Conservación de la biodiversidad de importancia global a lo largo de la costa chilena

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2011-2014, Chile
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
08/2011
Completion Date:
03/2011
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
23,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document TDR-Evaluacion final GEF Marino.doc tor Spanish 220.50 KB Posted 1021
Download document Informe_Final_GEF_Marino final.docx report Spanish 487.72 KB Posted 1906
Title Conservación de la biodiversidad de importancia global a lo largo de la costa chilena
Atlas Project Number: 00045831
Evaluation Plan: 2011-2014, Chile
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 03/2011
Planned End Date: 08/2011
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Environment & Sustainable Development
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021)
  • 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 $): 23,000
Source of Funding: project
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Nationality
Team Leader
GEF Evaluation: Yes
Evaluation Type:
Focal Area: Biodiversity
Project Type: FSP
GEF Phase: GEF-4
PIMS Number:
Key Stakeholders: CONAMA
Countries: CHILE
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1 1) Future projects must further involve relevant institutions on the matter, and a strong Presidential stance on the initiative is desirable.
2 2) Improve monitoring and follow-up during project design and development.
3 3) Projects should have a separate budget in their design, for unified project management and coordination.
4 4) Projects and their co-financing should have institutional approval, as should relevant actors in those areas to be intervened (approval from regional government, regional councils, municipalities, communities), before actually being submitted for GEF review.
5 5) Project budget should be valued using average dollar values or dollar trends
6 6) Provide for an integration assigning greater preponderance to those institutions having more authority on the matter, including CONAF.
7 7) Co-financing should be carefully documented, as well as the definitions used for calculating in-kind contributions.
8 8) Project preparation should be made by institutional staff, using consultants for support, and not the other way around.
9 9a) Project implementation should be fully integrated into the executing institution, both in its professional teams as in its procurement procedures. 9b) UNDP should limit itself to making scheduled payments to institutions and focus more in monitoring and in project activity follow-up.
10 10) Project teams should consist of professionals having complementary profiles, thus mixing specific knowledge with management and planning skills.
11 11) Regarding projects with a regional footprint, institutions should have a professional as the permanent regional counterpart during project execution.
12 12) Authority awareness-building and lobbying should be a specific activity for every project, implemented from project start and it should not be considered a burden or a secondary activity.
13 13) Project steering committee resolutions should first contain an analysis of the situation presented, followed by specific accords on how to address them, including responsibilities, tasks and estimated terms.
14 14) Local community and municipal participation should include adequate accounting and transparency for all activities.
15 15) In order to reinforce project impact and consolidate the network of MUMPAs, the following strategic guidelines are proposed: 15.1) that the Ministry maintain the hired professionals working in the regions so as to continue working towards the creation of administrative units in participation and coordination with local relevant actors and regional governments, up until the administrative units of the MUMPAs.
1. Recommendation: 1) Future projects must further involve relevant institutions on the matter, and a strong Presidential stance on the initiative is desirable.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/10/03] [Last Updated: 2011/10/03]

Accepted.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
This commitment should be accompanied by firm partner-binding documents, such as NGO-government agreements, regional governments programming agreements, transfer of funds for project activities to the implementing agency.
[Added: 2011/10/03]
Proposing institution Supervision: implementing agency No due date No deadline established Countries now have limits set on amounts of GEF resources and national prioritisation exercises are held to define allocation. This implies that ensuring that proposal are national priorities and have relevant institutions backing and involvement
2. Recommendation: 2) Improve monitoring and follow-up during project design and development.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/10/03]

Accepted

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Project feasibility consultations and working hypothesis to be made to relevant institutions, particularly for changes or creation of institutions and / or new financing for the management of protected areas. Provide follow up on GEF comments made at design stage, adding it as risks from start if necessary. Ensure a GEF final document review to ensure project consistency in institutional and financial terms.
[Added: 2011/10/03] [Last Updated: 2016/01/08]
Proposing institution Implementing agency Punto focal del GEF 2011/12 Completed UNDP has developed a risk management system in ATLAS that requires 6monthly updates. All projects are classified by risks and duly monitored. GEF reviews are undertaken on final documents;
3. Recommendation: 3) Projects should have a separate budget in their design, for unified project management and coordination.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/10/03]

