Fortalecimiento de capacidades para la implementacion del Protocolo de Nagoya sobre acceso a los recursos geneticos y la participacion justa y equitativa en los beneficios que se deriven de su utilizacion del Convenio de Diversidad Biologica

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2014-2020, Mexico
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
12/2020
Completion Date:
12/2020
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
40,000

Share

Title Fortalecimiento de capacidades para la implementacion del Protocolo de Nagoya sobre acceso a los recursos geneticos y la participacion justa y equitativa en los beneficios que se deriven de su utilizacion del Convenio de Diversidad Biologica
Atlas Project Number: 00091799
Evaluation Plan: 2014-2020, Mexico
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 12/2020
Planned End Date: 12/2020
Management Response: Yes
UNDP Signature Solution:
  • 1. Sustainable
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021)
  • 1. Output 2.4.1 Gender-responsive legal and regulatory frameworks, policies and institutions strengthened, and solutions adopted, to address conservation, sustainable use and equitable benefit sharing of natural resources, in line with international conventions and national legislation
SDG Goal
  • Goal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss
SDG Target
  • 15.6 Promote fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources and promote appropriate access to such resources, as internationally agreed
  • 15.9 By 2020, integrate ecosystem and biodiversity values into national and local planning, development processes, poverty reduction strategies and accounts
Evaluation Budget(US $): 40,000
Source of Funding: GEF
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 33,806
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Rafael González-Franco National consultant define.rafael@gmail.com
Hernán Reyes G. International consultant hernanreyes@asuntosinternacionales.com
Rafael González-Franco National consultant define.rafael@gmail.com
Hernán Reyes G. Interational consultant hernanreyes@asuntosinternacionales.com
GEF Evaluation: Yes
GEF Project Title: Fortalecimiento de capacidades para la implementación del Protocolo de Nagoya sobre acceso a los recursos genéticos y la participación justa y equitativa en los beneficios que se deriven de su utilización del Convenio de Diversidad Biológica�
Evaluation Type: Terminal Evaluation
Focal Area: Biodiversity
Project Type: FSP
GEF Phase: GEF-5
GEF Project ID: 5738
PIMS Number: 5375
Key Stakeholders:
Countries: MEXICO
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1

Evaluation recommendation 1. The natural generation cycle of GEF projects implies that their design takes place several years before the institution's signature and agreements are finally finalized. Therefore, at the time of its inception, some assumptions are not realistic and the context has also changed, especially in countries in Latin America where their governments last a maximum of 6 years. This means that it is essential that during the first meeting at the beginning of the project, an intense review of the Framework of Objectives and goals of the project is carried out in such a way as to make adjustments from the beginning and not to produce later problems that mean problems of effectiveness and efficiency that will be attempted be corrected later in the mid-term evaluation by missing at least two years if the MTE is done on time. 

2

Evaluation recommendation 2. Verify early that the Indicators comply with the SMART standard and that the goals must be concrete and realistic. It is also necessary to ensure that the indicators and goals are consistent in vertical terms, that is, the fulfillment of the components and products should allow 100% fulfillment of the Project’s Objective. Prepare with a greater degree of attention to the detail the foundations, action framework, goals and indicators, type of participation and roles of recalled institutions, etc., in the PRODOC, allowing to reduce, in part, the management issues and keeping track of the projects.

3

Evaluation recommendation 3. Carry out the analysis or revision of the Theory of Change within (at most) three months after the start of the project in such a way as to be able to make all the adjustments to the design in the project installation stage.

4

Evaluation recommendation 4. In the case of projects in which their PRODOC do not have in their work array or components genre matters, incorporate indicators and goals that signal the level of achievement expected within their activities. This is valid for all projects and if it was not detailed in the PRODOC, the modifications must be made in the first meeting of review and start of the Project. Revision of the addition of transversal components (Genre, Participation, Human Rights) in the Project. Ensure that they not only are considered, but objectives, indicators and goals have to be defined, with a proper Budget allocation if possible.

