Mid term evaluation ?Consolidation of Cape Verde Protected Areas project

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2012-2017, Cape Verde
Evaluation Type:
Mid Term Project
Planned End Date:
07/2013
Completion Date:
09/2013
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
40,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document ToR_MidTermEvaluation_Consolidation_050513.pdf tor English 653.47 KB Posted 551
Download document MTR CONSOLIDATION OF CAPE VERDE PA SYSTEM ENGLISH FINAL2.pdf report English 1384.23 KB Posted 803
Title Mid term evaluation ?Consolidation of Cape Verde Protected Areas project
Atlas Project Number: 00072402
Evaluation Plan: 2012-2017, Cape Verde
Evaluation Type: Mid Term Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 09/2013
Planned End Date: 07/2013
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Environment & Sustainable Development
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
  • 1. National and local governments and communities have the capacities to adapt to climate change and make inclusive and sustainable environment & energy decisions benefitting in particular under-served populations
Evaluation Budget(US $): 40,000
Source of Funding: GEF
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Andrew Laurie Team leader andrew.laurie@cantab.net
Celeste Benchimol Team member celybenchimol@yahoo.com.br
GEF Evaluation: Yes
Evaluation Type:
Focal Area: Multifocal Areas
Project Type: EA
GEF Phase: GEF-4
PIMS Number: 4176
Key Stakeholders:
Countries: CAPE VERDE
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1 Project design recommendations, affecting monitoring and evaluation: Revise the SRF Indicators for Objective and Outcomes using the suggestions given
2 Project design recommendations, affecting monitoring and evaluation: Delete Output 3.4 ?Natural resource and soil use (eg. agriculture, tourism, fisheries, development construction) for the 4 PAs and the 3 MPAs respect restrictions of ecological carrying capacities? from the SRF
3 Project implementation: Arrange for a joint announcement by the Project Management, UNDP and Government of Cape Verde of their intention regarding institutionalization of protected areas through either the PAAA or another modality
4 Project implementation: Establish a task force (including members from the PCU, UNDP and the Government of Cape Verde) to get the protected area administration financed and institutionalized either as PAAA or within the DGA and agree to a timetable of steps and milestones
5 Project implementation: Design and implement a programme to deepen understanding of the economic values of protected areas across all sectors of government and among the general public and to put the economic case (and the non-economic case) for adequate government financing of protected areas. This should include, among other things: i)A series of high level government workshops to do a TEEB analysis of Cape Verde?s protected areas and to demonstrate the importance of protected areas in productive sectors (see below under Recommendation 7), and ii)The commissioning of a high quality film on what the protected area system should look like.
6 Project implementation: Reduce project duration by 4 months to end of August 2014
7 Project implementation: The project should quickly prepare a programme of work to cover the period October 2013 to August 2014, reconsidering the priorities of activities scheduled for 2013, and focusing on activities necessary to a) Achieve institutional sustainability for the PA system administration before the end of the project, b) Consolidate project outputs at the site level, and c) Establish practical spatial database for the whole PA system using the GIS capabilities developed by the project
1. Recommendation: Project design recommendations, affecting monitoring and evaluation: Revise the SRF Indicators for Objective and Outcomes using the suggestions given
Management Response: [Added: 2014/01/15]

UNDP recognizes that some of the indicators retained on the SRF are not sufficiently attributable to project activities. Additionally, is agreed that cost-effectiveness of verification means should have been better appraised at the project design phase. In the absence of clear biodiversity monitoring mechanism and information systems (especially in terms of marine and coastal biodiversity) baseline definition and data collection required time and resources investments for project indicators? measurement. UNDP acknowledges the importance of indicators for an appropriate project monitoring systems and therefore considers the revision suggestion made. From the reformulation proposed on Annex 8 of MTR report are adopted the recommendations for Objective Indicator 1 and 3 (clarifications and ambiguity reduction); Outcome 1 indicators 1 and 2 (consistency improvements and clarity); Outcome 2 indicator 2; Outcome 3 Indicator 1. The recommendations on Objective 1 Indicator 2 are considered but not adopted for the ongoing project for several reasons. Namely, adopting new indicators at this stage will bring back the issue of having appropriate data needed to determine a baseline. Additionally, in case the generation of primary source data is necessary for monitoring, records will be missing since no systems will have been designed from inception. We agree with the comments on the redundancy on using scorecard and tracking tool values for SRF purposes. However, since no better indicators where designed from inception, those ones will be kept. Considerations made on the ?fragility? masked behind some accurate data provided in response to TT and scorecards questions are also noted and considered as essential remarks to be highlighted on the scorecard results analysis and reflections. We will consider all the suggestions and comments as lessons learned. For next projects, costs of verification systems will be better appraised and a SMART test will be applied to each indicator proposed. We consider that reflections are needed on the approach to project M&E system to make sure is better integrated on national systems and/or contribute to reinforce sector statistics tools whenever they do not exist.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Lessons learned will be capitalized for the project SRF design for future GEF biodiversity projects. Recommendations on how to better design indicators for ecological monitoring will be incorporated on the formulation of ecological monitoring plans and on the design of M& E tools for the management and ecotourism plans. Additionally, guidance will be requested to RTA to ensure impact or process indicators are formulated as required for each level of monitoring. The guidance note to be prepared should make clear the difference between these two different types of indicators, the minimum standards and the utility and value of each one of them.
[Added: 2014/01/15]
UNDP CO RTA GEF-OFP No due date No deadline established
Technical consultations with research institutions intervening on natural resources management will be organized in order to agree on improved monitoring systems and how to better design ecological and environmental indicators A reflection on how GEF/UNDP project contribute to improve national environmental sector statistics will be launched with national partners Capacity development actions to improve national biodiversity conservation monitoring systems and environmental sector statistics will be considered for future interventions.
[Added: 2014/01/15]
UNDP CO Projet Coordination No due date No deadline established
2. Recommendation: Project design recommendations, affecting monitoring and evaluation: Delete Output 3.4 ?Natural resource and soil use (eg. agriculture, tourism, fisheries, development construction) for the 4 PAs and the 3 MPAs respect restrictions of ecological carrying capacities? from the SRF
Management Response: [Added: 2014/01/15]