Accepted

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
There should be a "project management" item included in project budget.
[Added: 2011/10/03] [Last Updated: 2013/05/30]
Implementing agency 2012/03 No Longer Applicable All Project already had management budget but now these are made more specific and as a separate Outcome in Atlas
4. Recommendation: 4) Projects and their co-financing should have institutional approval, as should relevant actors in those areas to be intervened (approval from regional government, regional councils, municipalities, communities), before actually being submitted for GEF review.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/10/03]

Accepted

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Letters of commitment must be accompanied by binding instruments such as "programming agreements". These commitments must also be approved by municipal or regional councils (as appropriate). Both elements would ensure long-term political and financial commitment for the project.
[Added: 2011/10/03] [Last Updated: 2016/01/08]
Proposing institution Implementing agency Cofunders GEF focal point 2012/10 Completed All GEF project now require submission of co-financing letters prior to approval and reporting on co-funding.
5. Recommendation: 5) Project budget should be valued using average dollar values or dollar trends
Management Response: [Added: 2011/10/03]

Accepted

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Make budget estimates based on a historical dollar averages and its trend, not on current value. Allow for a provision for times of increased volatility or extreme exchange rate variations .
[Added: 2011/10/03] [Last Updated: 2013/05/30]
Proposing institution Implementing agency 2012/03 No Longer Applicable Currency changes are now included as a risk and assessed prior to project approval. Where possible contingency resources are included in budget
6. Recommendation: 6) Provide for an integration assigning greater preponderance to those institutions having more authority on the matter, including CONAF.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/10/03]

Accepted

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Perform an analysis of public and private actors at the project formulation stage, gauging their participation and leadership in the project. Private investment in the project should only be considered if they are currently being executed and originate from formally constituted entities.
[Added: 2011/10/03] [Last Updated: 2016/01/08]
Proponent Implementing agency 2011/10 Completed Cofunding letters are required from private investors for any new projects and these entities need to be formally constituted
7. Recommendation: 7) Co-financing should be carefully documented, as well as the definitions used for calculating in-kind contributions.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/10/03]

Accepted

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Co-financing should be guaranteed through binding instruments such as covenants, which could define co-financing as either "cash" or "in kind" in addition to including specific studies or activities that are intended to be financed.
[Added: 2011/10/03] [Last Updated: 2016/01/08]
Proponent Implementing agency 2012/10 Completed Co-funding is required in annual operation work plans; binding legal instruments go beyond the remit of the UNDP in a country and fall under the institution that leads national execution
8. Recommendation: 8) Project preparation should be made by institutional staff, using consultants for support, and not the other way around.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/10/04]

Accepted

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
If the proposed project is made by a public agency, project formulation should be undertaken by a multidisciplinary committee composed of public services with experience in project issues and led by a member of the institution that is applying for said funds. "Country ownership" and "country driven" are key concepts.
[Added: 2011/10/04] [Last Updated: 2016/01/08]
Public proponent 2013/05 Completed UNDP: This is always requested and consultations held with GoC staff. A PPG underway counts with the participation of a MMA staff member.
9. Recommendation: 9a) Project implementation should be fully integrated into the executing institution, both in its professional teams as in its procurement procedures. 9b) UNDP should limit itself to making scheduled payments to institutions and focus more in monitoring and in project activity follow-up.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/10/04]

Not fully accepted due to current legal agreements in Chile (see comments)

