- Evaluation Plan:
- 2019-2023, Cambodia
- Evaluation Type:
- Final Project
- Planned End Date:
- 04/2019
- Completion Date:
- 10/2019
- Status:
- Completed
- Management Response:
- No
- Evaluation Budget(US $):
- 17,222
Final Evaluation: Environmental Governance Reform Project (EGR)
Share
Document | Type | Language | Size | Status | Downloads |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
report | English | 1006.75 KB | Posted | 1271 |
![]() |
tor | English | 24201.01 KB | Posted | 1008 |
Title | Final Evaluation: Environmental Governance Reform Project (EGR) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Atlas Project Number: | 00088932 | ||||||
Evaluation Plan: | 2019-2023, Cambodia | ||||||
Evaluation Type: | Final Project | ||||||
Status: | Completed | ||||||
Completion Date: | 10/2019 | ||||||
Planned End Date: | 04/2019 | ||||||
Management Response: | Yes | ||||||
Focus Area: |
|
||||||
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021) |
|
||||||
SDG Goal |
|
||||||
SDG Target |
|
||||||
Evaluation Budget(US $): | 17,222 | ||||||
Source of Funding: | USAID (cost-sharing) | ||||||
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): | 17,222 | ||||||
Joint Programme: | No | ||||||
Joint Evaluation: | No | ||||||
Evaluation Team members: |
|
||||||
GEF Evaluation: | No | ||||||
Key Stakeholders: | |||||||
Countries: | CAMBODIA |
Lessons | |
---|---|
1. | The Cambodia EGR Project is assessed to be one of the most relevant projects that the Final Evaluation Consultant (FEC) has evaluated, in that it responds directly to a major national reform agenda as already formulated and initiated by the Minister for Environment. The Project was driven by the needs and priorities of the beneficiary country, rather than imposed by the development partners (demand- not supply-driven). In this regard it provides a best practice model for the design of other development projects. |
2. | The technical components of the Project are assessed to be well conceived and designed based on best practices in the relevant areas of focus. However, the project design is found to be overly ambitious relative to limited timeframe and budget. A much larger and longer, phased design would have been more appropriate given the highly strategic, ambitious and complex nature of the EGR agenda. |
3. | Despite major staff, time and budget constraints, the Project was still able to deliver a wide range of often high-quality activities and outputs across all four Project components, in support of the overall strategic objective of supporting the RGC’s EGR agenda. This is a major credit to all parties involved. |
4. | Despite the high rate of achievement, many of the most important outputs remain to be finalized and fully implemented by MoE and NCSD, including inter alia: a) finalization, adoption, enactment and implementation of the Environment Code, b) operationalization of the integrated ecosystem mapping decision support system; and c) operationalization of the new human resources and related management systems at MoE. |
5. | Given that those outputs of the Project that are designed to have the most significant impact have yet to be finalized and implemented – especially the Environment Code – it is too early to measure any significant impact. This needs to be assessed in future years once all Project outputs are fully implemented and operationalized. |
6. | If the Code is actually finalized and operationalized, it is likely to have an extremely significant, positive impact, and move Cambodia towards being a leader in best practice environment protection, natural resource management and sustainable development. |
7. | If the Code is not finalized and operationalized, then the overall impact of the EGR Project is likely to be minimal, and much of the Project investment will have been wasted. This highlights the need for an EGR Project Phase 2, as outlined in section 4.5.5. |
8. | An annual financial audit was conducted in January 2018 covering the period January to December 2017, and a “spot check” audit was carried out in December 2018, covering the period January to September 2018, following UNDP Financial Rules. Given a major surge in expenditure since September 2018 it is recommended that a detailed financial audit be undertaken for the whole Project after financial closure. |
Findings | |
1. |
Tag: Relevance Ownership Programme/Project Design |
2. |
Tag: Programme/Project Design Bilateral partners UN Agencies |
3. |
Tag: Human and Financial resources Programme/Project Design Project and Programme management |
4. |
Tag: Human and Financial resources Programme/Project Design |
5. |
Tag: Monitoring and Evaluation Results-Based Management |
6. |
Efficient and timely UNDP procurement and disbursement processes - as reported by stakeholders - although delays in some cases Tag: Implementation Modality Operational Efficiency Project and Programme management Bilateral partners Country Government |
7. |
Tag: Operational Efficiency Project and Programme management Bilateral partners |
8. |
Tag: Programme/Project Design |
