Mid-term Evaluation of the Environment Support Programme

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2006-2008, Botswana
Evaluation Type:
Outcome
Planned End Date:
12/2007
Completion Date:
05/2006
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
20,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document ENVIRONMENT MTR 22nd May 2006.pdf report English 339.35 KB Posted 515
Title Mid-term Evaluation of the Environment Support Programme
Atlas Project Number:
Evaluation Plan: 2006-2008, Botswana
Evaluation Type: Outcome
Status:Completed
Completion Date:05/2006
Planned End Date: 12/2007
Management Response:Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Environment & Sustainable Development
Corporate Outcomes (UNDP Strategic Plan 2008-20013)
  • 1. Development plans and programmes integrate environmentally sustainable solutions in a manner that promotes poverty reduction, MDG achievement and low-emission climate-resilient development
  • 2. National and local governments and communities have the capacities to adapt to climate change and make inclusive and sustainable environment & energy decisions benefitting in particular under-served populations
  • 3. Improved national capacity to monitor environmental conditions and trends and assess policy performance in promoting environmentalsustainability
Evaluation Budget(US $): 20,000
Source of Funding: TRAC and Government Cost Sharing
Joint Programme:No
Mandatory Evaluation:Yes
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
GEF Evaluation:No
Key Stakeholders:DEA -Department of Environmental Affairs
Countries: BOTSWANA
Comments:Evaluation completed in May 2006
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1 Environment Support Programme (ESP) Component Managers and focal persons within the government departments that are involved in the implementation of the programme should work together more closely to facilitate the transfer and institutionalization of project management skills within government. This collaboration will also make it possible for ESP Component Managers to join government at the end of the project thereby enhancing the capacity of government
2 The understanding of what the ESP is intended to achieve should be improved, especially within government, so as to avoid the perception that it is an emergency fund that beneficiaries can fall back onto whenever they see a need. A balance should however be created between support to special development opportunities that arise in the implementation of programmes in support of environmental management and support that adds value to on-going programmes in Botswana as some of these opportunities result in valuable contributions to the realization of programme objectives.
3 ESP should be relocated to MEWT Headquarters so it does not continue to be associated with a specific departmental mandate. This recommendation should be considered in tandem with the one from the MEWT institutional assessment that DEA be located at Ministry to appropriately reflect its coordination role. Implementation of this recommendation will make the practical implementation of ESP much easier and increase its impact.
4 The synergies across the component boundaries should be enhanced so as to maximize the potential benefits from complementary implementation of activities under the programme.
5 It is recommended that the programme be extended to include private sector entities that are willing to work with government to promote sustainable development in Botswana. Including these players in this way will assist with the mobilisation of additional resources to fund programmes in the environment sector.
6 The lessons learned from ESP regarding funding cross-sector environmental management programmes from one common fund should be adopted and used to inform the process of establishing a common Environmental Fund for Botswana. Government will need to determine how this fund will be administered
7 It is recommended that the project be extended, at no additional cost, by one year to accommodate lost time and allow for the implementation of its outputs to date. If the one year extension is approved, the project should have an increased focus on issues such as capacity building which are a necessary precondition for effective project implementation.
8 The outputs that ESP has produced should be implemented for programme impact to be realised. Ministry Management needs to make decisions on this important matter so that these important deliverables do not remain on the shelves without any action being taken.
9 It is recommended that the ESP management team develops a Revised Activity Log frame with clearly defined end-of-project deliverables for the recommended one-year no-cost programme extension. This schedule of activities till December 2009 should also include the reallocation of financial resources to the activities agreed upon.
10 All future programme development in the environment sector should be informed by clearly articulated national needs that are preferably expressed in an approved national plan. The National Development Planning process could form the context of a future programme. The ESP is currently supporting the development of a National Strategy for Sustainable Development which should become a vehicle for future collaboration between cooperating partners and the Government of Botswana.
1. Recommendation: Environment Support Programme (ESP) Component Managers and focal persons within the government departments that are involved in the implementation of the programme should work together more closely to facilitate the transfer and institutionalization of project management skills within government. This collaboration will also make it possible for ESP Component Managers to join government at the end of the project thereby enhancing the capacity of government
Management Response:

The ESP modus operandi includes working closely with MEWT client departments through in-house as well as external technical cooperation in project and consultancy management. ESP furthermore trained and certified approx. 50 GoB officials in Prince2 and/or Managing Successful Programmes (MSP) courses.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Continue increasing use of in-house capacity to undertake ESP activities (Biodiversity policy, NSSD [Framework], Environmental Fund) ESP 2009/12 Completed
2. Recommendation: The understanding of what the ESP is intended to achieve should be improved, especially within government, so as to avoid the perception that it is an emergency fund that beneficiaries can fall back onto whenever they see a need. A balance should however be created between support to special development opportunities that arise in the implementation of programmes in support of environmental management and support that adds value to on-going programmes in Botswana as some of these opportunities result in valuable contributions to the realization of programme objectives.
Management Response:

