Arafura and Timor Seas Ecosystem Action Programme

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2008-2013, RBAP
Evaluation Type:
Mid Term Project
Planned End Date:
07/2012
Completion Date:
10/2012
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
30,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document MTE ATSEA final - 18 oct.doc report English 796.00 KB Posted 1152
Title Arafura and Timor Seas Ecosystem Action Programme
Atlas Project Number:
Evaluation Plan: 2008-2013, RBAP
Evaluation Type: Mid Term Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 10/2012
Planned End Date: 07/2012
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
Evaluation Budget(US $): 30,000
Source of Funding:
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Dennis Fenton Mr
GEF Evaluation: Yes
Evaluation Type:
Focal Area: International Waters
Project Type: FSP
GEF Phase: GEF-4
PIMS Number: 3879
Key Stakeholders:
Location of Evaluation: Regional
Countries: Timor-LesteINDONESIA
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1 #1 Develop and approve an indicator (or two) at the Project Objective level, so there is an agreed indicator/target of the overall success of the Project. Likewise, determine and agree upon an appropriate end-point for the project in terms of sustainability
2 #2 Ensure a strong focus for Project activities until the end of the project. The following are priorities: ? Finalizing the Strategic Action Programme (SAP), with adequate consultation and adequate technical inputs, including the bringing of best international practices to ATSEA; and provides information on the likely costs, the timelines, and the M&E arrangements ? Developing institutional arrangements for collaborative management of Arafura and Timor Seas (ATS) SAP after mid-2014; Accelerating the process to mobilize funds for core activities after 2014, including funds to cover operations of a Project Management Office (PMO) or Secretariat;
3 #3 Ensure there is a strong focus on the quality of the products and the process. The timing of the end-point for Outputs should be determined by the quality of the products and the process and not by the timelines in the Project document.
4 #4 Working closely with UNDP Papua New Guinea (PNG), maintain the engagement of PNG stakeholders by (i) ensuring PNG government stakeholders are fully involved in Outcomes 2 and 4, and (ii) continuing development of the MSP.
5 #5 Consider inviting the four co-financing NGOs to nominate one representative to represent all four on the Project Board. Submit any related recommendations to Project Board.
6 #6 If resources permit, scope out options for engaging with the private sector. This could first be based on a review of how GEF IW projects across the region have engaged with the private sector.
7 #7 PMO to provide substantive information to UNDP Indonesia on a more regular basis.
8 #8 ensure the NAP in each country: ? is strongly driven by the SAP, and that clarification is provided for how each activity will contribute to the regional and multi-country objectives in the SAP ? remembering that national objectives should already be covered by existing national action plans in the development, fisheries and natural resource management sectors; ? provides details of the measures to be taken, e.g. of which laws are to be amended, which investments are to be made, which institutions are to be strengthened. If this cannot be done based on existing knowledge, the NAP should provide details of the full analysis to be taken. This is particularly true for the first three years NAP activities; ? provides estimates of the costs and timelines; ? distinguishes between national and local responsibilities and provides clarification of which agency is responsible for each activity (this is particularly important in Indonesia); and, ? establishes clear, operational linkages between the NAP and existing national action plans, including national action plans under existing regional initiatives. For example, in Indonesia, the NAP should be operationally linked to the Indonesian action plans for fisheries, CTI, RPOA, etc. NAP activities that can be addressed more effectively through an existing national action plan or initiative should be identified. These activities will remain part of the NAP but may be implemented through a parallel initiative.
9 #9 Outcome 4 Consider undertaking a full assessment of: (i) the requirements and likely functions of an ATS governance mechanism; (ii) existing related regional mechanisms and institutions; and (iii) ATSEF. Based on this assessment, the Options paper should be further developed. Next, undertake full consultations with each participating Government. Each Option should clarify the role and functioning of the SEG and ATSEF in the future, and clarify the relationship between the SEG and ATSEF.
10 #10 Prepare a clear strategy of if/how the Project is to engage ATSEF, and details of any support that will be given to ATSEF through to the end of the Project.
11 #11 review the design of the demonstration projects and explore how they can be modified in order to more effectively contribute to creating the foundation for SAP implementation. To achieve this, the demonstration projects could: (i) generate additional knowledge or understanding of multi-country environmental issues; (ii) have a strong multi-country or regional nature, even though they may take place in only one country, and they may also generate national and local benefits; (iii) contribute to improved understanding of a multi-country root cause, a barrier or a driver, and of how local conditions link up to regional challenges, through impact pathways; and/or (iv) demonstrate how stakeholders in several countries can collaborate to address a multi-country issue or achieve a multi-country objective.
12 #12 Develop an appropriate indicator (or two) for Outcome 3
1. Recommendation: #1 Develop and approve an indicator (or two) at the Project Objective level, so there is an agreed indicator/target of the overall success of the Project. Likewise, determine and agree upon an appropriate end-point for the project in terms of sustainability
Management Response: [Added: 2013/02/14] [Last Updated: 2013/02/14]

The management acknowledges that indicator at the Objective level can be aggregated from existing indicators at component level