9. |
Tag: Human and Financial resources Operational Efficiency Programme/Project Design Project and Programme management |
10. |
Tag: Environment Policy Natural Resouce management Impact Policies & Procedures Procurement |
11. | As outlined in Key Finding 3 the EGR Project has delivered a wide range of often high-quality activities and outputs across all four Project components, in support of the RGC’s overall strategic EGR objectives. However, as also outlined in Key Finding 3, many of the most important outputs that have been delivered by the Project remain to be finalized and fully implemented by MoE and NCSD, including inter alia the Environment Code, the integrated ecosystem mapping decision support system and the new human resources and related management systems Tag: Impact Sustainability Ownership Country Government |
12. |
Tag: UN Agencies UNDP Management Advocacy |
13. |
Tag: Programme/Project Design |
14. |
Tag: Impact Monitoring and Evaluation |
15. |
Tag: Monitoring and Evaluation Oversight Quality Assurance |
16. |
Tag: Monitoring and Evaluation |
17. |
Tag: Monitoring and Evaluation Project and Programme management |
18. |
Tag: Monitoring and Evaluation Programme/Project Design Project and Programme management |
19. |
Tag: Oversight Project and Programme management |
20. |
Tag: Oversight Project and Programme management Country Government |
21. |
Tag: Implementation Modality Project and Programme management |
22. |
Tag: Project and Programme management Bilateral partners |
23. |
Tag: Oversight |
Recommendations | |
---|---|
1 | It is recommended that the outstanding responsiveness of the EGR Project to directly meeting the defined needs and priorities of the beneficiary country should be adopted as a best practice model for the design of other projects (development projects tend to have greater beneficial impact when they are demand- rather than supply-driven). |
2 | It is recommended that the design of future projects should give more careful consideration to ensuring that the level of resourcing and implementation timeframe are better aligned with the objectives and scope of the project. |
3 | It is recommended that the design of future projects should give more careful consideration to ensuring a strong, clear and well-articulated PRF and M&E plan, as these provide powerful tools for managing and monitoring project implementation. |
4 | It is recommended that MoE and NCSD should give high priority and to finalizing and fully implementing all key outputs that have been delivered by the Project but which have not yet been finalized, especially the Environment Code, HR plan and systems, and integrated ecosystem mapping. |
5 | It is recommended that UNDP, USAID and other development partners should support RGC as far as practicable in implementing Recommendation 4. |
6 | It is recommended that for future projects, in order to prevent loss of implementation continuity through high turnover of key staff like the Project Manager, as occurred with the EGR Project, UNDP should provide greater security of employment for these positions. The simplest reform would be to issue employment contracts that run for the full duration of the Project rather than the current, insecure year-by-year contracts. Performance criteria can easily be included to allow non-performing staff to be terminated if necessary. The position classification should also be appropriate to the significance of the project, in order to attract and retain the right candidates. |
7 | It is recommended that for future projects, when large private firms are engaged to implement major project components for relatively large fees, as was done under the EGR Project to develop the Environment Code, UNDP should ensure that contracting processes include stringent performance-based delivery, transparency and accountability checks and controls. |
8 | It is recommended that in finalizing the Environment Code, MoE should consider the issues identified in Annex 6 of this report. |
9 | It is recommended that in order not lose the benefits from EGR investments to date, as a matter of high priority UNDP should start working with MoE, NCSD and potential partners to start designing and resourcing an EGR Project Phase 2. Phase 2 should focus on implementing the major outputs of Phase 1 - especially the Environment Code. The Phase 2 Project should incorporate lessons learned from Phase 1 – including from this FE report. The Phase 2 Project could seek novel and innovative financing modalities, for example: - Partnering between UNDP, MoE, NCSD and infrastructure developers and financiers to demonstrate best practice EIA for major infrastructure such as the Phnom Penh – Sihanoukville expressway. - Partnering between UNDP, MoE, NCSD and the new “Green Belt & Road Initiative” to demonstrate best practice environment and social safeguards and green design in major projects. - Establishing Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) to implement viable waste management solutions in priority areas (UNDP has established PPP models). |