Ensuring financial sustainability of the protected area system of Serbia

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2011-2015, Serbia
Evaluation Type:
Mid Term Project
Planned End Date:
09/2013
Completion Date:
10/2012
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
25,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document Mid-term evaluation-Ensuring Financial Sustainability of the Protected Area System of Serbia.docx tor English 106.13 KB Posted 832
Download document UNDP Serbia PAs MTE FINAL.doc report English 3257.00 KB Posted 584
Title Ensuring financial sustainability of the protected area system of Serbia
Atlas Project Number: 0074312
Evaluation Plan: 2011-2015, Serbia
Evaluation Type: Mid Term Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 10/2012
Planned End Date: 09/2013
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
  • 2. Local and national authorities have the capacities to access and integrate multiple sources of public and private environmental financing in support of sustainable human development, including gender equality and poverty reduction
Evaluation Budget(US $): 25,000
Source of Funding: GEF
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Josh Brann International Consultant Brann.Evaluation@gmail.com
Katarina Vuksic National Consultant vkatarina@hotmail.com
GEF Evaluation: Yes
Evaluation Type:
Focal Area: Biodiversity
Project Type: MSP
GEF Phase: GEF-4
PIMS Number: 4281
Key Stakeholders: Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning
Countries: SERBIA
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1 At the appropriate moment in the next few months the project should organize a ?re-introduction? workshop to present the project to all relevant stakeholders and familiarize key stakeholders with the project?s objectives and activities, to build political support for and ownership of the planned project results. The government re-organization is likely to require naming a new Project Board member from the government, and re-building of the project?s national constituency.
2 It is critical to further analyze the project sustainability and exit strategy. The NAPS is likely to be a key component, but it is also important to broaden involvement and strongly engage as many stakeholders as possible. Stakeholder involvement and ownership has been shown to be a critical factor for sustainability of project results. Stronger engagement and buy-in from the ministry responsible for PAs should be a priority focus since there is an opportunity to continue strengthening government involvement with the new institutional structure, as there are new individuals in the key high level positions. This can be partially achieved through regular and well-structured Project Board meetings, which can increase motivation of the Project Board (and Advisory Board) to support the project activities and objective (once government representation on the Project Board has been clarified). Another important approach for developing stakeholder ownership could be to support a strategic and transparent allocation of resources from the ministry responsible for PAs, which will be particularly important now that the EPF has been eliminated. For example, the project can continue the development of strategic guidelines for the allocation of funds but targeted for the ministries responsible for environment, and identify strategic needs based on consultation with PAs and other stakeholders. To ensure sustainability it will also be important to identify opportunities (i.e. additional donor funding) by the end of the project to carry forward the foundational results that the project will put in place.
3 The project sustainability is also likely to be increased if the NAPS is well institutionalized by the end of the project. Thus a key focus of the project throughout implementation should be to do as much as possible to ensure the capacity development and strengthening of this organization. This will include securing the support for the NAPS of as many of the key stakeholders in Serbia as possible, including the main organizations and institutions responsible for managing PAs. A good opportunity for capacity development of the NAPS will be a study tour to other similar organizations, as it was envisaged in the grant NAPS received from the project. There are similar organizations in the region that are slightly further along in their development, such as those in Romania and Ukraine. The establishment of active working groups among NAPS members will also be useful.
4 While the strategy and approaches for securing sustainable financing needs to respond to the particular national context, experience from other GEF PA financing projects in the region has shown that in all countries establishing sustainable financing for PAs requires a highly participatory approach with a large number of diverse stakeholders, in order to broaden and deepen the constituency for PAs as much as possible. This includes not just effective engagement of traditional nature conservation partners (e.g. government line agency responsible for environment, scientific and research institutions, civil society, local resource users), but also other government agencies (ministries of finance, tourism, etc.), the private sector, and others. To build stakeholder ownership and engagement, the key project outputs need to be produced through as participatory of a process as possible, through dialogue and engagement with the relevant stakeholders. While strategies and plans produced by external experts are generally of high technical quality, experience has shown that strong engagement and ownership of key stakeholders is critical for implementation of these technical outputs. This evaluation recommends that the project ensure a participatory approach in the process of developing and producing key outputs.
5 Due to the changing institutional framework and other changes in the project?s context, as well as the low implementation rate to date, it is necessary to streamline the workplan to focus on the strategic activities most likely to contribute to results. This evaluation recommends specific revisions to some outputs (such as Output 3.1 and Output 3.2) but additional adjustments may be appropriate based on the views and perspectives of the project stakeholders, as per discussion at upcoming Project Board meetings.
6 To reflect changing conditions and context, and improve the results-focus and SMART-ness of project indicators, this evaluation recommends a revision of the project results framework indicators and targets, taking into considering the suggestions provided in Annex 3 of this evaluation report
7 Based on the fact that the project management expenditure is much higher than planned at the mid-term, particularly considering that non-management delivery is around 11%, this evaluation recommends that UNDP work with the project team and Project Board to review the project?s financial situation, and plot a clear and cost-effective path for delivery of the remaining project results. While it is expected that project management will be cost-shared within UNDP Serbia?s environmental portfolio going forward, ensuring efficiency is maintained through the end of the project may require identifying opportunities for co-financing project management for the remaining project implementation period.