5

Evaluation recommendation 5. It is important to also check from an early stage if the PRODOC a definite set of partners, and if they will contribute with the resources, knowledge and correction assumed in its design.

6

Evaluation recommendation 6. Also, it is important to considerate that, given the climate change, and the appearance of pandemics much like the one happening in the world, the environment decline creates scenarios of increased uncertainty than in the past, and likewise, the suppositions and risk anticipation have to be much more rigorous in such way that in the theory of change and the chosen intervention models there must be foresight of circumstances that may alter, in a significant way, the course of events and, in consequence anticipate contingency plans.

7

It is recommended to start a tracking process to the results and products from the start of the Project, generating systematization on experience basis in such way that it can build later the Construction Plan and knowledge socialization of the Project. This means to highlight the case studies, replicable experiences, and the findings that have a high potential of dissemination and knowledge propagation. This way, it may be that the project’s design has not visualized and hence it is not reflected in the budget, the opportunity to perform a systematization of the successful experiences or lessons learns that have a high impact.

8

Evaluation recommendation 8. Start to plan the Mid-Term Evaluation, before the halfway point of the project is reached. Since that in many cases the selection processes can last several months, it is recommended to take measures to not have delays and lose the opportunity that this work can make changes with the due anticipation. In other way, there is a risk that the mid-term and Terminal Evaluations are done with a short lapse between each other, which has no practical sense.

9

Evaluation recommendation 9. The MTE results should allow decide on the goals and even the results that need to be approached in a different way. This new approach must remain explicit as an agreement of the Steering Committee and requested formally to the GEF.

10

Evaluation recommendation 10. It is highly recommended that based on the MTE’s recommendations and in light of the operation’s measuring, to start the Project closure plan. It is recommended to perform it with a planning from 18 months or two years in advance if possible, in such way that the processes of socialization, maturation and discussion of the products generated by the project.

11

Evaluation recommendation 11 Make the Project Communication Plan focused on the sensitization of other actors and in the theory of change in such way that it is useful for the sustainability of the project’s products and improves its impact.

12

Evaluation recommendation 12. Build a sustainability plan and strategy that ensures the transfer if the products and results by the Project by a date of 18 months before the project’s closure, to the interested parties, even measuring if they begin to use and reproduce the experiences, good practices and products from the Project’s work.

13

Evaluation recommendation 13. Do the Terminal Evaluation at least two or three months before the Project’s end in such way that the evaluation also allows the adoption of some measures before the closure, especially those concerning sustainability of the Project’s knowledge management.

Management Response Documents
1. Recommendation:

Evaluation recommendation 1. The natural generation cycle of GEF projects implies that their design takes place several years before the institution's signature and agreements are finally finalized. Therefore, at the time of its inception, some assumptions are not realistic and the context has also changed, especially in countries in Latin America where their governments last a maximum of 6 years. This means that it is essential that during the first meeting at the beginning of the project, an intense review of the Framework of Objectives and goals of the project is carried out in such a way as to make adjustments from the beginning and not to produce later problems that mean problems of effectiveness and efficiency that will be attempted be corrected later in the mid-term evaluation by missing at least two years if the MTE is done on time. 

Management Response: [Added: 2021/02/25]

It is important to have a meeting with the Steering Committee, the counterpart, UNDP office, the member teams of the Coordination Unit before the implementation of the project, and before realizing the first activities, so all the team can validate the foreseen activities or update them according to the new context. During the implementation, we organized several Steering Committees to validate and approve the actions of the project. This is an ex-post suggestion to the project design and can therefore not be monitored or implemented into the closing activities, but will be kept in mind as a general recommendation for future project planning.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
1.1 Make agreements regarding the activities and the implementation.
[Added: 2021/02/25]
UNDP/ SEMARNAT 2021/12 Completed During the whole implementation of the project we organized 8 Steering Committees meetings.
2. Recommendation:

