Terminal Evaluation of the UNDP-GEF Sustainable Financing of Protected Areas in Seychelles

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2017-2023, Seychelles
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
09/2021
Completion Date:
09/2021
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
30,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document PIMS 4656 TE PAF FINANCE- National TOR MT-FV.docx.pdf tor English 1184.04 KB Posted 283
Download document PIMS 4656 TE- PAF Finance_Updated- IC International MT-FV.docx.pdf tor English 1329.13 KB Posted 289
Download document PAF Seychelles_GEF ID 5485_TE_FINAL Version.pdf report English 1200.04 KB Posted 296
Title Terminal Evaluation of the UNDP-GEF Sustainable Financing of Protected Areas in Seychelles
Atlas Project Number: 00088837
Evaluation Plan: 2017-2023, Seychelles
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 09/2021
Planned End Date: 09/2021
Management Response: Yes
UNDP Signature Solution:
  • 1. Poverty
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021)
  • 1. Output 1.1.1 Capacities developed across the whole of government to integrate the 2030 Agenda, the Paris Agreement and other international agreements in development plans and budgets, and to analyse progress towards the SDGs, using innovative and data-driven solutions
SDG Goal
  • Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere
  • Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts
  • 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
  • 1.3 Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all, including floors, and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable
  • 13.2 Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning
  • 15.1 By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services, in particular forests, wetlands, mountains and drylands, in line with obligations under international agreements
Evaluation Budget(US $): 30,000
Source of Funding: Project
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 30,000
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Justine Braby Dr justine.braby@gmail.com
Cliff Gonzalves Mr. cliffjemmy@gmail.com
GEF Evaluation: Yes
GEF Project Title: Sustainable Financing of Protected Areas in Seychelles
Evaluation Type: Terminal Evaluation
Focal Area: Biodiversity
Project Type: FSP
GEF Phase: GEF-5
GEF Project ID: 5485
PIMS Number: 4656
Key Stakeholders: Seychelles National Parks Authority, Nature Seychelles, Marine Conservation Society Seychelles, Ministry of Environment
Countries: SEYCHELLES
Lessons
1.

Design ambition, adaptiveness and flexibility and the role of GEF in times of change\

Shifting approaches and adaptive flexibility in projects can be good, as was illustrated in this project in terms of partnerships with SeyCCAT and the MSP process (good recommendation generally at MTR), as well as the project flexibility also in terms of COVID-19.

However, there may be some lessons learnt for project design and for GEF in general in terms of how it is supporting SIDS and countries of change. An echo is made to a lesson learnt from the Outer Islands Project Terminal Evaluation and is a recurring problem in general in Seychelles that the project design is overambitious, that indicators are developed that are not in the control of the project and thus more assumptions than drivers (also picked up in the Terminal Evaluation of the GEF NGO modalities project under lessons). The evaluators agree with the evaluator of the TE of the Outer Islands in stating that there might be a limitation to the GEF project document template that does not take into account the comparative size of a country like Seychelles (or SIDS in general) and this results in the recurring problem of overdesign of projects which lead to implementation issues since capacity and human resources are rather limited.

Another lesson to take up with GEF and Implementing Agencies of GEF is the need to consider flexibility in terms of sensitivity to radical shocks affecting the system (like COVID-19 did). Some project partners might rightly argue how can project results be achieved, if a shock big enough to upset the basic survival of those actually doing the very work that lays the foundation of such achievements are felt. How can a project be able to support short-term shock survival while enhancing the resilience of future shocks and still achieving the results of the project. The evaluators do not have the answer to this, but it is an important point to consider for the GEF and the IAs in times of radical change while under the urgent need to meet the SDGs and enhance resilience in the system.


2.

Importance of building strong government institution and capacity of internal staff to maximise project benefits

The SNPA relied heavily on external support and internal staff were not effectively developed by the project (e.g. external consultant for the communication and marketing work versus longer term staff member), and the value of the work and institutional strength (versus individual strength) has a strong implication on follow-through and ownership of project results. As an example, the change in leadership at SNPA heavily affected the institution’s implementation of the project..


3.

The need for Government endorsement and support of important projects undertaken by beneficiaries

The Aldabra House was to be a flagship achievement for the project and the cancellation was a great disappointment. Because the risk was already there at design, the project needed to be reflective in the instability and uncertainty in government decisions even when high-level support is garnered. Future project proposals need to be fully endorsed by the Government before being written into the project.


