MID Term Evaluation of Strengthening Seychelles' Protected Area System Through NGO Management Modalities

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2012-2016, Seychelles
Evaluation Type:
Mid Term Project
Planned End Date:
07/2013
Completion Date:
11/2013
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
31,498
Main Conclusions and Lessons learned

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document PA MTE Seychelles FV_140514.doc report English 938.50 KB Posted 1179
Download document MTE PAS detailed TORs.docx tor English 204.56 KB Posted 752
Download document Main conclusions and Lessons Learned for PA MTE.docx summary English 45.80 KB Posted 605
Download document 4190 Seych PAs MTE Management Response_141014_.pdf related-document English 694.93 KB Posted 294
Title MID Term Evaluation of Strengthening Seychelles' Protected Area System Through NGO Management Modalities
Atlas Project Number: 00076774
Evaluation Plan: 2012-2016, Seychelles
Evaluation Type: Mid Term Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 11/2013
Planned End Date: 07/2013
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Others
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
  • 1. Output 1.3. Solutions developed at national and sub-national levels for sustainable management of natural resources, ecosystem services, chemicals and waste
Evaluation Budget(US $): 31,498
Source of Funding: GEF
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Stephanie Hodge Mrs shodge1@gmail.com
GEF Evaluation: Yes
Evaluation Type:
Focal Area: Biodiversity
Project Type: EA
GEF Phase: GEF-3
PIMS Number: 3925
Key Stakeholders: GEF and UNDP
Countries: SEYCHELLES
Comments: small change in Title to reflect that it is mid terms evaluation
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1 The MTE has evaluated the project as relevant to the current Seychelles context and has a satisfactory rating based on assessment of design and current country context. The logical framework, components, activities, human resource strategy and budgets to achieve the development objective were evaluated as appropriate, viable and responsive to the contextual institutional, legal and regulatory settings. However, the MTE indicated a need for stronger linkages between the expected project development outcome, its strategies and the log frame indicators. While the overall project outcome revolves around strengthening partnership and enhancing cooperation, process-related indicators are absent, particularly those related to knowledge sharing and learning. The project logframe was regarded as having too many indicators, although the MTE then proceeded to suggest additional ones. Some indicators were found to be reliant upon Government approval processes outside of the ability of the project to influence, and attention was needed to adjust these. A key criticism was the lack of a knowledge management and learning element, which the reviewer would have liked to have seen as a new (third) outcome.
2 The evaluator points out that the project was intended to be efficient and cost-effective by capitalizing on the comparative benefits of several implementing partners and ensuring synergies across the biodiversity portfolio. The project was expected to demonstrate co-implementation to be an efficient project modality. However, two issues were raised: firstly the project steering committee did not function adequately as a decision making body, being bogged down in (often acrimonious) discussion over financing issues, secondly, these same financial planning and management issues (primarily delays in disbursements) were constraining the ability of PCU and the partners to deliver project outcomes
3 The evaluator noted that the ENGO sector is highly capable and delivering good work, including demonstration of co-implementation approaches for PAs with Government and private sector partners, but the project modality and implementation was found to be problematic and relationships between NGOs on the one hand, and Government and PCU on the other hand, were often strained. ENGOS found it difficult to accept and comply with the complex procedures for reporting and disbursement of funds, in particular. The evaluator noted, nonetheless, that the project has been effective to the extent it is beginning to show results within the enabling environment for longer term management and services of an expanded PA system ? despite the difficulties in implementation modality that constrain potential effectiveness.
4 On financial sustainability, the evaluator noted that targets for the relevant indicator (the financial scorecard) had been surpassed by mid-term (satisfactory). On socio-political sustainability, the evaluator noted that the discourse between ENGOs and Government, while not without its issues, is healthy. The evaluator considered that the innovations tested on co-implementation approaches were framed within an institutional framework and systems that reduced the risks associated with individual egos, properly considered the laws, policies and financial capability for the PA system to function effectively, and drew upon the knowledge and capabilities of NGOs (satisfactory). On sustainability of the Institutional framework and governance, the evaluator noted the intent of the project to bring partners together to work collaboratively on PA management initiatives, including garnering the evidence needed for protected area expansion and for mapping of new PA boundaries, but noted failings in the dissemination of information between Government and partners that could compromise the uptake of successful innovations (marginally satisfactory). On environmental sustainability, the evaluator considered that the project objectives towards ensuring environmental sustainability (including small islands management and development) as a core outcome were not being met at mid-term, and that the project emphasis was more towards individual biodiversity conservation initiatives (marginally satisfactory).
5 The evaluator noted that the project is unique and commendable as a showcase of co-management of PAs in Seychelles and could be a global good practice. 12 lessons learned were documented that would assist in the documentation of good practice. Seven of these refer to the need to establish effective and transparent budgetary processes and build trust between partners ? to avoid co-implementation becoming counter-productive. Two others refer to the need for effective knowledge management and sharing to ensure successful innovations and individual site level leads to strengthening of the system as a whole.
6 SC develop post MTE implementation strategies around Output 1.2 and Output 1.3 with a focus on mitigating the risks related to the assumptions connected with slow policy and legislation or implementation not going through
