Mid Term Evaluation for Mainstreaming Biodiversity Project

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2007-2011, Seychelles
Evaluation Type:
Project
Planned End Date:
07/2011
Completion Date:
02/2012
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
20,000
Lessons Learned

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document Final Report of MTE for Seychelles MBD Project.doc report English 1075.00 KB Posted 1694
Download document Final TOR_MTE_3820 Seychelles Mainstreaming Biosecurity_CLEARED_170612.doc tor English 128.50 KB Posted 562
Download document Lessons Learned for BD MTE.docx summary English 14.24 KB Posted 642
Title Mid Term Evaluation for Mainstreaming Biodiversity Project
Atlas Project Number:
Evaluation Plan: 2007-2011, Seychelles
Evaluation Type: Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 02/2012
Planned End Date: 07/2011
Management Response: Yes
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
Evaluation Budget(US $): 20,000
Source of Funding: GEF
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Nigel Varty Team Leader
GEF Evaluation: Yes
Evaluation Type:
Focal Area:
Project Type:
GEF Phase: GEF-null
PIMS Number:
Key Stakeholders: Government of Seychelles
Countries: SEYCHELLES
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1 The MTE has evaluated the project as marginally satisfactory and concluded that a rating of satisfactory or highly satisfactory can be attained by the end of project evaluation.
2 The MTE described the original project design as too ambitious and established that the logframe contains unrealistic targets and does not contain SMART indicators. The MTE observation states that there was very limited revision of the logframe at the inception period which has constrained the assessment of project monitoring and limited success
3 The MTE stated that in practice the Project Steering Committee (PSC) does not exercise its rightful powers and is poorly attended by both government institutions and environmental non-governmental organisations (ENGOs).
4 The MTE pointed out that despite the very capable Project Team; there are two different groups with separate reporting arrangements which render it inefficient, creating gaps in knowledge and confusion. This has been stated to have had an adverse effect on the project delivery
5 Concerns about the overall capacity of the PCU, DoE and UNDP CO to implement the whole GoS/UNDP/GEF Portfolio were highlighted by interviewees. The MTE recommended that risk analysis under the project could be more profound and better documented.
6 The MTE pointed out that Project communication could be improved and mentioned there has been little promotion of the Project (it was added that there have been relatively few concrete results to disseminate to date). The MTE rated the Project website as poor.
7 In terms of stakeholder participation up to the MTE it was stated that there have been issues over the meaningful participation of the ENGO community in the Project (despite high co-financing) with tensions between some ENGOs and government over their involvement, and no formal written agreements providing details on the common activities between many project partners. MTE findings also concluded that Private sector engagement is not as high as expected. The MTE stipulated that information relating to the ENGO and private sector co-financing with specific Project activities needs to be clarified. Project expenditure was stated to be under-spent but largely due to delays beyond the control of the project
8 The MTE pointed out certain aspects of uncertainty relating to the long term sustainability of the project, such as the sustainable operation of the Praslin Fishers Association (PFA) and the databases to be established by the Department of Environment
9 Outcome 1 of the project was rated as satisfactory however was highlighted that the environmental database and biodiversity-associated database that will be used for data sharing with the Land Use Planning process have not been completed
10 The MTE rated the delivery on Outcome 2 of the project as Marginally Satisfactory, but likely to improve. Delivery for outcome 2 of the project has been perceived to be slow. A remark was made that the co-management model appears to be implausible by the end of the project and that the outcome target of the whole Mahé plateau under fisheries co-management will not be achieved
11 The MTE rated Outcome 3 of the project as Marginally Satisfactory but is likely to improve. It has been stated that delivery has been slow, but that the modus operandi of the Seychelles Sustainable Tourism Label (SSTL) is now progressing. The joint management system of ecologically sensitive areas in partnerships with the private tourism sector has also been perceived to be slow, with only two projects approved by the mid-term.
12 1.Revise indicators to make SMARTer, and especially relevant, and review their associated targets to make them more realistic (after which revise Tracking Tool entries completed for the MTE
13 2.The membership, role and ToR of the PSC should be reviewed with the aim of making it the principle oversight committee for the Project (taking on the role in the absence of a TPR), ensuring more ENGOs are able to participate, and the Chair of the PSC should also be reviewed with the possibility of Chair alternating between key stakeholder groups
14 3. Hold a formal, structured annual review of the project (attended by the UNDP CO staff, UNDP-GEF RTA) with full participation of the stakeholders
15 4. The management and reporting structure of the Project Team needs to be revised with ALL project staff reporting to just the Project Manager (and not the PCU Coordinator
16 5. Undertake an independent capacity analysis of the DoE, PCU and UNDP CO (focusing on the Seychelles office) in order to determine what is needed to ensure the MBD and other GEF projects in the PCU can be delivered effectively, efficiently and on time, and particularly what technical capacity is needed to sustain the ?biodiversity database? being created at the DoE .
17 6. Review salary and pay award structures for all staff to determine whether project staff salaries are truly line with equivalent private sector levels, including associated benefits such as separate pension provision and address as needed
18 7. UNDP and GoS to review training and capacity within the project team (and other UNDP-GEF projects within the PCU) and offer a structured capacity development plan (with discrete project funding) in the areas of project management, financial management and mainstreaming
19 8. Expand the Project?s Quarterly Reports to include sections covering an analysis of the problems encountered during the reporting period and how they were solved, along with monitoring of risks, and financial information (actual expenses against budget allocations over the 3-month period as an annex, broken down by output and outcome)