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
1)Synthesize indicators at component level and propose Project objective indicator(s) of progress
[Added: 2013/02/14] [Last Updated: 2017/12/27]
UNDP, PMO 2013/02 No Longer Applicable [Justification: No longer applicable]
History
2)Submit recommendation (draft of indicator for objective level) to Project Board for approval
[Added: 2013/02/14] [Last Updated: 2017/12/27]
PMO 2013/02 No Longer Applicable [Justification: No longer applicable]
History
2. Recommendation: #2 Ensure a strong focus for Project activities until the end of the project. The following are priorities: ? Finalizing the Strategic Action Programme (SAP), with adequate consultation and adequate technical inputs, including the bringing of best international practices to ATSEA; and provides information on the likely costs, the timelines, and the M&E arrangements ? Developing institutional arrangements for collaborative management of Arafura and Timor Seas (ATS) SAP after mid-2014; Accelerating the process to mobilize funds for core activities after 2014, including funds to cover operations of a Project Management Office (PMO) or Secretariat;
Management Response: [Added: 2013/02/14] [Last Updated: 2013/02/14]

The management acknowledges that Recommendation 2 is of significance to the project implementation. However, the information regarding costing of each action programme was not agreed by country focal point to be included in the SAP.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
1)Seek review and input on draft SAP from international experts and UNDP technical advisors (Headquarter and APRC).
[Added: 2013/02/14] [Last Updated: 2017/12/27]
PMO 2012/12 No Longer Applicable [Justification: No longer applicable]
Comment provided and discussed with PMO. Further discussion will be followed. History
2)Develop institutional arrangements for collaborative management of ATS SAP by hiring international expert
[Added: 2013/02/14] [Last Updated: 2017/12/27]
Participating countries, PMO, UNDP 2013/09 No Longer Applicable [Justification: No longer applicable]
Consultant identified History
3)a. Identify potential donor and funding mechanism
[Added: 2013/02/14] [Last Updated: 2017/12/27]
Participating countries, PMO, UNDP 2013/09 No Longer Applicable [Justification: No longer applicable]
Consultant will be recruited History
3) b. Formulate strategy for sustainable financing mechanism
[Added: 2013/02/14] [Last Updated: 2017/12/27]
Participating countries, PMO, UNDP 2014/06 No Longer Applicable [Justification: No longer applicable]
Consultant will be recruited History
3. Recommendation: #3 Ensure there is a strong focus on the quality of the products and the process. The timing of the end-point for Outputs should be determined by the quality of the products and the process and not by the timelines in the Project document.
Management Response: [Added: 2013/02/14] [Last Updated: 2013/02/14]

The management agrees with the recommendation and reminds that the issue raised under this recommendation has always been part of project strategy.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Develop a review mechanism procedure and increase coordination of SAP and National Action Programmes (NAPs) development with component of initial implementation (demo project)
[Added: 2013/02/14] [Last Updated: 2017/12/27]
PMO and UNDP 2013/03 No Longer Applicable [Justification: project ended]
Draft procedure will be presented at the next Project Board Meeting History
4. Recommendation: #4 Working closely with UNDP Papua New Guinea (PNG), maintain the engagement of PNG stakeholders by (i) ensuring PNG government stakeholders are fully involved in Outcomes 2 and 4, and (ii) continuing development of the MSP.
Management Response: [Added: 2013/02/14] [Last Updated: 2013/02/14]

The management acknowledge the importance of maintaining the involvement of PNG. At the moment, PNG is considered as an observer of the project implementation. However, upon the availability of additional resources from the GEF Medium Sized Project (MSP) facilitated by UNDP PNG and approval by Project Board members and endorsement by high level official from member countries, SAP and regional mechanism of ATS will be amended to include PNG.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
1)Share progress of project implementation and outputs with UNDP PNG and Government of PNG focal point
[Added: 2013/02/14] [Last Updated: 2013/09/27]
PMO, UNDP, PNG Focal point No due date No deadline established PNG participation more proactively in project activities
5. Recommendation: #5 Consider inviting the four co-financing NGOs to nominate one representative to represent all four on the Project Board. Submit any related recommendations to Project Board.
Management Response: [Added: 2013/02/14]

Cofinancing NGOs were involved as Stakeholder Engagement Group (SEG) member but will not integrate the Project Board based on the first Project Board Meeting decision in 2011. The NGOs will provide technical inputs on the project activities.