7 SC review and approve new Log Frame (Annex 4 ? suggested log frame changes) which includes a new indicator concerning results around knowledge management, collaboration and partnerships. Review design structure (learning and KM strategy); SC must agree to shift results language for IPs specific activities in component two as ?a contribution to?.
8 PCU develop PA project knowledge management; a)Undertake scoping and development of project KM strategy. b)Develop a temporary knowledge database to store project-related knowledge products and information - accessible to different PA stakeholder groups. c)IPs and PCU prioritize documentation and distillation of PA knowledge products at PCU and IP levels for policy and partnership learning purposes. d)Institute a KM program at PCU to support project KM implementation approach and visibility of the IP partner activities and results from project to date. e)PCU develop strategy for hosting international learning seminar on PA co-management in year four.
9 PM and SC revisit the Steering Committee TOR to enable more regular meetings for enhanced substantive and operational oversight by all partners. SC (intent and process and the timing). Review TOR and participation list and augment this in order to promote more inclusive decision-making and technical knowledge sharing on results and implementation.
10 PC negotiate and formalize the new PM arrangement as soon as possible
11 PM restart and reinvigorate the technical work group TWG for legal review.
12 PM work with CB consultant on Output 1.4 project capacity strengthening activities to ensure that activities are based on MTE and on strengthening implementation approach, i.e. targeted trainings on economic valuation, conflict resolution, negotiations and collaborative governance approaches; one priority CB activity must be to support SNPA assess/ ascertain protocols for PA co-management, including NGOs and GOS
13 PM and PC develop a schedule (and share with IPs for approval and preparations) for monitoring site visits through end of project.
14 PCU develop a strategy for continuous PA policy advocacy and communications; work through the PCU. Communications Officer in raising visibility of PA results through an integrated PCU communications strategy
15 PM facilitates and encourages synergies; cooperation and knowledge sharing among IPs through TWG and other modalities, such as the capacity strengthening and knowledge management activities (see related point 8).
16 PCU commission advocacy report on the comparative investment case for models of island co-management, including inputs on the tensions of enforcement and co management protection strategies, and highlighting synergies to other sectors, i.e. tourism, health, education, development.
17 SC in consultation with UNDP and UNDP GEF RTA decide on and implement viable options for the serious disbursement issue affecting implementation by December 2013: (1) hire a short term contractor to support, mediate and provide learning and guidance to all IPs on financial procedures through scoping of problem, training and creating templates and calendar; (2) augment PCU capacity for PA financial support to focus entirely on PA project bottlenecks in disbursements and to work closely with implementing partner to help get reports in on time with 80% delivery (done Oct 1, 2013, during MTE); (3) separate project into five GEF awards with immediate effect so that the new separate but linked projects can begin in January 2014.
18 SC vet project softened targets (refer to proposed new MTE log frame Annex 4) and remove those targets that are out of IP partners control and are the responsibility of Government) so project can continue and complete within the original time frame.
19 RTA and UNDP prioritize action /solution (see point 13 ) around financial disbursement issues;
20 PM revitalize the TWG to actively work on PA legislation;
21 PM prioritize scoping work on PA EMIS system development linked to other data and monitoring activities in ongoing biodiversity projects, e.g. clearing house, GIS and/or mapping work, etc.;
22 PCU commission work with GIF to develop case studies on the cost benefits and private public - stewardship approach to PA management, especially in the case of Denis and North Island.
23 PCU provide training for IPs on how to undertake cost benefit analysis of project activities, including on how to conduct a valuation analysis of co-management island models. Document case studies constituting a biodiversity valuation and make case why PA and instituting a stewardship approach is cost effective on a variety of different small islands (linked to point 25).
24 SC convene meeting to immediately vet MTE recommendations and reschedule resources based on key asks - see annex 4 of MTE report. The exercise will focus reorienting resources to the completion of the important technical work of IPs and the documentation of experiences as a focus of the last three months, i.e. reef restoration scientific project coordinator to undertake the extra documentation work on viability of reefs for ecosystem management; fisheries monitoring which was found to be a longer than budgeted for activity.
25 IPs document and share information on alternative land and water resource uses, livelihoods and inclusion of user groups in changing practices: social norms and practices (turtles), support of change of destructive traditional practices (Killing turtles for meat or harvesting of coco de mer) and support of PA agenda setting (these activities need to be costed, re-budgeted and rationalized by the SC if viable) (see related point on KM above).
26 A revised closing date of 31st December 2015 has been proposed prior to MTE but this is not possible as there are few funds remaining for 2015. This date is adjusted by MTE (without explanation) to 30th June 2015.
1. Recommendation: The MTE has evaluated the project as relevant to the current Seychelles context and has a satisfactory rating based on assessment of design and current country context. The logical framework, components, activities, human resource strategy and budgets to achieve the development objective were evaluated as appropriate, viable and responsive to the contextual institutional, legal and regulatory settings. However, the MTE indicated a need for stronger linkages between the expected project development outcome, its strategies and the log frame indicators. While the overall project outcome revolves around strengthening partnership and enhancing cooperation, process-related indicators are absent, particularly those related to knowledge sharing and learning. The project logframe was regarded as having too many indicators, although the MTE then proceeded to suggest additional ones. Some indicators were found to be reliant upon Government approval processes outside of the ability of the project to influence, and attention was needed to adjust these. A key criticism was the lack of a knowledge management and learning element, which the reviewer would have liked to have seen as a new (third) outcome.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/01/20] [Last Updated: 2014/01/20]

