UNIDO, CNAP and AGC are presented when they differ. The purpose of presenting these points of view is to offer other partners an opportunity to build on the experience gained during this project. It is not to support the point of view of an individual organization.

12


2. Project’s Contribution to Development Results — Effectiveness

33. The effectiveness criteria. Effectiveness is one of the two key criteria in this evaluation, the second one being sustainability. Under the effectiveness criteria, the evaluation assesses to what extent the project outcomes have been attained. To do so, this section starts with a review of project outputs. Completed outputs are compared with both the outputs foreseen in the logical framework, and recommendations found in the GEF/UNEP’s guidelines for ASGM National Action Plans. Unforeseen project results are also identified.

34. Overview of the assessment. In summary, the project’s overall effectiveness is assessed as satisfactory, and as highly satisfactory in terms of both the completion of the NAP and the NAP’s readiness for endorsement by the Government of Gabon. Gabon’s ASGM National Action Plan will be one of the first to be finalized in the world. Awareness of the health and environmental risks of mercury has also increased among national stakeholders in Gabon. Information dissemination has, however, been more limited than foreseen in the GEF project document.

2.1 Project’s achieved outputs

35. Multistakeholder approach. As recommended in the GEF/UNEP guidelines, diversified stakeholders were invited early on to take part in a national steering committee and/or national workshops. The Ministry in charge of mining took part in all meetings, but only through a small number of participants. The ministry also facilitated access to mining sites during field surveys. The following figure shows participation in the three national workshops, by stakeholder category. CSOs participated in the steering committee and the workshops. For the most part, these CSOs were existing CNAP partners specialized in pollution issues.

Figure 1. National Workshop Participants

Source: workshop reports.

36. National steering committee and workshops. All outputs relating to national ASGM coordination and stakeholder consultation were successfully completed. As expected, three formal meetings of the national steering committee, i.e. one per year, and three national workshops took place. The inception workshop was held jointly with UNIDO and UNEP for the NAP project and the MIA project. The second workshop was the NAP formulation workshop. Participants held group

13


discussions about strategies to address the situation of ASGM as documented through the field surveys. The final workshop validated NAP priorities and a draft list of actions. The steering committee met formally after each workshop, to confirm the outcome of the discussions. It also held additional meetings to share updates on project activities and to make decisions. These activities were coordinated by CNAP, which mobilized its technical director and two staff members.

37. Health assessment. A health survey was successfully completed. Close to 200 respondents (miners, small traders) took part in individual interviews. Focus group discussions were held in villages close to ASGM sites during the health survey. Local health professionals took part in both these group discussions and individual interviews. A full analysis of this survey is provided in the NAP document. The quality of the health strategy is analyzed in Section 3.1.

38. Mercury in ASGM assessment. The information on ASGM available at project start allowed the international expert to produce a mercury assessment overview following his first mission. A series of field visits was then conducted, to either confirm or infirm through direct observation the assumption, made at project start, that current ASGM practices in Gabon do not rely on mercury use. The first two field missions provided such observation, as well as a description of visited sites in social terms. Other sites were only briefly visited. Gold trade statistics were obtained to quantify the share of unregistered gold exports. Together, the health survey and the ASGM survey covered most ASGM sites, except for Minkébé which is a closed area.

39. Information dissemination. Information dissemination was combined with the national workshops, instead of organizing separate study tours, lectures, educational workshops, and media briefs as described at the time of project design. The first event was organized jointly with UNEP. It had a relatively high visibility, thanks to the presence of both Japan’s Ambassador and the national media. CNAP as well as several participants used the internet, including social media sites, to relay information about the workshops and the impact of mercury on health and the environment. Education professionals participating in the workshops shared information with colleague teachers through separate meetings. Information dissemination, however, was more limited than initially described in the GEF project document. AGC drafted a proposal for an information dissemination campaign, in consistency with its TORs, but activities other than the national workshops were not implemented. Efforts made to invite artisan miners at the national workshops were not successful. Outside the project, the first national “gold day”, which addressed all aspects and scales of gold mining, was an opportunity to disseminate information to artisan miners.

40. Curriculum for health professionals. Workshops for health professionals and the proposed design of a training curriculum for health professionals (expected under Output 1.4 in AGC’s Terms of reference) were not organized. Instead, health education experts took part in the national workshops and have started to design courses for their own students. These courses are, however, for university and secondary school students—not for health professionals in service.

41. Indicators at project end. The logical framework defined project indicators. Most of these indicators are at a satisfactory level (Annex 1), which indicates that these adjustments did not significantly affect the achievement of outcomes. Three indicators were not achieved: one relating to the health professionals training curriculum, since that activity was cancelled, and two relating to the participation of women (Section 3.4, Gender).

14


42. NAP completion. As of April 2018, the National Action Plan document was finalized in French and English versions (144 pages, with a three page executive summary) and was awaiting final editing.

43. NAP quality. The following table presents the contents of the National Action Plan and compares it with recommendations from the GEF/UNEP guidelines. On this basis, the quality of the NAP is assessed as good. Additional recommendations were, however, only partly taken into account.

Table 5. Structure of the National Action Plan compared to the Minamata Convention and GEF/UNEP Guidelines

Expected contents of the ASGM NAP (1)

Additional recommendations (2)

Gabon NAP

National objectives and reduction targets

Establish problem statement and goal.

The NAP includes a statement of overarching goal, and three priorities, called themes, are defined (see paragraph 44).

Actions to eliminate worst practice

The NAP document confirms that worst practice is currently nearly completely absent. Actions to address risks that could lead to widespread mercury use are defined. They combine incentives, monitoring and enforcement mechanisms.

Steps to facilitate the formalization or regulation of the ASGM sector

Identify lessons learnt from past country strategies.Provide analysis and characterization of ASGM sector, including main mining areas, miners/private sector involved.

Formalization and evolution of the ASGM sector is theme 2 of the NAP.Previous experiences in addressing ASGM in Gabon are described.Private mining sector involving other than artisans is described only through the technologies used.

Baseline estimates of the quantities of mercury used and practices employed in ASG mining and processing

This is a key element of the NAP.

Annex 2 of the NAP provides a detailed national baseline analysis and a map of ASGM sites. A technical chapter shows the mercury-free equipment currently used.Detailed findings of the health survey, including number of respondents having used mercury in the past, are provided.

Strategies for promoting the reduction of emissions and exposure to mercury in ASG mining and processing, including mercury-free methods

Provide an assessment of technically available and economically feasible techniques and technologies that can replace the use of mercury.

The strategy combines the introduction and financing of mercury-free equipment, training, and demonstrations, and attention to environmental impacts.Improved but simple and cheap new equipment has been successfully demonstrated through the pilot project (after the April 1 version of the NAP document).

Strategies for managing trade and preventing the diversion of mercury to ASG

An integrated regional approach is recommended (to be implemented outside of the implementation plan), combined with

15


mining/processing national actions.

Strategies for involving stakeholders in the implementation and development of NAP

Provide an outreach plan (target audiences, messages, outreach activities, roles and resources, M&E)Promote effective intersectoral engagement.

An interministerial group is recommended.There is no outreach plan.

A public health strategy on the exposure of ASG miners and their communities to mercury including gathering of health data, training for health-care workers and awareness-raising through health facilities

Describe on-going health sector strategies.

Theme 3 of the NAP is: health, hygiene, security, environment and vulnerable populations in ASGM communities.A strategy is described, based on mercury control, awareness raising in ASGM communities, improved public health infrastructure and initial training of health professionals is defined.The link with the health sector institutional assessment is not clearly made.

Strategies to prevent the exposure of vulnerable populations to mercury in ASGM

Theme 3 of the NAP specifically mentions women and children in ASGM communities.A strategy is described, and several actions have been defined.

Strategies for providing information to miners and affected communities

The strategy is based on awareness-raising campaigns is proposed.

A schedule for the implementation of the NAP

Include a workplan of activities to implement the strategies, a timeline.

The workplan lists actions under each of the three themes. Each action is described as short, medium or long term.

Clearly identify authorities responsible for implementation.Describe an M&E process.

Government agencies (DGs) are listed for each action. CNAP is coordinator for all actions.An M&E table focuses on selected activities, describes indicators and participants.

Select cost-effective approaches, Include a budget.

The executive summary provides a total budget (USD 6 million), and its phasing for three 2-year periods.Cost-effectiveness actions are not prioritized.

(1) Minamata convention text and annexes. (2) GEF 2014 and UNEP 2017.Color code:

: fully consistent : partly consistent

In italics: elements missing in the NAP.

