Terminal Evaluation - The Connection and Sustainable Management of Kon Ka Kinh National Park and Kon Chu Rang Nature Reserve

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2006-2011, Viet Nam
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
11/2010
Completion Date:
12/2010
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
40,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document 00051178 - KKK - TOR.doc tor English 110.50 KB Posted 845
Download document 00051178 - KKK - EvalRep.pdf report English 2591.30 KB Posted 1388
Download document 00051178 - KKK - Sum&LesonsLearnt.pdf summary English 993.43 KB Posted 761
Title Terminal Evaluation - The Connection and Sustainable Management of Kon Ka Kinh National Park and Kon Chu Rang Nature Reserve
Atlas Project Number: 00051178
Evaluation Plan: 2006-2011, Viet Nam
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 12/2010
Planned End Date: 11/2010
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Environment & Sustainable Development
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021)
  • 1. 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 $): 40,000
Source of Funding: GEF
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Nationality
Jo Breese and consultancy firm Team Leader
GEF Evaluation: Yes
Evaluation Type:
Focal Area: Biodiversity
Project Type: EA
GEF Phase: GEF-1
PIMS Number:
Key Stakeholders:
Countries: VIET NAM
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1 During the Inception phase, adjustments including budgeting could be fully adjusted to reflect the changes and to ensure the success of the project.
2 FSC component was overly ambitious as the wider policy frameworks and institutional capacity for implementation are not in place
3 More direct benefits to local people could be designed
4 Considered project logistics e.g. the remoteness for the project activities
5 Application of the ecological monitoring component for management
6 More cost effectiveness and Lesson learned from study tours
7 Further developed and maintained recurrent community awareness programme
8 Sustainable management at SFC
9 PCC to establish the Green Corridor and implementation it?s investment plan
10 STA involvement in selection of consultants
11 Ideally STA should be located in country for effectiveness and cost efficiency
12 UNDP, PPC and PMU should take responsibility for the parallel funding activities
1. Recommendation: During the Inception phase, adjustments including budgeting could be fully adjusted to reflect the changes and to ensure the success of the project.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/12/28]

Inception report already took into account of the changes. However, the high inflation rate was not reflected/expected in the adjustment in 2006

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Inception phase Inception workshop Inception report Consideration for the new GEF projects, especially during the financial crisis time
[Added: 2010/12/28]
UNDP, Implementing partner 2010/12 Completed
2. Recommendation: FSC component was overly ambitious as the wider policy frameworks and institutional capacity for implementation are not in place
Management Response: [Added: 2010/12/28]

This is reality of the policy framework for the FSC and forest land allocation. This was out of the Parallel co-financing activities by TFT

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Cooperate with FSC to overcome difficulties
[Added: 2010/12/28]
Implementing partner 2010/12 Completed it takes longer time for policy development and it is more difficult with parallel co-finance with NGO
3. Recommendation: More direct benefits to local people could be designed
Management Response: [Added: 2010/12/28]

The major project objective is not livelihood improvement; Biodiversity conservation is the main objectives

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Cooperate/coordinate with other government and donor supported projects regarding livelihood improvement
[Added: 2010/12/28]
IP 2010/12 Completed
4. Recommendation: Considered project logistics e.g. the remoteness for the project activities
Management Response: [Added: 2010/12/28]

Already included in the Project design and AWPs

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Realistic planning; Field visits by UNDP staff and Government coordinating groups
[Added: 2010/12/28]
UNDP, Implementing partner 2010/11 Completed
5. Recommendation: Application of the ecological monitoring component for management
Management Response: [Added: 2010/12/28]

The project just provided opportunity for capacity building. Monitoring is need for long-term, not just during the project period

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
KKK NP and KCR NR will apply the results from the project for the future monitoring
[Added: 2010/12/28]
NIP 2010/12 Completed
6. Recommendation: More cost effectiveness and Lesson learned from study tours
Management Response: [Added: 2010/12/28]

This is also concerns by UNDP CO to all projects

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
UNDP guidelines for study tours will be strictly applied for all project
[Added: 2010/12/28]
UNDP, Implementing partners 2010/12 Completed It is not an issue for the project but general UNDP?s policy
7. Recommendation: Further developed and maintained recurrent community awareness programme
Management Response: [Added: 2010/12/28]

The project can facilitate and provide catalytic support rather than cover all the needs

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
KKK NP and KCR NR already applied for VCF and using Government budget for community awareness programme; NGOs also support this activity
[Added: 2010/12/28] [Last Updated: 2011/07/25]
IP 2011/03 Completed Other partners continue with awareness raising programmes
8. Recommendation: Sustainable management at SFC
Management Response: [Added: 2010/12/28]

GoV legal framework and approval by PPC

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
UNDP supported GoV in development of the Law on Biodiversity. Decree on Biodiversity Corridor and guidelines are already in the draft form for approval
[Added: 2010/12/28]
Govt 2010/12 Completed Beyond Implementing partner?s mandate
9. Recommendation: PCC to establish the Green Corridor and implementation it?s investment plan
Management Response: [Added: 2010/12/28]

The project developed investment strategy for the Green Corridor, however, the province is waiting for legal framework and for financial investment for the corridor

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Investment strategies already developed. PPC is waiting for the new decree on Biodiveristy Corridor and decree on implementation of the Law on Biodiversity to guide
[Added: 2010/12/28] [Last Updated: 2011/07/25]
UNDP and Implementing partner 2011/06 Completed Gia Lai is poor province, therefore, depends on the government budget for investment and nature conversation Updated 25July2011: Awaiting for new decree and new policy from MONRE/MARD. The province Forest Protection Department is cooperating with SFEs, Conservation Fund, and other partners to improve SFM in the Green Corridor and to propose for Biosphere reserve for the larder areas of NPs and NRs in Gia Lai, Kon Tum, Binh Dinh and Quang Ngai.
10. Recommendation: STA involvement in selection of consultants
Management Response: [Added: 2010/12/28]

Ideally there was a full time STA at the PMU. But due to financial resources and priority of the project outputs, only part-time STA available for the project

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
STA involved in the reviewing ToRs, reports and results of the project
[Added: 2010/12/28]
UNDP Implementing partner 2010/12 Completed It?s not an issue
11. Recommendation: Ideally STA should be located in country for effectiveness and cost efficiency
Management Response: [Added: 2010/12/28]

Ideally STA should be based at location. But that was the best solution the project could have for a part-time STA

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
STA has experience with the region and in VNM. Lesson for the next GEF project
[Added: 2010/12/28]
UNDP 2010/12 Completed Lesson learned rather than issue
12. Recommendation: UNDP, PPC and PMU should take responsibility for the parallel funding activities
Management Response: [Added: 2010/12/28]

In the theory, PPC should have power over all projects in the territory.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
UNDP and PPC improved coordination and cooperation with other partners. TFT component was not as success as expected is out of PPC/PMU control
[Added: 2010/12/28]
UNDP, Govt 2010/12 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