Evaluation recommendation 2. Verify early that the Indicators comply with the SMART standard and that the goals must be concrete and realistic. It is also necessary to ensure that the indicators and goals are consistent in vertical terms, that is, the fulfillment of the components and products should allow 100% fulfillment of the Project’s Objective. Prepare with a greater degree of attention to the detail the foundations, action framework, goals and indicators, type of participation and roles of recalled institutions, etc., in the PRODOC, allowing to reduce, in part, the management issues and keeping track of the projects.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/02/25] [Last Updated: 2021/02/25]

Since the beginning of the Project, the Coordination Unit revised all the indicators, and made sure that they were following the SMART standard. During the implementation of the Project, we monitored the achievement of these indicators, and updated them. During all the implementation of the Project, the governmental institutions that were involved in the Project participated and were involved in the activities planned and realized. This is an ex-post suggestion to the project design and can therefore not be monitored or implemented into the closing activities, but will be kept in mind as a general recommendation for future project planning.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
2.1 Indicators updating and Revision and Consistency analysis of the Objective Framework (Results, products, indicators and goals).
[Added: 2021/02/25]
Coordination Unit UNDP office SEMARNAT. 2020/12 Completed Assure that the indicators are aligned with the objective of the Project and make them realistic.
2.2 Revision and updating of the Annual Work Plan each year, to assure that the goals are aligned with the vision of the counterpart and the objective of the Project.
[Added: 2021/02/25]
Coordination Unit of the Project UNDP office SEMARNAT. 2020/12 Completed Realization of 8 Steering Committees and meetings with the counterpart.
3. Recommendation:

Evaluation recommendation 3. Carry out the analysis or revision of the Theory of Change within (at most) three months after the start of the project in such a way as to be able to make all the adjustments to the design in the project installation stage.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/02/25]

During the Mid Term Evaluation there was a revision of this Theory of Change and the Project and adaptation of the Project implementation regarding to the recommendation made in the Mid Term Evaluation. This is an ex-post suggestion to the project design and can therefore not be monitored or implemented into the closing activities, but will be kept in mind as a general recommendation for future project planning

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
3.1 Make more emphasis to the Theory of Change during the implementation of the Project and update and document the changes during the implementation of the Project.
[Added: 2021/02/25]
Coordination Unit of the Project UNDP office 2020/12 Completed Revision and update of the Theory of Change during the different phases of the project.
4. Recommendation:

Evaluation recommendation 4. In the case of projects in which their PRODOC do not have in their work array or components genre matters, incorporate indicators and goals that signal the level of achievement expected within their activities. This is valid for all projects and if it was not detailed in the PRODOC, the modifications must be made in the first meeting of review and start of the Project. Revision of the addition of transversal components (Genre, Participation, Human Rights) in the Project. Ensure that they not only are considered, but objectives, indicators and goals have to be defined, with a proper Budget allocation if possible.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/02/25]

This is a GEF 5 project which did not include mandatory cross-cutting objectives, indicators and goals to be defined and budgeted, as this recommendation suggests. The PRODOC of this Project didn´t include a specific component of gender matter, but during the whole implementation of the Project we integrated, in the Terms of Reference published to hire the different consultancies, some aspect and focus of genre equity and participation, especially for the redaction of the Community Biocultural Protocols.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
4.1 Even if this aspect was not consider in the PRODOC, the Project managed to include it in the majority of the consultancies that it hired, mainly for the redaction of the CBP.
[Added: 2021/02/25]
Coordination Unit of the Project. 2020/12 Completed Thanks to this gender equity aspect added to the consultancies the Project achieved to address gender equity issues in the local communities´ management system.
5. Recommendation:

Evaluation recommendation 5. It is important to also check from an early stage if the PRODOC a definite set of partners, and if they will contribute with the resources, knowledge and correction assumed in its design.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/02/25]