16


2.2 Project outcomes and overall effectiveness

44. Outcome 1: readiness of NAP for endorsement. The first outcome, “NAP is finalized for endorsement through iterative feedback from relevant stakeholders”, is fully achieved. As of end April 2018, endorsement of the NAP was under preparation. CNAP was planning dissemination of the printed document and a dialogue with senior policy makers before endorsement by the Council of Ministers. This dialogue is a necessary step since the national steering committee members were mostly technical level staff.

45. Contributing factor: stakeholder ownership. Interviews have demonstrated that ownership of the NAP’s strategy and actions by the national stakeholders was high. This confirms that the plan is ready for implementation. National stakeholders have directly contributed to the design of the strategy and the prioritization of actions. They provided their contribution through the national workshops. In addition, the prefinal NAP document was shared by email with key workshop participants, so that the final version incorporates comments from these reviewers.

46. Outcome 2: awareness and capacity. Achievement of the second outcome, “participating stakeholders are able to manage mercury in the ASGM sector (awareness, technical skills, expertise)” (which is in fact the first one in the logical framework) is relatively high. Fifteen out of twenty-four stakeholders in Gabon met during the evaluation state stated that they have acquired general knowledge and/or technical know-how on ASGM mercury management. Workshop participants with no previous exposure to ASGM had very little knowledge about this activity. A core team of two national experts gained new skills and expertise through working as members of the AGC project implementation team. The target of five national experts trained defined in the logical framework was not reached. In the national context, however, this target had limited relevance (Section 3.1).

47. Contributing factor: quality and satisfaction. The quality of the national workshops and steering committee has clearly contributed to these positive outcomes. The national stakeholders who were steering committee members expressed high satisfaction about the coordination process. Workshop participants said quantitative evidence provided on the ASGM sector and on the quasi-absence of mercury use was new and useful. What was especially useful was that the national consultants, who are recognized as experts in Gabon, went to the field themselves to collect evidence, using a well-defined protocol.

48. Vulnerable groups. Evidence was also provided on the living conditions of ASGM workers and their communities, including women and children. The national stakeholders interviewed during the evaluation explained that, prior to the surveys, they had little information on these often difficult living conditions. The schedule of national workshops was coordinated with progress in the field surveys so that new information could be made available to participants during each workshop. Actions targeting ASGM workers and their families were identified through group discussions during the workshops, taking into account evidence from the field.

49. Limited information dissemination. Despite CNAP’s efforts to publish information on the internet and to invite media outlets to the workshop, outreach was limited during the project. The local government was not invited, and during the interviews only one CSO reported having mobilized their social media presence. The health survey appears to have covered national respondents, so that foreign artisan miners were not informed. This project is therefore a limited

17


source of experience for future information dissemination. Absence of an outreach plan is also one of the missing points in the NAP.

50. Indirect positive results. An indirect positive outcome of the project is an increased awareness of the health and security conditions of those living and working in remote areas in Gabon. The project has provided evidence on these issues, whereas such evidence was so far limited. According to the interviews, ASGM is now perceived as a relevant entry point for various policies in remote areas, including environmental health and the planning of public services and settlements.

18


3. Project Quality and Performance

3.1 Design and relevance

51. Definition of criteria. The quality of project design, i.e. the quality of the design process and the relevance of the decisions made at that stage, is reviewed in this section, as well as the quality of the logical framework. Under the relevance criteria, the evaluation looks at how development needs and Gabon’s institutional framework have been taken into account in the NAP and its preparation process.

52. Overview of assessment. Overall design is assessed as moderately unsatisfactory, a situation that derives from a combination of factors explained below. The quality of the logical framework was moderately satisfactory. Despite these initial weaknesses, the relevance of the National Action Plan and its preparation process is assessed as satisfactory.

Project design and logframe

53. Design process. The project proposal presented for GEF support was based on a rapid desk description of the country’s context and needs. This has reportedly been a usual practice for GEF-funded Enabling Activities under the Minamata Convention. The rationale for this is that a series of outputs is mandatory in ASGM national action plans under the convention. No budget was available in UNIDO for an initial country visit. UNIDO has also indicated that Gabon’s eligibility to GEF funding for the preparation of its ASGM NAP might have been questioned, since GEF grants under the Minamata Convention have so far been allocated to countries with confirmed use of mercury in ASGM. This has reportedly contributed to a quick preparation of the GEF application, without prior in-depth discussions.

54. Adaptation to country context. The GEF/UNEP methodology for preparing an ASGM National Action Plan recommends adapting the activities undertaken to prepare a national action plan to the national context. Two problems encountered at the project design stage were not resolved during implementation. First, there was a trade-off between such an adaptation to country specificities and the use of a globally recommended set of activities. This use of globally recommended tools is expected under the Minamata Convention, in order to allow comparison between countries. Second, the standard design of ASGM NAP Enabling Activities is adapted to situations with actual mercury use. As a result, budget and activities remained largely focused on the quantification of mercury use, even though this did not reflect the country’s context.

55. Project inception. After the project’s approval by GEF, the first mission of the AGC team—a six-day mission limited to Libreville—was used to roll out the existing methodology. By that time, AGC had already received UNIDO’s terms of reference, which were very detailed and did not allow for an adjustment. At this stage and throughout the project, the question of whether project activities should have been adapted to the specific case of Gabon was neither raised nor answered.

56. Perception of intervention logic. The logical framework was incorporated into the GEF application and was therefore equally quickly prepared, without any adaptation to the country

19


context. The intervention logic (Figure 2) shows in gray a number of cases that have remained unclear in the logical chain linking resources to activities and objectives. Interviews indicated that this lack of clarity was pointed out at project inception, but left unresolved. They mostly related to project coordination and mercury management.

Figure 2. Project Intervention Logic

Source: internal analysis based on the project’s logical framework and discussions with the project’s team.

In gray: elements that deserved clarification.

57. Definition of coordination tasks. Distribution of coordination responsibilities among UNIDO, AGC and CNAP were clearly defined from an administrative and contractual point of view. Four persons were involved: the UNIDO project manager, the CNAP technical director, the AGC team leader/operational project director, and the national project coordinator. The figure highlights how coordination tasks would have deserved clarification, had more time been available at the GEF application stage.

58. Decisions regarding budget management. The decision to channel through AGC 100% of the budget other than UNIDO’s budget line was a sound risk management method (Section 5.3) allowing full effectiveness of the project. At that time, this was current practice for UNIDO. Nowadays, UNIDO proposes alternatives in which governments manage part of the budget. However, since CNAP has existing capacity, especially to coordinate a multistakeholder network, there was a contradiction between the proposed institutional arrangement for the project and that capacity.

59. Approach to mercury management. The project’s logical framework defines outcome 2 as “participating stakeholders are able to manage mercury in the ASGM sector (awareness, technical skills, expertise).” This outcome is divided in two in the intervention logic, to highlight how there was a need for clarification. At the end of the project, UNIDO and AGC view that “new

20


expertise and technical skills in ASGM Hg management” was not an expected outcome of this project, since “technical skills” meant capacity to use an existing methodology to quantify and control mercury use. CNAP’s point of view differs: since AGC is a global expert of appropriate ASGM technology, it partly understood this phrase as “building skills on ASGM equipment.” This was all the more needed as two previous mining sector projects in Gabon had introduced modern equipment that did not answer artisan miners’ needs. This explains CNAP’s early request for a pilot project to demonstrate equipment which can increase efficiency in ASGM. ASGM enabling activities generally do not fund pilot projects. In the case of Gabon, this small technical intervention was useful to prepare approval of the NAP (Section 5.2).

60. Approach to capacity building. One of the logical framework’s two indicators was that “at least five national experts (gender balanced) from private and public institutions be trained in the management of mercury under the ASGM sector.” Since capacity building projects in Gabon often take the form of a training of trainers program, CNAP expected a similar approach whereas no training was budgeted under the program. This absence is, however, assessed as relevant. The national stakeholders confirmed that the provision and discussion of evidence on the presence or absence of mercury in ASGM was the priority during the project, and broader training will be relevant later on, during implementation of the NAP. Organizing the national workshops as a mixed capacity building/consultation exercise was therefore a very appropriate option. Similarly, the fact that mercury and health training is being prepared, through project participants, for future health professionals attending the University, not for active health professionals attending continuing training, appears to be relevant. These students are the ones who will have to address potential future increases in the use of mercury.