4.

Effective consultation, engagement and collaboration with key influencers (e.g. Ministry of Finance)

The non-approval of the Investment Plan by the Ministry of Finance highlights the need for stronger stakeholder engagement and consultation. There is a need to think strategically at the beginning of the project (even better at design, PPG phase) who the key influencers are, and make them responsible to achieve a certain output.


Findings
1.

Project Design:

The project design was based on a robust PPG process that had strong stakeholder engagement and was an effective way to balance the different expectations from project partners.

Some aspects that could have picked up at design were: 1) better integration of Terminal Evaluation recommendations from other projects, 2) identification of risks to outputs that was beyond project’s control e.g. legislation enacted (and thus political will), and 3) the challenge of having partners contribute towards a systems approach when this had failed in previous projects. An arguable point is also the risk of the elections on the project implementation (as, while there were date changes that were unexpected, the timing of the election in terms of the year, was known).

The linkages of the project within the sector were strong and the PPG phase did a good job at making sure the project aligned with various ongoing and future projects. 


2.

Project Implementation and Execution: The project underwent a pretty solid and well-thought-out review process at Mid-Term that allowed the project to successfully shift and move forward towards the project results. However as stated above, some of the activities were impacted by the change in government and COVID-19 particularly during the last year of project implementation.

It was found that the project team was highly efficient and hard-working. The skilled Technical Advisor brought much integrated capacity into the project that should have long-lasting results.

The implementing partners generally successfully implemented their parts with some exceptions that were due to capacity and staff-turnover (e.g. SNPA where the project team had to provide support role) and institutional impasse (e.g. between SIF and LTD that lead to Aldabra House being cancelled), or due to lack of collaboration and conflict (e.g. Activities on Silhouette island).

The MACCE took less leadership role than expected from project design. The project was eventually more strategically aligned with SeyCCAT and MSP process (based on MTR recommendation) to sustain project results in the longer term and uptake of some elements that the project was not able to achieve on its own.

Government ownership and championship of the project in general was not as strong as was hoped given the low level of uptake of actions that depended on government approval.

Co-financing was surprisingly achieved in the project and primarily due to other partners exceeding their contributions, which helped  the shortfall from MACCE and SNPA. .


3.

Project results and impacts: Outcome 1 and 2 were largely on track to be achieved until the change in government and COVID-19 radically shifted the potential.

The project overall had a mixed level of success in terms of its output-level achievements. The greatest achievement of the project was its focused support to SNPA, which successfully achieved financial autonomy, improved capacity and support to infrastructure, in terms of trails and services provided to visitors. .

The lack of partnership is an important consideration and a blockage to the system’s success. In this project alone, several barriers due to lack of collaboration occurred, including: 1) lack of participation by one project beneficiary in the METT scores invalidates the entire procedure, 2) activities on Silhouette island not implemented due to conflicts between IDC, ICS and SNPA, 3) complaint to Minister bypassing the Steering Committee for an activity to support SeyCCAT Business Planning, among others. A recommendation has been made to this effect because this is a recurring problem that will only lead to more conflicts and barriers in the future unless dealt with strategically now and in a more nuanced way (looking at the social and group psychology aspects of the different partnerships and structure).

It was found that the project was efficient in terms of its synergies with other initiatives, its ability to have garnered strong co-financing support. However it was less efficient in terms of its use of influence (in terms of leadership within MACCE, for example) to move certain issues forward. The project did a relatively strong effort to adapt to the repercussions of COVID-19 and the change in Government.

Overall, the project managed to decrease the financing gap, which was the main aim of the project, although only at basic level, and without the increase of the expanded state. However, the potential is now higher and a step further giving the next projects and ongoing processes more lift to further close the gap, despite the challenges faced under COVID-19 and priorities of government (e.g. Repeal of CSR tax).

The longer-term impact as per the Theory of Change will depend on various elements, including (a) the level to which the partners collaborate, (b) the level of ownership and championship at government and political level, and (c) greater appreciation of the economic value of Protected Areas.


4.

