Evaluation Report For the Terminal Evaluation (TE) of the Suriname Coastal Protected Area Management (PIMS 4370) Project

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2012-2016, Suriname
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
07/2015
Completion Date:
11/2015
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
15,000
Summary of conclusions Conclusions The Suriname Coastal Protected Area Management Project was highly pertinent and relevant for the country. Not only because it dealt with protected areas? management and financing but, more generally, because it attempted to confront coastal management issues and challenges in a country where these are crucial for development. The Project was, overall, able to achieve the completion of several products and to generate a certain level of engagement from relevant stakeholders. This engagement dealt with the need for coastal protected areas management instruments that take into account the multiple roles and uses that these systems play in the development of Suriname and its sustainable use of natural resources. The SCPAM Project, however, has not been successful regarding results and effects at the expected levels. The Project, although medium sized for UNDP / GEF, it was a large project within the Surinamese context. Therefore, there were expectations of capacity building, of proactive integration of district / local ? level institutions in coastal and protected areas management, of generation of financial resources to promote MUMAs management, and in general of coastal and protected areas improved management. The Project produced a series of instruments and products (such as management plans, mangrove education site, economic valuation studies, biodiversity monitoring protocols) that, potentially, could be implemented and used for management of MUMAs if improved institutional capacity accompanies implementation. This institutional capacity should be accompanied by enhanced institutional and regulatory frameworks and improved links between district ? level and national stakeholders. Some of these products and instruments, also, could have a broader potential for use and implementation in Suriname beyond protected area management and could, conceivably, have a catalytic effect concerning sustainable use of natural resources. Summary Lessons Learned In order to seek results, a project such as SCPAM needs to interweave results-based approach and management from the very beginning. Projects need constant monitoring by all parties involved (implementing and executing agencies, project governance bodies). Rigorous monitoring and evaluation throughout the life span of a project accompanied by adaptive management and modifications when issues arise are imperative to achieve results. The capacity of the implementing partner needs to be assessed from project inception / design onward. Gender mainstream needs to be clearly imbedded from project design onward, in order for mainstreaming to be achieved within project?s ambits. Governance structures and responsibilities (of board, steering committee, and implementing agency) within a project need to be clearly laid out from the very beginning of a project. Downstream results, effects and eventually impacts need to be generated with the proper inclusion, participation of, and relation with local and district level actors and institutions. The heavy reliance on consultancies to generate products is detrimental to institutional capacity building and ownership of a project?s products and eventual results.

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document Procurement Notice UNDP GEF Terminal Evaluation Terms of Reference Suriname Coastal Protected Area Management project.pdf tor English 717.53 KB Posted 1142
Download document Evaluation Report TE Suriname SCPAM Final.pdf report English 1455.13 KB Posted 1695
Download document Summary of conclusions.pdf summary English 658.24 KB Posted 3017
Title Evaluation Report For the Terminal Evaluation (TE) of the Suriname Coastal Protected Area Management (PIMS 4370) Project
Atlas Project Number: 00077607
Evaluation Plan: 2012-2016, Suriname
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 11/2015
Planned End Date: 07/2015
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Others
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021)
  • 1. Output 1.4. Scaled up action on climate change adaptation and mitigation across sectors which is funded and implemented
Evaluation Budget(US $): 15,000
Source of Funding: UNDP & GEF
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Nationality
Maria Onestini International evaluator ARGENTINA
GEF Evaluation: Yes
GEF Project Title:
Evaluation Type: Terminal Evaluation
Focal Area: Biodiversity
Project Type: MSP
GEF Phase: GEF-4
GEF Project ID: 4180
PIMS Number: 4370
Key Stakeholders: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Zonal Planning, Forestry and Land Management
Countries: SURINAME
Comments:

Lyes Ferroukhi, the Regional Hub RTA for this project advised that in light of closure date of 30 June 2015, it might not be appropriate to do the mid-term evaluation by end of 2014. Midterm evaluations are no longer mandatory for Medium Size GEF projects and seeing as the country context no longer required a midterm evaluation the country office concurred in consultation with National Implementation Partner.

Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1 In order to generate or drive catalytic effects from the products generated within the SCPAM Project, there should be an impulse for these to be appropriated by other projects or institutions that could make use of them in other projects or programs.
2 Beginning at design, projects need to have a clear strategic path for implementation, following a pattern of consultations, development of products, piloting and full implementation, with logical linkages between expected outputs/products and expected results.
3 Interventions of this type should clearly have as an objective the generation and strengthening of national individual and institutional capacities, taking into account and appraising existing capacity but also needs within the country?s institutions.
4 Governance structures (boards, steering committees) within projects need to have clear proactive roles set from the outset and be realistic as to their composition
5 An analysis of evaluations of similar implemented projects in Suriname could be generated in order to determine whether there is a pattern in issues that arise out of project implementation, and what are the strengths and weaknesses of the country office vis-à-vis projects dealing with environment and development issues. If such a pattern emerges, an exploration could be done in order to understand whether concerns that manifest themselves at the project ? level have a broader root cause.
6 Communication within a project is an important strength and it should be promoted in order to improve implementation aspects. Communication should entail interaction between governance mechanisms of a project (board, steering committee), implementing agency and national implementing partner, as well as with project management unit. It should be agile and promote accountability, transparency and ?as an ultimate goal?the search for effects and outcomes.
7 Knowledge management inputs and outputs should be promoted throughout the implementation stage of a project, promoting learning not only from in ?country experiences but also from regional experiences (for instance, between similar UNDP implemented /GEF Funded projects in the same subject area(s) in Latin America and the Caribbean).
1. Recommendation: In order to generate or drive catalytic effects from the products generated within the SCPAM Project, there should be an impulse for these to be appropriated by other projects or institutions that could make use of them in other projects or programs.
Management Response: [Added: 2016/01/14]

We support this recommendation and propose this be realized in follow up projects of the UNDP in the coastal MUMA?s as well as broad dissemination of the finalized products to broader segments of society.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
During preparation and at inception stage of follow up UNDP project in the coastal area recognize these products from the SCPAM and take stock of the products relevance and build on these during project implementation. Disseminate/make accessible the finalized products to broader audience
[Added: 2016/01/14] [Last Updated: 2019/01/30]
Ministry of ROGB/ UNDP Co 2018/12 Completed Completed/Done; whereby for example development of MUMA management plans activity was subsumed in the GCCA+ project and the Draft management plans as is were the starting point for finalization by Ministry of RGB with Stakeholder input and support by GCCA+ PMU. History
2. Recommendation: Beginning at design, projects need to have a clear strategic path for implementation, following a pattern of consultations, development of products, piloting and full implementation, with logical linkages between expected outputs/products and expected results.
Management Response: [Added: 2016/01/14]

This is accepted and we would add reinforcement of the Theory of Change, although not easily realized due to implementing partner and project staff turnover and change in government view that often delay roll out of piloting of proposed strategies and actions.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Strengthen the national implementing partner's knowledge and skills base on Results Based Management. Enhance country office program and project quality assurance and timely follow up to agreed action steps and documentation of this follow up
[Added: 2016/01/14] [Last Updated: 2019/01/30]
Government of Suriname/UNDP 2018/12 Completed Completed/Done/ongoing; ongoing basis as it pertains to RBM as well as substantive knowledge to support sound design and adjustment of TOC. History
3. Recommendation: Interventions of this type should clearly have as an objective the generation and strengthening of national individual and institutional capacities, taking into account and appraising existing capacity but also needs within the country?s institutions.
Management Response: [Added: 2016/01/14]

The appraisal of staff capacities was taken into account at the project design stage, however the exacerbation due to staff turnover and lack of motivation during project implementation was not anticipated at the extent that this materialized. Individual capacities were strengthened at implementing partner, at research institutes such as (ROGB, CELOS, ADEK, and Green Heritage Foundation). It is recognized that the visibility and attribution to the project of the strengthening of capacities should be enhanced in future instances as well as more balance and focus towards systemic and institutional capacities.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The appraisal of staff capacities including motivation and organizational inhibiting factors at the start of projects, primarily large and multi-year projects. The documentation of those areas that the project may address due to limiting scope and resources and the implications of this on attainment of project objectives/ results/outputs. Integration and updating of this elaborated project risk assessment into the Theory of Change
[Added: 2016/01/14] [Last Updated: 2019/01/30]
UNDP 2018/12 Completed Completed/Done/ongoing; Although difficult to limit counterpart aspiration of capacity strengthening at start, this is part of design process of new project and implementation of these multiyear projects whereby counterpart baseline staff capacities may reduce over the duration of implementing the project. History
4. Recommendation: Governance structures (boards, steering committees) within projects need to have clear proactive roles set from the outset and be realistic as to their composition
Management Response: [Added: 2016/01/14]