Relevance

61. Goal and structure of the NAP. The National Action Plan, through an iterative process inviting national stakeholders to participate, has been adjusted to the specific features of ASGM in Gabon. During the interviews, stakeholders indicated consensus on its goal, “to build an ASGM sector in Gabon that remains free of mercury use while evolving to better meet the development priorities of the nation and ASGM communities”. They also agreed on the three themes of the NAP: (1) Prevention and control of mercury use in the ASGM sector; (2) Formalization and evolution of the ASGM sector; and (3) Health, hygiene, security, environment and vulnerable populations (women and children) in ASGM communities. The first theme relates to the regulatory dimension of ASGM, the second one to its economic dimension, and the third to its social dimension and environmental impacts other than mercury pollution.

62. Relevance of mercury prevention goal. The surveys have documented a high risk of mercury use being introduced in ASGM. A significant proportion of miners and traders come from neighboring countries and West Africa, where mercury use in ASGM is high. The Minkébé National Park crisis was a migration crisis, which might happen again. ANPN reported one chance find in 2018. The NAP’s strategy to address the prevention of mercury use, both within Gabon and at a regional level in Central Africa, is therefore extremely relevant.

63. Relevance of actions under the theme of health and vulnerable populations. The health survey was a means to understand various demands coming from artisan gold miners, and to incorporate them into the NAP. Conversely, the analysis of institutional obstacles in the health sector was relatively light. The proposed strategy identifies needs (first aid, basic healthcare,

21


awareness campaigns) but solutions to overcome these obstacles, taking into account the very small size of the ASGM population, remain to be confirmed (Section 3.2: sustainability).

64. Relevant timing of the NAP preparation period. The project took place in a period of evolving strategy for gold mining in Gabon. This transition period was a very appropriate time to assemble evidence on artisan gold mining. When the project started, SEM had just decided to close its subsidiary company, CGCO, which was so far in charge of procuring artisan-produced gold through provincial procurement points. CGCO operations were not profitable, due to a very high share of informal production and the scattered nature of production. SEM was launching its new strategy of contracting concessions to enterprises for alluvial gold mining (Section 1.2).

65. ASGM definition in Gabon. The NAP fully focuses on artisan miners and their communities. The GEF/UNEP methodology advises to carefully define “artisan” and “small” gold mining in each national context. Small operators are often included in the preparation of other NAPs. At project start, focusing on artisans was a valid option, since very few concessions had been established. At project end, this situation has changed. To some participants, focusing on artisans was justified. It has allowed a better understanding of the marginal nature of workers in this field, and the identification of their needs. Broadening the surveys to cover small gold mining would have been beyond the project team’s capacity. The health survey team did try to cover one semi-mechanized site, but this was not feasible until the required high-level approval from the ministry in charge was obtained. To others, the absence of evidence about mercury use, and health, security and environmental issues in small gold mines and semi-mechanized gold mining is a weakness in the national action plan. Careful attention to interactions between artisans and semi-mechanized gold mining enterprises will be necessary during the implementation of the NAP.

66. Adaptation of methods to country context. Several opportunities to adjust activities to Gabon’s specific features were not seized during implementation. The health survey was expected to be adjusted to the national context. A specific budget was available to adjust the health survey protocol, but the report is only one page long. Adjustments could have been made, for example, to include non-nationals in the survey. The mercury inventory survey could have been adjusted upfront to the fact that it was assumed that mercury was largely absent from ASGM in Gabon. For example, the consultant in charge of the mercury inventory was trained in the existing mercury quantification methodology in Guinea Bissau, a training that was not initially included in the project design. Section 3.3 on gender describes how the existing methodology to identify a relevant stakeholder to address gender in preparation of the NAP should also have been adjusted. There were two contribution factors to this lack of adjustment. First, it was not clear whether methods could be adjusted to a situation with an assumption of absence of mercury use. Second, the national health expert indicated a strong preference for the use of AGC’s global questionnaire, which gave legitimacy to a survey taking place in a sensitive environment.

67. Adaptation of key messages to country context. Beyond the several strategies described in the NAP, a small number of key messages on artisan gold mining have been promoted throughout the project. These messages may be summarized as follows. First, artisan gold mining is a professional occupation, requiring skills and deserving recognition through legalization. Such recognition will help artisan miners to improve their productivity, continuing to use mercury-free methods. Second, all communities where ASGM is taking place are exposed to accident and health risks, and deserve access to health and other services, which will in turn encourage more artisans to enter a legalization process. These messages are fully consistent with the needs of

22


artisan miners in Gabon identified through the surveys, and with UNIDO’s strategy for sustainable and inclusive industrial development.

3.2 Efficiency

68. Definition of criteria. Under the efficiency criteria, the evaluation assesses the balance between the project’s budget and results. The project budget, USD 500,000, is the maximum amount of GEF Trust Fund to which an enabling activity is eligible. A detailed review of expenditure is outside the scope of this evaluation.

69. Overview of assessment. Efficiency is assessed as moderately satisfactory. The main positive factor was an appropriate balance between national and international technical experts. AGC assesses the number of man-months hired as 1/3 for one part-time international expert, acting as project manager, and 2/3 for national experts. The national experts included one senior national coordinator, one senior health expert, one socioeconomic expert during six months, and field research assistants.

70. Budget management. The management of project costs as lumpsums was also another positive factor. In Gabon’s context, wage expectations and travel costs are very high in the remote areas where ASGM is located. Contractors took risks to undertake each of the surveys and to manage the project as a whole. The lumpsum approach was also a practical solution to handle government coordination expenses. It helped participants agree not to be compensated for their attendance to workshops, and to set a below-standard compensation for the steering committee sessions. Unfortunately, the detailed basis to cost expenditures could not be discussed during the rapid project design stage, and was discussed directly between AGC and CNAP during the project.

71. Consequences of delays. The nine-month period during which there was a pause in in-country activities had negative consequences. Costs did not significantly increase, but initial investments made were partly lost. The national expert who was trained abroad did not stay on to use his newly acquired skills in the project. When activities were relaunched, the rainy season precluded field work. The international expert could not visit ASGM sites before the end of the project.

72. Cost-effectiveness of field work. Carrying out two field surveys as a separate exercise was justified, although more costly than if they had been carried out jointly. Artisan miners and their communities were willing to participate in a stand-alone health survey but might have been reluctant to participate if that survey was also about current mercury use, since such use is illegal Gabon’s mining code. This means, however, that neither joint visits nor other options for lower cost field visits could be tested during the project. While there was no requirement to do so, a more cost-effective approach would have increased readiness for future field presence in ASGM areas (Section 3.3: sustainability).

1.

23


3.3 Sustainability

73. Definition of criteria. Sustainability is the second key criteria in this evaluation. This question is answered from two main angles: whether, and to what extent, the capabilities built through the project will be sustained, and whether the identified actions are likely to be implemented.

74. Overview of assessment. Sustainability is assessed as satisfactory. The capabilities that were built are likely to continue to be mobilized in one form or another. Readiness to implement actions is also high, but future access to public development aid will remain an overarching constraint to allow the implementation of NAP actions or other activities. In addition, options to overcome institutional obstacles for health services remain to be confirmed and tested.

75. Continued recognition of ASGM. The risk that artisan gold mining would become illegal is described by national stakeholders as very low. Although the Government of Gabon has currently suspended ASGM, this suspension also applies to other gold mining activities, its purpose being to provide an incentive to operators of all sizes to enter formal registration. At the time of evaluation, this suspension had been in place for more than six months, but all stakeholders saw it as a temporary measure. Mining sector interviewees have described how artisan gold mining is a useful activity, since identification of mining deposits by artisans can help enterprises target locations for their own mining activities.

76. Institutional stability. There will be institutional changes, but these are not expected to reduce national capabilities. Gabon’s Council of Ministers has reportedly decided in April 2018 to merge the CNAP into the General Division of Environment in the ministry. This could give its staff more secure positions and access to budgets for new projects. All national stakeholders are willing to continue to take part in a steering committee. The two key national experts will remain active in their own professional field, ASGM for the first one, public health in remote areas for the second one. They have expressed high motivation to continue to work on ASGM.

77. Contributing positive factors. The strong consensus around the NAP strategy, and the in-country ownership of this strategy, are two positive factors for sustainability of project outcomes. These are a direct result of the project. During the interviews, all stakeholders said they agreed with the significance of the NAP’s goal—to prevent the use of mercury in gold mining in Gabon. There is also consensus on how to implement the NAP: its three priorities (mercury control activities as well as economic and social dimensions) should proceed in parallel, using shared human and financial resources wherever feasible, and should start with pilot projects. Finally, there is a consensus on how to coordinate NAP implementation: CNAP is in a good position to coordinate institutional activities at the national level, in cooperation with a field coordinator for activities taking place on ASGM sites.