20 9. Carry out specific, structured, annual ?lessons learned? exercise, for the MBD Project that feeds into the APR/PIR process and is documented separately in the Project?s quarterly reports (this could be undertaken during an annual project retreat)
21 10. Develop a written Project Communication Strategy and Plan
22 11. Produce a 4-6 page illustrated quarterly newsletter of GEF projects at the PCU
23 12. Develop a ?media pack? of information on the MBD Project, its aims, activities and achievements to date, that can be sent to the press, radio stations, TV companies, etc, and update this every 3 months
24 13. Employ a specific member of staff (in a new position) as a PCU Communication Officer on at least a part-time basis, cost-shared among the UNDP-GEF projects
25 14. Review Project?s partnership arrangements and produce a specific Partnership Strategy document which builds on, expands and updates the framework of the existing stakeholder engagement plan in the Project Document
26 15. Host meeting with representatives of the ENGO community to explore how best to re-engage them in the Project, including issues relating to areas for shared activities, contracts for Project activities, co-financing, involvement in PSC, etc
27 16. The Project should present a statement on the co-financing provided by government, ENGOs and the private sector in the next PIR (for 2012) setting out the levels of co-financing for each partner and explain any variation in the amounts pledged in the co-financing letters submitted to GEF and current/future commitments
28 17. PCU Financial Manager should be given access rights to the financial data on the Atlas system (read only) and trained in its use, and the PM (and all other PM for the UNDP-GEF projects within the PCU) offered an opportunity to learn key features of the Atlas system if they wish.
29 18. Monitoring and evaluation costs for all demo sites should be built into the overall project M&E framework (not treated as part of the US$40,000 available for funding of individual demo projects (M&E should be treated separately) and project M&E framework should be revised to include these costs
30 19. Develop strategy and road map/plan for the development of the ?central environmental database? (CED) and its associated databases at the DoE that sets out what the database will be used for, what kind of information will be held by the database, and how it will link to other government databases, with a clear written policy on access to and use of the information held (especially public access)
31 20. Undertake an institutional, capacity (staffing, equipment, systems, technical, financial resources, etc) and training needs assessment of DoE?s ability to develop, populate and maintain the CED and associated databases over the next 5 years (to follow on from the development of the ?vision and road map? mentioned above
32 21. The contract of International Land Use Planning Coordinator should be extended until all the DLUPs are drafted and then approved by Cabinet
33 22.Establish a payment system to reimburse fishermen who travel for the meetings to develop the co-management plan, and award a small ?honorarium? for their participation to ensure all can attend irrespective of background and financial status
34 23. Employ an International Fisheries Co-management Consultant on a medium-term contract of 6-8 months in 2012-2013, with extended periods spent on Praslin
35 24. Appoint International Fisheries Co-management Consultant as temporary replacement Chair of PFCCC for specific meetings at which co-management plan is developed
36 25. Employ current Fisheries Officer on a short-term consultancy (2 months spread over 2012) as a ?Special Advisor? for development of the co-management plan and he will be holding a one-day training workshop for the fishermen on 14 July 2012.
37 26. Commission a study to determine the costs and benefits of introducing the SSTL for three hotels ? a small/guest house, medium- and large-sized hotel ? in Seychelles, to produce locally relevant figures and ?case studies? that can be used to demonstrate to the tourism sector the financial gains from the SSTL
38 27. STL Manager should be primarily managed by a line manager within the STB, and not largely by MBD Project staff (but the MTE recommends that should be a double reporting system as the MBD Project is funding her position
39 28.Extend MBD Project funding for SSTL Manager?s position to the first 2 years, instead of just one
40 29. Retain the Tourism Coordinator as a (paid) advisor to the SSTL Manager
41 30. Reduce target of 10 demonstration projects down to a maximum of five, although funding from the Project could be increased to a limit of US$60,000 per project (assuming matching co-financing), as there are significant number of existing similar projects (GEF project lacks innovation) and existing grants of US$40,000 are not attractive enough to private sector
42 31. Identify set of SMART indicators to enable measurement of achievement of the objectives of the Port Launay project, review and strengthen the indicators in the logframe for the Denis Island proposal and in all future projects funded under this scheme ensure each has a logframe with clearly defined (SMART) indicators that will be able to demonstrate project progress and achievement
43 32. Establish a separate line within the demo project budget specifically for project proposal development, available to proponents and that the availability of these funds is made clear in the next revision of the guidelines
44 33. Contract a short-term institutional/small business advisor to help develop a 5-year business strategy and plan for the PFA
45 34. Ensure that institutional development and support for the PFA be identified as a specific component of the Praslin near-shore artisanal fisheries co-management plan
46 35. Promote the adoption of ecological carrying capacity assessments for sites where tourism developments are planned in the revision of the EPA legislation and regulations
47 The EPA has taken into consideration to include carrying capacity studies, The first one has been undertaken for Cerf Island by two local consultants, facilitated by the BD project.
48 37. Approve an additional 12-month no-cost extension to the Project, so official closure will be 31 December 2014, to allow time for completion of Project activities
1. Recommendation: The MTE has evaluated the project as marginally satisfactory and concluded that a rating of satisfactory or highly satisfactory can be attained by the end of project evaluation.
Management Response: [Added: 2012/07/18]