8 Considering the need for significantly intensified project implementation in the second half of the project, it may be necessary to increase the level of staff effort available in the PIU. This evaluation recommends UNDP urgently analyze and evaluate the PIU staffing level, and quickly take any necessary steps to ensure an adequate level of human resources to support the forthcoming intensified project implementation.
9 The PIU should make a specific effort to improve comprehensiveness and detail of reporting on co-financing, which requires seeking additional information from project partners. It is highly likely that the project has actually received more co-financing than current data shows, but the information is not available to confirm this. Co-financing is considered by the GEF as an important indicator of stakeholder ownership and country-drivenness of project results, and at present the data indicates that co-financing is well below expected.
10 Few projects have co-financing actually managed and implemented through the GEF Agency, at least in cases where UNDP is the GEF Agency. In this sense, the GEF requirement for projects? CEO Endorsement Request template to include co-financing by project outcome only forces project developers to produce figures that have little basis in reality. The Serbia PAs project partners provided the required co-financing agreements at project approval, but it is not possible to track co-financing by project component. This is actually the case for most UNDP-GEF projects, as few projects have co-financing actually managed and implemented through UNDP. This evaluation recommends that the GEF Secretariat explore alternative approaches to documenting at project approval the planned co-financing that would more specifically and accurately reflect the real on-the-ground situation for most projects, particularly those in which co-financing is not managed by the GEF Agency involved.
11 The situation of PAs in Serbia presents an excellent opportunity to develop greater awareness of the PES approach, and to support a more structured and systematic implementation of PES in Serbia to support PA financing. Multiple PAs are already receiving some kinds of payments and fees for various ecosystem services (most notably for provision of timber resources), but this approach needs to be further developed in Serbia in a comprehensive way that can form a foundation for all PAs to strengthen this opportunity for enhanced financing. The PES concept is also useful for building stakeholder support for PAs by directly linking PAs and environmental quality with economic benefits. It is recommended that the project consider additional activities to support further development of PES in Serbia (see Section 124 under Output 1.2 for specific suggestions).
12 In the current climate of economic crisis (which is ongoing, or even worsening in Serbia), the project needs to make a strong policy case for finding solutions for PA financing to catalyze economic development, and clearly make the link between PAs and economic benefits to build political will. The project should consider producing one or a few policy papers (as appropriate) establishing clear arguments for specific approaches for strengthening PA financing ? for example, for the separation of forestry and PA management functions for national parks (on a pilot basis). A model for national park PEs of separating forestry and PA management functions (outsourcing main forestry functions) has been developed for National Park Tara. The idea is to focus on the primary mandate of nature conservation and put forth arguments for increasing PA management cost-effectiveness. The project team is planning initiate this model for implementation once government institutions and PA management are re-established and stable. Such a level of reform requires significant political will, and it will be necessary to build stakeholder support and assess the appropriate timing for such a move, which can be driven based on lobbying tools such as the policy papers indicated above. Another key line of future work to link economic development and sustainable PA financing that could be advanced through concise policy advocacy could be in revising criteria and guidelines by which municipalities receive central government funding support to favor municipalities that have PAs within their jurisdiction (as is done in other countries in the region, such as Ukraine and Romania).
13 With capacity development activities in general (including training on business planning) this evaluation recommends that the project be sure to include a train-the-trainer approach. This is necessary because national stakeholders often do not speak english, and trainings by international experts are not fully adequate for all stakeholders. This would also provide a catalytic approach to capacity development on PA financing issues in Serbia, which is critical for building a base of local capacity.
14 The NAPS is continuing to work to build stakeholder buy-in and support from all relevant stakeholders. The experience of a similar organization in the Ukraine has shown that greater progress can be made when the organization?s staff includes individuals who are well-known and respected based on their experience working with PAs. In addition, the association in Ukraine is supporting overall strengthening of PA management effectiveness. This evaluation recommends the NAPS be further developed with both of these approaches: Drawing in the engagement of well-respected national experts in PAs, and in ensuring an adequate focus on strengthening PA management effectiveness.
15 To diversify the range of involved stakeholders, the project should continue building linkages with private sector through various opportunities ? for example presenting the project at future Global Compact meetings.
16 Given the importance of fees for the financial health of PAs as a source of non-timber financing, this evaluation recommends that the project stakeholders, including government institutions, work to keep in force the by-laws on fees in PAs.
17 The opportunity for Debt-for-Nature swaps was envisioned in the project document, and would be a useful tool if achieved. Though there has been limited progress on this issue so far, the project should continue exploring the opportunity for Debt-for-Nature swaps in collaboration with key partners such as WWF.
1. Recommendation: At the appropriate moment in the next few months the project should organize a ?re-introduction? workshop to present the project to all relevant stakeholders and familiarize key stakeholders with the project?s objectives and activities, to build political support for and ownership of the planned project results. The government re-organization is likely to require naming a new Project Board member from the government, and re-building of the project?s national constituency.
Management Response: [Added: 2013/09/02]