Management takes note of the suggested revisions to the logframe including introducing a new indicator and targets. Adding a new outcome to the logframe (as suggested at one point in the MTE) requires GEF approval. However, other ways of incorporating the needs for knowledge management actions within the existing component was discussed at a Steering Committee meeting on 4th December 2013 (see mgmt response to recommendation 2, below). Management notes in particular the suggestion to re-phrase indicators and targets that are reliant on external Government approval processes that cannot be influenced by the project. It is logical that these targets be revised to something that is achievable by the NGOs in terms of contributing to the legislative process for gazetting new areas ? ensuring all the appropriate documentation is available, etc. Management notes the need to enhance knowledge management and learning and is introducing activities to achieve this within the 2014 annual work plan. Management also intends to allocate funds for development and printing of knowledge products in the final months of the project in 2015. Management does not consider it necessary to add a new outcome to the logframe.

Key Actions:

2. Recommendation: The evaluator points out that the project was intended to be efficient and cost-effective by capitalizing on the comparative benefits of several implementing partners and ensuring synergies across the biodiversity portfolio. The project was expected to demonstrate co-implementation to be an efficient project modality. However, two issues were raised: firstly the project steering committee did not function adequately as a decision making body, being bogged down in (often acrimonious) discussion over financing issues, secondly, these same financial planning and management issues (primarily delays in disbursements) were constraining the ability of PCU and the partners to deliver project outcomes
Management Response: [Added: 2014/01/20]

Management takes note of the point made by the evaluator concerning the steering committee and will ensure that actual review and decision-making processes are higher up the agenda of further meetings ? lengthening the duration of the meetings if necessary. Another possibility is to organize operational meetings separate from the SC meetings, which discuss only substantive matters, networking, knowledge management, etc. Management notes the points made concerning financial processes, but is not in a position to change UNDP-GEF rules in regard to processes for disbursements.

