Sustainable Tourism for Rural Development - MDG-F

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2011-2015, Serbia
Evaluation Type:
Mid Term Project
Planned End Date:
11/2011
Completion Date:
09/2011
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
15,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document TOR Rural Tourism (MDGF).docx tor English 1489.81 KB Posted 333
Download document MDG-F Sust Rural Tourism JP Mid-term Eval Final Report 9 Sep 2011.docx report English 174.68 KB Posted 1388
Title Sustainable Tourism for Rural Development - MDG-F
Atlas Project Number: 00070513
Evaluation Plan: 2011-2015, Serbia
Evaluation Type: Mid Term Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 09/2011
Planned End Date: 11/2011
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Poverty and MDG
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
  • 1. Policies, strategies and partnerships established to enhance public-private sector collaboration and private sector and market development that benefit the poor and ensure that low-income households and small enterprises have access to a broad range of financial and legal services
Evaluation Budget(US $): 15,000
Source of Funding: MDGF Secretariat
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: Yes
  • Joint with FAO, UNEP, UNDP, UNWTO and UNICEF
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Jim Newkirk Team Leader
GEF Evaluation: No
Key Stakeholders: Ministry of the Economy and Regional Development, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management and Tourism Organisation of Serbia
Countries: SERBIA
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1 Beneficiaries. The PIU should prepare an assessment of intended JP beneficiaries, making use of existing material and a current assessment process and present a beneficiary analysis to the PMC for signing off.
2 PMC Composition and Meetings. Agencies and national partners indicate to the PMC who their formal representative is, as well as indicating that the representative has decision-making authority. These representatives, or their formal delegates, should be present at each PMC meeting.
3 Results Focus. With regards to all field activities, but particularly capacity building initiatives and the grant activities, focus on outcomes must be maintained within the PIU. ? Capacity strengthening activities should focus on outcomes - not an input-focus where numbers of training sessions and participants is used to judge ?success?. ? The Joint Fund must focus on the result (enhancing tourism governance towards better linked and organised tourism and support industries where capacity is improved for delivering services) not on the grants, which are simply an input ? a tool.
4 No-cost Extension. It is recommended that a no-cost extension be given in order to: ? More effectively deliver the Joint Fund. ? Better understand to effect, i.e. result of Joint Fund activities. ? Ensure the grant components intended in year two are well conceived, have appropriate implementation time in the field and are able to be assessed against their intended outputs and outcomes.
5 Grants Program. The JP would benefit, logistically and in terms of outcomes, from running the Joint Fund?s grants as a single initiative, in coordination with the financial initiatives of national partners. There are significant positives in delivering a process that represents a Joint Fund, with a single Call for Proposals, against a single set of requirements to be assessed by a single group of assessors. The intent and priorities of individual Agencies can be maintained as sub-components of the Call. The process would be more transparent, more efficient and would generate less confusion in the field.
6 Output 2.1.3 Product Development. The JP should re-focus activities on local tourism stakeholders actively participating in product development discussions and are active stakeholders in RTMP implementation.
7 Output 1.3.4. Investment Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy. Programme management needs to ensure the responsible agency undertakes this activity as a way of ensuring that lessons learned from public tourism investments are understood and are able to be incorporated.
8 Quality Assessment of Capacity Building Activities. It is recommended that the JP engage in a qualitative assessment of the JP?s capacity building program (across all areas of activity) with a view to ensuring the anticipated quality of outcomes are being achieved
9 Grant Scheme Outcomes and Lessons Learned. The JP needs to ensure there is an appropriate assessment of the outcomes and lessons learned from the grant schemes ? recommendations that will assist in the future, particularly donor organisations and the GOS, to ensure the priority areas of donation and the priority types of activities are most useful to anticipated outcomes.
10 Leveraging JP Results As An Advocacy Strategy. It is recommended that the advocacy and communication strategy give particular attention in the coming 12 months to using the JP to leverage increased MDG results, and citizen engagement it its activities, per the MDG-F Advocacy strategy
11 Follow-up Programme. A follow-up programme should be considered to sustain the development. This is particularly relevant in relation to Outcome 2.
1. Recommendation: Beneficiaries. The PIU should prepare an assessment of intended JP beneficiaries, making use of existing material and a current assessment process and present a beneficiary analysis to the PMC for signing off.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/10/27]