The Project had a very slow start in 2008 as the Government and UNDP were establishing the Programme Coordination Unit for the first time in Seychelles to manage all GEF projects. The delays encountered initially were mostly due to recruitment problems. However, implementation of project activities has increased in the past 3 years up to the MTE. The Government and the Programme Coordination Unit and UNDP are fairly confident that with the MTE recommendations and the review of the log frame, as well as the project team in place, the project can achieve its targets and objectives at the final evaluation.

Key Actions:

2. Recommendation: The MTE described the original project design as too ambitious and established that the logframe contains unrealistic targets and does not contain SMART indicators. The MTE observation states that there was very limited revision of the logframe at the inception period which has constrained the assessment of project monitoring and limited success
Management Response: [Added: 2012/07/18]

The UNDP CO and project team concur with the MTE findings that some of the targets and indicators from the original design of the project were not realistic and over-ambitious and some will not be attainable by the end of the project. The Project Coordination Unit and UNDP agree to review the log frame (targets and indicators) for the remaining project cycle. This will be carried out at the level of the PCU, the UNDP-GEF Region-based Technical Advisor (RTA) and the UNDP Country Office. The results should be endorsed by the Steering Committee (SC).

Key Actions:

3. Recommendation: The MTE stated that in practice the Project Steering Committee (PSC) does not exercise its rightful powers and is poorly attended by both government institutions and environmental non-governmental organisations (ENGOs).
Management Response: [Added: 2012/07/18] [Last Updated: 2014/01/24]

Efforts were made to encourage maximum participation from all members of the SC and marked improvements have been observed; attendance of SCMs during 2013 was satisfactory. The National Project Director will review the memberships of the Steering Committee and the ENGOs participation.

Key Actions:

4. Recommendation: The MTE pointed out that despite the very capable Project Team; there are two different groups with separate reporting arrangements which render it inefficient, creating gaps in knowledge and confusion. This has been stated to have had an adverse effect on the project delivery
Management Response: [Added: 2012/07/18]

The reporting situation has been resolved with the recruitment in December of the new Project Manager who oversees all the technical staff under the project and reports directly to the PCU Coordinator.

Key Actions:

5. Recommendation: Concerns about the overall capacity of the PCU, DoE and UNDP CO to implement the whole GoS/UNDP/GEF Portfolio were highlighted by interviewees. The MTE recommended that risk analysis under the project could be more profound and better documented.
Management Response: [Added: 2012/07/18]

The project will continue to undertake analyses to tackle issues of capacity weakness at the institutional level and capacity deficits at the systemic level. Training will be provided to close the gaps and minimise the risks for the project. More in-depth risk analyses can be conducted on a quarterly basis and lessons learnt will be reviewed regularly to resolve any matters within the operational control of the project team.

Key Actions:

6. Recommendation: The MTE pointed out that Project communication could be improved and mentioned there has been little promotion of the Project (it was added that there have been relatively few concrete results to disseminate to date). The MTE rated the Project website as poor.
Management Response: [Added: 2012/07/18]

The PCU website is presently being redesigned and revamped and although it will be for all projects being managed by the PCU its contents and layout will be such that each of the projects can be easily identified with by all stakeholders, project partners and the general public. Other means of promoting the project such as newsletters, brochures and local media coverage are being used on a continuous basis as and when the various activities are undertaken. One brochure has already been produced for all the GEF projects in Seychelles

Key Actions:

7. Recommendation: In terms of stakeholder participation up to the MTE it was stated that there have been issues over the meaningful participation of the ENGO community in the Project (despite high co-financing) with tensions between some ENGOs and government over their involvement, and no formal written agreements providing details on the common activities between many project partners. MTE findings also concluded that Private sector engagement is not as high as expected. The MTE stipulated that information relating to the ENGO and private sector co-financing with specific Project activities needs to be clarified. Project expenditure was stated to be under-spent but largely due to delays beyond the control of the project
Management Response: [Added: 2012/07/18]

A number of ENGOs are represented on the Steering Committee either as members or as observers and they participate actively in the Project?s activities. Only 1, specific ENGO does not participate in the activities of the project. The PCU issues invitations to all ENGOs and project partners for all its activities on a regular basis. The issue of co-financing commitments made at the preparation phase and confirmed during the inception phase of the project ? and whether these will be indeed met by the end of the project ? needs to be addressed and an exercise to revisit all project partners for one-on-one discussions on co-financing commitments is planned for April to June 2012 in time for the 2012 PIR. Else, the recommendation made by the MTE on splitting the PSC to have a separate PSC for the Biosecurity Project is not feasible given human resource constraints in the Seychelles

Key Actions:

8. Recommendation: The MTE pointed out certain aspects of uncertainty relating to the long term sustainability of the project, such as the sustainable operation of the Praslin Fishers Association (PFA) and the databases to be established by the Department of Environment
Management Response: [Added: 2012/07/18] [Last Updated: 2014/01/24]

The future sustainability of the Praslin Fishers Association has been a point of concern and the necessary steps are being taken to give them the right tools. The engagement of SFA with regards to the co-management project and the revision of the fisheries legislation are pluses, but it can only work with the cooperation of the fishermen. During late 2013, there has been considerable progress in the activities under the three outputs of the project since the last PIR 2011, in particular the signature of the co-management plan for the Praslin fisheries.

Key Actions:

9. Recommendation: Outcome 1 of the project was rated as satisfactory however was highlighted that the environmental database and biodiversity-associated database that will be used for data sharing with the Land Use Planning process have not been completed
Management Response: [Added: 2012/07/18]

The development of the environment database is well underway and a demo presentation is expected during the first week of April. The Department of Environment has committed the recruitment of additional relevant personnel for the update and maintenance of the database. There has been progress to establish the central environmental database and there have been synergies between various stakeholders to finalise the Geo-database and links to other databases.

