- 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
Terminal Evaluation - The Connection and Sustainable Management of Kon Ka Kinh National Park and Kon Chu Rang Nature Reserve
| Document | Type | Language | Size | Status | Downloads |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 00051178 - KKK - TOR.doc |
tor | English | 110.50 KB | Posted | 845 |
 00051178 - KKK - EvalRep.pdf |
report | English | 2591.30 KB | Posted | 1388 |
| 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: |
|
||||||||||
| Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021) |
|
||||||||||
| Evaluation Budget(US $): | 40,000 | ||||||||||
| Source of Funding: | GEF | ||||||||||
| Joint Programme: | No | ||||||||||
| Joint Evaluation: | No | ||||||||||
| Evaluation Team members: |
|
||||||||||
| GEF Evaluation: | Yes
|
||||||||||
| 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 |