Due to change in institutional setup and mandates in the country, new Ministries in charge of environment and nature conservation will appoint new members of the project board. Initial PB meeting will serve as ?reintroduction? meeting to review the workplan and targets. Meetings with other project partners and relevant stakeholders will also be held (various PAs managers, NAPS, Institutes for Nature conservation, etc.)

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Establish new PB
[Added: 2013/09/02]
Government, UNDP 2013/06 Completed
Organize PB meeting
[Added: 2013/09/02]
Project manager 2013/06 Completed
Meetings with other partners
[Added: 2013/09/02]
Project manager 2013/09 Completed Meetings held with various PAs managers, NAPS, etc. However, since changes of PAs CEOs are expected in the next couple of months meetings might have to be scheduled again.
2. Recommendation: It is critical to further analyze the project sustainability and exit strategy. The NAPS is likely to be a key component, but it is also important to broaden involvement and strongly engage as many stakeholders as possible. Stakeholder involvement and ownership has been shown to be a critical factor for sustainability of project results. Stronger engagement and buy-in from the ministry responsible for PAs should be a priority focus since there is an opportunity to continue strengthening government involvement with the new institutional structure, as there are new individuals in the key high level positions. This can be partially achieved through regular and well-structured Project Board meetings, which can increase motivation of the Project Board (and Advisory Board) to support the project activities and objective (once government representation on the Project Board has been clarified). Another important approach for developing stakeholder ownership could be to support a strategic and transparent allocation of resources from the ministry responsible for PAs, which will be particularly important now that the EPF has been eliminated. For example, the project can continue the development of strategic guidelines for the allocation of funds but targeted for the ministries responsible for environment, and identify strategic needs based on consultation with PAs and other stakeholders. To ensure sustainability it will also be important to identify opportunities (i.e. additional donor funding) by the end of the project to carry forward the foundational results that the project will put in place.
Management Response: [Added: 2013/09/02]

The project will further analyze project sustainability and exit strategy. Some initial steps in this regard have been taken already and given that institutional mandate for PA issues have been divided between two new Ministries, both Ministries will be represented in the Project Board. Once that PB is operational meetings will be organized regularly and as needed to ensure adequate support to project activities. Further, PA strategic needs will be identified and documented and guidelines for allocating resources to PAs developed. Donor funding availability will be identified through fundraising strategy that is planned under the PAFP.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Discuss project sustainability and exit strategy with partners and other stakeholders regularly
[Added: 2013/09/02]
Project manager, UNDP No due date No deadline established
Develop list of strategic needs and guidelines for PA financing
[Added: 2013/09/02] [Last Updated: 2016/11/18]
Project manager 2014/04 Completed History
Develop fundraising strategy within PAFP
[Added: 2013/09/02] [Last Updated: 2016/11/18]
Project manager 2014/04 Completed History
3. Recommendation: The project sustainability is also likely to be increased if the NAPS is well institutionalized by the end of the project. Thus a key focus of the project throughout implementation should be to do as much as possible to ensure the capacity development and strengthening of this organization. This will include securing the support for the NAPS of as many of the key stakeholders in Serbia as possible, including the main organizations and institutions responsible for managing PAs. A good opportunity for capacity development of the NAPS will be a study tour to other similar organizations, as it was envisaged in the grant NAPS received from the project. There are similar organizations in the region that are slightly further along in their development, such as those in Romania and Ukraine. The establishment of active working groups among NAPS members will also be useful.
Management Response: [Added: 2013/09/02]