78. Funding resources. Almost all activities listed in the NAP will require official development aid. The GEF funds which are earmarked for implementation of the Minamata Convention are likely to prioritize countries other than Gabon, i.e. with confirmed existing use of mercury in ASGM. Project partners are well aware of this constraint and of the need for alternative sources of development aid. Activities that do not require ODA funds have already been launched. Adjustments in the legal framework have been prepared through the parallel MIA project. Education programs for young health professionals are beginning to be designed and delivered.

24


Training specific to ASGM will be organized if financial support for new projects becomes available.

79. Regional initiative. The NAP describes the need for a regional-level action to prevent the introduction of mercury from neighboring countries into Gabon’s ASGM. This action is not a part of the NAP implementation plan since the Government of Gabon cannot take a commitment to undertake an initiative that requires coordination with neighboring countries. Launching such a regional initiative would be an excellent way to sustain the positive outcome of the NAP project, provided a relevant funding agency is willing to support this action.

80. Feasibility of health actions. An important question mark for NAP implementation relates to its third theme on health and vulnerable groups. In Gabon, there is a very low presence of public services in the remote areas where ASGM is located, an absence documented by the health survey. The definition of responsibilities is not finalized for the health and security theme in the NAP. The NAP mentions that ministries in charge of mines, education and health would jointly work to implement actions, but the General Division in charge in these ministries is not identified. The NAP also does not mention CSOs in its implementation plan, and relevant CSOs working on community health and safety in remote areas have not participated in the preparation of the NAP.

81. Alternative proposals for health and first aid actions. Several alternatives have been proposed by interviewees. The first one is a health sector approach: further dialogue with the Ministry of health would allow ASGM communities to be targeted in the on-going reform of health services in rural areas. Such an integrated approach is in line with the GEF-UNEP good practice guide for ASGM NAPs (section 3.1). The second one is, conversely, a multisector approach: outreach activities could cover all issues faced by ASGM communities, from health to legalization. New CSO partners could be invited in this second approach: Gabon’s Red Cross and firefighters have been described as relevant partners, since they have a comprehensive coverage of remote areas, and may be mobilized for first aid. A third approach would be to mobilize the enterprises to which concessions in Gabon are allocated, whether for mining or another activity. By law, these enterprises must commit to undertake corporate social activities benefitting the local community. Companies active in semi-mechanized gold mining might contribute to delivering education and health services to artisan miners and their families.

25


3.4 Gender

82. Purpose of criteria. Gender is a criteria assessed in all UNIDO evaluations, since taking into account the needs of women and inviting their participation is critical for the development of inclusive, sustainable industries. There is nowadays a consensus at the global level that women are of critical importance in ASGM activities.

83. Assessment overview. Attention to gender during the project implementation and in the NAP is assessed as satisfactory. Initial mercury inventory visits have recorded the proportion of women involved in artisan gold mining, and reported on security issues for women on mining sites. These issues were discussed in the national workshops. A fair degree of attention was paid to the participation of women in the committee and in the national workshops, and this participation was recorded. These efforts have contributed to a national action plan in which one theme includes a series of relevant actions for women and children.

Box 1. Gender in the National Action plan

Women in ASGMDuring the field inventory, 10–15% of women were present in the population of two mining sites.

The Ministry in charge of mining assesses the percentage of women employed in ASGM at 20%.

There are significant security issues on ASGM sites, affecting women living or working on these sites.

Implementation plan—theme 3Women and children are mentioned as a vulnerable group in the title of theme 3.

One planned action is to promote behavior change regarding mercury impact on the health of children and pregnant women.

84. Issue of women participation in surveys. A method to facilitate participation of women was missing during the health survey. The survey team was comprised of men only, did not invite local female health professionals to help interacting with women, and asked interviewees to sign on individual consent to take part in the survey prior to answering the questionnaire. No target for the participation of women was defined in the survey framework. As a result of these various factors, only three respondents were women. The initial mercury inventory visits included a social consultant with an anthropologist background, and one of the team members was a woman. This appears to have helped take women into account during these visits. Unfortunately, this approach was not replicated in the health survey.

85. Issue of CSO partner to address gender. The project partners tried to identify an appropriate CSO working specifically on gender issues but this was unsuccessful. CNAP’s CSO partners specialize in industrial pollution and natural resource management, less in social issues. It was also understood that the NAP preparation method called for identifying a CSO willing to support women ASGM cooperatives, which was not appropriate for Gabon. Conversely, many CSOs work on community development outside of urban areas in Gabon, for example in the forestry sector (which is under the same ministry as environment and therefore CNAP) and some of those CSOs could have been invited to the workshops.

26


86. Gender mainstreaming approach. The Ministry in charge of mining, at a very senior level, is aware of the added value of a gender mainstreaming approach in artisan mining. One of its managers made a presentation at one of the national workshops, highlighting a three-fold rationale for gender mainstreaming in ASGM: (1) addressing specific health risks, (2) supporting families and improving security on mining sites, and (3) encouraging women to take an active part in formalized mining microenterprises, and/or in diversification of activities on ASGM sites. The NAP, in addressing the first of these three perspectives only, misses the opportunity for a gender mainstreaming approach, and is not consistent with the Ministry’s recommendations.

27


4. Performance of Partners

87. Definition of criteria. Performance, i.e. quality of project coordination and management, is scored collectively for the four project partners—GEF, UNIDO, CNAP, and AGC—at two stages—inception and project end—to better identify lessons learnt at each of these stages. When a specific partner is mentioned, the assessment relates to the organization, not to any individual in this organization.

88. Assessment overview. Performance of partners during project preparation and project launch is rated as unsatisfactory. This performance increased after 2017 and rated as satisfactory at project end.

4.1 At project start

89. Quality of project preparation. The project was launched without a specific design stage. As explained above in Section 3.1, this was a combined result of GEF’s overall approach to Enabling Activity grants in the Minamata convention, and Gabon’s rapid application to this grant program. Minamata Convention enabling activities are seen as simple interventions, for which UNIDO does not have a budget to undertake a preparation mission. UNIDO has provided very detailed TORs to its contractor, AGC, which are standard TORs used for all NAP preparation projects. UNIDO project managers, AGC managers and Government of Gabon counterparts meet on a regular basis in Minamata Convention conferences and have held side discussions to resolve questions. This was not sufficient in the case of the Gabon NAP.

90. Dialogue between project partners. CNAP had experience from a previous UNIDO-coordinated enabling activity for the preparation of the POP national implementation plan. CNAP management expected a similar implementation process, whereby the Government of Gabon would have managed the budget and delegated tasks to partner government agencies, while UNIDO experts would have provided advice before and after each task. The CNAP Director signed on the proposed project arrangement to channel the whole budget through AGC, but expected recognition of this experience in the new project. There was also a lack of understanding on project costs. From UNIDO’s point of view, information about the project budget was handled in a transparent manner starting from 2017. From CNAP’s point of view, the budget did not provide sufficient visibility on unit costs and amounts. Discontinuity in UNIDO’s project managers on one side, high expectations in terms of project coordination costs on CNAP’s side, were added difficulties. The evaluation concludes that ownership by the Government of Gabon was a critical factor that would have deserved dialogue early on.

91. Managing specific regional obstacles. Field work conditions in ASGM areas, in a forested equatorial environment, are costly and risky. Standards of living in the capital city where national stakeholders and staff are based are very high. The budget spent on transportation and human resources would have deserved a specific discussion early on between UNIDO and the Government of Gabon.

92. Human resources mobilized. CNAP and AGC have mobilized adequate human resources, with qualified individuals. The national experts hired by AGC were respectively one mining sector

28


expert previously in a management position at SEM, and a health researcher holding academic positions in both Gabon and France. They remained in place throughout the project (with a long absence for one of them after a car accident during the survey). AGC’s international project manager was highly experienced in ASGM, project management and the Central Africa region.

4.2 At project end

93. Operational management. Together, CNAP, AGC, and UNIDO have successfully finalized the NAP while fulfilling the outcome of building national capacity. This is a noticeable achievement. A stable UNIDO project manager has been in place starting from 2017. Dialogue between this manager and CNAP was reestablished through direct communication. UNIDO project management successfully focused on individual dialogue with CNAP management, on project outcomes and the timely completion of the NAP document (section 5.2). At project end, UNIDO and CNAP are working together to prepare the post-project phase, therefore enhancing prospects for sustainability. AGC also focused on the timely completion of field surveys and the quality of workshops, while at the same time delivering key messages on sustainable ASGM.

