International Waters Project

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2003-2007, Samoa
Evaluation Type:
Project
Planned End Date:
12/2006
Completion Date:
02/2007
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
73,489

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document IWP_TE_Edited.zip report English Posted 934
Title International Waters Project
Atlas Project Number:
Evaluation Plan: 2003-2007, Samoa
Evaluation Type: Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 02/2007
Planned End Date: 12/2006
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Crisis Prevention & Recovery
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021)
Evaluation Budget(US $): 73,489
Source of Funding:
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Nationality
Team Leader
GEF Evaluation: Yes
Evaluation Type:
Focal Area:
Project Type:
GEF Phase: GEF-null
PIMS Number:
Key Stakeholders:
Countries: SAMOA
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1 1: UNDP/GEF accept that although the OFM Project may not have addressed the identified root causes fully or exclusively, the benefits obtained through the activities undertaken, justify this departure and the Project has been very successful in strengthening the institutional framework, the knowledge base and the stakeholders capacity for managing this unique tuna resource which is of global significance.
2 2: UNDP/GEF confirm their support for a follow-up project as the best way of ensuring the sustainability of the benefits obtained from this Project
3 UNDP/GEF organize a GEF Workshop or series of workshops in the region, for GEF National Focal Points and others, to raise awareness and improved understanding of GEF processes, objectives, procedures and the GEF focus on global environmental benefits.
4 Future project planning should incorporate greater consideration for sustainability
5 Future project design must incorporate measures to increase the likelihood of success of the project
1. Recommendation: 1: UNDP/GEF accept that although the OFM Project may not have addressed the identified root causes fully or exclusively, the benefits obtained through the activities undertaken, justify this departure and the Project has been very successful in strengthening the institutional framework, the knowledge base and the stakeholders capacity for managing this unique tuna resource which is of global significance.
Management Response: [Added: 2008/03/12]

GEF/UNDP Samoa accept that the departure of the project from its initial goals was justifiable

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
As per recommendation
[Added: 2008/03/12]
GEF/UNDP Samoa 2007/12 Completed As per recommendation.
2. Recommendation: 2: UNDP/GEF confirm their support for a follow-up project as the best way of ensuring the sustainability of the benefits obtained from this Project
Management Response: [Added: 2008/03/12]

Follow up project under implementation under the UNDP Fiji Office.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
2.1. The follow-up project should be designed a. Great emphasis should be placed on the design of the follow-up project. The objectives, outputs and activities should address the root causes of the problems, and should be evident in a Logical Framework Matrix that includes objectively verifiable indicators b. The approach should be a participatory one involving as many as possible of the prospective stakeholders and beneficiaries at regional, government, private sector and community levels c. should include a strategy for monitoring and evaluation that depends on a feedback loop between those implementing the project and a project steering committee made up of knowledgeable individuals able to appreciate the issues being brought before them and provide the feedback, advice and direction necessary for the effective implementation of the project d. the prime benefit that should be targeted from the follow-up project is the framework, capacity and functioning of the proposed Tuna Com
[Added: 2008/03/12]
GEF/UNDP Samoa 2007/12 Completed The follow up full size project has been in operational since 2006. The full size project is executed by the Forum Fisheries Agency and managed by teh UNDP Fiji MCO.
2.2. Specific actions in the follow-up project should be included a. Fisheries management capacity at country level be enhanced for data collection and analysis, stock assessment, MCS and enforcement and the development and application of contemporary fisheries management tools, through a strategy that views capacity building and training as a continuing activity rather than a one-off exercise to overcome the problem of capacity retention b. Pacific Island countries that have adopted Tuna Management Plans and are having difficulties with implementation, be assisted to identify and address the barriers that are hindering implementation c. The regionally-based pool of expertise provided by the FFA and SPC should remain a cost-effective means of underpinning the implementation of an effective fisheries management framework, for the foreseeable future d. USP could be encouraged and supported to establish relevant programmes in fisheries science, oceanography, ecosystem management, fish
[Added: 2008/03/12]
UNDP GEF 2007/12 Completed These actions have been taken into consideration in the implementation of the full size OFM project.
3. Recommendation: UNDP/GEF organize a GEF Workshop or series of workshops in the region, for GEF National Focal Points and others, to raise awareness and improved understanding of GEF processes, objectives, procedures and the GEF focus on global environmental benefits.
Management Response: [Added: 2008/03/12]