Key Actions:

3. Recommendation: The evaluator noted that the ENGO sector is highly capable and delivering good work, including demonstration of co-implementation approaches for PAs with Government and private sector partners, but the project modality and implementation was found to be problematic and relationships between NGOs on the one hand, and Government and PCU on the other hand, were often strained. ENGOS found it difficult to accept and comply with the complex procedures for reporting and disbursement of funds, in particular. The evaluator noted, nonetheless, that the project has been effective to the extent it is beginning to show results within the enabling environment for longer term management and services of an expanded PA system ? despite the difficulties in implementation modality that constrain potential effectiveness.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/01/20]

Management has taken note of the issues raised concerning deteriorating relationships between partners. Management concurs that this is a very serious issue, and will endeavor to address this through the remainder of the project by paying all possible attention to speeding up disbursements and supporting partners with financial processes as needed. Management notes, however, that this is a two-way process and partners must also keep to the deadlines and follow the processes agreed upon. Management has raised the issue with Government departments that have previously tended to hold up financial approval processes and obtained strengthened commitments on processing time of documentation (documented in a revised Aide Memoire between Government and UNDP).

Key Actions:

4. Recommendation: On financial sustainability, the evaluator noted that targets for the relevant indicator (the financial scorecard) had been surpassed by mid-term (satisfactory). On socio-political sustainability, the evaluator noted that the discourse between ENGOs and Government, while not without its issues, is healthy. The evaluator considered that the innovations tested on co-implementation approaches were framed within an institutional framework and systems that reduced the risks associated with individual egos, properly considered the laws, policies and financial capability for the PA system to function effectively, and drew upon the knowledge and capabilities of NGOs (satisfactory). On sustainability of the Institutional framework and governance, the evaluator noted the intent of the project to bring partners together to work collaboratively on PA management initiatives, including garnering the evidence needed for protected area expansion and for mapping of new PA boundaries, but noted failings in the dissemination of information between Government and partners that could compromise the uptake of successful innovations (marginally satisfactory). On environmental sustainability, the evaluator considered that the project objectives towards ensuring environmental sustainability (including small islands management and development) as a core outcome were not being met at mid-term, and that the project emphasis was more towards individual biodiversity conservation initiatives (marginally satisfactory).
Management Response: [Added: 2014/01/20] [Last Updated: 2014/01/20]

Management has taken steps to begin developing a communications strategy (for all projects in the biodiversity portfolio) and to allocate funds within the project 2014 annual work plan to support documentation and dissemination of information. Management also expects that the SC will take a stronger role in this through the remainder of the project. Management has taken note of this issue, which to a large extent needs to be addressed in a holistic approach by the PCU in ensuring project outputs are linked with wider environmental and sustainable development initiatives such as the implementation of the Seychelles Sustainable Development Strategy (expected to start up in 2014) and NBSAP (also expected to start implementation in 2014). Project outputs, to be documented as noted above, will be important reference material for these implementation processes

Key Actions:

5. Recommendation: The evaluator noted that the project is unique and commendable as a showcase of co-management of PAs in Seychelles and could be a global good practice. 12 lessons learned were documented that would assist in the documentation of good practice. Seven of these refer to the need to establish effective and transparent budgetary processes and build trust between partners ? to avoid co-implementation becoming counter-productive. Two others refer to the need for effective knowledge management and sharing to ensure successful innovations and individual site level leads to strengthening of the system as a whole.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/01/20]

Management takes note of the evaluators opinion that the lessons learned should be disseminated so as to assist in development of best practice. Management proposes that this be addressed through specific project documentation developed during the last months of the project in 2015.

Key Actions:

6. Recommendation: SC develop post MTE implementation strategies around Output 1.2 and Output 1.3 with a focus on mitigating the risks related to the assumptions connected with slow policy and legislation or implementation not going through
Management Response: [Added: 2014/01/20]

The PA Policy was approved by Cabinet of Ministers in December 2013. A strategy cannot be developed for activities out of the remit of the project (i.e. Government approval of the legislation based on the approved policy). NGO partners are, seeking means of implementing (e.g. TPAs) under existing legislation (i.e. not waiting for the lengthy process of new legislation to be approved through the AGs Office).