94. Interaction with GEF. The GEF Trust Fund was disbursed according to schedule. Payments to individual experts were made through UNIDO and then AGC, reportedly within a few weeks. During the evaluation, GEF procedures on financial management, procurement and contracting were referred to as a constraint. Specifically, there are no procedures to adjust the initial project design since a GEF Enabling Activity is a short activity, expected to be completed within two years. The fact that Gabon’s GEF Focal point is positioned in the same ministry as CNAP has unfortunately not ensured access of CNAP to documentation on these procedures.

95. Coordination. Coordination between UNIDO, CNAP and AGC was effective and contributed to the finalization of the NAP. Responsibilities for project outputs were clearly defined. The two main types of project activities—the coordination of the national steering committee and workshops on one side, the field surveys on the other—gradually became coordinated as two separate components, CNAP assuming coordination of the first one through a dedicated lumpsum budget, while the AGC team took charge of the second one. At the end of the project, project partners expressed satisfaction with this management option and they expect to maintain it during the NAP implementation. Had this sound component structure been identified earlier on, the respective contributions of the project partners to project coordination would have been clarified (Section 3.1).

29


5. Factors Facilitating or Limiting the Achievement of Results

5.1 Monitoring & evaluation

96. Assessment overview. The design and use of monitoring is assessed as moderately satisfactory. In line with existing practice for Minamata Convention enabling activities, the proposal submitted to GEF budgeted the current evaluation under the M&E component. In addition, UNIDO carried out two in-country monitoring visits.

97. Use of logical framework. The logical framework was useful to define outputs in AGC’s terms of reference, and to monitor their delivery. It was also useful to support results-based management (Section 5.2). UNIDO reported that there was no GEF procedure to update the logical framework during project implementation. The evaluation was an opportunity to assemble the logical framework’s indicators, which project partners had not used during project implementation. Annex 1 provides these indicators.

98. Prior assessment of risks. The logical framework lists generic risks and conditions, which do not take into account Gabon’s national context. Actual risks which might have affected project results were nevertheless taken into account, as well as potential risks during future NAP implementation, thanks to the project partners’ individual management skills (Section 5.3).

5.2 Results-based management

99. Overview of assessment. Results-based management is assessed as satisfactory. All project partners jointly focused on the first outcome—readiness of the NAP for endorsement by the Government—and on part of the second one—increased awareness of mercury health and environment risks.

100. Definition of priorities. This approach to project management was useful to set up priorities. In order to ensure the readiness of the NAP, the health survey was prioritized over the mercury inventory. This was appropriate since the health survey was also a means to identify the presence of mercury users among miners and brokers. Increased awareness about mercury risks remained a priority throughout the project. CNAP and the national experts were joined by several UNIDO and AGC headquarters specialists to facilitate the national workshops.

101. Addition of a field demonstration. A demonstration called “pilot project” was carried out as an additional project activity, using project savings. This field activity delivered additional and visible inputs in the field, which was a priority to secure NAP endorsement by the Government of Gabon. The one-week field demonstration took place among one ASGM community in April 2019, with the aim to confirm which types of equipment were appropriate to reduce gold losses and promote more profitable ASGM, thus preventing the introduction of mercury. Simple sluice mats were compared with more sophisticated equipment. Demonstration results provide a good basis to launch pilot projects on ASGM sites.

30


5.3 Risks and other factors

102. National context. The Government of Gabon underwent several changes during the project, a situation which endangered the continuity of stakeholder participation in the project. To prevent this, CNAP selected national steering committee members at a technical level rather than a senior decision making level. Members were officially designated in a circular. This risk is further addressed in the NAP, which identifies GDs, not ministries, since GDs are relatively stable whereas ministry perimeters might be modified. To better ensure the stability of upcoming NAP implementation, several GDs are listed as jointly responsible for each action. The multistakeholder strategy which the Minamata convention calls for, and which was carefully implemented jointly by CNAP and AGC, was also seen as useful since responsibility in identifying evidence about ASGM and mercury could be shared among a significant number of government agencies.

103. Environmental risks. Environmental concerns other than mercury were taken into account. The national agency in charge of protected areas, ANPN, was a steering committee member. Another steering committee member was an environmental CSO engaged in industrial pollution control. The health survey looked at the issue of drinking water quality in and around ASGM sites. But the need to address the conflict between national parks and ASGM would have deserved stronger attention in the NAP strategies. The NAP confirms that ASGM should not take place in the buffer zones of national parks, but the map provided fails to reflect the actual presence of ASGM around national parks. This presence is currently high according to ANPN.

104. Minority ethnic groups. Gabon comprises a large number of ethnic groups. There are minority ethnic groups in the remote areas where ASGM takes place, including Baka (Pygmy) communities, a fact that is not mentioned in the project documents. Field mission reports list ethnic groups present on the ASGM sites visited. It was concluded that none of the groups was expected to be made more vulnerable than others in the context of the future implementation of the NAP. For example, all groups are equally eligible to public health schemes.

105. Land tenure security. ASGM workers and communities are vulnerable in terms of land tenure security, due to pressure from various sectors (mines, forestry, and the agro-industry). The importance of secure titles for those choosing to become professional miners was repeatedly discussed during the project. The NAP strategy mentions the need for revisions of the Mining code in favor of artisan miners. This, however, is a long-term prospect which has not been listed as an action in the implementation plan.

31


6. Conclusions, Recommendations and Lessons Learned

6.1 Overarching assessment and rating table

106. Satisfactory overarching assessment. Based on the analysis by criteria provided in Sections 2 to 5, and taking into account the project context, the Gabon GEF NAP project is assessed as satisfactory, with an overall rating of 4. The two criteria which are seen as priority criteria in evaluating a national plan—effectiveness and sustainability of benefits—get an average rating of 4.5.

107. Main strong and weak points. The NAP project was fully effective and it has produced a relevant national action plan. Conversely, the project is rated as unsatisfactory for two criteria: overall design, and performance of partners at project entry.

# Evaluation criteria RatingB Project design1 Overall design 3

2 Logframe 4C Project performance1 Relevance 52 Effectiveness 53 Efficiency 4

4 Sustainability of benefits 4D Cross-cutting performance criteria1 Gender 42 M&E design and implementation 4

3 Results-based Management 4

E Performance of partners1 Performance at project entry 22 Performance at project end 4F Overall assessment 4

Color code:

: satisfactory score : unsatisfactory score

32


6.2 Conclusions

108. This evaluation confirms the positive outcome of the project: this enabling activity has improved national capacity and capability for mercury management in artisanal gold mining. Gabon’s national action plan is ready for endorsement. National stakeholders are mobilized to take part in its implementation, in spite of an uncertain national context.

109. Quality was ensured by combining a multistakeholder approach to NAP preparation with coordinated field assessments. Field surveys were effective because they provided new, quantified evidence, involved directly recognized national experts, and were carefully coordinated with national workshops to discuss their findings. During the implementation, the project coordination in Gabon was gradually restructured around two components: stakeholder coordination, and the coordination of field work together with the analysis of its results. Defining this sound management structure—and the respective coordination roles of project partners—earlier would have smoothed the project implementation.

110. The relevance of preventing mercury use in Gabon has been confirmed. The project has demonstrated that the prevention of mercury pollution in a risky regional environment is an appropriate goal for Gabon and the global environment. There is consensus among national stakeholders that upcoming activities will therefore need to take place at both the national and regional level. While it was not possible to adjust the project’s design to reflect an assumption of absence of mercury use in Gabon, the project shows how important it is to adapt each project to the national context. It also provides a window to address the prevention of significant pollution risks and not just the reduction of existing pollution.

111. Interaction between artisans and small and medium industries in alluvial gold mining remains to be addressed. The project has not produced evidence on semi-mechanized alluvial gold mining operations, which are under industrial investors in Gabon, whereas their interaction with artisan miners is increasingly important, and a core aspect of the renewed national strategy for ASGM. This interaction will need to be taken into account to ensure the successful implementation of the NAP.

112. The project has been a vehicle to convey positive messages on ASGM: moving towards an ASGM sector with professionalization of current producers, and improving villagers’ access to basic health care and first aid. These two entry points are fully consistent with UNIDO and AGC’s joint strategy for sustainable artisan gold mining. This dual approach also ensures that the needs of a larger number of miners and communities are taken into account: since only a portion of artisan miners may be willing to enter the formal sector in the short and medium terms, focusing solely on the legalization of ASGM would target a narrow category of artisan miners.