This recommendation is considered but not adopted as such. Is agreed that the respect of ecological carrying capacities thresholds is implicit on the sustainable use concept. However, those values were unknown and no baseline data was available to measure progress through the different indicators. The consultancy was planned because national technical capacities to apply analysis methodologies and calculate ecological carrying capacities and resources sustainable use thresholds were judged limited. At this point, deleting the output from the SRF will not result in any improvement or change on project results and will make no difference on the implementation progress; neither will support better planning for the remaining project duration. However, additional guidance on how to better approach in the future capacity reinforcement on this area would be appreciated. We recognize that the way the consultancy was planned would have benefit from a better planning and a more specific definition of what was expected from this work. As a lesson learned, we note that capacity building from this type of short international consultancy was limited. In the future, the focus should be more cleared put in achieving national technicians? command of concepts, methodologies and analysis tools rather on producing a report with values that could be used for monitoring purpose. Despite the limitations acknowledge above, it should be noted that the results of the consultancy has been largely discussed by national institutions participating on the project committees and values have been used not only for project monitoring but also considered on the design of management and ecotourism plans.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
During the analysis and discussion of the consultancy report on Ecological carrying capacities study, the committee members decided to create a task force to improve data used. As a key action, it has been agreed to foster this task foster and to use it as a platform of learning. From the identification of the analysis gaps, recommendations will be derived on how to improve sector data collection system in order to improve ecological carrying capacity analysis. Additionally, capacity reinforcement needs at each department level will be identified and recommendations will be derived for research institutes on which resources and ecosystem characteristic and which process impacts need to be better understood in order to refine the carrying capacity analysis.
[Added: 2014/01/15]
UNDP CO General Directorate of Environment 2014/12 Overdue-Initiated
3. Recommendation: Project implementation: Arrange for a joint announcement by the Project Management, UNDP and Government of Cape Verde of their intention regarding institutionalization of protected areas through either the PAAA or another modality
Management Response: [Added: 2014/01/15]

This recommendations is accepted. Extraordinary meeting of the steering committee will be called to analyse the final findings and recommendations from the MidTerm review. Additionally, a concertation meeting between project implementing and executing agency will be called at the highest level (Minister and Resident Representative will be called to participate) in order to clarify current level of commitment with the creation PAAA and to discuss any other specific modality or institutional design

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Extraordinary meeting of the steering committee will be called to analyse the final findings and recommendations from the MidTerm review. Additionally, a concertation meeting between project implementing and executing agency will be called at the highest level ( Minister and Resident Representative will be called to participate) in order to clarify current level of commitment with the creation PAAA and to discuss any other specific modality or institutional design
[Added: 2014/01/15]
UNDP CO General Directorate of Environment Project Coordination Unit 2013/01 Overdue-Initiated
4. Recommendation: Project implementation: Establish a task force (including members from the PCU, UNDP and the Government of Cape Verde) to get the protected area administration financed and institutionalized either as PAAA or within the DGA and agree to a timetable of steps and milestones
Management Response: [Added: 2014/01/15]

