Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Development Project (Cape Action People Environment, C.A.P.E.)

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2010-2010, South Africa
Evaluation Type:
Project
Planned End Date:
12/2010
Completion Date:
10/2010
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
32,162

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document TOR Terminal Evaluation CAPE BCSD final draft 18 Feb 2010.docx tor English 250.30 KB Posted 862
Download document CAPE Report ver03 200710.pdf report English 499.71 KB Posted 766
Title Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Development Project (Cape Action People Environment, C.A.P.E.)
Atlas Project Number:
Evaluation Plan: 2010-2010, South Africa
Evaluation Type: Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 10/2010
Planned End Date: 12/2010
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Environment & Sustainable Development
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
  • 1. Development plans and programmes integrate environmentally sustainable solutions in a manner that promotes poverty reduction, MDG achievement and low-emission climate-resilient development
  • 2. National and local governments and communities have the capacities to adapt to climate change and make inclusive and sustainable environment & energy decisions benefitting in particular under-served populations
Evaluation Budget(US $): 32,162
Source of Funding: GEF
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: Yes
  • Joint with South African Biodiversity Institute (SANBI), UNDP
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
PHILIP TORTELL Team Leader
GEF Evaluation: Yes
Evaluation Type:
Focal Area: Biodiversity
Project Type: EA
GEF Phase: GEF-1
PIMS Number:
Key Stakeholders: South African Government, UNDP
Countries: SOUTH AFRICA
Comments: The project ends in May 2010 and will evaluated by the end of 2010
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1 The project concept is basically sound ? a multi-faceted approach to create a foundation for the conservation of the Cape floristic resources. The timescale is reasonable (especially with the one year extension) and the budget seems adequate.
2 The project design has a primary focus on the root causes of the identified threats, addressing them more directly than the threats themselves. This is seen as an appropriate emphasis. The linkages between Immediate Objective 1 and its constituent components are not entirely clear. Furthermore, it is not usual to consider Project Management as a component within the project design linked to a single particular objective since its benefits accrue to the whole project. Project design is considered Moderately Satisfactory (MS) because while there are linkages between components, it has moderate shortcomings in its scope and structure and the degree of relevance of its components to its objectives. The weaknesses in project design became apparent during project implementation and led to a de facto restructuring of the project framework which was not formally recorded. For example, project targets such as public awareness and biodiversity mainstreaming ?migrated? from their respective Outputs/ Outcomes and activities were carried out under and through other components; sub-components of Outcome 4 grew beyond the dimensions indicated by the Outcome wording.
3 Project implementation and management: The high level of cooperation and partnerships was a noticeable feature of this project. However, one other very important ingredient in this auspicious situation was the CCU. The leadership, cohesion and professional skills displayed by the Coordination Unit were instrumental in the successful implementation of the project.
4 Project Coordination: The Evaluator wishes to acknowledge the full and thorough responses from the CCU to requests for data, information and analysis and finds that Project coordination has been effective and efficient and Highly Satisfactory (HS).
5 The role of Government: The Government has provided both the foundation and the context within which the BCSD project was planned and has been implemented. Through the direct involvement in project implementation by a number of Central Government and Provincial Government organizations, the Government has demonstrated full ownership of the BCSD project.
6 The role of World Bank and UNDP: As far as can be ascertained, management and control over financial operations has been carried out successfully by the World Bank and UNDP, the independent financial audits were commissioned and recruitment and contracting has been carried out in accordance with World Bank/UNDP/GEF procedures and rules. Progress reports, evaluation reports and annual financial reports have been posted on the project website and have been available publicly in the interest of transparency. The governance of the project was certainly complex and multi-layered, but from all accounts, it worked satisfactorily. It is rated overall as Highly Satisfactory (HS).
1. Recommendation: The project concept is basically sound ? a multi-faceted approach to create a foundation for the conservation of the Cape floristic resources. The timescale is reasonable (especially with the one year extension) and the budget seems adequate.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/12/15] [Last Updated: 2011/04/26]

Agree

Key Actions:

2. Recommendation: The project design has a primary focus on the root causes of the identified threats, addressing them more directly than the threats themselves. This is seen as an appropriate emphasis. The linkages between Immediate Objective 1 and its constituent components are not entirely clear. Furthermore, it is not usual to consider Project Management as a component within the project design linked to a single particular objective since its benefits accrue to the whole project. Project design is considered Moderately Satisfactory (MS) because while there are linkages between components, it has moderate shortcomings in its scope and structure and the degree of relevance of its components to its objectives. The weaknesses in project design became apparent during project implementation and led to a de facto restructuring of the project framework which was not formally recorded. For example, project targets such as public awareness and biodiversity mainstreaming ?migrated? from their respective Outputs/ Outcomes and activities were carried out under and through other components; sub-components of Outcome 4 grew beyond the dimensions indicated by the Outcome wording.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/12/15] [Last Updated: 2011/04/26]

Disagree with the finding that the project was restructured in an ad hoc manner without formal approval.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
All changes were noted at the twice-yearly supervision missions, where detailed feedback on all components was provided to both the UNDP and the WB, particularly in the inception years of the project. Aide Memoirs from these missions did not always accurately capture this level of detail. In addition, annual work plans and quarterly reports, which were prepared for each component and sub-component of the project, clearly outlined planned approaches, and were approved by World Bank and UNDP task managers periodically.
[Added: 2010/12/15] [Last Updated: 2011/04/26]
World Bank and UNDP task managers No due date No deadline established The reviewer?s comments that the project was iteratively restructured to enable elements of the project to be achieved in a cross-cutting manner are noted.
3. Recommendation: Project implementation and management: The high level of cooperation and partnerships was a noticeable feature of this project. However, one other very important ingredient in this auspicious situation was the CCU. The leadership, cohesion and professional skills displayed by the Coordination Unit were instrumental in the successful implementation of the project.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/12/15]

Agree

Key Actions:

4. Recommendation: Project Coordination: The Evaluator wishes to acknowledge the full and thorough responses from the CCU to requests for data, information and analysis and finds that Project coordination has been effective and efficient and Highly Satisfactory (HS).
Management Response: [Added: 2010/12/15]

Agree

Key Actions:

5. Recommendation: The role of Government: The Government has provided both the foundation and the context within which the BCSD project was planned and has been implemented. Through the direct involvement in project implementation by a number of Central Government and Provincial Government organizations, the Government has demonstrated full ownership of the BCSD project.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/12/15]

Agree

Key Actions:

6. Recommendation: The role of World Bank and UNDP: As far as can be ascertained, management and control over financial operations has been carried out successfully by the World Bank and UNDP, the independent financial audits were commissioned and recruitment and contracting has been carried out in accordance with World Bank/UNDP/GEF procedures and rules. Progress reports, evaluation reports and annual financial reports have been posted on the project website and have been available publicly in the interest of transparency. The governance of the project was certainly complex and multi-layered, but from all accounts, it worked satisfactorily. It is rated overall as Highly Satisfactory (HS).
Management Response: [Added: 2010/12/15]

Agree

Key Actions:

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