113. The many obstacles to the implementation of the NAP health strategy require innovative approaches. Health actions in the NAP will likely be strongly constrained by the institutional framework and the cost of public services in the remote areas where ASGM takes place. Innovative, more efficient solutions have started to be discussed, but the agencies which have the capacity to deliver these services have not been confirmed.

33


6.3 Recommendations for Gabon’s National Action Plan for ASGM

114. NAP approval. Each of these conclusions leads to a recommendation for the Government of Gabon, AGC, UNIDO and GEF. The first recommendation is that the National Action Plan should be approved without delay. CNAP should confirm that the NAP is a living document which may be gradually adjusted, based on a clearly defined M&E process. The first projects that will support the implementation of the NAP strategy and actions should also be prepared now.

115. Management and coordination during NAP implementation. The management mode in place at project end, with stakeholder coordination by the Government of Gabon on one side, and coordinated field interventions through a contracted team on the other, should continue.

116. Regional and international actions. The relevance of Gabon’s goal to prevent the introduction of mercury use deserves being explained at an international level. Pursuing this goal will require regional initiatives, with transboundary activities and an inclusive approach to migrants working in ASGM in Gabon.

117. Participatory pilot projects. Within Gabon, pilot projects should be launched to implement the National Action Plan. Definition of a project area and detailed design of a pilot project should be based on consultations with artisan miners.

118. Interaction with the corporate mining sector. The increasing presence of industrial investors in alluvial gold mining should be taken into account. They should be invited to directly participate in the design and implementation of pilot projects. Their interest to build value chains promoting mercury-free gold as part of Gabon’s “green gold” strategy needs to be confirmed.

119. Approach to health for ASGM communities. A balance should be sought between pilot projects to help a number of artisan miners become professional producers, and broader actions targeting communities on ASGM sites. These actions will cover health, first aid, and, wherever possible, primary education. Key stakeholders to mobilize are the Ministry of health at subnational levels, civil society organizations specialized in first aid, and enterprises operating on remote sites.

34


6.4 Lessons Learned for UNIDO Projects in Gabon and Central Africa

120. Purpose of lessons learned and identification process. Beyond these recommendations for Gabon’s implementation of the NAP, this evaluation also identifies selected lessons learned for upcoming UNIDO projects, either in Gabon or, more broadly, in Central Africa. These lessons learned have been identified through internal analysis, based on a focus group discussion with the project team.

121. Initial government dialogue and adaptation to the national context. Difficulties encountered to define the NAP project partnership highlight how any initiative supported by an international agency such as UNIDO in partnership with a beneficiary country government deserves being prepared through a phase of dialogue, to reach a consensus on how the partnership with the government is defined, taking into account country specificities.

122. Field project approach. Whenever part of the activities take place in remote rural areas, good practice from international projects in marginal rural areas should be used, for careful adaptation to these areas. Outreach activities should be specifically designed. This can be achieved at no additional cost through an inception phase during which the contractor would be requested to travel on site and adjust working methods subsequently. Such an approach will require an adaptation of standard TORs, with more flexibility on one side, and the requirement for field inception on the other.

123. Expert teams. Based on successful experience gained by the project’s expert team, the added value of hiring national experts is maximized when a small number of individual specialists, each from a different sector, work together with an international team leader during the whole project and take part directly in field work. Such an arrangement is especially relevant when skilled experts are already present in the related sector in the country.

124. Evidence-based approach. Devoting a first phase of intervention to the production of evidence before launching capacity building activities is a valid approach whenever consensus on the current situation in relation to an environmental problem needs to be built—provided national experts are present in the country.

125. UNIDO project management. UNIDO’s added value, in addition to ensuring the completion of contracts and deliverables, and consistency with the organization’s strategy of sustainable and inclusive industrial development, is to help project partners focus on outcomes, follow up on risks, adjust priorities when needed, and resolve issues often encountered in the course of project implementation. This requires continued direct dialogue throughout the project’s implementation.

35


6.5 Good Practice for the Preparation of ASGM National Action Plans

126. Purpose of good practice. This evaluation has identified project implementation methods which have contributed to the performance of the NAP project, are of a practical nature, and appear to be replicable in other countries for the preparation of a national action plan in the context of the Minamata Convention. But the first lesson learned is that NAP preparation needs to be adapted to the institutional and strategy context of each country.

127. Good practice for the national steering committee. Nominative membership, confirmed through an official document in line with the national legal framework, ensures continuity. Selection of members at a technical level, not a decision-maker level, is also key to continuity in contexts with changing decision-maker positions. The formal participation of the mining sector, with a small number of members, as well as the formal participation of the agency in charge of protected areas, are also critical.

128. Good practice to enhance ownership of national action plan. Combining face-to-face group discussions during workshops and written contributions through email, within well-defined deadlines, under the management of a project coordinator, is a very effective and efficient means of ensuring high ownership in a multi-stakeholder environment.

129. Good practice for the early dissemination of results. Ensuring that community and environment-oriented civil society organizations, as well as education professionals, participate in the national steering committee and national workshops can effectively support the dissemination of results through social media and education programs.

36


Annex 1 – Logical Framework Indicators at Completion

Table 6. Logical Framework Indicators at Project Completion

Logical Framework Level

Indicators and Value at Project Completion

Outcomes 15 out of 24 stakeholders in Gabon met during the evaluation state that they have acquired new knowledge and/or skills in ASGM mercury management.

Only 3 national experts were trained on how to interact with artisan miners and how to survey their production methods (initial target: 5)

The national action plan document is finalized.

Outputs - activities 3 national steering committee meetings.

3 participatory workshops, with media presence.

25% of women in the national workshops.1 out of 9 steering committee members was a woman.

No gender-related association was identified for the workshops.

194 respondents in the health survey in 40 villages, and 13 health professionals interviewed (4 provinces).

Only 3 women respondents in the health survey. No gender-related association was invited to the workshops.

Both quantitative and qualitative data on health systems capacity gaps/issues generated

Focus group discussions including health professionals during the health survey.

Future healthcare professionals have started being introduced to the ASHM health university curriculum. Training for in service health professionals has not been prepared.

Evidence of absence of current mercury use provided.

Outputs – NAP contents

One goal is confirmed for the National Action Plan: prevent the introduction of mercury.

All requested strategies are provided.

4 institutional obstacles identified for health.

1 strategy and 13 actions identified in the health and security theme.

3 priority actions selected for the M&E process and responsible agencies identified.

Color code:

: satisfactory level : low level : not available

37


Annex 2 – Evaluation Terms of Reference

Scope and purpose of the evaluation

A self-evaluation will cover the whole duration of the project from its starting date to the completion date. The main objectives of the evaluation are to:

(i) Assess the project performance in terms of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability;

(ii) Develop a series of findings, lessons learnt and recommendations for enhancing the design of future UNIDO projects.

To facilitate learning, the self-evaluation report should include examples of good practices for other projects in the focal area and cooperation with other relevant focal areas in Gabon.

The self-evaluation will provide an analysis of the attainment of the project’s expected results, and corresponding technical components. It will assess the achievement of global environmental and project objectives, the delivery of project outputs, outcomes and impacts based on indicators and against target, and management of risks; and re-examine the relevance of the project objectives and other elements of project design according to the project evaluation parameters defined in chapter VI. Through its assessments, the self-evaluation will enable the government, the national GEF Operational Focal Point (OFP), counterparts, the GEF, UNIDO and other stakeholders and donors to verify prospects for development impact and sustainability.

The key question of the self-evaluation is whether the project has achieved or is likely to achieve its main objective of strengthening national capacity to fulfill obligations under the Minamata Convention and promote effective implementation of its provisions.

Evaluation approach and methodology

The self-evaluation will be conducted in accordance with the UNIDO Evaluation Policy, the UNIDO Guidelines for the Technical Cooperation Program and Project Cycle, the GEF Guidelines for GEF Agencies in Conducting Self-Evaluations, the GEF Monitoring and Evaluation Policy and the GEF Minimum Fiduciary Standards for GEF Implementing and Executing Agencies.

It will be carried out by an international external evaluator, as an evaluation using a participatory approach whereby all key parties associated with the project are kept informed and regularly consulted throughout the evaluation. The evaluation will be conducted under the management of the UNIDO project manager.

