"PIMS 1044 BD FSP MDV Coral Reefs Conservation

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2008-2010, Maldives
Evaluation Type:
Project
Planned End Date:
09/2008
Completion Date:
09/2008
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
12,000
Lessons The Mid-Term Evaluation provides an opportunity to identify aspects of the project which have exemplified good or poor practice, and which may be useful as lessons for the future AEC project or other similar initiatives in Maldives and elsewhere. Project inception process A well-organized inception phase is essential for projects with characteristics similar to the Maldives AECP - complex, with a policy reform component, designed over a lengthy period, by people not responsible for the project's subsequent implementation or performance, in an administrative environment with acknowledged limited capacity for implementation. The AEC project was formulated over several years using two phases of Project Development Facility grants from the GEF, thorough expert analyses and an extensive in-country consultative process. The project brief was approved by the GEF in 2002; formal execution arrangements and funds, including significant co-financing as an integral part of the overall package, were organised by UNDP in early 2004; and mobilisation was starting in the months before the December 2004 tsunami that caused much damage and disruption in the country. The project launch and an inception workshop were held in July 2005. With this background, a more substantial project inception was warranted. Four objectives for inception can be identified: 1) It is important for the range of key stakeholders in the country to develop a shared understanding and "ownership" of the initiative - what the project is and is trying to achieve; its innovative nature; the changes it is aiming to facilitate; and the roles and inputs to be provided by each participant. The AEC project is introducing an innovative approach to conservation and sustainable development, which require significant changes in institutional arrangements among national and atoll-level institutions. All this should be made clear and any queries or doubts resolved as far as possible through the inc

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document AECP_MTE_Report+cover.doc report Posted 1177
Download document summary Posted 270
Download document AECP_MTE_Attachments_080929.doc tor Posted 3185
Title "PIMS 1044 BD FSP MDV Coral Reefs Conservation
Atlas Project Number:
Evaluation Plan: 2008-2010, Maldives
Evaluation Type: Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 09/2008
Planned End Date: 09/2008
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Crisis Prevention & Recovery
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
Evaluation Budget(US $): 12,000
Source of Funding:
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Peter Hunnam Team Leader
GEF Evaluation: Yes
Evaluation Type:
Focal Area:
Project Type:
GEF Phase: GEF-null
PIMS Number:
Key Stakeholders:
Countries: MALDIVES
Comments: While the Evaluation Status was marked as Pending (the box greyed out), the evaluation was completed as planned on September 2008.
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1 Recommendation 1. AEC vision, institutional mechanism and political profile 1.1 Given the challenge of introducing complex changes and the opportunity provided by the Reform Agenda, it is important to increase political and public understanding of what the AEC project is about; its political profile, position and recognition. This will require clearer definition, communication and political championing of the vision for atoll ecosystem-based conservation, and for the system or institutional mechanism that the project will help to set up, to operate such a program. 1.2 As a key first step, the project team should define the vision and specify the institutional mechanism for collaborative program management to be piloted on Baa. This should be done in close consultation with each of the key agencies that sit on the Project Steering Committee, which would also serve as a means to engage them fully in the AEC initiative. The vision and planned mechanism should anticipate and inform the local government reforms being introduced currently. 1.3 In order to get the message across, engage all relevant stakeholders and attract political champions, the vision should be visionary - clear, far-sighted, innovative - while also being appropriate and realistic for a new conservation strategy for Maldives. It would be very helpful to promote a visionary title for the initiative, such as "Baa Atoll Marine Park" or "Baa Atoll Biosphere Reserve", which people would understand, feel able to be part of, and therefore sustain and replicate. 1.4 The project management (PMU) and PSC should facilitate a high-level confirmation of the plan for establishing the AEC program and pilot mechanism over the remaining years of the AEC project. This could be in the form of a President's Office presentation on the vision, title and proposed system, once they are formed.
2 Recommendation 2. Logical framework and key planned outputs It would be very useful to revise the project logical framework (LF) into a tighter, clearer, more straightforward and easy-to-use plan and monitoring framework. This should be done in-house by the project team and key members of the WG/ PSC (see below), as an exercise in developing capacity. The LF should be focused more strongly on the key Outputs, rather than at the level of Outcomes or of Activities. The strategies (+LF indicators + targets + baseline) for implementing each component and achieving each Output should be planned carefully and communicated clearly. A summary of recommended changes to the AEC project design and logical framework is given in table 2.
1. Recommendation: Recommendation 1. AEC vision, institutional mechanism and political profile 1.1 Given the challenge of introducing complex changes and the opportunity provided by the Reform Agenda, it is important to increase political and public understanding of what the AEC project is about; its political profile, position and recognition. This will require clearer definition, communication and political championing of the vision for atoll ecosystem-based conservation, and for the system or institutional mechanism that the project will help to set up, to operate such a program. 1.2 As a key first step, the project team should define the vision and specify the institutional mechanism for collaborative program management to be piloted on Baa. This should be done in close consultation with each of the key agencies that sit on the Project Steering Committee, which would also serve as a means to engage them fully in the AEC initiative. The vision and planned mechanism should anticipate and inform the local government reforms being introduced currently. 1.3 In order to get the message across, engage all relevant stakeholders and attract political champions, the vision should be visionary - clear, far-sighted, innovative - while also being appropriate and realistic for a new conservation strategy for Maldives. It would be very helpful to promote a visionary title for the initiative, such as "Baa Atoll Marine Park" or "Baa Atoll Biosphere Reserve", which people would understand, feel able to be part of, and therefore sustain and replicate. 1.4 The project management (PMU) and PSC should facilitate a high-level confirmation of the plan for establishing the AEC program and pilot mechanism over the remaining years of the AEC project. This could be in the form of a President's Office presentation on the vision, title and proposed system, once they are formed.
Management Response: [Added: 2009/02/11]

1.1 Agree preparation of refreshed user-friendly vision and implementation strategy for the AEC project 1.2 Agree 1.3 Agree to ambitious Vision and title. We believe the Biosphere concept is more appropriate than that of a Marine Park 1.4 Agree to continue development towards a national policy for atoll ecosystem conservation with Baa as the model

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
1.1 Prepare Vision & Strategy Obtain support of PSC Champion the Vision 1.2 As above 1.3 Explore Biosphere implications, nationally and UNESCO Pursue nomination BR declaration 1.4 Draft policy paper Adopt policy
[Added: 2009/02/11]
PMU, NPD, MEEW, UNESCO No due date No deadline established
2. Recommendation: Recommendation 2. Logical framework and key planned outputs It would be very useful to revise the project logical framework (LF) into a tighter, clearer, more straightforward and easy-to-use plan and monitoring framework. This should be done in-house by the project team and key members of the WG/ PSC (see below), as an exercise in developing capacity. The LF should be focused more strongly on the key Outputs, rather than at the level of Outcomes or of Activities. The strategies (+LF indicators + targets + baseline) for implementing each component and achieving each Output should be planned carefully and communicated clearly. A summary of recommended changes to the AEC project design and logical framework is given in table 2.
Management Response: [Added: 2009/02/12]

Agreed

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Finalise LF Revision Review / Consult Approval
[Added: 2009/02/12]
PMU / PSC / TPR No due date No deadline established

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