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Support to the legislative processes that can be provided by the project (i.e. support in drafting) is developed during the 2014 AWP. There are no specific project targets/indicators related to the approval of the legislation, but NGO targets for gazetting of PAa (endorsment by Government) are to be softened to targets that can be met by project interventions (as opposed to relying on Government actions) (see recommendation 7).
[Added: 2014/01/20]
Government PM NGO partners 2013/12 Completed SC notes that there is no need for project to develop a strategy as this is reflected in the annual work planning.
7. Recommendation: SC review and approve new Log Frame (Annex 4 ? suggested log frame changes) which includes a new indicator concerning results around knowledge management, collaboration and partnerships. Review design structure (learning and KM strategy); SC must agree to shift results language for IPs specific activities in component two as ?a contribution to?.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/01/20]

Revised logframe as recommended by MTE has been reviewed by SC

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The SC meeting held on 4th December proposes the changes indicated in revised logframe attached to this mgmt response. The SC did not agree to the proposed reduction in the target for indicator 3 to a level below the baseline (which made no sense) or to the introduction of a new indicator on knowledge management.
[Added: 2014/01/20]
SC 2014/12 Completed SC felt that introducing a new indicator on knowledge management was unnecessary: the point has been made and the need for better dissemination of results and knowledge products is incorporated within work plans.
8. Recommendation: PCU develop PA project knowledge management; a)Undertake scoping and development of project KM strategy. b)Develop a temporary knowledge database to store project-related knowledge products and information - accessible to different PA stakeholder groups. c)IPs and PCU prioritize documentation and distillation of PA knowledge products at PCU and IP levels for policy and partnership learning purposes. d)Institute a KM program at PCU to support project KM implementation approach and visibility of the IP partner activities and results from project to date. e)PCU develop strategy for hosting international learning seminar on PA co-management in year four.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/01/20]

PCU is in process of developing a communications strategy across the projects portfolio. PA project outputs will be integrated within this wider approach (a, b, c, d) SC agreed to establish a Blog for sharing of results among partners on a day-to-day basis (addresses a MTE point of e)

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
a) PCU communications officer and PM will address strategy and establishment of Blog b) PCU will collate and store documents and reports on the open access PCU website (this process is on-going). A link will be made from the clearing house mechanism to be developed at DOE (under NBSAP project) to the PCU website to heighten accessibility of the data. c) The preparation of knowledge products will be budgeted for in 2014 and 2015. d) As per point a) e) SC felt that this is a very expensive activity and remaining funds should be allocated for more practical actions.
[Added: 2014/01/20] [Last Updated: 2014/12/15]
PCU SC NGOs, 2014/10 Completed This is completed and will be an ongoing activity with PCU communication Officer managing the website and blogs
9. Recommendation: PM and SC revisit the Steering Committee TOR to enable more regular meetings for enhanced substantive and operational oversight by all partners. SC (intent and process and the timing). Review TOR and participation list and augment this in order to promote more inclusive decision-making and technical knowledge sharing on results and implementation.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/01/20]

This was discussed with the SC on 4th December 2013

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
No action was deemed to be necessary. The SC would ensure that time is allocated within the SC meetings for more substantive discussion. This commenced with the meeting on 4th December, almost all of which meeting was concerned with technical matters (there was very little discussion on the financial issues that have plagued previous SC meetings, as these issues have been largely dealt with over the last months).
[Added: 2014/01/20]
SC 2013/12 Completed SC Chairman noted in the SC Meeting of 4th December that the point made by MTE has been largely addressed and the meeting was thus able to focus almost entirely on its decision-making role.
10. Recommendation: PC negotiate and formalize the new PM arrangement as soon as possible
Management Response: [Added: 2014/01/20]

Under Negotiation

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
A new contract format has been prepared combining the PM and Technical Officer role. A financial Assistant has been hired (part time) to handle financial aspects of project implementation.
[Added: 2014/01/20]
PCU 2013/12 Completed The financial assistant has been recruited and the PM needs to formally agree on the revised contract
11. Recommendation: PM restart and reinvigorate the technical work group TWG for legal review.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/01/20]

To be initiated as soon as possible (PA policy was approved by the Cabinet of Ministers in early December 2013) and provides the essential strategic direction for the legislation

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The TWG is established, but its membership will be reviewed and enhanced as several people are no longer in their former posts. The PM will discuss with the AGs office concerning how to proceed with drafting the legislation (given the huge backlog of work at the AGs office). The project will recruit legal drafting experts to assist if so agreed: this is budgeted in the 2014 work plan
[Added: 2014/01/20]
PM, TWG 2014/01 Completed
12. Recommendation: PM work with CB consultant on Output 1.4 project capacity strengthening activities to ensure that activities are based on MTE and on strengthening implementation approach, i.e. targeted trainings on economic valuation, conflict resolution, negotiations and collaborative governance approaches; one priority CB activity must be to support SNPA assess/ ascertain protocols for PA co-management, including NGOs and GOS
Management Response: [Added: 2014/01/20]