The project will extend its support to the NAPS and work on its sustainability and capacity development. In addition, the project already implemented recommendation and organized a study tour to similar organization in Romania. Also, through the grant provided to NAPS from the project eight working groups have been established to cover and deal with various issues that PAs face.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Support and strengthen capacities of NAPS
[Added: 2013/09/02]
Project manager, UNDP No due date No deadline established
Organize study tour for NAPS to visit similar organization
[Added: 2013/09/02]
Project manager, NAPS 2013/03 Completed
Establish NAPS working groups
[Added: 2013/09/02]
Project manager, NAPS 2013/03 Completed
4. Recommendation: While the strategy and approaches for securing sustainable financing needs to respond to the particular national context, experience from other GEF PA financing projects in the region has shown that in all countries establishing sustainable financing for PAs requires a highly participatory approach with a large number of diverse stakeholders, in order to broaden and deepen the constituency for PAs as much as possible. This includes not just effective engagement of traditional nature conservation partners (e.g. government line agency responsible for environment, scientific and research institutions, civil society, local resource users), but also other government agencies (ministries of finance, tourism, etc.), the private sector, and others. To build stakeholder ownership and engagement, the key project outputs need to be produced through as participatory of a process as possible, through dialogue and engagement with the relevant stakeholders. While strategies and plans produced by external experts are generally of high technical quality, experience has shown that strong engagement and ownership of key stakeholders is critical for implementation of these technical outputs. This evaluation recommends that the project ensure a participatory approach in the process of developing and producing key outputs.
Management Response: [Added: 2013/09/02]

More efforts will be invested in ensuring fully participatory approach for the rest of project outputs

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Regularly contact stakeholders and widely discuss and engage relevant ones in all project activities and outputs
[Added: 2013/09/02]
Project manager, UNDP No due date No deadline established
5. Recommendation: Due to the changing institutional framework and other changes in the project?s context, as well as the low implementation rate to date, it is necessary to streamline the workplan to focus on the strategic activities most likely to contribute to results. This evaluation recommends specific revisions to some outputs (such as Output 3.1 and Output 3.2) but additional adjustments may be appropriate based on the views and perspectives of the project stakeholders, as per discussion at upcoming Project Board meetings.
Management Response: [Added: 2013/09/02]

The project will invest efforts to streamline the workplan to focus on strategic activities that will best contribute to results.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Develop workplan and discuss with PB
[Added: 2013/09/02]
Project manager, UNDP 2013/09 Completed
Discuss workplan with other project partners
[Added: 2013/09/02]
Project manager 2013/09 Completed
6. Recommendation: To reflect changing conditions and context, and improve the results-focus and SMART-ness of project indicators, this evaluation recommends a revision of the project results framework indicators and targets, taking into considering the suggestions provided in Annex 3 of this evaluation report
Management Response: [Added: 2013/09/02]

The project will revise the logframe to reflect changing conditions and context and to reflect project activities more directly. Suggestions provided by the MTE will be taken into account.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Review and revise project logframe
[Added: 2013/09/02] [Last Updated: 2016/11/18]
Project manager, UNDP, PB 2013/09 Completed History
7. Recommendation: Based on the fact that the project management expenditure is much higher than planned at the mid-term, particularly considering that non-management delivery is around 11%, this evaluation recommends that UNDP work with the project team and Project Board to review the project?s financial situation, and plot a clear and cost-effective path for delivery of the remaining project results. While it is expected that project management will be cost-shared within UNDP Serbia?s environmental portfolio going forward, ensuring efficiency is maintained through the end of the project may require identifying opportunities for co-financing project management for the remaining project implementation period.
Management Response: [Added: 2013/09/02]