Key Actions:

10. Recommendation: The MTE rated the delivery on Outcome 2 of the project as Marginally Satisfactory, but likely to improve. Delivery for outcome 2 of the project has been perceived to be slow. A remark was made that the co-management model appears to be implausible by the end of the project and that the outcome target of the whole Mahé plateau under fisheries co-management will not be achieved
Management Response: [Added: 2012/07/18] [Last Updated: 2014/01/24]

There are a number of activities to be undertaken in 2012 that will bring more results and achievements under all three outcomes. This will include the forthcoming co-management plans for artisanal fishery on the near shores of the Island of Praslin and a more effective administration and sustainable financing of the association and committee set up under outcome 2 of the project. The outcome target related to the whole Mahe plateau is being addressed in 2014 through supporting SFA in the further development of an overall strategic management plan for the entire area.

Key Actions:

11. Recommendation: The MTE rated Outcome 3 of the project as Marginally Satisfactory but is likely to improve. It has been stated that delivery has been slow, but that the modus operandi of the Seychelles Sustainable Tourism Label (SSTL) is now progressing. The joint management system of ecologically sensitive areas in partnerships with the private tourism sector has also been perceived to be slow, with only two projects approved by the mid-term.
Management Response: [Added: 2012/07/18]

There has been considerable progress for Outcome 3 which includes the completed Business and Marketing, Implementation plan for the Seychelles Sustainable Tourism Label and a group of identified potential assessors to assist with assessing the sustainability of tourism establishment practices in Seychelles.

Key Actions:

12. Recommendation: 1.Revise indicators to make SMARTer, and especially relevant, and review their associated targets to make them more realistic (after which revise Tracking Tool entries completed for the MTE
Management Response: [Added: 2012/07/18]

Logframe will be revised by the PCU/DOE with inputs from UNDP and the RTA . This will be validated by the Steering Committee .

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Revise Logframe. Organize validation workshop/ Steering Committee meeting to review and approve new Logframe
[Added: 2012/07/18] [Last Updated: 2013/12/18]
UNDP-GEF RTA, UNDP CO. DOE/PCU CTA 2012/11 Completed Project Log Frame revised and apporoved in December 2012 by the Steering Committee. No further actions required
13. Recommendation: 2.The membership, role and ToR of the PSC should be reviewed with the aim of making it the principle oversight committee for the Project (taking on the role in the absence of a TPR), ensuring more ENGOs are able to participate, and the Chair of the PSC should also be reviewed with the possibility of Chair alternating between key stakeholder groups
Management Response: [Added: 2012/07/18]

The membership of the SC will be reviewed. However the National Project Director rests with the department of Environment as per the project agreement, and as such the Chair will remain with the National Project Director

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Rotate membership on the SC for the project as necessary to ensure wider participation. Department of Environment to table the membership matter at the next SC meeting and propose rotation of new members.
[Added: 2012/07/18] [Last Updated: 2014/01/24]
Department of Environment PCU 2012/08 Completed Membership has changed and new agencies are now members of the SC. To be noted that the ENGOs do not always take part even when invited to the SC meetings,
14. Recommendation: 3. Hold a formal, structured annual review of the project (attended by the UNDP CO staff, UNDP-GEF RTA) with full participation of the stakeholders
Management Response: [Added: 2012/07/18]

Agreed. Tripartite Review Meetings are held as and when possible. However, an annual Tripartite Review which will comprise of an extended SC meeting will be organized once or twice a year during the mission of the RTA and the UNDP country office.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Tripartite Review Meetings are held as and when possible. However, an annual Tripartite Review which will comprise of an extended SC meeting will be organized once or twice a year during the mission of the RTA and the UNDP country office.
[Added: 2012/07/18] [Last Updated: 2013/12/18]
GEF RTA UNDP CO PCU DOE 2013/01 Completed Tripartite Review Meetings have been held when RTA and UNDP PM is in the country although the visit of the RTA is less frequent. The UNDP Programme Manager reviews the project with the PCU on a quarterly basis and meetings held with the Ministry of Environment. the UNDP participates in all Steering Committee Meetings.
15. Recommendation: 4. The management and reporting structure of the Project Team needs to be revised with ALL project staff reporting to just the Project Manager (and not the PCU Coordinator
Management Response: [Added: 2012/07/18]

Agreed. New lines of reporting will be established.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
New lines of reporting defined in the organogram of the PCU and the Project for the Mainstreaming Project.
[Added: 2012/07/18]
PCU 2012/03 Completed Completed
16. Recommendation: 5. Undertake an independent capacity analysis of the DoE, PCU and UNDP CO (focusing on the Seychelles office) in order to determine what is needed to ensure the MBD and other GEF projects in the PCU can be delivered effectively, efficiently and on time, and particularly what technical capacity is needed to sustain the ?biodiversity database? being created at the DoE .
Management Response: [Added: 2012/07/18]

UNDP country office is already strengthening its substantive capacity in Seychelles with the establishment of a stronger presence in Seychelles. The capacity assessment of the Department of Environment does not fall within the purview of this project. However, capacity constraints at the national level are being addressed through the Capacity Development Plan.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
UNDP to increase its presence in the field in to boost oversight functions and support of the PCU. DOE to strengthen the PCU functions and staffing as required through a sustained and structured capacity building programme
[Added: 2012/07/18] [Last Updated: 2013/12/18]
UNDP CO PCU DOE 2012/12 Completed The UNDP presence in Seychelles has strengthened with the replacement of the departed Project Officer for almost 2 years now. Furthermore the UNDP Programme Manager undertake more frequent and longer mission to Seychelles to suport the PCU. The Ministry have strengthened the PCU with a new International CTA, a new Communications Officer, and also the Finance Section has been strengthened with a Finance Assistant.
17. Recommendation: 6. Review salary and pay award structures for all staff to determine whether project staff salaries are truly line with equivalent private sector levels, including associated benefits such as separate pension provision and address as needed
Management Response: [Added: 2012/07/18]

