Evaluation Detail

Mid Term Review for the GEF funded Joint Management Area project

Report Cover Image

Evaluation Plan:: 2017-2023, Mauritius
Evaluation Type:: Mid Term Project
Planned End Date:: 12/2020
Status:: Overdue
Management Response:: No
Evaluation Budget(US $):: 16,625

Document	Type	Language	Size	Status	Downloads
1.UNDP-JMA Project Document.pdf	related-document	English	1224.05 KB	Posted	84
JMA_MTR_Report_FINAL_2_April_2021_MN_signature.pdf	related-document	English	6084.75 KB	Posted	72

Title	Mid Term Review for the GEF funded Joint Management Area project
Atlas Project Number:	00087614
Evaluation Plan:	2017-2023, Mauritius
Evaluation Type:	Mid Term Project
Status:	Overdue
Planned End Date:	12/2020
Management Response:	Yes
Focus Area:	1. Sustainable 2. Others
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 14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development
SDG Target	14.5 By 2020, conserve at least 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, consistent with national and international law and based on the best available scientific information 14.7 By 2030, increase the economic benefits to small island developing States and least developed countries from the sustainable use of marine resources, including through sustainable management of fisheries, aquaculture and tourism 14.a Increase scientific knowledge, develop research capacity and transfer marine technology, taking into account the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission Criteria and Guidelines on the Transfer of Marine Technology, in order to improve ocean health and to enhance the contribution of marine biodiversity to the development of developing countries, in particular small island developing States and least developed countries
Evaluation Budget(US $):	16,625
Source of Funding:	Project
Joint Programme:	No
Joint Evaluation:	No
GEF Evaluation:	No
Key Stakeholders:	Department for Continental Shelf Maritime Zones Administration and Exploration (Mauritius)and the Blue Economy Department (Seychelles)
Countries:	MAURITIUS

Lessons
Findings

Recommendations
1	Re-assess the indicator and targets in the Revised UNDP-JMA Project Results Framework, which was approved at the Inception Meeting. The linkages between indicators and targets have to be clear and not too detailed. They have to be measurable and achievable by the end of the project. In the same table, a very clear distinction has to be made between the outputs and activities, while both of these have to be clearly linked with the respective indicators and targets. In this respect, introduce a clear definition of major terms in the ProDoc (MSP, management strategy, MSP approach, MSP process, MSP framework) to avoid terminological ambiguity and strengthen the linkages among outcomes and outputs. Finally, the PRF should have a clear timeline for the realisation of the targets. A list of proposed changes should be circulated to the PSC and changes made in time for the next reporting period.
2	Speed up implementation of the remaining activities, in particular those whose completion has been delayed (establishment of Working Groups, development of the management strategy, training). Stricter control of implementation of activities should be introduced.
3	The allocation of the unspent funds should be reviewed and the budget revision to re-allocate the remaining funds of the project urgently prepared (46% of the project funds have not been distributed yet). This refers particularly to the travel budget where a large amount has been unspent due to the impacts of the Covid-19 crisis.
4	System of reporting on co-financing should be improved. Prepare annual co-financing reports containing, as a minimum, the information on the amount of annual co-financing provided by each partner; distribution of co-financing per component/outcome; rate of co-financing provided and the amount left for the remaining period of the project’s implementation; perceived risks, if any, in provision of co-financing by partner; and proposal for actions to be taken to mitigate risks. The co-financing report should be presented to, discussed at and adopted by the PSC on a yearly basis.
5	Improve the visibility of the project by speeding up the implementation of the communications strategy of the project