Captured in the 2014 AWP

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
On completion of the capacity assessment (delayed until March 2014) the directions for specific CB interventions will be determined. Funds will be budgeted in generic terms within the 2014 AWP to ensure resources are available for follow-up.
[Added: 2014/01/20] [Last Updated: 2014/12/15]
PM, PCU No due date No deadline established The capacity analysis will determine what the actual training needs are: this is pre-empted in the recommendation, but PM will make sure that these potential training areas are considered during the assessment.
13. Recommendation: PM and PC develop a schedule (and share with IPs for approval and preparations) for monitoring site visits through end of project.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/01/20]

Needs for more specific site monitoring have been noted and conferred to partners

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
A site visit was made to Cousin Island (NS) during the MTE and will be followed up. Other site visits will be organized with the IPs during the first quarter of 2014.
[Added: 2014/01/20] [Last Updated: 2014/12/15]
PM, PC 2014/03 Completed
14. Recommendation: PCU develop a strategy for continuous PA policy advocacy and communications; work through the PCU. Communications Officer in raising visibility of PA results through an integrated PCU communications strategy
Management Response: [Added: 2014/01/20]

As addressed in POINT 8

Key Actions:

15. Recommendation: PM facilitates and encourages synergies; cooperation and knowledge sharing among IPs through TWG and other modalities, such as the capacity strengthening and knowledge management activities (see related point 8).
Management Response: [Added: 2014/01/20]

As addressed in point 8

Key Actions:

16. Recommendation: PCU commission advocacy report on the comparative investment case for models of island co-management, including inputs on the tensions of enforcement and co management protection strategies, and highlighting synergies to other sectors, i.e. tourism, health, education, development.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/01/20]

As part of the process of gazetting private islands as PAs, the island owners will be developing investment models, which will differ between the islands.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The documentation of different investment models cannot take place until after the island owners have completed the process of gazetting the new PAs, and this may not happen within the lifetime of the current project. If it looks likely to happen by EOP, then a study may be budgeted during 2015, if the required information is made generally available by Government and the island owners.
[Added: 2014/01/20] [Last Updated: 2015/09/21]
PCU, SC 2015/08 Completed It is certainly useful and constructive to document how private sector and conservation interests can work together (although there is already a lot of literature on this). The need for a specific study related to this projects interventions will be reviewed towards EOP
17. Recommendation: SC in consultation with UNDP and UNDP GEF RTA decide on and implement viable options for the serious disbursement issue affecting implementation by December 2013: (1) hire a short term contractor to support, mediate and provide learning and guidance to all IPs on financial procedures through scoping of problem, training and creating templates and calendar; (2) augment PCU capacity for PA financial support to focus entirely on PA project bottlenecks in disbursements and to work closely with implementing partner to help get reports in on time with 80% delivery (done Oct 1, 2013, during MTE); (3) separate project into five GEF awards with immediate effect so that the new separate but linked projects can begin in January 2014.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/01/20]

Action already taken at the time of the MTE

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
This was discussed in depth prior to the MTE and during the MTE duration. The suggested option 2) was adopted and a part-time financial assistant hired to support PCU in financial aspects of the PA project from October 2013. This will continue for the remainder of the project lifetime.
[Added: 2014/01/20]
PCU 2013/10 Completed Bringing the new financial assistant on board has had an immediate impact in rationalizing the financial processes, including providing continual support to NGOs in their accounting. Disbursements to three of the four NGOs were made during week 3 of Q4. The remaining NGO was delayed while recruiting a new manager, but disbursement was made immediately their work plan was submitted.
18. Recommendation: SC vet project softened targets (refer to proposed new MTE log frame Annex 4) and remove those targets that are out of IP partners control and are the responsibility of Government) so project can continue and complete within the original time frame.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/01/20]

As addressed in point 7

Key Actions:

19. Recommendation: RTA and UNDP prioritize action /solution (see point 13 ) around financial disbursement issues;
Management Response: [Added: 2014/01/20]

Management feels that this recommendation is redundant as action was already taken at the time of the MTE

Key Actions:

