- 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
Mid Term Review for the GEF funded Joint Management Area project
Document | Type | Language | Size | Status | Downloads |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
related-document | English | 1224.05 KB | Posted | 84 |
![]() |
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: |
|
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021) |
|
SDG Goal |
|
SDG Target |
|
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 |