The evaluator will be required to use different methods to ensure that data gathering and analysis deliver evidence-based qualitative and quantitative information, based on diverse sources, as necessary: desk studies and literature review, statistical analysis, individual interviews and focus group meetings. This approach will not only enable the evaluation to assess causality through quantitative means but also to provide reasons for why certain results were achieved or not and to triangulate information for higher reliability of findings. The specific mixed methodological approach will be described in the inception report. The outline of the evaluation could be adjusted if deemed necessary and be included in this report.

38


The methodology will be based on the following:

1. A desk review of project documents, including, but not limited to:(a) The original project document, monitoring reports (such as progress and financial

reports to UNIDO and UNIDO-GEF annual Project Implementation Reports (PIRs)), output reports (case studies, action plans, sub-regional strategies, etc.), back-to-office mission report(s), end-of-contract report(s) and relevant correspondence.

(b) If applicable, notes from the meetings of committees involved in the project (e.g. approval and steering committees).

(c) Other project-related material produced by the project.

2. Interviews with project management and technical support including staff and management at UNIDO HQ and in the field and—if necessary—staff associated with the project’s financial administration and procurement.

3. Interviews with project partners and stakeholders, including, among others, government counterparts, GEF OFP, project stakeholders, and co-financing partners as shown in the corresponding sections of the project documents.

4. Interviews and telephone interviews with intended users of the project outputs and other stakeholders involved in the project. The evaluator shall determine whether to seek additional information and opinions from representatives of any donor agency(ies) or other organizations.

5. Interviews with the national UNIDO Field Office, to the extent that it was involved in the project, and members of the project management team and the various national and sub-regional authorities dealing with project activities as necessary. If deemed necessary, the evaluator shall also gain broader perspectives from discussions with relevant GEF Secretariat staff.

6. Other interviews, surveys or document reviews as deemed necessary by the evaluator and/or UNIDO project manager for triangulation purposes.

7. The final report will provide details on the methodology used by the evaluator and include an evaluation matrix.

Evaluation personnel composition

The evaluation will be conducted by one international external evaluation consultant who is independent of the design and implementation of the project. The tasks of the evaluator will be the following:

· Review project documentation and relevant country background information (national policies and strategies, UN strategies and general economic data).

· Preparation of the Inception Report.

· Assess and analyze relevant background information.

· Arrange briefings (over skype or phone) with the UNIDO project managers and other key stakeholders at UNIDO HQ.

· Present overall findings and recommendations to the stakeholders at UNIDO Field office.

· Prepare the evaluation report according to the TOR.

39


· Share the evaluation report with UNIDO HQ, field office and national stakeholders for feedback and comments.

· Revise the draft project evaluation report based on comments from UNIDO and stakeholders and edit the language and form of the final version according to UNIDO standards.

The evaluator must not have been directly involved in the design and/or implementation of the projects/program under evaluation.

The UNIDO project manager and the project teams in the participating countries will support the evaluator. The UNIDO GEF Coordinator and the GEF OFP will be briefed on the evaluation and provide support to its conduct. GEF OFP will also be briefed and debriefed at the start and end of the evaluation mission.

Project evaluation criteria

The evaluator will assess the project performance guided by the criteria and evaluations questions provided in this section. Below is the table summarizing key evaluation criteria to be rated by the evaluators. The detailed questions to assess each evaluation criterion are in annex 2.

# Evaluation criteria Mandatory rating

A Impact No

B Project design Yes

1 · Overall design Yes

2 · Logframe Yes

C Project performance Yes

1 · Relevance Yes

2 · Effectiveness Yes

3 · Efficiency Yes

4 · Sustainability of benefits Yes

D Cross-cutting performance criteria

1 · Gender mainstreaming Yes

2 · M&E design and implementation Yes

3 · Results-based Management (RBM) Yes

E Performance of partners

1 · UNIDO and implementing agency Yes

2 · National counterparts Yes

4 · GEF Yes

F Overall assessment Yes

Performance of partners

40


The assessment of performance of partners will include the quality of implementation and execution of the GEF Agencies and project executing entities (EAs) in discharging their expected roles and responsibilities. The assessment will take into account the following:

· Quality of Implementation, e.g. the extent to which the agency delivered effectively, with focus on elements that were controllable from the given GEF Agency’s perspective and how well risks were identified and managed.

· Quality of Execution, e.g. the appropriate use of funds, procurement and contracting of goods and services.

Rating system

In line with the practice adopted by many development agencies, UNIDO uses a six-point rating system, where 6 is the highest score (highly satisfactory) and 1 is the lowest (highly unsatisfactory).

Score Definition Category

6 Highly satisfactory

Level of achievement clearly exceeds expectations and there is no shortcoming.

SATISFACTORY5 Satisfactory Level of achievement meets expectations and there is no or minor shortcoming.

4 Moderately satisfactory

Level of achievement more or less meets expectations and there are some shortcomings.

3 Moderately unsatisfactory

Level of achievement is somewhat lower than expected and there are significant shortcomings.

UNSATIS-FACTORY

2 Unsatisfactory Level of achievement is substantially lower than expected and there are major shortcomings.

1 Highly unsatisfactory

Level of achievement is negligible and there are severe shortcomings.

Other Assessments required by the GEF for GEF-funded projects:

The self-evaluation will assess the following topics, for which ratings are not required:

· Need for follow-up: e.g. in instances of financial mismanagement, unintended negative impacts or risks.

· Materialization of co-financing: e.g. the extent to which the expected co-financing materialized, whether co-financing was administered by the project management or by some other organization; whether and how shortfall or excess in co-financing affected project results.

· Environmental and Social Safeguards: appropriate environmental and social safeguards were addressed in the project’s design and implementation, e.g. preventive or mitigation measures for any foreseeable adverse effects and/or harm to the environment or to any stakeholder.

As per GEF requirements, the evaluation report should also provide information on project identification, time frame, actual expenditures, and co-financing.

41


Evaluation report format and review procedures

The draft report will be delivered to the UNIDO Project Manager in charge of the project (the suggested report outline is in annex 1) and circulated to UNIDO staff, the GEF OFP, and national stakeholders associated with the project for factual validation and comments. Any comments or responses, or feedback on any errors of fact to the draft report provided by the stakeholders will be sent to the project manager for collation and onward transmission to the project evaluator who will be advised of any necessary revisions. On the basis of this feedback, and taking into consideration the comments received, the evaluator will prepare the final version of the self-evaluation report.

The self-evaluation report should be brief, to the point and easy to understand. It must explain the purpose of the evaluation, exactly what was evaluated, and the methods used. The report must highlight any methodological limitations, identify key concerns and present evidence-based findings, consequent conclusions, recommendations and lessons.

The evaluation report shall be written in English.

42


Annex 3 – Evaluation Framework

Main evaluation questions

Any national action plan in an environmental convention is an initial step to ensure readiness for upcoming actions. As a result, UNIDO’s predefined evaluation criteria are interpreted as follows in this evaluation:

· Project design and logframe: to what extent was the project designed with a consistent definition of implementing partners, activities and objectives, in line with donor strategies?

· Relevance: to what extent were decisions at project design stage consistent with national policies and strategies of the various sectors, and are actions proposed in the NAP relevant from a technical, institutional and policy point of view?

· Effectiveness: were outputs delivered as foreseen and why, and to what extent have project outcomes been reached?

· Efficiency: to what extent has the ratio between costs and activities been balanced, and have co-financiers completed their commitments?

· Sustainability: to what extent are NAP actions and governance likely to be in place in the next few years?

· Gender: to what extent has the project used a gender mainstreaming approach, invited the participation of women, and addressed differentiated impacts on women and girls?

· Results-based management, M&E and logframe: to what extent has the definition of project outcomes and the definition of logframe indicators in project management allowed sound project management and adaptations when needed?

· Partner performance: to what extent have GEF, UNIDO, CNAP and AGC contributed to sound project management in line with their commitments?

These main questions have been subdivided into detailed questions, using UNIDO’s methodology as a guide and the project’s intervention logic as a tool at adapt these detailed questions.

Evaluation questionnaire

Semi-structured interviews were carried out, using a questionnaire designed to provide answers to detailed evaluation questions. The main topics in this questionnaire were as follows:

Introduction

Position

Institutional framework

43


Recent changes in strategy framework (optional)

Participation in project and usefulness

Participation to meetings and activities

New knowledge acquired

Women, children, vulnerable groups

Indirect added value of the project

Mercury and ASMG awareness

Information gained on Hg in artisanal gold mining in Gabon

Appropriate technical solutions

Feedback on NAP’s strategic objectives

Future implementation of NAP

Coordination and management

Description of selected actions in the plan

Logistics

For project team: project management

Definition of responsibilities

Obstacles and solutions

Conclusions

From your point of view, which are the two main strong points in this project?