Project budget will be analyzed in detail and modalities discussed with the PB.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Project management cost shared across BD portfolio
[Added: 2013/09/02]
UNDP 2013/08 Completed
PB meeting organized
[Added: 2013/09/02]
UNDP, Project manager 2013/06 Completed
8. Recommendation: Considering the need for significantly intensified project implementation in the second half of the project, it may be necessary to increase the level of staff effort available in the PIU. This evaluation recommends UNDP urgently analyze and evaluate the PIU staffing level, and quickly take any necessary steps to ensure an adequate level of human resources to support the forthcoming intensified project implementation.
Management Response: [Added: 2013/09/02]

UNDP CO will review staffing situation and make necessary adjustment.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Review staffing situation and make necessary adjustment
[Added: 2013/09/02] [Last Updated: 2016/11/18]
UNDP 2013/10 Completed History
9. Recommendation: The PIU should make a specific effort to improve comprehensiveness and detail of reporting on co-financing, which requires seeking additional information from project partners. It is highly likely that the project has actually received more co-financing than current data shows, but the information is not available to confirm this. Co-financing is considered by the GEF as an important indicator of stakeholder ownership and country-drivenness of project results, and at present the data indicates that co-financing is well below expected.
Management Response: [Added: 2013/09/02]

The project will work on improving the co-financing reporting and establishing continuous information exchange with institutions and organizations providing co-financing.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Intensify communication with project partners
[Added: 2013/09/02]
Project manager No due date No deadline established
10. Recommendation: Few projects have co-financing actually managed and implemented through the GEF Agency, at least in cases where UNDP is the GEF Agency. In this sense, the GEF requirement for projects? CEO Endorsement Request template to include co-financing by project outcome only forces project developers to produce figures that have little basis in reality. The Serbia PAs project partners provided the required co-financing agreements at project approval, but it is not possible to track co-financing by project component. This is actually the case for most UNDP-GEF projects, as few projects have co-financing actually managed and implemented through UNDP. This evaluation recommends that the GEF Secretariat explore alternative approaches to documenting at project approval the planned co-financing that would more specifically and accurately reflect the real on-the-ground situation for most projects, particularly those in which co-financing is not managed by the GEF Agency involved.
Management Response: [Added: 2013/09/02]

The project has been working on mobilizing additional resources for the project objective in line with commitments made from the counterparts at the project development time. The overall impression is that despite the ongoing economic crisis co-financing commitments are being made, which is a great sign of project relevance and acceptance from national partners. There are many types of co-financing and it would be useful to have clearer definitions and guidelines to reporting co-finance, however, the project cannot influence this.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
In collaboration with co-financiers acquire data broken down according to the formats as established in the UNDP - GEF PIR
[Added: 2013/09/02]
Project manager, UNDP No due date No deadline established
11. Recommendation: The situation of PAs in Serbia presents an excellent opportunity to develop greater awareness of the PES approach, and to support a more structured and systematic implementation of PES in Serbia to support PA financing. Multiple PAs are already receiving some kinds of payments and fees for various ecosystem services (most notably for provision of timber resources), but this approach needs to be further developed in Serbia in a comprehensive way that can form a foundation for all PAs to strengthen this opportunity for enhanced financing. The PES concept is also useful for building stakeholder support for PAs by directly linking PAs and environmental quality with economic benefits. It is recommended that the project consider additional activities to support further development of PES in Serbia (see Section 124 under Output 1.2 for specific suggestions).
Management Response: [Added: 2013/09/02]

The project will through extensive research and discussion with project partners identify the most adequate way to support further development of PES in Serbia.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Identify and implement activities that will contribute to the development of PES
[Added: 2013/09/02]
Project manager No due date No deadline established
12. Recommendation: In the current climate of economic crisis (which is ongoing, or even worsening in Serbia), the project needs to make a strong policy case for finding solutions for PA financing to catalyze economic development, and clearly make the link between PAs and economic benefits to build political will. The project should consider producing one or a few policy papers (as appropriate) establishing clear arguments for specific approaches for strengthening PA financing ? for example, for the separation of forestry and PA management functions for national parks (on a pilot basis). A model for national park PEs of separating forestry and PA management functions (outsourcing main forestry functions) has been developed for National Park Tara. The idea is to focus on the primary mandate of nature conservation and put forth arguments for increasing PA management cost-effectiveness. The project team is planning initiate this model for implementation once government institutions and PA management are re-established and stable. Such a level of reform requires significant political will, and it will be necessary to build stakeholder support and assess the appropriate timing for such a move, which can be driven based on lobbying tools such as the policy papers indicated above. Another key line of future work to link economic development and sustainable PA financing that could be advanced through concise policy advocacy could be in revising criteria and guidelines by which municipalities receive central government funding support to favor municipalities that have PAs within their jurisdiction (as is done in other countries in the region, such as Ukraine and Romania).
Management Response: [Added: 2013/09/02]