In absence of a detailed MEA Capacity Development Programme and Training Plan, the Capacity Building activities have been making use of opportunities as they availed themselves, in addition to concerted efforts to build more capacity in project and programme management. Specific plans will be developed to support the full incorporation of project outputs into mainstream MEWT business processes and targeted capacity building activities implemented accordingly.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Implementation of NCSA-resulted MEA Capacity Development Programme and Training Plan ESP, DEA, UNDP 2009/12 Completed
3. Recommendation: ESP should be relocated to MEWT Headquarters so it does not continue to be associated with a specific departmental mandate. This recommendation should be considered in tandem with the one from the MEWT institutional assessment that DEA be located at Ministry to appropriately reflect its coordination role. Implementation of this recommendation will make the practical implementation of ESP much easier and increase its impact.
Management Response:

The current ESP should be articulated as a devolved MEWT-HQ programme located at the DEA whilst consideration should be given to relocate a future UNDP-MEWT environmental programme to MEWT Headquarters so it does not continue to be associated with a specific departmental mandate. This recommendation should be considered in tandem with the one from the MEWT institutional assessment that DEA be located at Ministry to appropriately reflect its coordination role. Implementation of this recommendation will make the practical implementation of ESP much easier and increase its impact. The original PSD as signed by the programme partners included the positioning of the ESP at MEWT-HQ. Due to the overlapping environmental coordination and management mandates of MEWT-HQ and DEA, and the availability of office space at DEA, the ESP was physically located at DEA but with an overall mandate to support activities throughout MEWT, and indeed beyond through cooperation with NGOs, CBOs and the private sector.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Communicate Revised LFA and Annual Work Plan 2009 to all MEWT Depts with cover letter by PS-MEWT ESP, DEA, MEWT-HQ 2009/12 Completed
4. Recommendation: The synergies across the component boundaries should be enhanced so as to maximize the potential benefits from complementary implementation of activities under the programme.
Management Response:

Recommendation 4 is acceptable though it needs to be noted that internal programme integration within ESP does exist amongst the ESP components as well as between the ESP activities and the MEWT departments? Balanced Score Cards. Programme synergies contributing to the objectives of the ESP have therefore been an integral part of the ESP activity portfolio.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Programme synergies highlighted in Revised LFA and Annual Work for 2009 ESP-Chief Technical Advisor (CTA), ESP-Programme Steering Committee (PSC) 2008/12 Completed
5. Recommendation: It is recommended that the programme be extended to include private sector entities that are willing to work with government to promote sustainable development in Botswana. Including these players in this way will assist with the mobilisation of additional resources to fund programmes in the environment sector.
Management Response:

The private sector has keenly participated as regular stakeholders in all major activities, notably in the policy development activities of the ESP. The proposed Environmental Fund seeks to establish an operational modality which would encourage the private sector to co-sponsor the implementation of environmental projects under various funding windows.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Cooperation with the private sector in the process of developing a National Framework for Sustainable Development ESP-CM (EG), ESP-CTA, DEA 2009/12 Completed
6. Recommendation: The lessons learned from ESP regarding funding cross-sector environmental management programmes from one common fund should be adopted and used to inform the process of establishing a common Environmental Fund for Botswana. Government will need to determine how this fund will be administered
Management Response:

Accepted

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Lessons learned from ESP funding experiences to inform the process of establishing and operationalising the Environmental Fund ESP-CTA, ESP-CM, DEA, MEWT 2009/12 Completed
7. Recommendation: It is recommended that the project be extended, at no additional cost, by one year to accommodate lost time and allow for the implementation of its outputs to date. If the one year extension is approved, the project should have an increased focus on issues such as capacity building which are a necessary precondition for effective project implementation.
Management Response:

The programme was originally designed for a 5-year implementation period starting in December 2003 but was adjusted to a 3-year programme in 2006 (January 2006 ? December 2008) which required an administrative extension till the end of 2008 (signed by all parties in March 2007). The proposed revision is in keeping with the scheduling of the original programme.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Complete administrative processes concerning the extension of the ESP programme before end of 2008 DEA, MEWT-HQ, ESPCTA, UNDP 2008/12 Completed
8. Recommendation: The outputs that ESP has produced should be implemented for programme impact to be realised. Ministry Management needs to make decisions on this important matter so that these important deliverables do not remain on the shelves without any action being taken.
Management Response:

Accepted.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
ESP technical and financial support to MEWT-HQ and MEWT Depts in implementing policies, strategies and action plans MEWT-HQ, DEA, MEWT Depts, ESP-CTA, ESPCMs, 2009/12 Completed
9. Recommendation: It is recommended that the ESP management team develops a Revised Activity Log frame with clearly defined end-of-project deliverables for the recommended one-year no-cost programme extension. This schedule of activities till December 2009 should also include the reallocation of financial resources to the activities agreed upon.
Management Response:

Accepted.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Prepare Revised LFA and Annual Work Plan 2009 with carry-over activities and enhanced focus on Capacity Building, then specifics as needed ESP-CTA, ESP-PSC, UNDP 2008/12 Completed
10. Recommendation: All future programme development in the environment sector should be informed by clearly articulated national needs that are preferably expressed in an approved national plan. The National Development Planning process could form the context of a future programme. The ESP is currently supporting the development of a National Strategy for Sustainable Development which should become a vehicle for future collaboration between cooperating partners and the Government of Botswana.
Management Response:

Accepted

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
NDP10 priorities articulated and reconciled with proposed KRAs and interventions in UNDAF and UNDP Country Programme MEWT, UNDP, DEA, ESP 2009/12 Completed

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

220 East 42nd Street
20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel. +1 646 781 4200
Fax. +1 646 781 4213
erc.support@undp.org