PCU salary structure is in line with the national salary structure set by the Department of Public Administration for contractual works. All PCU staff are under contracts issued by the Environment Divisions. Following the economic restructuring, the scale was adjusted to take into consideration the new cost of living and the devaluation of the local currency

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
A new scale will be considered at the appropriate time
[Added: 2012/07/18] [Last Updated: 2014/01/24]
DOE/PCU 2013/05 Completed A New Scheme of service and Salary Scale for the PCU, desegragated from the DPA, is now approved and being implemented (with effect from late 2013).
18. Recommendation: 7. UNDP and GoS to review training and capacity within the project team (and other UNDP-GEF projects within the PCU) and offer a structured capacity development plan (with discrete project funding) in the areas of project management, financial management and mainstreaming
Management Response: [Added: 2012/07/18]

Capacity building activities will be offered to the PCU staff on a regular basis. UNDP carried out RBM training for all project managers and PCU staff in 2011.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
A follow-up training will be organized in 2012 on results based management
[Added: 2012/07/18] [Last Updated: 2013/12/18]
PCU/UNDP 2013/02 Completed Training completed by UNDp Programme Manager. Possibility for further traning as part of ongoing capacity bulding will be organised in 2014.
19. Recommendation: 8. Expand the Project?s Quarterly Reports to include sections covering an analysis of the problems encountered during the reporting period and how they were solved, along with monitoring of risks, and financial information (actual expenses against budget allocations over the 3-month period as an annex, broken down by output and outcome)
Management Response: [Added: 2012/07/18]

UNDP agrees to review the existing Progress Report template with the PCU to include sections of problems encountered and possible solutions. Furthermore, the Progress Reports will be discussed in more detail at the Steering Committee meeting

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Review of the Quarterly Progress Report Format to capture implementation constraints. New template to be used for future quarters as of Q2 -2012
[Added: 2012/07/18] [Last Updated: 2014/01/24]
PCU UNDP RCU 2013/05 Completed The new CTA and the UNDP PM reviewed the previous QR format and designed a new one which feeds in well with the PIR format. This is being used now for all Progress Reports by the PCU with effect from early 2013.
20. Recommendation: 9. Carry out specific, structured, annual ?lessons learned? exercise, for the MBD Project that feeds into the APR/PIR process and is documented separately in the Project?s quarterly reports (this could be undertaken during an annual project retreat)
Management Response: [Added: 2012/07/18]

Agreed. MTE recommendations already captured in progress Reports and recommendations to be implemented gradually

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
MTE recommendations already captured in progress Reports and recommendations to be implemented gradually
[Added: 2012/07/18] [Last Updated: 2013/12/18]
PCU/DOE/UNDP 2013/06 Completed All MTE recommendations have been implemented.
21. Recommendation: 10. Develop a written Project Communication Strategy and Plan
Management Response: [Added: 2012/07/18]

Local consultant to be recruited to develop a Communications Strategy and Plan for all PCU projects.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Local consultant to be recruited to develop a Communications Strategy and Plan for all PCU projects
[Added: 2012/07/18] [Last Updated: 2014/01/24]
PCU/DOE 2013/06 Completed A communications and awareness strategy for the PCU (encompassing all projects) has been developed by the PCU Communications Officer in late 2013, and will be revised and implemented from early 2014.
22. Recommendation: 11. Produce a 4-6 page illustrated quarterly newsletter of GEF projects at the PCU
Management Response: [Added: 2012/07/18]

Agreed. PCU will recruit a communications persom to produce all communications and information and promotional materials for all the GEF and environment projects handled by the PCU. PCU will develop TOR for recruitment of communications officer

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
PCU will recruit a Communications Offiocer who will be responsible to implement the recommendations related to communications and awareness and public participation
[Added: 2012/07/18] [Last Updated: 2014/01/24]
PCU/DOE 2013/12 Completed Communications Officer started working at the PCU in December 2012. A regular newsletter is now being produced for PCU and also UN in Seychelles which captures UNDP and other agencies work.
23. Recommendation: 12. Develop a ?media pack? of information on the MBD Project, its aims, activities and achievements to date, that can be sent to the press, radio stations, TV companies, etc, and update this every 3 months
Management Response: [Added: 2012/07/18]

The PCU is presently working with the press to ensure that the manner in which information on the various activities are disseminated are clear and accurate under each of the projects managed by the PCU. As at #11 above

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
TOR being developed to recruit new Communications Officer
[Added: 2012/07/18] [Last Updated: 2013/12/18]
PCU/DOE 2012/12 Completed New communications working on media and awareness materials since she has started.
24. Recommendation: 13. Employ a specific member of staff (in a new position) as a PCU Communication Officer on at least a part-time basis, cost-shared among the UNDP-GEF projects
Management Response: [Added: 2012/07/18]

As per #11 and #12 above, this is in process of being implemented. PCU will take steps to recruit communications person

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
as per recommendations 11 and 12 above, the PCU recruit a communications Officer
[Added: 2012/07/18] [Last Updated: 2013/12/18]
PCU/DOE 2012/12 Completed as per 24 above. new Communications Officer started in her new posotion in December 2012
25. Recommendation: 14. Review Project?s partnership arrangements and produce a specific Partnership Strategy document which builds on, expands and updates the framework of the existing stakeholder engagement plan in the Project Document
Management Response: [Added: 2012/07/18]