In line with accepting the recommendation no 11 the project will wherever possible extend activities that promote PES with this recommendation and promote economic role of PAs. AS for the recommendation relocating local governments funding to PAs, due to the ongoing economic crisis and overall government focus to reduce as many burdens from local administration as possible to make them survive through the crisis, it is unlikely that the project will make any impact in this area.

Key Actions:

13. Recommendation: With capacity development activities in general (including training on business planning) this evaluation recommends that the project be sure to include a train-the-trainer approach. This is necessary because national stakeholders often do not speak english, and trainings by international experts are not fully adequate for all stakeholders. This would also provide a catalytic approach to capacity development on PA financing issues in Serbia, which is critical for building a base of local capacity.
Management Response: [Added: 2013/09/02]

The project will ensure this recommendation is implemented and will work with PAs and NAPS? working group on Business planning and finance to build their capacities and train the trainers

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Organize Business planning training for trainers
[Added: 2013/09/02] [Last Updated: 2016/11/18]
Project manager 2014/03 Completed History
14. Recommendation: The NAPS is continuing to work to build stakeholder buy-in and support from all relevant stakeholders. The experience of a similar organization in the Ukraine has shown that greater progress can be made when the organization?s staff includes individuals who are well-known and respected based on their experience working with PAs. In addition, the association in Ukraine is supporting overall strengthening of PA management effectiveness. This evaluation recommends the NAPS be further developed with both of these approaches: Drawing in the engagement of well-respected national experts in PAs, and in ensuring an adequate focus on strengthening PA management effectiveness.
Management Response: [Added: 2013/09/02]

More efforts will be placed into strengthening of NAPS and its work focusing on PA management effectiveness.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Provide further assistance to NAPS
[Added: 2013/09/02]
UNDP, Project manager No due date No deadline established
15. Recommendation: To diversify the range of involved stakeholders, the project should continue building linkages with private sector through various opportunities ? for example presenting the project at future Global Compact meetings.
Management Response: [Added: 2013/09/02]

The project will continue building linkages with private sector whenever possible. The project has already taken some steps in this direction and participated in Global compact meeting in December 2012 and presented its publication on PAs and their tourism potential.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Continuously build partnership with private sector and promote PAs
[Added: 2013/09/02]
Project manager, UNDP No due date No deadline established
16. Recommendation: Given the importance of fees for the financial health of PAs as a source of non-timber financing, this evaluation recommends that the project stakeholders, including government institutions, work to keep in force the by-laws on fees in PAs.
Management Response: [Added: 2013/09/02]

The project will monitor the status of bylaws regulating fees and will work with project stakeholders to maintain this important source of financing for PAs. The project will ensure that these mechanisms are embedded in national level documents e.g. PA Financing Plana and National Biodiversity Strategy.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Continuously monitor the status of bylaws that regulate fees for PAs and actively advocate for keeping in force those bylaws
[Added: 2013/09/02]
Project manager No due date No deadline established
17. Recommendation: The opportunity for Debt-for-Nature swaps was envisioned in the project document, and would be a useful tool if achieved. Though there has been limited progress on this issue so far, the project should continue exploring the opportunity for Debt-for-Nature swaps in collaboration with key partners such as WWF.
Management Response: [Added: 2013/09/02]

The project will explore opportunities for DNS in collaboration with WWF and other partners and potential donors. The project has already taken some steps in this direction through discussing the structure of public debt with MoFin and exploring legal obstacles for DNS in Serbia. Follow up on the recommendation will be done and further activities implemented in order to fulfill the suggested measure.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Discuss with partners the most appropriate follow up activity and implement it
[Added: 2013/09/02] [Last Updated: 2016/11/18]
Project manager 2014/03 Completed 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