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents

[Added: 2011/10/04] [Last Updated: 2014/09/23]
UNDP and Project coordination No due date No deadline established UNDP is gradually implementing a HACT approach to execution whereby if an assessment is undertaken to determine existing capacities to execute the project funds under scheduled payments approach. This is not yet implemented in Chile and so UNDP must abide by the current legal arrangement with the country which recognises NEX arrangements which do not include the payment approach referred to in the recommendation. Decisions on the existing agreements on UNDP implementing arrangement in Chile will be taken up with the corresponding institution to review possibilities of adopting this new approach in the future
10. Recommendation: 10) Project teams should consist of professionals having complementary profiles, thus mixing specific knowledge with management and planning skills.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/10/04]

Accepted

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Incorporate into selecting and evaluating criteria for project coordinator and technical staff, certain skills and competencies in project management in addition to the basic training on main project issues, such as biology, engineering, law, etc.
[Added: 2011/10/04] [Last Updated: 2013/05/30]
Proponent and Implementing agency No due date No deadline established UNDP where possible all new projects seek to have this mixed balance of competencies
11. Recommendation: 11) Regarding projects with a regional footprint, institutions should have a professional as the permanent regional counterpart during project execution.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/10/04]

Accepted

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The designated counterparts in the region should have a closer connection with the project, including support activities as part of the annual work plan for the professional, indicating roles, responsibilities and resources (man hours worked, to be counted as co-financing). This requires that project design involve relevant stakeholders, as discussed in Section 2.
[Added: 2011/10/04] [Last Updated: 2013/05/30]
Proponent No due date No deadline established
12. Recommendation: 12) Authority awareness-building and lobbying should be a specific activity for every project, implemented from project start and it should not be considered a burden or a secondary activity.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/10/04]

Accepted

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The project team lobbied continuously throughout project execution. It is important that this lobbying portion of the project be supported politically by the implementing agency, particularly from decision makers of the proposing institution, in order to provide greater weight to management.
[Added: 2011/10/04]
Executing agency No due date No deadline established
13. Recommendation: 13) Project steering committee resolutions should first contain an analysis of the situation presented, followed by specific accords on how to address them, including responsibilities, tasks and estimated terms.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/10/04]

Accepted

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Elaborate formal mechanisms for reporting specific agreements reached at by the steering committee, aiming to provide appropriate follow-up and monitoring
[Added: 2011/10/04] [Last Updated: 2014/09/23]
Executing institution Implementing agency (supervision) Project coordinator (follow-up) No due date No deadline established UNDP provides guidance to best approaches for Steering Committees drawing on projects from across the world. But modus operandi and formats drafting ultimately are a decision of each Committee. Recommendations will be made to the on-going UNDP GEF projects in Chile.
14. Recommendation: 14) Local community and municipal participation should include adequate accounting and transparency for all activities.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/10/04]

Accepted

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Regulating the relationship with the communities through more formal collaboration mechanisms, through letters of agreement or framework agreements between implementing agency and civil society associations, stipulating activities, timing and the way in which accounts are rendered and how each party makes its specific contribution and conflict resolution mechanisms, if applicable.
[Added: 2011/10/04]
Executing agency Implementing agency No due date No deadline established This recommendation will be explored more fully during the preparation of a new project with communities and local governments. Similarly the drafting of a manual of operations will be proposed for on-going project regarding participation.
15. Recommendation: 15) In order to reinforce project impact and consolidate the network of MUMPAs, the following strategic guidelines are proposed: 15.1) that the Ministry maintain the hired professionals working in the regions so as to continue working towards the creation of administrative units in participation and coordination with local relevant actors and regional governments, up until the administrative units of the MUMPAs.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/10/04]

Partially accepted

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The practice of hiring professionals by the Ministry of the Environment for MUMPAs in the regions should be maintained even after having defined the administrative unit to be used in each particular case, given that the Ministry has a supervisory role to play in MPAs and with other actors in the marine domain.
[Added: 2011/10/04] [Last Updated: 2013/05/30]
Environment Ministry No due date No deadline established Ministry of Environment continues hiring 3 people (one per each MUMPA).

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