During the first phase of the Project, and for the organization of the Inception Workshop, the Coordination Unit defined and invited all the possible partners which could be involved in this Project.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
5.1 This Project has a Steering Committee quite diverse and with 10 different institutions, which had their own role and contributions.
[Added: 2021/02/25]
Coordination Unit of the Project UNDP office SEMARNAT. 2020/12 Completed Diversity of the stakeholders in the Project.
6. Recommendation:

Evaluation recommendation 6. Also, it is important to considerate that, given the climate change, and the appearance of pandemics much like the one happening in the world, the environment decline creates scenarios of increased uncertainty than in the past, and likewise, the suppositions and risk anticipation have to be much more rigorous in such way that in the theory of change and the chosen intervention models there must be foresight of circumstances that may alter, in a significant way, the course of events and, in consequence anticipate contingency plans.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/02/25]

The project updated during the whole phases of implementation the Monitoring and Evaluation risks matrix and adapted its activities regarding the changes of administration and the challenges faced.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
6.1 Risks Matrix updated and redaction of Monitoring and Evaluation reports.
[Added: 2021/02/25]
Coordination Unit of the Project UNDP office. 2020/12 Completed It is important to update and revise monthly the Monitoring and Evaluation of the Project.
7. Recommendation:

It is recommended to start a tracking process to the results and products from the start of the Project, generating systematization on experience basis in such way that it can build later the Construction Plan and knowledge socialization of the Project. This means to highlight the case studies, replicable experiences, and the findings that have a high potential of dissemination and knowledge propagation. This way, it may be that the project’s design has not visualized and hence it is not reflected in the budget, the opportunity to perform a systematization of the successful experiences or lessons learns that have a high impact.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/02/25]

The project was reviewing the process and result achieve from the different consultancies hired and taking the good practices from each process. The systematization of the results was reported in the annual reports and the Annual Work Plans. To socialize the Project, we implement a Strategy of Communication and published some articles.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
7.1 Redaction of the activity reports every 6 months and annual reports, indicating the evolution of the activities.
[Added: 2021/02/25]
Coordination Unit of the Project UNDP office. 2020/12 Completed These reports summarized the activities realized by the project and the results achived.
7.2 Realization of the Communication Strategy to promote and expose the different results of the Project.
[Added: 2021/02/25]
SEMARNAT 2021/12 No Longer Applicable [Justification: The project finished before the strategy was implemented.]
8. Recommendation:

Evaluation recommendation 8. Start to plan the Mid-Term Evaluation, before the halfway point of the project is reached. Since that in many cases the selection processes can last several months, it is recommended to take measures to not have delays and lose the opportunity that this work can make changes with the due anticipation. In other way, there is a risk that the mid-term and Terminal Evaluations are done with a short lapse between each other, which has no practical sense.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/02/25]

Recommendation well noted. In this project we had to contract the consultants for the Mid Term Evaluation in June 2019 and it ended up in October 2019. It would have been better to hire them some months earlier, to have more time of execution in the Project between this Mid Term Evaluation and the Final Evaluation.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
8.1 For other projects take this recommendation into account to be able to implement the recommendation done in the Mid Term Evaluation.
[Added: 2021/02/25]
Coordination Unit of the Project UNDP office. 2019/01 Completed The hiring of the consultants for the Mid Term evaluation should have been done at the beginning of 2019 to have more time between the 2 evaluations.
9. Recommendation:

Evaluation recommendation 9. The MTE results should allow decide on the goals and even the results that need to be approached in a different way. This new approach must remain explicit as an agreement of the Steering Committee and requested formally to the GEF.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/02/25]

We presented the results of the Mid Term Evaluation during a meeting with the counterpart and presented it during a Steering Committee.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
9.1 Presentation of the results of the Mid Term Evaluation with the counterpart of the Project.
[Added: 2021/02/25]
Coordination Unit of the Project UNDP office SEMARNAT. 2019/10 Completed We could have made an official presentation of the conclusion of the Mid Term Evaluation with all the stakeholders.
10. Recommendation:

