- Evaluation Plan:
- 2016-2021, Malaysia
- Evaluation Type:
- Mid Term Project
- Planned End Date:
- 01/2022
- Completion Date:
- 01/2022
- Status:
- Completed
- Management Response:
- No
- Evaluation Budget(US $):
- 60,000
Midterm review for the Improving Connectivity in the Central Forest Spine (IC-CFS) Project.
Share
Document | Type | Language | Size | Status | Downloads |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
tor | English | 215.92 KB | Posted | 182 |
![]() |
tor | English | 217.47 KB | Posted | 168 |
![]() |
tor | English | 211.54 KB | Posted | 165 |
![]() |
report | English | 6268.99 KB | Posted | 148 |
Title | Midterm review for the Improving Connectivity in the Central Forest Spine (IC-CFS) Project. | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Atlas Project Number: | 00080183 | ||||||||||||||
Evaluation Plan: | 2016-2021, Malaysia | ||||||||||||||
Evaluation Type: | Mid Term Project | ||||||||||||||
Status: | Completed | ||||||||||||||
Completion Date: | 01/2022 | ||||||||||||||
Planned End Date: | 01/2022 | ||||||||||||||
Management Response: | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Focus Area: |
|
||||||||||||||
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021) |
|
||||||||||||||
SDG Goal |
|
||||||||||||||
SDG Target |
|
||||||||||||||
Evaluation Budget(US $): | 60,000 | ||||||||||||||
Source of Funding: | GEF | ||||||||||||||
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): | 60,000 | ||||||||||||||
Joint Programme: | No | ||||||||||||||
Joint Evaluation: | No | ||||||||||||||
Evaluation Team members: |
|
||||||||||||||
GEF Evaluation: | Yes
|
||||||||||||||
Key Stakeholders: | |||||||||||||||
Countries: | MALAYSIA |
Lessons | |
---|---|
1. | Lesson 1 - documenting requirements prior to embarking on any ICT decision making |
2. | Lesson 2 - stronger alignment at design of project targets so they are not entirely out of reach from those who ultimately manage projects: While GEF projects must be ambitious to achieve global environmental benefits, they need to balance and take into consideration the sphere of influence of the management teams that implement them so as not to set them up for failure with unrealistic expectations and targets that are complex, especially those related to species. Contexts change and projects should be afforded flexibility to revise outcomes and outputs that clearly cannot be achieved at the end of the project period and replace them with more rational and feasible alternatives. |
3. | Lesson 3 - continuity in leadership and resourcing is key to project delivery and even |
4. | Lesson 4 - project teams need to be empowered to make decisions: NIM projects must be country-owned and country-led and delivery teams must have the latitude to make mistakes, learn from them and make firm decisions that stick. As part of the UN Secretary General’s Development Reform, accountability should be concentrated in the National Project Manager. The National Project Director should be sufficiently involved to ensure engagement and to facilitate rapid decision making when needed. Clear escalation channels should be established so projects can focus on delivery. |
5. | Lesson 5 - too much time focusing on procurement, contracting and administrative |
6. | Lesson 6 - upfront training and readiness: the Implementing Agency should spend time on readiness and providing guidance and best practice on key themes like project management, financial requirements, and approach to gender and community that need to be addressed at the outset and when there is a change in resourcing. |
7. | Emerging lesson 7 - state liaisons and coordinators are key management arrangements for the |
Findings |
Recommendations | |
---|---|
1 | In spite of not meeting all the necessary triggers for an extension, the MTR consultant team believes there is strategic value to continuing the Project and recommends allowing it to accelerate efforts on activities which will slip into the new year and consolidate results on core work into 2022. |
2 | The Project’s weaknesses in results-based management largely stem from issues of the strategic results framework and from a sub-optimal focus of results planning and monitoring. While the MTR does not recommend revisiting the SRF at this juncture - as it will divert attention away from delivery - it is clear that without streamlining and prioritizing core deliverables, the Project is at a high risk of not realizing its core objective. Furthermore, the Project should avoid spreading itself thin and trying to accomplish everything in each state. Instead, the Project should focus on the value added and what elements have been advanced in each state to prove out a model that can be replicated in other states under the GoM’s national flagship CFS initiative. Following the MTR, it is recommended the Project revisit its 2022 Annual Work Plan and adopt a more streamlined work programme which prioritizes on the following investments: |
3 | As best practice, it is recommended to strengthen due diligence and improve Social and Environmental Safeguards by: |
4 | There is currently insufficient focus on tiger conservation planning in Output 2.2.2. It is recommended the Project leverage tiger data census data as a bridge for collaborative decision-making, |
5 | The Project should consider repeating the capacity development scorecard immediately following the MTR to reassess progress against the baseline. Ideally this |
6 | The Project needs to be more systematic and requires a paradigm shift with respect to increasing capacity. Currently most outputs are outsourced to consulting firms or to NGOs, which does not build in-house capacity. It is recommended to establish a knowledge transfer mechanism built by the Project in each of the Terms of Reference to strengthen Federal and State capacity. Finally, all 3 states need to be involved in all studies to enhance their understanding of CFS. Generally, CEPA activities should be put on pause at least until mid-2022, until there is a shared vision and coherent capacity building strategy as opposed to oneoff trainings and more progress on core deliverables which contribute to the Development Objective. |
7 | Without a compelling business case of how the OSC will benefit the Project and help inform decision-making and what data sets from the Project itself will be |
8 | As the Project becomes more successful in empowering state officers under the Wildlife Act (in Perak currently 3 from PSPC and 2 from Forestry Department), it is imperative that the Forestry Department allocates resources to initiate patrolling and enforcement under the Wildlife Act. |
9 | In the absence of a standard training programme and to accelerate delivery of Output 2.3.3, the Project may consider leveraging and tailoring the existing training course on managing biodiversity in the landscape "A Common Vision on Biodiversity". The training should also encompass a module on the Biodiversity Monitoring Protocol in the CFS which has been |