Existing arrangement is adequate but the PSC needs to assess the causes of inadequate participation of project stakeholders as was foreseen in the project document. The restructuring has revised mandates of existing institutions and there is a need to relook at the partnership strategy in details.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Existing arrangement needs to be revised in light of institutional changes that has taken place since 2009 with the macro economic reform and public sector reforms.
[Added: 2012/07/18] [Last Updated: 2013/12/18]
DOE/PCU 2012/12 No Longer Applicable The restructuring has created new institutions and now as matters have settled the SC memberships has been revamped. partnership with stakeholders is not functioning well. no further actions required.
26. Recommendation: 15. Host meeting with representatives of the ENGO community to explore how best to re-engage them in the Project, including issues relating to areas for shared activities, contracts for Project activities, co-financing, involvement in PSC, etc
Management Response: [Added: 2012/07/18]

Agreed. PCU and Environment needs to engage the ENGOs by exploring the reasons for their limited participation in the project

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
DOE will undertake discussions with ENGOs
[Added: 2012/07/18] [Last Updated: 2013/12/18]
PCU/DOE 2012/12 Completed Meetings held with the ENGOs as part of the MBD and the PA project. several of the NGOs are now bidding for the tourism component and have been successful.
27. Recommendation: 16. The Project should present a statement on the co-financing provided by government, ENGOs and the private sector in the next PIR (for 2012) setting out the levels of co-financing for each partner and explain any variation in the amounts pledged in the co-financing letters submitted to GEF and current/future commitments
Management Response: [Added: 2012/07/18]

All co-financing are captured as per the requirements of the PIRs

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
PCU, in particular through the new project manager, will re-engage with each of the partners on their co-financing and status will be updated in the next PIR. All co-financing letters provided by UNDP top the PCU
[Added: 2012/07/18] [Last Updated: 2013/12/18]
PCU/DOE/UNDP 2012/09 Completed PIR captures the co-financing each year. the PM emngages with the project partners for to obtain co-financing status.
28. Recommendation: 17. PCU Financial Manager should be given access rights to the financial data on the Atlas system (read only) and trained in its use, and the PM (and all other PM for the UNDP-GEF projects within the PCU) offered an opportunity to learn key features of the Atlas system if they wish.
Management Response: [Added: 2012/07/18]

Finance Manager has been trained on reading ATLAS reports

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Further training and access provided to Finance Manager. Training carried out in 2012 and also in 2014 by UNDP Programme Manager to Finance Unit of PCU
[Added: 2012/07/18] [Last Updated: 2014/12/15]
UNDP/PCU/DOE 2014/06 Completed PCU Finance Manager and Assistant have access to ATLAS
29. Recommendation: 18. Monitoring and evaluation costs for all demo sites should be built into the overall project M&E framework (not treated as part of the US$40,000 available for funding of individual demo projects (M&E should be treated separately) and project M&E framework should be revised to include these costs
Management Response: [Added: 2012/07/18]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
PCU will revise the AWP to reflect this in the budget
[Added: 2012/07/18] [Last Updated: 2013/12/18]
PCU/DOE 2012/11 Completed AWP revised and M & E reflected as per recommendations
30. Recommendation: 19. Develop strategy and road map/plan for the development of the ?central environmental database? (CED) and its associated databases at the DoE that sets out what the database will be used for, what kind of information will be held by the database, and how it will link to other government databases, with a clear written policy on access to and use of the information held (especially public access)
Management Response: [Added: 2012/07/18]

A roadmap has already been developed through the consultancy under the CB2 and Biodiversity projects to further develop the database for the environmental indicators which allows for storing of data and information from various units under the DoE. The database has been widen to allow for storage of additional environmental protection and biodiversity conservation data. The scope of this database has been extended to store environmentally related information that is created by the NGOs working in the field of environmental protection and conservation

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
This consultancy will facilitate the maintenance and access to relevant environment / biodiversity data, provide a manual and basic training on the use of the database to a selected number of personnel within DOE
[Added: 2012/07/18] [Last Updated: 2014/12/15]
PCU/DOE 2014/12 Completed The Environmemntal database depends on a number of projects and the main one being the CB2 project. work is ongoing for the completion of the meta-database at Environment. A strategic assessment of database content and means of populating and managing the database will be held in early 2014 under the NBSAP project (related to establishment of a CHM) and the full database will be completed by end of 2014.
31. Recommendation: 20. Undertake an institutional, capacity (staffing, equipment, systems, technical, financial resources, etc) and training needs assessment of DoE?s ability to develop, populate and maintain the CED and associated databases over the next 5 years (to follow on from the development of the ?vision and road map? mentioned above
Management Response: [Added: 2012/07/18]

Agreed. Addressed as at Rec #20 above

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Completion September 2012
[Added: 2012/07/18] [Last Updated: 2014/01/24]
PCU/DOE 2013/05 Completed Part of the activities under the NCSA follow up assesed the capacity of the Unit managing the central Environment Database. this has been undertaken and needs identified. The incoming Outer Islands project will provide specific needed human resources support to the database unit.
32. Recommendation: 21. The contract of International Land Use Planning Coordinator should be extended until all the DLUPs are drafted and then approved by Cabinet
Management Response: [Added: 2012/07/18]

The Project cannot afford to extend the LUP contract until all LUPs are approved by Cabinet of Ministers as the schedule for Cabinet to approve such documents is beyond the control of the Project and UNDP. However, the recommendation to extend the contract until all LUPs are completed is noted