Prepare a beneficiary report (analysis) for PMC.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
1.1 Methodology and scope of the assessment defined
[Added: 2011/10/27] [Last Updated: 2013/01/17]
Project officers & JPM 2012/10 Completed
1.2 Compilation and analysis of data
[Added: 2011/10/27] [Last Updated: 2013/01/17]
Project officers & JPM 2012/11 Completed delayed
1.3 Presentation to PMC
[Added: 2011/10/27] [Last Updated: 2013/01/17]
JPM 2012/12 Completed
2. Recommendation: PMC Composition and Meetings. Agencies and national partners indicate to the PMC who their formal representative is, as well as indicating that the representative has decision-making authority. These representatives, or their formal delegates, should be present at each PMC meeting.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/10/27]

PMC membership list updated and confirmed.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
2.1 Request for an update
[Added: 2011/10/27]
JPM 2011/10 Completed
2.2 Formal answers received
[Added: 2011/10/27] [Last Updated: 2012/01/12]
UN Back-stoppers & National partners? representatives 2011/10 Completed
2.3 Presentation to PMC
[Added: 2011/10/27] [Last Updated: 2012/01/12]
JPM 2011/10 Completed
3. Recommendation: Results Focus. With regards to all field activities, but particularly capacity building initiatives and the grant activities, focus on outcomes must be maintained within the PIU. ? Capacity strengthening activities should focus on outcomes - not an input-focus where numbers of training sessions and participants is used to judge ?success?. ? The Joint Fund must focus on the result (enhancing tourism governance towards better linked and organised tourism and support industries where capacity is improved for delivering services) not on the grants, which are simply an input ? a tool.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/10/27]

Ensure that the PIU members maintain their focus throughout the project activities bearing in mind measurable, results - oriented reporting and actual change achieved.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
3.1 Regular PIU meetings on reporting
[Added: 2011/10/27]
JPM No due date No deadline established
3.2 Institute follow-up mechanisms (survey, feedback...etc)referring to usefulness and application of the knowledge acquired through training
[Added: 2011/10/27] [Last Updated: 2012/04/06]
Project officers & JPM 2012/03 Completed
3.3 Collect data from grantees
[Added: 2011/10/27] [Last Updated: 2013/01/17]
Independent local expert 2012/09 Completed some data available
4. Recommendation: No-cost Extension. It is recommended that a no-cost extension be given in order to: ? More effectively deliver the Joint Fund. ? Better understand to effect, i.e. result of Joint Fund activities. ? Ensure the grant components intended in year two are well conceived, have appropriate implementation time in the field and are able to be assessed against their intended outputs and outcomes.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/10/27]

Proposal for no-cost extension submitted.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
4.1 Consultations with UN agencies, National partners and RCO
[Added: 2011/10/27] [Last Updated: 2012/01/12]
JPM 2011/10 Completed
4.2 Preparation of the proposal
[Added: 2011/10/27] [Last Updated: 2012/07/30]
Project Officers, back-stoppers & JPM 2012/07 Completed
5. Recommendation: Grants Program. The JP would benefit, logistically and in terms of outcomes, from running the Joint Fund?s grants as a single initiative, in coordination with the financial initiatives of national partners. There are significant positives in delivering a process that represents a Joint Fund, with a single Call for Proposals, against a single set of requirements to be assessed by a single group of assessors. The intent and priorities of individual Agencies can be maintained as sub-components of the Call. The process would be more transparent, more efficient and would generate less confusion in the field.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/10/27]

Joint Call for Proposals is issued jointly.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
5.1 Issuance of the call
[Added: 2011/10/27]
JPM 2011/09 Completed
6. Recommendation: Output 2.1.3 Product Development. The JP should re-focus activities on local tourism stakeholders actively participating in product development discussions and are active stakeholders in RTMP implementation.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/10/27]