The project underwent some challenges in implementation – including the initial challenges that were then re-shifted during MTR, and then finally COVID-19 lockdown and restrictions as well as changes to government. Despite this, the project (team and implementation partners) did high quality work in the areas they had influence over.

The project certainly demonstrated some strong achievements to government that had not previously been seen in other projects – especially through the tangible and concrete support to SNPA. Foundations was laid and capacities developed for the PA managing entities that will have far-reaching and longer-term effects. Some missing links include stronger and more strategic engagement with the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Tourism.

The project was highly relevant to the country priorities and to its economic dependence on natural resources, although some challenges exist in terms of the visibility of this strategic relevance.

Championship in some instances was strong, but actionable championship from government could have been stronger. Leadership from MACCE and other levels of government, and partners collaborating and unifying, can go a long way in sustaining and improving project results and moving towards impact, as will a more coordinated approach to the MSP, SeyCCAT, BIOFIN and Climate Finance processes

The project aimed to increase sustainable financing under changing economic environments – and it certainly did that however its more ambitious hopes at the systemic level were not met .For the project to attain its final impact where a critical mass of ecosystems are protected and financially sustainable, some key processes need to take place, including assessment and appreciation of PA contribution into the economy, as well as stronger government leadership.

In terms of government ownership, political will, and general re-investment into the protected areas system: there is a lot of high-level commitment to back conservation actions but it is seen as a “responsibility” and not as a “reinvestment into capital”, specifically in terms of the difference in GDP contributions by protected areas versus budget allocations by government to conserve these protected areas. There is heavy reliance on external funding sources. This is ultimately not just about financing (of protected areas), it is about the economic value system in general, which is growth fixated and where nature is still to a large, although changing, extent, seen as a free and unlimited resource in quantification terms (if you look at the National System of Accounts, which does not include natural capital or ecosystem services accounting). It is unlikely that higher prioritisation or budget allocations to conservation will occur under short-term economic response plans taken after the economic hits taken due to COVID-19.

Within this value system, in the short-termit will help biodiversity conservation goals if nature’s economic value becomes visible in the current economic value system.

To support the longer-term shift in economic values, and to support improved investment in the short-term, the business case of nature needs to be made. To do this more holistically, a two-fold approach needs to take place: (1) integration of Natural Capital Accounting in the National System of Accounts, and (2) through case-study economic valuation of biodiversity and ecosystem services in two sectors that the government is focusing on under its economic diversification plan of the IMF reform, namely fisheries and agriculture, and tourism. The latter has been done to an extent in a fragmented way, but was supposed to be refined through the TEMPA study. Nonetheless this is being done through the MSP economic valuation study, which is also looking at economic diversification opportunities. This is outlined in the recommendation B.3. below.

The project has made a strong effort to attain the overall goal, despite the challenges,

Based on the above considerations, the project, overall is given a rating of Satisfactory

Previous studies have also been done in other projects more than a decade ago (source: feedback from partners at prelim findings workshop).


Recommendations
1

Ensuring (necessary) final project results achievement

SeyCCAT and MSP process to finalize the outstanding items of this project, including most notably the Financing Plan updating and the solutions there-in (including revisiting the WTP and PES), the biodiversity economic valuation study.

2

Ensuring (necessary) final project results achievement

Maximise institutional coordination between SeyCCAT, MSP, Biodiversity Finance Unit, Blue Economy GEF-7 Project, Climate Finance to drive project results and build stronger financing for protected areas (also linked to ecosystem resilience to climate change.

3

Ensuring (necessary) final project results achievement

Finalise the institutional assessment of the SPGA and drive project results achieved for SNPA, maintain and build on infrastructural, structural and capacity support built by project

4

Sustaining and further catalyzing results for Theory of Change impact

Develop information dissemination strategy to share best practices  (and generally more in terms of overall GEF spending and results achievement under projects developed), integrate PCU and GEF work more strategically into the work programme of MACCE 

5

Sustaining and further catalyzing results for Theory of Change impact

Partnerships for enhanced resilience

Build coordination and partnership for enhanced resilience and mutual supportive environment. System fragmentation will risk system resilience and needs to be dealt with through use Advisory Board (from 2018) platform under the Nature Reserve and Conservancy Bill

6

Sustaining and further catalyzing results for Theory of Change impact

Bring in external expertise on depth facilitation/conflict resolution in the set up and the first focus of the meetings to deal with recurrent barriers to moving forward that only depth facilitation processes will have a chance to resolve.