Accepted that there is room for more clarity in the role and relationship intra governance structure as well as with the project implementation structure per UNDP rules and procedures, sensitized to local culture and practices. Country Office proposes to have clearly defined TORs to guide the functioning of project governance structures.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Review and assess current project boards/steering committee structures. Discuss and clarify with implementing partners and engage on improvement into operations of these structure
[Added: 2016/01/14] [Last Updated: 2019/01/30]
Government of Suriname/UNDP 2016/03 Completed Tors clarified as much as possible on the role of project boards/ steering committees the requisite as well as information/guidance on what is expected History
5. Recommendation: An analysis of evaluations of similar implemented projects in Suriname could be generated in order to determine whether there is a pattern in issues that arise out of project implementation, and what are the strengths and weaknesses of the country office vis-à-vis projects dealing with environment and development issues. If such a pattern emerges, an exploration could be done in order to understand whether concerns that manifest themselves at the project ? level have a broader root cause.
Management Response: [Added: 2016/01/14]

This is accepted. Some of the issues documented during this project evaluation were also raised as part of Environment cluster evaluation in 2012. Country Office proposes to conduct a review of its most recent project evaluations to determine whether patterns are systemic to the Environment portfolio or go across sectors/ program areas. The outcome of this exercise will be utilized to shape future projects

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Desk review of most recent project, UNDAF and cluster evaluations to determine whether patterns are systemic to the Environment portfolio or go across sectors.
[Added: 2016/01/14] [Last Updated: 2020/07/28]
UNDP 2020/07 No Longer Applicable [Justification: An analysis of evaluations of similar implemented projects in Suriname could be generated in order to determine whether there is a pattern in issues that arise out of project implementation, and what are the strengths and weaknesses of the country office vis-à-vis projects dealing with environment and development issues. If such a pattern emerges, an exploration could be done in order to understand whether concerns that manifest themselves at the project level have a broader root cause.]
An analysis of evaluations of similar implemented projects in Suriname could be generated in order to determine whether there is a pattern in issues that arise out of project implementation, and what are the strengths and weaknesses of the country office vis-à-vis projects dealing with environment and development issues. If such a pattern emerges, an exploration could be done in order to understand whether concerns that manifest themselves at the project ? level have a broader root cause History
6. Recommendation: Communication within a project is an important strength and it should be promoted in order to improve implementation aspects. Communication should entail interaction between governance mechanisms of a project (board, steering committee), implementing agency and national implementing partner, as well as with project management unit. It should be agile and promote accountability, transparency and ?as an ultimate goal?the search for effects and outcomes.
Management Response: [Added: 2016/01/14]

Accepted. Country Office proposes to design a communications strategy for each future project.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Communication and Visibility plan for all multiyear projects with clear mapping of targets audience internal and external to implementing partner.
[Added: 2016/01/14] [Last Updated: 2019/01/30]
UNDP 2018/12 Completed Done, clear examples REDD+, JCCCP and GCCA+ projects History
7. Recommendation: Knowledge management inputs and outputs should be promoted throughout the implementation stage of a project, promoting learning not only from in ?country experiences but also from regional experiences (for instance, between similar UNDP implemented /GEF Funded projects in the same subject area(s) in Latin America and the Caribbean).
Management Response: [Added: 2016/01/14]

Accepted. Country Office proposes to utilize 2 -5% of project funds to document and produce knowledge products.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The information and knowledge management and sharing should be done in synergy with Communication and Visibility to mutually reinforce their objectives. Facilitate exchange with relevant national and international best practices.
[Added: 2016/01/14] [Last Updated: 2019/01/30]
UNDP 2018/12 Completed Done, examples of National are Knowledge fair hosted under GCCA+ Suriname Adaptation project jointly with JCCCP project. Participation in international conferences and exchange on REDD+, Climate Change Adaptation, Integrated Water resource Management, hosting of international Conference on Forest in Suriname Feb 2019. 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