This is already covered as part of the GEF Dialogue Workshops

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Plan series of workshops a. Raise awareness and understanding of GEF processes; b. Objectives; c. Procedures d. GEF focus on global environmental benefits
[Added: 2008/03/12] [Last Updated: 2009/04/22]
GEF/UNDP Samoa EEU 2007/12 Completed Awareness workshops on theGEF have been carried out as part of theGEF support mechanism used to managey by UNDP. However, due to current changes to GEF policies, these awareness activiteis are managed and executed by UNEP. Aat the project level, UNDP continues to raise awareness of GEF through project directly implemented and managed by UNDP.
4. Recommendation: Future project planning should incorporate greater consideration for sustainability
Management Response: [Added: 2008/03/12]

UNDP agrees that for new project to incorporate measures to ensure sustainability are considered during project design and implementation.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
1.1. More focus should be placed on ensuring sustainability of the project a. Future regional projects should continue to include sustainability strategies, but with a pre-agreed government commitment that it is responsibility of the National Task Force to commission, agree on and implement these strategies b. The mechanisms that governments need to use, including cabinet and parliamentary approvals of laws and policies, and feasible studies for future investments, should be anticipated early on, and planned accordingly.
[Added: 2008/03/12] [Last Updated: 2009/04/22]
PICs, SPREP & UNDP 2007/12 Completed Recommendation being considred under regional projects. This recommendation was shared at the Inception meeting for the new Pacific Islands Greenhouse Gas Abatement through Renewable Energy Project (PIGGAREP). The Inception meeting was held in November 2007.
1.2. The country reports produced are relevant to other regions and should be made accessible a. The reports, project briefs and communications information, including PIC-produced videos, should all be posted onto the SPREP web site and lodged in the reports database b. SPREP should facilitate continued information exchange on IWP issues (e.g. solid waste management, river basin management, coastal fisheries and sanitation)
[Added: 2008/03/12]
PIC & SPREP 2007/12 Completed All reports are availale on the SPREP IWP website (www.sprep.org) and have been widely distributed to countries and other partners.
1.3. SPREP should continue to provide technical and backstopping assistance a. SPREP should work directly with the participating countries to devise projects and feasibility studies that address the IWP topics nationally. b. SPREP should consider retaining a natural resources economist as part of its core staff, to sustain and build on the economic assessment efforts from IWP c. SPREP should assist PICs in linking the pilot project experience and country lessons back to SAP implementation d. SPREP should carry out an appraisal of the SAP, to investigate any significant revisions to the SAP document including objectives and milestones that member states can negotiate and than agree to achieve e. SPREP should now work with the GEF IW: LEARN staff to identify a subsection of reports and communications materials and should be posted to the IW: LEARN site, choose and produce a select number of project summaries and briefs for IW: LEARN to feature, and brainstorm additional mechanism fo
[Added: 2008/03/12] [Last Updated: 2009/04/22]
SPREP & GEF 2007/12 Completed SPREP continues to provide technical backstopping its member countries as part of its normal services to teh countries.
1.4. UNDP should consider how to include in the monitoring and evaluation program a "one-year later" assessment for future regional projects a. SPREP should discuss with UNDP whether a small follow-on exercise early in 2008 could be supported to consider the IWP legacy b. "one year later" assessments should follow up with participating countries to see how they have continued to build on the skills and lessons from the project.
[Added: 2008/03/12]
UNDP & SPREP 2007/12 Completed GEF does not conduct post evaluations and therefore this recommendation is unlikely to be implemented. UNDP does not have the resources to implement this recommendation either. However, there are other opportunities to explore possible avenues for follow up work in conjunction with other regioinal and national relevant programmes.
5. Recommendation: Future project design must incorporate measures to increase the likelihood of success of the project
Management Response: [Added: 2008/06/18]

Agree that success and lessons learnt to be incorporated into rpojects.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
2.1 Improve timings for new projects a. Ensure that community-based projects are planned to have a sufficient implementation period and that time taken for inception activities is minimised b. Individual countries should consider how they expect to benefit from projects and provide greater input at the planning stage, to delineate projects between countries. This would have enable selection of NCs with suitable technical background, a more rapid implementation, and more time available toward the later project stages to build follow on donor support for replication and national plan implementation
[Added: 2008/06/18] [Last Updated: 2009/04/22]
All units invovled in project formulation 2007/12 Completed This recommendation has been taken into consideration in the design of any new community based projects to be funded by UNDP under the new country programme 2008-2012.

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