7

Sustaining and further catalyzing results for Theory of Change impact

At project level, any project that includes partnerships for the entire system, an umbrella agreement could be signed by all partners agreeing to mutual cooperation and support toward the system before individual agreements are taken forward

8

Sustaining and further catalysing results for Theory of Change impact

Make nature’s value visible in the economic agenda through the integration of Natural Capital Accounting in the National System of Accounts (through consultative discussions with NSA and UNDSA) (international technical and financial support option through UNDSA)

9

Sustaining and further catalysing results for Theory of Change impact

Conduct case-study of economic valuation of biodiversity and ecosystem services in two sectors that the government is focusing on under its economic diversification plan of the IMF reform, namely fisheries and agriculture, and then through tourism (depending on necessity building on MSP economic valuation study) (international technical and financial support option through UNEP The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Office).

Some of this could form part of existing work, and other under new work (external support to set this up is very likely, e.g. Natural Capital Accounting through United Nations Statistics Division – already some work has been done here for SEEA accounts for fisheries with the National Statistics Office in Seychelles in 2016, through the TEEB Office in UNEP links could be made for accounting, as well as for case studies (e.g. TEEB AgriFood for agriculture), all of which would strongly support re-financing for protected areas as a system

1. Recommendation:

Ensuring (necessary) final project results achievement

SeyCCAT and MSP process to finalize the outstanding items of this project, including most notably the Financing Plan updating and the solutions there-in (including revisiting the WTP and PES), the biodiversity economic valuation study.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/11/08] [Last Updated: 2021/11/09]

Fully Accept.

The Management fully agrees with this recommendation and note that:

a) it is duly directed to SEYCCAT and the SMSP process for the update of the Financing Plan and the economic valuation study. The management also notes that both organizations have been able to leverage funding for the same.

b)  Additionally work is being undertaken under SWIOFISH3 for Blue carbon assessment for mangroves and Evaluation of Ecosystem Goods and Services for Seychelles’ Protected Area System under SMSP.

The project is also exploring whether biodiversity economic study will be undertaken under GEF7 projects.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
a) Updating the Financing plan(containing financial solutions)
[Added: 2021/11/09]
MACCE (SeyCCAT and SMSP*) 2022/03 Initiated Funding secured by SeyCCAT activity planned for Q4 2021 PAF Project facilitated TOR development
b) Concluding biodiversity economic valuation study
[Added: 2021/11/09]
MACCE/SWIOFISH3/SMSP/PCU 2022/06 Initiated The following studies have been initiated and will be undertaken between now and June 2022 Blue Carbon Assessment for Mangrove Systems in Seychelles Evaluation of Ecosystem Goods and Services for Seychelles’ Protected Area System(SwioFish3 funded) Project proposing to include ecosystem evaluation study to consultant developing GEF7 project and pitched for the uptake of the TEMPA study explored under project
2. Recommendation:

Ensuring (necessary) final project results achievement

Maximise institutional coordination between SeyCCAT, MSP, Biodiversity Finance Unit, Blue Economy GEF-7 Project, Climate Finance to drive project results and build stronger financing for protected areas (also linked to ecosystem resilience to climate change.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/11/08] [Last Updated: 2021/11/09]

Fully accepted.

The BioFin Unit with MACCE is intended to have an over-arching role in terms of coordinating all biodiversity related projects in the Seychelles (including financial solutions identified in the BFP), and mainstreaming all such projects into Seychelles’ economic planning and annual budgetary processes. However, at present the BFU is understaffed (only 1 staff position has been funded) and has an inadequate level of capacity to implement its mandate.  The upcoming GEF7 project proposes to support the BFU to undertake this mandate.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
a) Project Support to build up capacity of the BFU unit
[Added: 2021/11/09]
MACCE- BioFin Unit (BFU), support from GEF7 2023/01 Initiated GEF7 project to build The capacities of BFU to support the implementation of Seychelles’ Biodiversity Finance Plan. Currently the GEF7 is under project preparation and implementation is expected to commence in 2023
b) SeyCCATs Fundraising and partnership manager to support BFU unit
[Added: 2021/11/09] [Last Updated: 2022/01/17]
SeyCCAT to work with BFU to build capacity and to work together in a more complementary way for the next two years. 2022/06 Not Initiated While some discussions have been had, there is yet to be a formalized collaboration between SEYCCAT and the BFU unit. There is a senior level transition at SEYCCAT and so some delays are expected for this is materialize with concrete agreements. History
3. Recommendation:

Ensuring (necessary) final project results achievement

Finalise the institutional assessment of the SPGA and drive project results achieved for SNPA, maintain and build on infrastructural, structural and capacity support built by project

Management Response: [Added: 2021/11/08] [Last Updated: 2021/11/09]

Fully accept.