20. Recommendation: PM revitalize the TWG to actively work on PA legislation;
Management Response: [Added: 2014/01/20]

As addressed in point 11-To be initiated as soon as possible (PA policy was approved by the Cabinet of Ministers in early December 2013) and provides the essential strategic direction for the legislation

Key Actions:

21. Recommendation: PM prioritize scoping work on PA EMIS system development linked to other data and monitoring activities in ongoing biodiversity projects, e.g. clearing house, GIS and/or mapping work, etc.;
Management Response: [Added: 2014/01/20]

SC and PCU appreciates this is an issue and is will support DOE to coordinate data collection and storage activities undertaken by all projects within the portfolio.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
A workshop on the modalities for the national database and clearing house mechanism is to be held in January 2014 (under the NBSAP project)
[Added: 2014/01/20] [Last Updated: 2014/12/15]
PCU 2014/06 Completed This is distinct from the internal knowledge management issues discussed under recommendation 3, although the umbrella data sharing and access system for both is the CHM.
22. Recommendation: PCU commission work with GIF to develop case studies on the cost benefits and private public - stewardship approach to PA management, especially in the case of Denis and North Island.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/01/20]

As addressed in point 16- As part of the process of gazetting private islands as PAs, the island owners will be developing investment models, which will differ between the islands

Key Actions:

23. Recommendation: PCU provide training for IPs on how to undertake cost benefit analysis of project activities, including on how to conduct a valuation analysis of co-management island models. Document case studies constituting a biodiversity valuation and make case why PA and instituting a stewardship approach is cost effective on a variety of different small islands (linked to point 25).
Management Response: [Added: 2014/01/20] [Last Updated: 2014/01/20]

Cost-benefit analysis is very complicated and a speciality area but management feels that this is not a feasible recommendation. Valuation could be done in either economic or financial terms but not within the project timeframe

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
No action related to the proposal for cost-benefit analysis or valuation study. The capacity assessment being done during Q1 2014 may make some further comments on this issue, but is likely to focus more on practical training
[Added: 2014/01/20]
No due date No deadline established This suggestion was specifically reviewed by a professional economist working with Nature Seychelles and the comments presented here are a professional opinion.
24. Recommendation: SC convene meeting to immediately vet MTE recommendations and reschedule resources based on key asks - see annex 4 of MTE report. The exercise will focus reorienting resources to the completion of the important technical work of IPs and the documentation of experiences as a focus of the last three months, i.e. reef restoration scientific project coordinator to undertake the extra documentation work on viability of reefs for ecosystem management; fisheries monitoring which was found to be a longer than budgeted for activity.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/01/20]

MTE recommendations were considered by SC members at the SC meeting on 4th December and comments incorporated within this mgmt response. NGOs have considered the points discussed during the MTE in formulating their 2014 work plans.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
SC meeting on 4th December reviewed and discussed both the recommendations and the extent to which NGOs have taken these up into their work plans Additional resources are to be allocated for documentation of results at end of project.
[Added: 2014/01/20]
SC, NGOs, PCU 2014/12 Completed Allocation of resources is pending
25. Recommendation: IPs document and share information on alternative land and water resource uses, livelihoods and inclusion of user groups in changing practices: social norms and practices (turtles), support of change of destructive traditional practices (Killing turtles for meat or harvesting of coco de mer) and support of PA agenda setting (these activities need to be costed, re-budgeted and rationalized by the SC if viable) (see related point on KM above).
Management Response: [Added: 2014/01/20]

NGOs will be requested to undertake results documentation, for which additional resources will be provided in 2015

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Additional resources will be allocated for documentation of results at end of project.
[Added: 2014/01/20] [Last Updated: 2015/09/21]
NGOs, PCU 2015/08 Completed Documentation is to be collated and made available after finalizing project activities, but further inputs (e.g. staff time) into this documentation will need additional resources. This will be clarified in 2014 in planning for the use of the remaining project budget in the 2015 work plan.
26. Recommendation: A revised closing date of 31st December 2015 has been proposed prior to MTE but this is not possible as there are few funds remaining for 2015. This date is adjusted by MTE (without explanation) to 30th June 2015.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/01/20] [Last Updated: 2014/01/20]

Given that Component 1 activities will be completed in 2014 and NGOs also expect to complete all or most activities in 2014, the mgmt suggestion would be to remain with the original 31st March closure, with documentation of knowledge products in late 2014 and January 2015, and the TE scheduled for February 2015

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