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The contract for the LUP coordinator has already been extended until December 2012. Approximately 18 out of the forecasted 25 Land Use Plans would be drafted for Cabinet approval by the end of 2012. This delay has been brought about by the International Company?s delayed submission of the aerial photographs that would have facilitated the work of the LUP coordinator. This delay is beyond the control of the project stakeholders and partners in Seychelles.
[Added: 2012/07/18] [Last Updated: 2014/01/24]
PCU/UNDP 2011/11 Completed Completed for extension of Contract (Nov 2012). Note: a further extension in 2013 allowed the LUP Coordinator to participate in fanal drafting of all the LUPs and a collective national LUP which are being finalized for submission to cabinet in early 2014.
33. Recommendation: 22.Establish a payment system to reimburse fishermen who travel for the meetings to develop the co-management plan, and award a small ?honorarium? for their participation to ensure all can attend irrespective of background and financial status
Management Response: [Added: 2012/07/18]

Agreed. The Seychelles Fishing Authority has conceded to provide SCR300 remuneration to the fishermen who are members of the Praslin Fishery Co-management Coordinating Committee (PFCCC) and who attends the PFCCC meetings. The payment system will reimburse the fishermen for the past 6 meetings held and will provide for future meetings

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
payment system already agreed with SFA and the PFA
[Added: 2012/07/18]
SFA/PCU 2012/06 Completed agreement already reached on payments with SFA.
34. Recommendation: 23. Employ an International Fisheries Co-management Consultant on a medium-term contract of 6-8 months in 2012-2013, with extended periods spent on Praslin
Management Response: [Added: 2012/07/18]

The recruitment of the international consultant was already planned

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The international consultant for the Fishery Co-Management consultancy has been recruited and is currently in Seychelles on a 40-day mission to consult stakeholders prior to drafting the co-management plan. Largely owing to his extensive experience working as a fisheries consultant, he can draft the co-management plan within the 40 days allocated for the consultancy.
[Added: 2012/07/18]
PCU/DOE 2012/05 Completed
35. Recommendation: 24. Appoint International Fisheries Co-management Consultant as temporary replacement Chair of PFCCC for specific meetings at which co-management plan is developed
Management Response: [Added: 2012/07/18]

The international Consultant for the Fisheries Co-Management has already coordinated all meetings / workshops during which he was consulting the fishermen and other stakeholders,

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The Consultant cannot be chair of the PFCCC as there is enough local capacity to undertake that role. The Consultant participates in the meetings as an advisor but not as Chair. That would defeat the purpose of local ownership.
[Added: 2012/07/18]
PCU/DOE 2012/05 Completed Consultant already recruited
36. Recommendation: 25. Employ current Fisheries Officer on a short-term consultancy (2 months spread over 2012) as a ?Special Advisor? for development of the co-management plan and he will be holding a one-day training workshop for the fishermen on 14 July 2012.
Management Response: [Added: 2012/07/18]

The fisheries adviser has been recruited for a period of one year and he acts as the adviser to all the relevant stakeholders under outcome 2 of this project.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The Fisheries advisor already recruited full time on a yearly contract
[Added: 2012/07/18]
PCU/DOE 2012/05 Completed Advisor recruited on 1 year contract
37. Recommendation: 26. Commission a study to determine the costs and benefits of introducing the SSTL for three hotels ? a small/guest house, medium- and large-sized hotel ? in Seychelles, to produce locally relevant figures and ?case studies? that can be used to demonstrate to the tourism sector the financial gains from the SSTL
Management Response: [Added: 2012/07/18]

Noted. A pilot study has been undertaken at three tourism establishments to test the practicality of the scoring system for the SSTL and the scores has been reviewed following recommendations from the reports made. A study to determine the costs and benefits will be considered by the secretariat.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Pilot study will be carried out
[Added: 2012/07/18] [Last Updated: 2013/12/18]
PCT/STB 2012/12 Completed pilot study completed and STB now engaging new establishments and operators to join the scheme.
38. Recommendation: 27. STL Manager should be primarily managed by a line manager within the STB, and not largely by MBD Project staff (but the MTE recommends that should be a double reporting system as the MBD Project is funding her position
Management Response: [Added: 2012/07/18]

The SSTL secretariat is already managed by the SSTL manager whose contract with the PCU started on 1st September 2011 for the duration of 16 months, ending on 31st December 2012, after which the STB will recruit her as a line manager of their institution.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Extension of Contract effected
[Added: 2012/07/18] [Last Updated: 2014/01/24]
PCU/STB 2012/02 Completed No further action needed
39. Recommendation: 28.Extend MBD Project funding for SSTL Manager?s position to the first 2 years, instead of just one
Management Response: [Added: 2012/07/18]

The STB has already claimed ownership of the label and the SSTL manager will be placed onto their payroll system as of 2013

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
extension effected
[Added: 2012/07/18] [Last Updated: 2014/01/24]
STB/PCU 2012/02 Completed No further action needed
40. Recommendation: 29. Retain the Tourism Coordinator as a (paid) advisor to the SSTL Manager
Management Response: [Added: 2012/07/18]

The Tourism Coordinator has resigned and the Project Manager BD is overseeing to the full implementation of the tourism component of the BD project, in partnership with the SSTL secretariat of the STB