 

The organizational restructuring of the Seychelle Parks and Gardens Authority will maintain and build on the capacities developed by the project.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
a) Finalise the institutional assessment support
[Added: 2021/11/09]
PCU PM, SNPA, GOS 2021/08 Completed The organizational assessment was concluded in July 2021. As per the Government restructuring, a new CEO was appointed in June 2021 and SNPA changed name to Seychelles Parks and Gardens Authority in August 2021 with internal re-structuring of various teams and departments.
b) Handover of SNPA output to SPGA CEO
[Added: 2021/11/09]
PAF project 2021/09 Completed This has been completed with Project conclusion.
4. Recommendation:

Sustaining and further catalyzing results for Theory of Change impact

Develop information dissemination strategy to share best practices  (and generally more in terms of overall GEF spending and results achievement under projects developed), integrate PCU and GEF work more strategically into the work programme of MACCE 

Management Response: [Added: 2021/11/08]

Fully accepted.

MACCE to ensure that sufficient importance is given from project development and implementation. Given number of active projects being run from PCU, MACCE is currently reassessing the role and future of PCU.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
MACCE to reassess role and future of PCU and ensure adequate attention on coordination and information dissemination is included in project from inception to conclusion
[Added: 2021/11/09]
GoS, MACCE, PCU 2023/01 Initiated MACCE has already initiated the restructuring of the PCU to ensure its integration within the Ministry and to ensure enhanced dissemination of key results of projects and of course to widen the portfolio.
5. Recommendation:

Sustaining and further catalyzing results for Theory of Change impact

Partnerships for enhanced resilience

Build coordination and partnership for enhanced resilience and mutual supportive environment. System fragmentation will risk system resilience and needs to be dealt with through use Advisory Board (from 2018) platform under the Nature Reserve and Conservancy Bill

Management Response: [Added: 2021/11/08] [Last Updated: 2021/11/09]

Fully accepted.

Key actions are still within the scope of the drafted Bill for improved partnerships for enhanced resilience.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Ensure advisory board platform still under latest version of the Nature Reserve and conservancy Bill
[Added: 2021/11/09]
MACCE as lead & Project partners 2022/12 Initiated The Bill will still need to be endorsed by Cabinet along with the recommendations. There are ongoing legal reforms and this may impact the timeline for approval/endorsement of the Bill.
6. Recommendation:

Sustaining and further catalyzing results for Theory of Change impact

Bring in external expertise on depth facilitation/conflict resolution in the set up and the first focus of the meetings to deal with recurrent barriers to moving forward that only depth facilitation processes will have a chance to resolve.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/11/08]

Partially accepted.

The Management notes that although, there are some provisions within the nature reserve bill, it may take longer  to actually realize the in depth facilitation process as roles and responsibilities of various entities still needs to be defined

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
b) Define the roles and responsibilities as needed within the provisions of the Nature Reserve Bill to ensure a depth facilitation/conflict resolution mechanism
[Added: 2021/11/09]
MACCE, SMSP 2022/12 Initiated The set up of the conflict resolution mechanism may be considered for implementation/realization of the Seychelles Marine Spatial Plan, as this initiative brings together a broad spectrum of stakeholders together. However, the role of SMSP should align with the relevant provisions made within the Nature Reserve Bill.
a) Activity to be considered for GEF7 project development
[Added: 2021/11/09]
PCU 2021/09 Completed The project preparation team for GEF7 have been apprised of the recurrent barriers towards a systems approach. Some work has been done to engage with partners to move forward on the new project towards managing expectations and proposing some mechanisms to overcome the barriers.
7. Recommendation:

Sustaining and further catalyzing results for Theory of Change impact

At project level, any project that includes partnerships for the entire system, an umbrella agreement could be signed by all partners agreeing to mutual cooperation and support toward the system before individual agreements are taken forward

Management Response: [Added: 2021/11/08] [Last Updated: 2021/11/09]

Partially accepted with reservations.