Evaluation recommendation 10. It is highly recommended that based on the MTE’s recommendations and in light of the operation’s measuring, to start the Project closure plan. It is recommended to perform it with a planning from 18 months or two years in advance if possible, in such way that the processes of socialization, maturation and discussion of the products generated by the project.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/02/25]

Recommendation well noted. At the beginning of the Project, the coordinator presented the 3 years Annual Work Plan, so that all the Stakeholders could be aware of the planned activities. And each year there was an update of the planned activities.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
10.1 Presentation of the 3 years activity plan since the beginning of the Project and updating in each Steering Committee.
[Added: 2021/02/25]
Coordination Unit of the Project UNDP office SEMARNAT. 2020/12 Completed We socialized the results of the Project in each Steering Committee.
11. Recommendation:

Evaluation recommendation 11 Make the Project Communication Plan focused on the sensitization of other actors and in the theory of change in such way that it is useful for the sustainability of the project’s products and improves its impact.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/02/25]

The project developed a Communication Strategy, to socialize about the Nagoya Protocol and the counterpart SEMARNAT signed an agreement with a Centre of Biodiversity from the University of Veracruz, to give continuity and following of activities of the Project.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
11.1 Strategy of Communication developed with tactics, publications…
[Added: 2021/02/25]
Coordination Unit of the Project UNDP office SEMARNAT 2021/01 Completed This Communicati on Strategy will allow the counterpart to socialize the Nagoya Protocol and some products and publication of the Project.
11.2 Signature of an agreement between SEMARNAT and the CENTRO DE ESTUDIOS INTERDISCIPLINARIOS EN AGROBIODIVERSIDAD of the University from Veracruz.
[Added: 2021/02/25]
Coordination Unit of the Project UNDP office SEMARNAT 2020/12 Completed This agreement will allow the Project to end up activities and give continuity to the Project.
12. Recommendation:

Evaluation recommendation 12. Build a sustainability plan and strategy that ensures the transfer if the products and results by the Project by a date of 18 months before the project’s closure, to the interested parties, even measuring if they begin to use and reproduce the experiences, good practices and products from the Project’s work.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/02/25]

As sustainability plan and exit strategy for the project, SEMARNAT signed a agreement with the CENTRO DE ESTUDIOS INTERDISCIPLINARIOS EN AGROBIODIVERSIDAD of the University from Veracruz. In this Final Evaluation there are enlisted the Good practices made by the project and good experiences.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
11.2 Signature of an agreement between SEMARNAT and the CENTRO DE ESTUDIOS INTERDISCIPLINARIOS EN AGROBIODIVERSIDAD of the University from Veracruz.
[Added: 2021/02/25]
Coordination Unit of the Project UNDP office SEMARNAT 2020/12 Completed This agreement will allow the Project to end up activities and give continuity to the Project.
13. Recommendation:

Evaluation recommendation 13. Do the Terminal Evaluation at least two or three months before the Project’s end in such way that the evaluation also allows the adoption of some measures before the closure, especially those concerning sustainability of the Project’s knowledge management.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/02/25]

Noted. We did however hire the consultants for the Final Evaluation in September 2020, considering the project end date (January 2021), but agree that additional time results in a benefit for all parties.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
13.1 Hiring of the two consultants for the Final Evaluation in September 2020.
[Added: 2021/02/25]
Coordination Unit of the Project UNDP office SEMARNAT. 2021/01 Completed Due to the COVID 19 pandemic, the consultants could not travel to Mexico and realize mission in the Community, but all the interviews were done virtually.

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

1 UN Plaza
DC1-20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel. +1 646 781 4200
Fax. +1 646 781 4213
erc.support@undp.org