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
No additional actions required
[Added: 2012/07/18] [Last Updated: 2014/01/24]
PCU/DOE 2012/01 Completed No action required
41. Recommendation: 30. Reduce target of 10 demonstration projects down to a maximum of five, although funding from the Project could be increased to a limit of US$60,000 per project (assuming matching co-financing), as there are significant number of existing similar projects (GEF project lacks innovation) and existing grants of US$40,000 are not attractive enough to private sector
Management Response: [Added: 2012/07/18]

Noted. However the Project will maintain the ceiling of USD40,000

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The Tourism advisor services is no longer required as the SSTL has been successfully established and is now about to open application to the hotels. The project manager oversees to all the activities under outcome 3.
[Added: 2012/07/18] [Last Updated: 2014/12/15]
STB/PCU 2014/12 Completed As of end 2013 seven grants has been awarded, each of $40,000. Ten will be achieved by end of 2014. target does not need to be reduced
42. Recommendation: 31. Identify set of SMART indicators to enable measurement of achievement of the objectives of the Port Launay project, review and strengthen the indicators in the logframe for the Denis Island proposal and in all future projects funded under this scheme ensure each has a logframe with clearly defined (SMART) indicators that will be able to demonstrate project progress and achievement
Management Response: [Added: 2012/07/18]

The number of demonstration sites that can be achieved by the end of the project cycle will be determined during the revision of the logframe of the Biodiversity project

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
One additional demo site project has already been endorsed and will commence in July 2012, making a total of three for the third quarter of 2012. The project will increase the number of site gradually over the remainder of the project.
[Added: 2012/07/18] [Last Updated: 2014/01/24]
STB/PCU 2012/12 Completed Site now increased with new NGOs and hotels joining the scheme in 2012 and in 2013. Seven grants now awarded with three more in the pipeline.
43. Recommendation: 32. Establish a separate line within the demo project budget specifically for project proposal development, available to proponents and that the availability of these funds is made clear in the next revision of the guidelines
Management Response: [Added: 2012/07/18]

The project has successfully recruited a consultant to further develop project proposals as submitted by the tourism operators, and this is a practice that will continue throughout the duration of the BD project.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The project has successfully recruited a consultant to further develop project proposals as submitted by the tourism operators, and this is a practice that will continue throughout the duration of the BD project.
[Added: 2012/07/19] [Last Updated: 2014/01/24]
PCU/DOE 2012/05 Completed A consultant was recruited and helped with the proposals during the first round. Second and third round proposals were developed by the applicants (ENGOs) using a template provided by PCU and did so to a good standard - not requiring additional consultant support.
44. Recommendation: 33. Contract a short-term institutional/small business advisor to help develop a 5-year business strategy and plan for the PFA
Management Response: [Added: 2012/07/18]

A consultant has been recruited and is currently developing a sustainable Financing plan for PFA/PFCCC

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
A consultant has been recruited and is currently developing a sustainable Financing plan for PFA/PFCCC
[Added: 2012/07/19] [Last Updated: 2014/01/24]
PCU/DOE 2012/12 Completed Financing Plan completed for the PFA as well as Management Plan. However, the plan is being further reviewed during 2014 to take into account comments from the PFA on its practicality.
45. Recommendation: 34. Ensure that institutional development and support for the PFA be identified as a specific component of the Praslin near-shore artisanal fisheries co-management plan
Management Response: [Added: 2012/07/18]

The PFA/PFCCC has the institutional support of the Seychelles Fishing Authority and will benefit from having their Standard Operational Procedure, Sustainable Financing plan for PFA/PFCCC and Fisheries Co-management plan that will all be completed in July 2012.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The PFA/PFCCC has the institutional support of the Seychelles Fishing Authority and will benefit from having their Standard Operational Procedure, Sustainable Financing plan for PFA/PFCCC and Fisheries Co-management plan that will all be completed in July 2012.
[Added: 2012/07/19] [Last Updated: 2014/01/24]
PCU/DOE 2012/10 Completed The Co-management Plan has been signed between the Ministry of Natural Resources (including SFA) and PFCCC (encompassing the PFA). Support has been provided throughout the project and will continue in 2014.
46. Recommendation: 35. Promote the adoption of ecological carrying capacity assessments for sites where tourism developments are planned in the revision of the EPA legislation and regulations
Management Response: [Added: 2012/07/18]

The EPA has taken into consideration to include carrying capacity studies, The first one has been undertaken for Cerf Island by two local consultants, facilitated by the BD project.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The EPA has taken into consideration to include carrying capacity studies, The first one has been undertaken for Cerf Island by two local consultants, facilitated by the BD project.
[Added: 2012/07/19] [Last Updated: 2013/12/19]
PCU/STB 2013/07 Completed this has been taken into consideration for new carrying capacity studies undertaken on la Digue, and on Mahe subsequently
47. Recommendation: The EPA has taken into consideration to include carrying capacity studies, The first one has been undertaken for Cerf Island by two local consultants, facilitated by the BD project.
Management Response: [Added: 2012/07/18]

A Project sustainability strategy will be developed in 2013

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
A Project sustainability strategy will be developed in 2013
[Added: 2012/07/19] [Last Updated: 2013/12/19]
PCU 2013/11 Completed completed
48. Recommendation: 37. Approve an additional 12-month no-cost extension to the Project, so official closure will be 31 December 2014, to allow time for completion of Project activities
Management Response: [Added: 2012/07/18]

Agreed, although it is increasingly difficult to obtain project extensions these days. It requires the clearance by the UNDP-GEF Principle Technical Advisor.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
An additional 12-month no-cost extension to the Project should be considered to allow for the implementation of all project activities
[Added: 2012/07/19] [Last Updated: 2013/12/19]
UNDP/PCU 2013/12 Completed completed

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