- Evaluation Plan:
- 2017-2021, Brazil
- Evaluation Type:
- Final Project
- Planned End Date:
- 04/2018
- Completion Date:
- 10/2019
- Status:
- Completed
- Management Response:
- Yes
- Evaluation Budget(US $):
- 20,000
BRA 07/G32 Brazilian Mangroves Effective Conservation and Sustainable use of Mangroves ecosystems in Brazil.
| Title | BRA 07/G32 Brazilian Mangroves Effective Conservation and Sustainable use of Mangroves ecosystems in Brazil. | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atlas Project Number: | 00046839 | ||||||||||||||
| Evaluation Plan: | 2017-2021, Brazil | ||||||||||||||
| Evaluation Type: | Final Project | ||||||||||||||
| Status: | Completed | ||||||||||||||
| Completion Date: | 10/2019 | ||||||||||||||
| Planned End Date: | 04/2018 | ||||||||||||||
| Management Response: | Yes | ||||||||||||||
| UNDP Signature Solution: |
|
||||||||||||||
| Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021) |
|
||||||||||||||
| SDG Goal |
|
||||||||||||||
| SDG Target |
|
||||||||||||||
| Evaluation Budget(US $): | 20,000 | ||||||||||||||
| Source of Funding: | GEF | ||||||||||||||
| Evaluation Expenditure(US $): | 20,000 | ||||||||||||||
| Joint Programme: | No | ||||||||||||||
| Joint Evaluation: | No | ||||||||||||||
| Evaluation Team members: |
|
||||||||||||||
| GEF Evaluation: | Yes
|
||||||||||||||
| Key Stakeholders: | ICMBI, mangrove communities, Ministry of Environment | ||||||||||||||
| Countries: | BRAZIL |
| Lessons | |
|---|---|
| Findings |
| Recommendations | |
|---|---|
| 1 | 1. ICMBIO could elevate the mangrove biome to the same status as the other six current Brazilian biomes to enhance its visibility and raise issues about its importance and conservation. Mangroves risk not being given enough attention and fall between administrative divisions.
|
| 2 | Financial sustainability of mangrove federal protected areas must be strengthened by increasing their current meagre budget allocation, as well as by posting more personnel and crafting agreements across agencies to strengthen enforcement. Currently, many areas count with only one or two staff allocated to areas expanding over hundreds of square kilometres, making enforcement nearly impossible. |
| 3 | ICMBIO and MMA should strengthen monitoring programs of biodiversity and specifically support the participatory monitoring program developed by the project. Knowledge on the status of biodiversity in mangroves is less than satisfactory, as shown by the challenges faced by the project and this terminal evaluation to gather information on the project’s indicators. The participatory monitoring program has the potential to start bridging this gap. |
| 4 | Fishery management plans cannot be implemented in the absence of fishery data. ICMBIO and the MMA must both increase efforts to coordinate with state or federal fishery administrations and include monitoring of catch within federal protected areas of sustainable use. Moreover, catch and effort data must be incorporated in the participatory monitoring program established by the project |
| 5 | . UNDP must take a proactive role in inducing and orienting application of tracking tools, including METT and the capacity development scorecard. |
Management Response Documents
1. Recommendation:
1. ICMBIO could elevate the mangrove biome to the same status as the other six current Brazilian biomes to enhance its visibility and raise issues about its importance and conservation. Mangroves risk not being given enough attention and fall between administrative divisions.
Management Response: [Added: 2020/07/15] [Last Updated: 2021/01/09]
The Mangrove is an ecosystem of transition between terrestrial and marine environments, on the other hand biomes are formed by several ecosystems, being a more complex system, the largest biotic geographical unit, it would make more sense to create the marine / coastal biome, where the mangrove is included.The Mangrove is an ecosystem of transition between terrestrial and marine environments, on the other hand biomes are formed by several ecosystems, being a more complex system, the largest biotic geographical unit, it would make more sense to create the marine / coastal biome, where the mangrove is included.
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Articulation with the Ministry of Environment (MoE).
[Added: 2021/01/09] |
Project Coordination. | 2019/02 | Completed |
2. Recommendation:
Financial sustainability of mangrove federal protected areas must be strengthened by increasing their current meagre budget allocation, as well as by posting more personnel and crafting agreements across agencies to strengthen enforcement. Currently, many areas count with only one or two staff allocated to areas expanding over hundreds of square kilometres, making enforcement nearly impossible.
Management Response: [Added: 2021/01/09]
ICMBIO's budget construction is carried out by the MMA
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Articulation with the MoE to increase resources for the federal Conservation Units.
[Added: 2021/01/09] |
Presidency of ICMBio | 2019/07 | Completed |
3. Recommendation:
ICMBIO and MMA should strengthen monitoring programs of biodiversity and specifically support the participatory monitoring program developed by the project. Knowledge on the status of biodiversity in mangroves is less than satisfactory, as shown by the challenges faced by the project and this terminal evaluation to gather information on the project’s indicators. The participatory monitoring program has the potential to start bridging this gap.
Management Response: [Added: 2021/01/09]
The mangrove monitoring programme has been strengthened by the project and already provides important data for decision-makers
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Encouragement in training, education and hiring of field staff.
[Added: 2021/01/09] |
Coordination of Biodiversity Monitoring/ COMOB/DIBIO/ICMBio. | 2018/08 | Completed |
4. Recommendation:
Fishery management plans cannot be implemented in the absence of fishery data. ICMBIO and the MMA must both increase efforts to coordinate with state or federal fishery administrations and include monitoring of catch within federal protected areas of sustainable use. Moreover, catch and effort data must be incorporated in the participatory monitoring program established by the project
Management Response: [Added: 2021/01/09]
In what regards to ICMBio's responsibility, in the federal Conservation Units it is already being discussed in the scope of biodiversity monitoring, the monitoring of the effort and catch data to understand the situation of fish stocks, already included in the ICMBio's “Programa Monitora”.
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All actions that the Project has subsidized throughout its execution.
[Added: 2021/01/09] |
Coordination of Biodiversity Monitoring/ COMOB/DIBIO/ICMBio. | 2018/11 | Completed |
5. Recommendation:
. UNDP must take a proactive role in inducing and orienting application of tracking tools, including METT and the capacity development scorecard.
Management Response: [Added: 2021/01/09]
There was constant articulation between UNDP and ICMBio on the application of tracking tools and data inclusion in METT. However, ICMBio has a system for evaluating the effectiveness of the Conservation Units, the SAMGe, where they consider to better evaluate the investments made in the Conservation Units
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coordination between UNDP and ICMBio.
[Added: 2021/01/09] |
UNDP and ICMBio. | 2019/02 | Completed |