Portfolio Learning in International Waters with a Focus on Oceans, Coasts, and Islands and Regional Asia/Pacific and Coral Triangle Learning Processes

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2008-2013, RBAP
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
07/2014
Completion Date:
07/2014
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
20,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document IW_Learn_CTI_TE_TOR_final_30Jan14.docx tor English 138.50 KB Posted 531
Download document Terminal Evaluation Final Report.docx report English 187.21 KB Posted 671
Download document Annex 1-4.docx related-document English 383.83 KB Posted 806
Download document Annex 5-9.docx related-document English 664.69 KB Posted 499
Title Portfolio Learning in International Waters with a Focus on Oceans, Coasts, and Islands and Regional Asia/Pacific and Coral Triangle Learning Processes
Atlas Project Number: 00070147
Evaluation Plan: 2008-2013, RBAP
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 07/2014
Planned End Date: 07/2014
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 $): 20,000
Source of Funding:
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Kenneth T MacKay Mr. vonuconsulting@gmail.com
Ivan Ruzicka Mr. ivan.ruzicka@orange.fr
GEF Evaluation: Yes
Evaluation Type:
Focal Area: International Waters
Project Type: FSP
GEF Phase: GEF-4
PIMS Number: 4164
Key Stakeholders:
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1

Recommendation from the 2014 Evaluation.

1.    UNDP, GEF IW  and ADB should ensure that when new projects are developed that involve different organisations and partners,  the Project Documents indicate clear strategies, processes and tools/activities accompanied by a realistic budget to ensure coordination and cooperation among the various partners.

 

2.    While accepting that there have been advances in preparation of the Strategic  Results Framework (SRF) since this project was proposed we encourage UNDP and GEF IW to incorporate clear and easy to follow Logical Frameworks (LF) that link activities to outputs to outcomes, accompanied by SMART indicators that clearly asses achievements of all project results  (outputs, outcomes and impacts), and ensure changes to activities, outputs and indicators are tracked in the project reporting (e.g. Annual Project Reviews and Project Implementation  Reviews).

 

3.    All GEF implementing agencies should be encouraged to include in their projects’ logical frameworks several key tangible targets that can act as methodological unifiers. In RETA 7307 this was the role of the State of the Coral Triangle reports. As insufficiently clear identification of such key elements can lead to uncertainty on the part of implementers, with a tendency to deliver more than required but deliver something that may not have been expected at the outset.

 

4.     UNDP and GEF IW in collaboration with UNOPS should ensure that in future projects project management activities and outputs including Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) are clearly stated along with appropriate budgets in the Project Document.

 

5.    UNDP and GEF IW are encouraged to explore with the Global Ocean Forum (GOF) through its Secretariat the International Coastal and Ocean Organisation strategies and approaches for sustainable core funding of the GOF Secretariat.

 

6.    Given that IW:LEARN is a service project for the GEF IW,  the GEF IW is  encouraged to explore with IW: LEARN strategies and approaches for sustainable core funding of the  IW: LEARN PMU.

 

7.    GOF, IW LEARN and ADB should be encouraged to continue their efforts in knowledge management through summarising key leanings and wide dissemination through web sites and appropriate social media. Additionally as the subject of simplicity and clarity in communicating should be foremost in the IW and CTI approach to disseminating information UNDP, GEF-IW and ADB should institute a “simple-words-for-environment” prize, possibly through IW:LEARN.

 

8.    UNDP PMU in consultation with UNOPS should correct the discrepancies in the project expenditure for Component 1, 2 and 4 to truly reflect the spending in each of the Components.

 

 

 

Recommendations Component 3

9.    It is important periodically to question the continued validity of an implementation baseline. In the case of Component 3, the baselines were the CTI regional and national action plans. RETA 7307 was rightly intended to serve the plans’ objectives. That alignment notwithstanding, CTI stakeholders, led by ADB, should periodically revisit the plans and confirm their technical soundness in the often fast-changing socio-economic and environmental circumstances. The challenge for all is not mainly to mobilize funds for a set of tasks but to ensure that the tasks themselves continue to have a sound economic justification.

 

10.   Some of RETA 7307’s work on the economic aspects of marine and coastal management would deserve to be continued under a strengthened peer input and editorial assistance. Key messages relating to the economic and financial aspects of CTI (now summarized in the EFACT study) should be periodically updated to incorporate new results and be made to fit the requirements of specific occasions (e.g. high level meetings etc.). This work would ideally be driven by FRWG with encouragement and leadership by ADB.

 

11.   In any follow-up project the large and diverse output relating to the subject of knowledge management, produced under RETA 7307, ought to be ordered and prioritized, and continued validity of the approach to KM adopted in 2011, re-confirmed. ADB should ensure that the key document (the Needs Assessment report of 2011) that retains much of its original value is available to CTI stakeholders on line.

 

12.  GEF and implementation partners should question the place of PES within a broader range of approaches to financing of sustainable management of marine and coastal resources. ADB in particular should turn to a fuller menu of financing options including the more conventional ones the next round of its technical assistance activities.

 

13.  In projects deliberately and justifiably formulated to address regional and global concerns the local dimension should not be forgotten. In the case of CTI, regional and country activities cannot exist without one another. The challenge for future rounds of CTI action is to arbitrate among three groups of claimants on financial and technical support, i.e. (a) the regional structures (the regional secretariat and policy-making upper echelons); (b) country-level institutions; and (c) local and field level stakeholders. ADB should place the topic of this financial arbitration on CTI agenda, possibly attaching it to the Study of CTI financial architecture now underway.