Key Actions:

6. Recommendation: #6 If resources permit, scope out options for engaging with the private sector. This could first be based on a review of how GEF IW projects across the region have engaged with the private sector.
Management Response: [Added: 2013/02/14] [Last Updated: 2013/02/14]

The management acknowledges that engaging with the private sector could lead to potential resources to support the implementation of action program in ATS region.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Scope out options for engaging with private sector facilitated by IW Learn Programme
[Added: 2013/02/14] [Last Updated: 2013/09/27]
PMO No due date No deadline established Identify who is operated in ATS by inviting private sector in a workshop. It could also be linked to SAP targets
Draft proposals of Public-Private Partnership and proposed it to the Project Board
[Added: 2013/02/14] [Last Updated: 2013/09/27]
PMO No due date No deadline established Lack guidance to develop guideline/strategy for private sector engagement
7. Recommendation: #7 PMO to provide substantive information to UNDP Indonesia on a more regular basis.
Management Response: [Added: 2013/02/14] [Last Updated: 2013/09/27]

The management acknowledges the importance of sharing substantive information to Principle Project Representative (UNDP Indonesia) and UNOPS.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Provide Back to Office Report (BTOR) template and update regular reporting form to PMO
[Added: 2013/02/14] [Last Updated: 2013/09/27]
UNDP No due date No deadline established Must be performed onwards
8. Recommendation: #8 ensure the NAP in each country: ? is strongly driven by the SAP, and that clarification is provided for how each activity will contribute to the regional and multi-country objectives in the SAP ? remembering that national objectives should already be covered by existing national action plans in the development, fisheries and natural resource management sectors; ? provides details of the measures to be taken, e.g. of which laws are to be amended, which investments are to be made, which institutions are to be strengthened. If this cannot be done based on existing knowledge, the NAP should provide details of the full analysis to be taken. This is particularly true for the first three years NAP activities; ? provides estimates of the costs and timelines; ? distinguishes between national and local responsibilities and provides clarification of which agency is responsible for each activity (this is particularly important in Indonesia); and, ? establishes clear, operational linkages between the NAP and existing national action plans, including national action plans under existing regional initiatives. For example, in Indonesia, the NAP should be operationally linked to the Indonesian action plans for fisheries, CTI, RPOA, etc. NAP activities that can be addressed more effectively through an existing national action plan or initiative should be identified. These activities will remain part of the NAP but may be implemented through a parallel initiative.
Management Response: [Added: 2013/02/14] [Last Updated: 2013/02/14]

The management agrees with the recommendations

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Identify existing budget related with on-going programme at relevant ministries/agenciesin the Arafura and Timor Seas.
[Added: 2013/02/14]
PMO No due date No deadline established
9. Recommendation: #9 Outcome 4 Consider undertaking a full assessment of: (i) the requirements and likely functions of an ATS governance mechanism; (ii) existing related regional mechanisms and institutions; and (iii) ATSEF. Based on this assessment, the Options paper should be further developed. Next, undertake full consultations with each participating Government. Each Option should clarify the role and functioning of the SEG and ATSEF in the future, and clarify the relationship between the SEG and ATSEF.
Management Response: [Added: 2013/02/14] [Last Updated: 2013/09/27]

The management agrees with the recommendations and the work is being done.

Key Actions:

10. Recommendation: #10 Prepare a clear strategy of if/how the Project is to engage ATSEF, and details of any support that will be given to ATSEF through to the end of the Project.
Management Response: [Added: 2013/02/14] [Last Updated: 2013/09/27]

The management acknowledge that it will utilize ATSEF as starting point to establish appropriate institution in ATS region. The hiring consultant is in progress to complete the analysis and provide strategy recommendation by mid of 2013.

Key Actions:

11. Recommendation: #11 review the design of the demonstration projects and explore how they can be modified in order to more effectively contribute to creating the foundation for SAP implementation. To achieve this, the demonstration projects could: (i) generate additional knowledge or understanding of multi-country environmental issues; (ii) have a strong multi-country or regional nature, even though they may take place in only one country, and they may also generate national and local benefits; (iii) contribute to improved understanding of a multi-country root cause, a barrier or a driver, and of how local conditions link up to regional challenges, through impact pathways; and/or (iv) demonstrate how stakeholders in several countries can collaborate to address a multi-country issue or achieve a multi-country objective.
Management Response: [Added: 2013/02/14] [Last Updated: 2013/02/14]

The management acknowledge the need to adjust the design of demo project to become more effectively implemented and sustainable

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
3)Develop effective M&E plan and submit at the PBM-3
[Added: 2013/02/14] [Last Updated: 2013/09/27]
PMO, SGP, UNDP 2013/02 Completed
1)Ensure connection of the demo project activities with one and/or two selected Priority Environmetal Concerns (PECs)
[Added: 2013/02/14]
PMO No due date No deadline established Included in national project design
2)Seek co-financing contribution from Government of Australia to the regional demo project
[Added: 2013/02/14]
PMO, Gov of Australia No due date No deadline established
12. Recommendation: #12 Develop an appropriate indicator (or two) for Outcome 3
Management Response: [Added: 2013/02/14] [Last Updated: 2013/09/27]

The management acknowledge that demo projects should be monitored with detailed, clear and realistic indicators. Poor rating because of PB decision to focus on finalization of TDA and SAP/NAPs. In four year project period, it is difficult to produce significant impact and also reduce pressure in marine resources.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Engage technical experts on socio-economy and livelihood and establish communication with community leader at project site. Delete 15% increase in income target and reported in the next APR/PIR.
[Added: 2013/02/14] [Last Updated: 2017/12/27]
PMO 2013/06 No Longer Applicable [Justification: project ended]
Update the MR. Current indicator is more process oriented; but target is impact oriented. History

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