Ensuring stakeholders? active participation through already established and newly created mechanisms.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
6.1 Create & implement appropriate mechanisms
[Added: 2011/10/27]
Project officers No due date No deadline established
7. Recommendation: Output 1.3.4. Investment Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy. Programme management needs to ensure the responsible agency undertakes this activity as a way of ensuring that lessons learned from public tourism investments are understood and are able to be incorporated.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/10/27] [Last Updated: 2012/07/30]

Prepare public tourism investment analysis

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
7.1 Employing an expert
[Added: 2011/10/27] [Last Updated: 2012/04/06]
UNDP Project Officer & JPM 2011/11 Completed
7.2 Completing a study
[Added: 2011/10/27] [Last Updated: 2012/04/06]
UNDP Project Officer & JPM 2012/03 Completed
7.3 Implementation of conclusions
[Added: 2011/10/27] [Last Updated: 2012/07/30]
MoERD Sector for Tourism No due date No deadline established
8. Recommendation: Quality Assessment of Capacity Building Activities. It is recommended that the JP engage in a qualitative assessment of the JP?s capacity building program (across all areas of activity) with a view to ensuring the anticipated quality of outcomes are being achieved
Management Response: [Added: 2011/10/27]

Assess the impact of capacity building activities.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
8.1 Agree responsibilities, design methodology and perform assessment
[Added: 2011/10/27] [Last Updated: 2013/01/17]
Independent evaluator 2012/07 Completed n/a
8.2 Presenting results
[Added: 2011/10/27] [Last Updated: 2013/01/17]
Project Officers & JPM 2012/09 Completed n/a
8.3 Final evaluation of the Assessment, analysis of the achievements and improvements, evaluation of the stakeholders? capacity level increase(production of case studies)
[Added: 2011/10/27] [Last Updated: 2013/01/17]
MoERD Sector for Tourism 2012/10 Completed n/a
9. Recommendation: Grant Scheme Outcomes and Lessons Learned. The JP needs to ensure there is an appropriate assessment of the outcomes and lessons learned from the grant schemes ? recommendations that will assist in the future, particularly donor organisations and the GOS, to ensure the priority areas of donation and the priority types of activities are most useful to anticipated outcomes.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/10/27]

Perform reviews for Gran Schemes 2010 and 2011

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
9.1 Performing reviews at the end of grant cycle
[Added: 2011/10/27]
Respective Project Officers & back-stoppers No due date No deadline established
9.2 Compilation and presentation of the results
[Added: 2011/10/27]
JPM No due date No deadline established
10. Recommendation: Leveraging JP Results As An Advocacy Strategy. It is recommended that the advocacy and communication strategy give particular attention in the coming 12 months to using the JP to leverage increased MDG results, and citizen engagement it its activities, per the MDG-F Advocacy strategy
Management Response: [Added: 2011/10/27]

Use evaluation and beneficiary analysis findings in future advocacy and communication campaigns.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
10.1 Organize promotional & communication events
[Added: 2011/10/27]
JPM & RCO No due date No deadline established
10.2 Disseminate results and recommendations
[Added: 2011/10/27]
JPM & RCO No due date No deadline established
11. Recommendation: Follow-up Programme. A follow-up programme should be considered to sustain the development. This is particularly relevant in relation to Outcome 2.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/10/27]

A follow-up programme developed through consultations with all relevant stakeholders and submitted to potential donors.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
11.1 Consultations with stakeholders
[Added: 2011/10/27] [Last Updated: 2012/04/06]
JPM & RCO 2011/11 Completed
11.2 Concept paper prepared
[Added: 2011/10/27] [Last Updated: 2012/04/06]
JPM & RCO 2011/12 Completed
11.3 Follow-up programme developed and approved
[Added: 2012/04/06] [Last Updated: 2012/07/30]
JPM, RCO & PMC 2012/07 Completed

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

220 East 42nd Street
20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel. +1 646 781 4200
Fax. +1 646 781 4213
erc.support@undp.org