 

14.  Several imaginative decisions taken by ADB and RETA consultants in mobilizing political and financial support for CTI deserve to be replicated. One example was the High Level Financial Roundtable (CT6) Ministerial Meeting and Marketplace that coincide with 45th ADB Annual Meeting. GEF should take leadership in identifying and helping organize similar occasions in consultation with CTI partners. 

1. Recommendation:

Recommendation from the 2014 Evaluation.

1.    UNDP, GEF IW  and ADB should ensure that when new projects are developed that involve different organisations and partners,  the Project Documents indicate clear strategies, processes and tools/activities accompanied by a realistic budget to ensure coordination and cooperation among the various partners.

 

2.    While accepting that there have been advances in preparation of the Strategic  Results Framework (SRF) since this project was proposed we encourage UNDP and GEF IW to incorporate clear and easy to follow Logical Frameworks (LF) that link activities to outputs to outcomes, accompanied by SMART indicators that clearly asses achievements of all project results  (outputs, outcomes and impacts), and ensure changes to activities, outputs and indicators are tracked in the project reporting (e.g. Annual Project Reviews and Project Implementation  Reviews).

 

3.    All GEF implementing agencies should be encouraged to include in their projects’ logical frameworks several key tangible targets that can act as methodological unifiers. In RETA 7307 this was the role of the State of the Coral Triangle reports. As insufficiently clear identification of such key elements can lead to uncertainty on the part of implementers, with a tendency to deliver more than required but deliver something that may not have been expected at the outset.

 

4.     UNDP and GEF IW in collaboration with UNOPS should ensure that in future projects project management activities and outputs including Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) are clearly stated along with appropriate budgets in the Project Document.

 

5.    UNDP and GEF IW are encouraged to explore with the Global Ocean Forum (GOF) through its Secretariat the International Coastal and Ocean Organisation strategies and approaches for sustainable core funding of the GOF Secretariat.

 

6.    Given that IW:LEARN is a service project for the GEF IW,  the GEF IW is  encouraged to explore with IW: LEARN strategies and approaches for sustainable core funding of the  IW: LEARN PMU.

 

7.    GOF, IW LEARN and ADB should be encouraged to continue their efforts in knowledge management through summarising key leanings and wide dissemination through web sites and appropriate social media. Additionally as the subject of simplicity and clarity in communicating should be foremost in the IW and CTI approach to disseminating information UNDP, GEF-IW and ADB should institute a “simple-words-for-environment” prize, possibly through IW:LEARN.

 

8.    UNDP PMU in consultation with UNOPS should correct the discrepancies in the project expenditure for Component 1, 2 and 4 to truly reflect the spending in each of the Components.

 

 

 

Recommendations Component 3

9.    It is important periodically to question the continued validity of an implementation baseline. In the case of Component 3, the baselines were the CTI regional and national action plans. RETA 7307 was rightly intended to serve the plans’ objectives. That alignment notwithstanding, CTI stakeholders, led by ADB, should periodically revisit the plans and confirm their technical soundness in the often fast-changing socio-economic and environmental circumstances. The challenge for all is not mainly to mobilize funds for a set of tasks but to ensure that the tasks themselves continue to have a sound economic justification.

 

10.   Some of RETA 7307’s work on the economic aspects of marine and coastal management would deserve to be continued under a strengthened peer input and editorial assistance. Key messages relating to the economic and financial aspects of CTI (now summarized in the EFACT study) should be periodically updated to incorporate new results and be made to fit the requirements of specific occasions (e.g. high level meetings etc.). This work would ideally be driven by FRWG with encouragement and leadership by ADB.

 

11.   In any follow-up project the large and diverse output relating to the subject of knowledge management, produced under RETA 7307, ought to be ordered and prioritized, and continued validity of the approach to KM adopted in 2011, re-confirmed. ADB should ensure that the key document (the Needs Assessment report of 2011) that retains much of its original value is available to CTI stakeholders on line.

 

12.  GEF and implementation partners should question the place of PES within a broader range of approaches to financing of sustainable management of marine and coastal resources. ADB in particular should turn to a fuller menu of financing options including the more conventional ones the next round of its technical assistance activities.

 

13.  In projects deliberately and justifiably formulated to address regional and global concerns the local dimension should not be forgotten. In the case of CTI, regional and country activities cannot exist without one another. The challenge for future rounds of CTI action is to arbitrate among three groups of claimants on financial and technical support, i.e. (a) the regional structures (the regional secretariat and policy-making upper echelons); (b) country-level institutions; and (c) local and field level stakeholders. ADB should place the topic of this financial arbitration on CTI agenda, possibly attaching it to the Study of CTI financial architecture now underway.

 

14.  Several imaginative decisions taken by ADB and RETA consultants in mobilizing political and financial support for CTI deserve to be replicated. One example was the High Level Financial Roundtable (CT6) Ministerial Meeting and Marketplace that coincide with 45th ADB Annual Meeting. GEF should take leadership in identifying and helping organize similar occasions in consultation with CTI partners. 

Management Response: [Added: 2018/12/02]

The project was closed in 2014 and no new project was established. Therefore no actions were needed.

Key Actions:

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

1 UN Plaza
DC1-20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel. +1 646 781 4200
Fax. +1 646 781 4213
erc.support@undp.org