This recommendations is accepted. Finalize analysis of the draft financial sustainability strategy and business plan. Identify key partners to participate in the task force (including additionally to the one?s referred Ministry of Finance) Identify lessons learned in other countries through GEF/UNDP knowledge management portals Request Regional Technical Advisers support on preparing a task force ToR and milestones. Create the task force and agree on the expected outputs and agenda. The task force secretariat and basic background research effort will be assumed by project staff. Project staff ( at site and central level) will be encouraged on critically reflecting on these issues and identifying key issues to be further researched and discussed by the task force.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Finalize analysis of the draft financial sustainability strategy and business plan. Identify key partners to participate in the task force (including additionally to the one?s referred Ministry of Finance) Identify lessons learned in other countries through GEF/UNDP knowledge management portals Request Regional Technical Advisers support on preparing a task force ToR and milestones. Create the task force and agree on the expected outputs and agenda. The task force secretariat and basic background research effort will be assumed by project staff. Project staff ( at site and central level) will be encouraged on critically reflecting on these issues and identifying key issues to be further researched and discussed by the task force.
[Added: 2014/01/15]
Project Coordination Unit RTA UNDP CO No due date No deadline established
5. Recommendation: Project implementation: Design and implement a programme to deepen understanding of the economic values of protected areas across all sectors of government and among the general public and to put the economic case (and the non-economic case) for adequate government financing of protected areas. This should include, among other things: i)A series of high level government workshops to do a TEEB analysis of Cape Verde?s protected areas and to demonstrate the importance of protected areas in productive sectors (see below under Recommendation 7), and ii)The commissioning of a high quality film on what the protected area system should look like.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/01/15]

This recommendation is accepted. Is agreed that such type of decision-makers awareness is needed and will be beneficial. The second element of specific actions proposed is not adopted because of financial restrictions. It is agreed that high quality films will be interested is agreed but the current available resources do not allow for such type of project, that is known to be onerous. However the project team could work on preparing a script for this type of film and request quotations to have more specific figures on cost. Additionally, the team could work on scripts and topics for videos and animations that could be used on the PA interpretation (geological process for volcanic eruptions; etc.) and environmental education. Those films project implementation will be considered for the Mainstreaming Biodiversity conservation on the tourism sector project, currently on the PPG phase.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The proposed workshops have been incorporated on the draft work plan for 2014. In case external technical assistance (remote or in-situ) will be needed it will be clearly identify and terms of reference prepared. Key discussion points will be identified and the most appropriate facilitators appointed. A detailed budget for this workshop will be prepared by the project staff in order to inform activity plan review and approval.
[Added: 2014/01/15]
Project Coordination Unit No due date No deadline established
6. Recommendation: Project implementation: Reduce project duration by 4 months to end of August 2014
Management Response: [Added: 2014/01/15]

This recommendation was considered and made the object of in depth analysis between UNDP, executing partner and project coordinator. 3 scenarios and its implications in terms of achievement of project results, costs and staff morale and motivation were appraised. After deliberation it was decided that: technical staff at central level and GIS specialist will work until August 2014, as recommended by the MTR. At the site level, considering national budget execution procedures were centralized with the introduction of a new government system (SiGov), the financial/admin assistants? contracts will be discontinued from March2014. Still at the islands-site level, technical staff will be maintained until December 2014 in order to consolidation achievements and institutionalize conservation measures and programmes initiated; and stakeholder organization process initiated.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Complete detailed site work plan for 2014; and ensure appropriate exit and sustainability strategy for all levels of implementation. Strengthen lobby at the national level for the installation of the Autonomous Authority on Protected Areas before the end of the project.
[Added: 2014/01/15]
UNDP CO General Directorate of Environment 2014/02 Overdue-Initiated
7. Recommendation: Project implementation: The project should quickly prepare a programme of work to cover the period October 2013 to August 2014, reconsidering the priorities of activities scheduled for 2013, and focusing on activities necessary to a) Achieve institutional sustainability for the PA system administration before the end of the project, b) Consolidate project outputs at the site level, and c) Establish practical spatial database for the whole PA system using the GIS capabilities developed by the project
Management Response: [Added: 2014/01/15]

This recommendation is accepted. The draft activity plan for 2014 has incorporated those proposed activities. Additionally, it was recommended the completion of a GAP Analysis with a stronger focus on marine biodiversity. The completion of this activity will require additional funding due to lack of data on marine ecosystems and high cost involved in obtaining it; intervention and monitoring strategy concertation with NGOs involved on the Sea turtle conservation efforts in Sal and Boavista. Demarcation and signalization of trials has been also incorporated on the proposal. Detailed budget for each proposed activity will be prepared

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The draft activity plan for 2014 has incorporated those proposed activities. Additionally, it was recommended the completion of a GAP Analysis with a stronger focus on marine biodiversity. The completion of this activity will require additional funding due to lack of data on marine ecosystems and high cost involved in obtaining it; intervention and monitoring strategy concertation with NGOs involved on the Sea turtle conservation efforts in Sal and Boavista. Demarcation and signalization of trials has been also incorporated on the proposal. Detailed budget for each proposed activity will be prepared
[Added: 2014/01/15]
Project Coordination Unit No due date No deadline established

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