The management notes that SMSP process may incorporate such an agreement towards a PA system approach. MOUs may be explored for standardization, but need not be legally binding. Furthermore partners capacities are at different levels so other avenues will need to be explored  and as such an umbrella agreement may not be best in the context .

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
a) Concept to be considered by MACCE(e.g. moving forward with the implementation phase of the SMSP initiative)
[Added: 2021/11/09]
MACCE 2022/07 Not Initiated Feasibility and practicality of such approach needs to be further explored
b) Draft standardized MOUs for possible future applications prior to project implementation
[Added: 2021/11/09]
MACCE 2022/06 Not Initiated To be discussed with other partners
8. Recommendation:

Sustaining and further catalysing results for Theory of Change impact

Make nature’s value visible in the economic agenda through the integration of Natural Capital Accounting in the National System of Accounts (through consultative discussions with NSA and UNDSA) (international technical and financial support option through UNDSA)

Management Response: [Added: 2021/11/08] [Last Updated: 2021/11/09]

Management does not fully accept this recommendation although the merit of this recommendation is acknowledged.

The main constraint is the capacities of national bodies such as the National Bureau of Statistics and other relevant bodies to integrate environmental valuation into the National System of Accounts. Management could not fully agree on this recommendation as the final decision to incorporate the environment into the national accounting systems until these were discussed with other agencies and that their capacities to capture the valuation was enhanced.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
a) Discussion with NBS, MFTEP, CBS and MACCE to further discuss the potential for data collection and integration of Natural Capital Accounting
[Added: 2021/11/09]
UNDP/MACCE can engage with Statistics Office, liaise with international partners through UN like UNDSA and UNEP 2022/12 Not Initiated The main concern is the lack of human, technical and financial resources available at National Bureau of Statistics and opportunity to connect them to this wider discussion.
b) BioFin should have already initiated such activity, outcomes can be expended and shared as part of BFU objectives
[Added: 2021/11/09]
UNDP/ MACCE(BFU) 2022/06 Not Initiated BFU currently has limited capacity- but this activity will need to be discussed with the BFU team and perhaps explored within the context of upcoming project implementation.
9. Recommendation:

Sustaining and further catalysing results for Theory of Change impact

Conduct case-study of economic valuation of biodiversity and ecosystem services in two sectors that the government is focusing on under its economic diversification plan of the IMF reform, namely fisheries and agriculture, and then through tourism (depending on necessity building on MSP economic valuation study) (international technical and financial support option through UNEP The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Office).

Some of this could form part of existing work, and other under new work (external support to set this up is very likely, e.g. Natural Capital Accounting through United Nations Statistics Division – already some work has been done here for SEEA accounts for fisheries with the National Statistics Office in Seychelles in 2016, through the TEEB Office in UNEP links could be made for accounting, as well as for case studies (e.g. TEEB AgriFood for agriculture), all of which would strongly support re-financing for protected areas as a system

Management Response: [Added: 2021/11/08] [Last Updated: 2021/11/09]

Management does not fully accept this recommendation although the merit of this recommendation is acknowledged.

The main constraint is the capacities of national and other relevant bodies to undertake this exercise and prior discussions with agencies such as Tourism, Finance, Statistics, Agriculture etc... must be had to provide a general consensus to conduct the case studies and integrate environmental value chain in national accounts system.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
a) Depending on findings of the SMSP costing and financing option exercise for implementation, this activity can be further explored
[Added: 2021/11/09]
MACCE (SMSP), SeyCCAT 2022/07 Not Initiated This is an activity that may be funded by SeyCCAT in the coming years History
b) Activity to be presented to NBS to understand feasibility
[Added: 2021/11/09]
UNDP/MACCE can engage with Statistics Office, liaise with international partners through UN like UNDSA and UNEP 2022/07 Not Initiated One of the critical concerns remains the capacity of the National Bureau of Statistics and it would be imperative to connect them with other relevant organizations to disucss the priorities for data and valuation so that they are fully onboarded for similar exercises in future.

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