Terminal Evaluation Sulu Celebes Seas Sustainable Fisheries Management

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2012-2018, Philippines
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
01/2015
Completion Date:
12/2014
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
15,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document Sulu Celebes Terminal Evaluation Terms of Reference.pdf tor English 524.64 KB Posted 278
Download document SCS PIMS 4063 TE report 2014_final.pdf report English 2522.37 KB Posted 338
Download document Copy of Final Updated Draf GEFIWTracking_Tool.xls related-document English 479.50 KB Posted 246
Title Terminal Evaluation Sulu Celebes Seas Sustainable Fisheries Management
Atlas Project Number: 00072140
Evaluation Plan: 2012-2018, Philippines
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 12/2014
Planned End Date: 01/2015
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Others
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
  • 1. Output 2.5. Legal and regulatory frameworks, policies and institutions enabled to ensure the conservation, sustainable use, and access and benefit sharing of natural resources, biodiversity and ecosystems, in line with international conventions and national
Evaluation Budget(US $): 15,000
Source of Funding: Project funds
Joint Programme: No
Mandatory Evaluation: Yes
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
James Lenoci Mr. james@lenociltd.com
GEF Evaluation: Yes
Evaluation Type:
Focal Area: International Waters
Project Type: FSP
GEF Phase: GEF-3
PIMS Number: 4063
Key Stakeholders: DA-BFAR, LGUs, NGOs
Countries: PHILIPPINES
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1 The reluctance of Malaysia to support extension of the MOU of the SSME Tri-Com after the first one expires in 2015 is a critical risk to the overall viability of the tri-national collaborative framework. The other members of the Tri-Com, with support from the Sub-Com, UNDP, GEF, and also the CTI Secretariat should implement concerted advocacy efforts to communicate the added value of maintaining the SSME Tri-Com, and trying to persuade Malaysian decision makers to reconsider their position
2 A sustainability strategy should be prepared to aid the Sub-Com in over-seeing subsequent implementation activities, including but not limited to the following items: a. Outline the steps are suggested for deciding upon how coordination of the RSAP implementation will be operationalized; b. Request the countries to indicate roles and responsibilities for implementation of the NSAP?s; c. Also, request the countries to outline how continued progress from the demonstration sites will feed into the NSAP?s monitoring and evaluation program, as many activities in the current NSAP?s are related to the demonstration sites.
3 The RSAP should be rationalized, by considering the following suggestions: a. An executive summary, understandable to the general public, should be added; b. There should be clear, logical linkages to the SSME CAP; c. A Year-1 review should be made, including a detailed account of activities completed, costs incurred, and contributions made toward the SAP targets; d. Short-term and medium term targets should be developed that are attainable and measurable with available resources. If three years is selected as the first phase of implementation, then decide upon fewer activities than currently are included; e. National responses should be rationalized, and activities should be reconciled to the medium-term development funding cycles of the countries (thus enhancing the likelihood for achievement); f. A financing strategy should be made, including an incremental cost analyses for activities that the countries are unable to fund themselves; g. There should be a strategy for eventually agreeing upon common baselines, information management and sharing, and financial reporting; and h. A simple flow chart showing how the RSAP is complementary to other regional initiatives, such as the CTI, PEMSEA, ECOFISH, etc. would greatly aid advocacy efforts
4 The results and lessons learned on the Project, including the demonstration sites should be documented in concise, informative case study reports and made available on the IW:Learn website and disseminated among the SCS stakeholder community
1. Recommendation: The reluctance of Malaysia to support extension of the MOU of the SSME Tri-Com after the first one expires in 2015 is a critical risk to the overall viability of the tri-national collaborative framework. The other members of the Tri-Com, with support from the Sub-Com, UNDP, GEF, and also the CTI Secretariat should implement concerted advocacy efforts to communicate the added value of maintaining the SSME Tri-Com, and trying to persuade Malaysian decision makers to reconsider their position
Management Response: [Added: 2015/09/13]

Agree on this recommendation Key Actions: UNDP together with other members of Tri-com should reiterate and convince Malaysia of the value of the sustaining the gains in this project towards a successor project mainly to implement the RSAP. Time Frame: May?December 2015 Responsible Unit/s: UNDP, Philippines, Indonesia

Key Actions:

2. Recommendation: A sustainability strategy should be prepared to aid the Sub-Com in over-seeing subsequent implementation activities, including but not limited to the following items: a. Outline the steps are suggested for deciding upon how coordination of the RSAP implementation will be operationalized; b. Request the countries to indicate roles and responsibilities for implementation of the NSAP?s; c. Also, request the countries to outline how continued progress from the demonstration sites will feed into the NSAP?s monitoring and evaluation program, as many activities in the current NSAP?s are related to the demonstration sites.
Management Response: [Added: 2015/09/13]

Agree on the recommendation with condition Key Actions: Sustainability Strategy to be developed together with the countries, with condition that this inputs to successor project. Time Frame: May- December 2015 Responsible Unit/s: Tri Com, UNDP Comments: Since PMU has already been dissolved as project has ended, sustainability strategy will be developed as part of activities under 2nd phase

Key Actions:

3. Recommendation: The RSAP should be rationalized, by considering the following suggestions: a. An executive summary, understandable to the general public, should be added; b. There should be clear, logical linkages to the SSME CAP; c. A Year-1 review should be made, including a detailed account of activities completed, costs incurred, and contributions made toward the SAP targets; d. Short-term and medium term targets should be developed that are attainable and measurable with available resources. If three years is selected as the first phase of implementation, then decide upon fewer activities than currently are included; e. National responses should be rationalized, and activities should be reconciled to the medium-term development funding cycles of the countries (thus enhancing the likelihood for achievement); f. A financing strategy should be made, including an incremental cost analyses for activities that the countries are unable to fund themselves; g. There should be a strategy for eventually agreeing upon common baselines, information management and sharing, and financial reporting; and h. A simple flow chart showing how the RSAP is complementary to other regional initiatives, such as the CTI, PEMSEA, ECOFISH, etc. would greatly aid advocacy efforts
Management Response: [Added: 2015/09/13]

Agree on this recommendation with condition Key Actions: Updating of RSAP to be done as part of successor project Responsible Units: Tri-Com, UNDP Comments: Since PMU has already been dissolved as project has ended, RSAP updating will be done as part of activities under 2nd phase

Key Actions:

4. Recommendation: The results and lessons learned on the Project, including the demonstration sites should be documented in concise, informative case study reports and made available on the IW:Learn website and disseminated among the SCS stakeholder community
Management Response: [Added: 2015/09/13]

Agree on this recommendation Key Actions: National agencies under the project to make reports and other information on project available on the IW as recommended. UNDP and UNOPS to make information available on their respective websites accordingly. Time Frame: April-December 2015 Responsible Units: UNDP, UNOPS, member countries Comments: UNOPS and UNDP, currently working with the three countries for the uploading in IW and their respective websites.

Key Actions:

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

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