- Evaluation Plan:
- 2016-2021, Malaysia
- Evaluation Type:
- Final Project
- Planned End Date:
- 02/2022
- Completion Date:
- 02/2022
- Status:
- Completed
- Management Response:
- No
- Evaluation Budget(US $):
- 60,000
Terminal Evaluation for the Mainstreaming Biodiversity Conservation into River Management
| Document | Type | Language | Size | Status | Downloads |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 IC_RLA ToR for GPN ExpRes PIM5281 River.docx |
tor | English | 70.72 KB | Posted | 60 |
| PIMS 5281 UNDP-GEF TE National Evaluator TOR FINAL1.docx |
tor | English | 205.68 KB | Posted | 56 |
 Final TE Report MBCRM MY 5281 5692 28-02-2022 Signed.pdf |
report | English | 4188.42 KB | Posted | 66 |
| Title | Terminal Evaluation for the Mainstreaming Biodiversity Conservation into River Management | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atlas Project Number: | 00087899 | ||||||||||||||
| Evaluation Plan: | 2016-2021, Malaysia | ||||||||||||||
| Evaluation Type: | Final Project | ||||||||||||||
| Status: | Completed | ||||||||||||||
| Completion Date: | 02/2022 | ||||||||||||||
| Planned End Date: | 02/2022 | ||||||||||||||
| 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 | |
|---|---|
| Findings |
| Recommendations | |
|---|---|
| 1 | Organise a workshop to develop an exit strategy or legacy plan – the products of the project are not secure and if they are not correctly managed as the project closes they will be lost. These include the inter-agency strategy, national action plan and financing plan. The responsibility to ensure that these are followed and implemented should sit within a level of government which has the mandate and authority to ensure that the strategy and action plan is implemented across a range of different state bodies. Furthermore, whichever ministry is responsible should already possess the capacities necessary to implement the strategy and action plan as well as the authority to hold other agencies accountable for playing their parts. The exit strategy is too important to leave to the PMU and has to be developed through a participatory process to ensure full understanding, attachment to reality and broad cross-sectoral agreement. a. The legacy plan should provide a super-framework within which the inter-agency strategy and action plan are framed. This should place biodiversity firmly in the future of the water sector in Malaysia, not as a series of trade-offs but as an integral part of achieving water security and part of the process of addressing climate change. |
| 2 | The project should be audited prior to its closure. The Project Document required four audit events during the project cycle. This was un-necessarily excessive. However, the hybrid DIM-NIM direct support to execution raises a risk which, while there is no evidence to suggest this risk has occurred, should be scrutinised by an independent auditor in the interests of transparency and visibility of process. |
| 3 | Immediately extend the deadline for the deliverable of Outcome 1 Outputs to provide the Contractor with sufficient time to deliver the best quality products such as the institutional stakeholder strategy and the BMP and guidelines. A reasonable delivery date would be February 2022. |
| 4 | Complete the Biodiversity tracking Tool before the closure of the project. There is little point in doing the Capacity Score cards due to the time between the baseline assessment. |
| 5 | In the Segama River demonstration site, resources should be concentrated and consolidated where there is the most promise of demonstrating the benefits of mainstreaming. |
| 6 | UNDP should realistically review the co-financing commitments during the design phase of GEF projects against a range of criteria including realism and relevance to the project’s objective and develop a clear format for reporting co-financing during the project. Project expectations are hyper-inflated because of the co-financing and the responsibility for co-financing is diffuse within the exiting GEF project architecture. In-kind co-financing should not be earmarked to foundational components of any project, especially those poised for demonstration value; these should be adequately resourced through the core GEF grant. |
| 7 | GEF funded projects have become increasingly complex and sophisticated, especially those related to mainstreaming. Governance of renewable natural resources is at their core as they seek to address the inequalities and inefficiencies within the policy, regulatory and management landscape. Future programming should closely align GEF biodiversity projects with other programme areas to take advantage of synergies, a common purpose and resources94. Mainstreaming has a much longer time horizon than a single project cycle and project results need to be nested in continuous reform processes and mutually supporting other mainstreaming agendas. |