10 | In the absence of a gender sensitive approach at the onset of the Project, all livelihood-related activities must document sex-disaggregated data and track incremental household incomes resulting from Project activities. A standardized tracking sheet may be disseminated to all relevant agencies/NGOs to ensure appropriate capture of data for monitoring and |
11 | Improve the Project’s administrative, contracting and payment procedures: |
12 | Provide upfront and ongoing refresher training on project management best practice and how to apply a gender lens to GEN2 projects should be the norm as is the case with other UNDP Country Offices. This can help build relationships with the IP and also establish the necessary readiness to succeed at implementation |
13 | Strengthen the Project’s governance and management arrangements: a) initiate PSC meetings twice annually for the remainder of the Project. The first should gauge and take stock of progress on the previous year’s AWP and help remove barriers / obstacles to implementation, while the latter should approve the following year’s AWP. Additional extraordinary sittings of the PSC may be necessary as key issues and risks emerge, but these can be handled virtually or electronically; b) establish a small Senior Management “escalation committee” made up of no more than 5 individuals as a formal mechanism to quickly resolve project operational bottlenecks that are escalated. It should function in parallel to the Project Steering Committee. This group can consist of the IA DRR, IP Deputy SG, rotating representative from the AMAP and the GEF OPF to resolve issues. The National Project Manager shall escalate issues (by way of a two-page briefing note) to the Senior Management committee that cannot be resolved internally by the Project through its governance mechanisms for a decision; c) establish a more dedicated and targeted forum to engage the forestry department. Right now, there is just a yearly forum. There should be a dedicated session for this Project to engage Forestry and what needs to be done on an expedited basis; d) empower the NPM to be the owner, strategist and orchestrator of all activities; e) The job scope of the SPCs should be amended whereby oversight of the Project ought to be added into their respective KPIs to enable them to prioritize activities as opposed to ad hoc FDPM requests; f) key decision makers from the Implementing Agency (IA) and Implementing Partner (IP) or their representatives with delegated decision-making authority must be present at key meetings (including PMU meetings, Annual Work Planning etc.). The IA and IP must either attend and contribute to discussion directly, or respect the country driven approach and decisions made at these forums. The Project should not be made to wait for post-facto input that can reverse decisions in the best interest of the Project. If a decision maker cannot be at the meeting either it is moved to accommodate or all parties shall respect decisions made. The IA should be invited to all key meetings. |
14 | Improve work planning, stakeholder engagement and communication: a) Establish regular regimented project updates open to all Project stakeholders and to the PSC, to break out of silos and connect with the broader picture. It is incumbent on the NPM, in consultation with the NPD, to define the strategy and coherence of all work to deliver on the Project’s core objective; b) Make better use of all members of the PSU ensuring accountability for roles and division of workload. The entire PMU and SPCs should understand the strategy behind activities and dependencies between them; c) Establish a forum to enable cross-pollination between sub-contractors, between NGOs and between both, as a mechanism to surface dependencies, overlap and efficiencies; d) Conduct exchange visits between the states involving teams of forestry staff, executing partners and community representatives with clear objectives for structured knowledge sharing, documentation and results dissemination; e) Make an Engagement Plan for continuous and senior project engagement with corresponding senior levels at the States e.g., State EPU and State Secretary and at the Federal Level to the National Lands Council. |
15 | The Project’s efforts to engage women and to avoid elite capture of benefits at the community level are inadequate. In order to mainstream gender and social equity into implementation, the Project is advised to: a) ensure both initial and ongoing “floating” support by UNDP community and gender subject matter experts to all projects within the portfolio is recommended. Projects should not bear the burden of undertaking gender responsive implementation and community engagement without proper guidance, especially if projects were not designed as such and afforded a budget to do so; b) amend the Project’s “Stakeholder Participation and Communication Strategy”. The strategy document should contain the strategy of engaging women and other disadvantaged groups, informed by the Project’s forthcoming socio-economic survey(s) results. The strategy should spell out the principles of engaging women and disadvantaged groups into project implementation (including the identification of beneficiaries of livelihood development activities), translate them into clear strategies and operationalize them through a Stakeholder Participation and Communication Plan. This Plan should contain trackable targets which shall be linked to and tracked by the Project’s monitoring system; c) collect indicators specific to gender and disadvantaged groups in the course of monitoring to allow adaptive management to focus on the effective mainstreaming of these broader development objectives18; d) vigilantly collect sex-disaggregated data for utilization in all internal and external reporting including PIRs, PAR etc.; e) give gender equity due consideration for identifying beneficiaries of livelihood investments. Instead of the generic type of activity (e.g., honey harvesting) driving the selection of eligible beneficiaries, the needs of those who are most heavily depending on forest resources and are thus most impacted by resource use restrictions for conservation should be identified and their alternative livelihood needs be met; f) consciously contract women facilitators to engage with women in the Project landscapes; g) ensure an understanding of gender-based power dynamics within a community. This understanding is essential in informing the design of activities and ensuring that the results are experienced equitably. For example, good practices for distribution of financial aid/ income to ensure that women are recipients of those funds. |