And what has not worked so well?

What recommendations would you like to make for the implementation of the action plan or for future projects?

44


Annex 4 – List of Participants in the Evaluation

N° Name Organization and Position Participation in Project

Interviews in Gabon (face to face)

1 Mr. Serge Molly ALLO’O ALLO’O

Ministry of Forestry and Environment in charge of Climate Plan, Centre National Anti-Pollution, Technical Director

Steering committee President

2 Mr. Wesbert MOUSSOUNDA NGOUMBA

ConsultantFormer SEM/CGCO Director

AGC National project coordinator

3 Pr. Edgard Brice NGOUNGOU

Gabon Health Sciences University (USS), Head of Epidemiology DepartmentLimoges University (France), Researcher & Lecturer

AGC Health expert

4 Mr. Shawn BLORE Artisanal Gold Council, Expert AGC Project manager

5 Ms Lea Eleonore BOUKANDOU

Ministry of Water, Energy and Mining Resources,Counsellor of the Minister, in charge of Mining and Environment

Expert presentation at workshop

6 Mr. Serge ABOUMA SAMBA

Ministry of Water, Energy and Mining Resources, Deputy Manager of Mining Operations Department

7 Mr. Parfait NANG BIBANG

Ministry of Water, Energy and Mining Resources, Mining Operations General Department, Head of the Artisanal Mining office

Steering committee and workshopsMinistry’s focal point for Gabon NAP project

8 Mr. Renontial MBEGHA MEGNER

Croissance Saine Environnement, Technical expertMinistry of Water, Energy and Mining Resources, Mining Risks Division, Head of studies and environmental audits office

Workshop 2 rapporteur

9 Mr. Clotaire MOUKEGNI SIKA

ANPN, Mercury focal point Workshops

10 Mr. Eugene NDONG NDOUTOUME

WWF Gabon, Business and Biodiversity Program Coordinator

Workshops

11 Ms Madeleine BRIDON Gabon Health Sciences University, Assistant professor NAP formulation workshop co-rapporteur

12 Ms Amelie ANGUE MINKO

Ministry of Economy, Department of Economy, Head of provincial economy promotion

Steering committee

13 Mr. Francis MAYAGA MOKOLO

Ministry of Water, Energy and Mining Resources, Geology and Mineral Exploration Department, General

45


Director

14 Mr. Alexis MBOULOUNGOU

Ministry of Health and Family, Department of Health, in charge of environmental health studies

15 Mr. Robert KNOVET SEM/CGCO, Technical Manager Workshops

16 Mr. Sylvere MBADOUMOU

SEM/CGCO, Chemistry Engineer Workshops

17 Mr. Gilbert MEBOUNE SEM/CGCO, Health, safety and environment Workshops

18 Mr. Guy Bertrand MABOUANA

FROCURD (CSO), President Workshops

19 Mr. Sostene NDINGA FROCURD (CSO), General Secretary Workshops

20 Mr. Rodrigue NZUE EDZANG

Ministry of Industry and National Entrepreneurs, SME Department, SME registry project officer

Workshops

21 Mr. Aubert MINTZA-MI-NDONG

Ministry of Equipment, Infrastructure and Public Works, Urban-Rural Planning Department, Head of land use plan office

Workshops Ministry’s focal point for MIA

22 Ms Sylvania ANGUE Ministry of Equipment, Infrastructure and Public Works, Director of statistics and research office

23 Mr. Nicaise MOULOUMBI Croissance Saine Environnement, President and ODDIG

24 Mr. Gustave MABAZA Consultant AGC consultant in 2017

Regional and global interviews (by phone)

25 Ms. Gabi EIGENMANN UNIDO, Department of Environment, Minamata Policy Expert

Current Project Manager

26 Ms Milene PACHECO AGC, Minamata project manager

27 Dr. Mareike KROLL AGC, Health Program Manager

28 Mr. Edme KOFFI UNIDO Africa regional office (Cameroon, in charge of Gabon), Chief

-

Participants in UNIDO meetingMs Gabriela Eigenmann, Industrial Development Officer and Project Manager of the NAP projectMr. Guillaume Cazor, Project AssociateMr. Guillermo Jimenez Blasco, Senior Industrial Development OfficerMr. Jerome Stucki, Industrial Development OfficerMs Marie Solange Fuchs-Mutazigwa, Senior Project AssistantMs Sanja Kujundzic, Project Assistant of the NAP projectMs Thuy Le, Evaluation Officer

46


Annex 5 – Documents Reviewed

Project documents

EN: in English—FR: in French.

Draft National Action Plan, April 2019, 152 p. (EN and FR).

AGC 2016. Initial visit report, 33 p. (EN).

AGC 2017. First progress report, 39 p. (EN).

AGC 2018. Second progress report, 20 p. (EN).

AGC 2018. Third progress report, 15 p. (EN).

Project outputs:

- National comprehensive analysis report, 50 p (EN)- Analysis of existing data and health statistics—Literature review, 4 p. (EN)- Health sector institutional and capacity needs assessment, 16 p. (EN)- Rapid health assessment, 9 p. (EN)- Public health strategy, 7 p. (EN)- Report on adaptation of ASGM health survey tools, 1 p. (EN) + questionnaire.

CNAP 2017. Inception workshop report, 47 p. (FR).

CNAP 2018. Formulation workshop report, 32 p. (FR).

CNAP 2019. Validation report, 40 p. (FR). Annexes: workshop presentations.

CNAP 2017. 1st steering committee minutes of meeting, 11 p. (FR).

CNAP 2018. 2nd steering committee minutes of meeting, 4 p. (FR).

UNIDO 2015. Proposal for funding under the GEF Trust Fund, 12 p. (EN).

UNIDO 2015. Contractor Terms of Reference, 12 p. (EN).

Other documents

AGC 2015. La santé dans l’orpaillage et l’exploitation minière artisanale : un manuel pour instructeurs. 78 p.

AGC and UNEP 2017. Estimating Mercury Use and Documenting Practices in Artisanal and Small-Scale Gold Mining. 196 p.

ASM18. International conference on Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining & Quarrying. Livingstone, Zambia. Conference program. 52 p.

47


Word Bank 2015. Le financement de la santé au Gabon : note d’orientation. 60 p.

CNAP 2007. Plan d’action national Convention de Stockholm sur les polluants organiques persistants, 137 p.

GEF 2014. Initial Guidelines for Enabling Activities for the Minamata Convention on Mercury. 10 p.

GEF 2018. Global Opportunities for Long-term Development of ASGM Sector project framework document. 17 p.

Government of Gabon 2012. Plan Stratégique Gabon Emergent. 149 p.

Government of Gabon 2012. National Demography and Health Survey. 503 p.

Hollestelle, Micha R. (for Estelle Levin). Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining In and Around Protected Areas and Critical Ecosystems Project (ASM-PACE), Gabon Case Study Report; 2012.

NRDC 2015. Developing National Action Plans for Artisanal and Small-Scale Gold Mining: A Step by Step Guide for Countries Applying for Support under GEF Enabling Activities for the Minamata Convention on Mercury. 48 p.

UNEP 2017 Minamata Convention on Mercury: Text and Annexes. 72 p. FR and EN.

UNEP 2017. Guidance Document: Developing a National Action Plan to Reduce and, Where Feasible, Eliminate Mercury Use in Artisanal and Small-Scale Gold Mining (draft version, April 2017, 101 p. Final version, September 2017, 94 p).

Steckling, Nadine, et al 2017. Global Burden of Disease of Mercury Used in Artisanal Small-Scale Gold Mining. Annals of Global Health, Vol 82 N°2, pp. 234–247.

UNIDO 2018. UNIDO Mercury Program. COP 2 Joint side event UNIDO—Switzerland on regional approaches for mercury waste management & ASGM. Presentation. 14 slides.

UNIDO 2018. Curbing Illicit Mercury and Gold Flows in West Africa: Options for a Regional Approach. 52 p.

World Bank 2012. Gender dimensions of artisanal and small-scale mining: a rapid assessment toolkit. 146 p.

48

open.unido.org€¦ · Web view. The Gabon GEF NAP (Global Environment Facility National Action...

Documents

Transcript of open.unido.org€¦ · Web view. The Gabon GEF NAP (Global Environment Facility National Action...