Evaluacion final del Proyecto Sustainable Management Forest in Equatorial Guinea

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2013-2018, Equatorial Guinea
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
03/2019
Completion Date:
12/2019
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
25,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document UNDP-GEF_TE TOR Template_ESP_FINAL.docx tor Spanish 194.47 KB Posted 50
Download document 4185 final evalution SNAP GEv1_Final.pdf report English 1699.13 KB Posted 117
Title Evaluacion final del Proyecto Sustainable Management Forest in Equatorial Guinea
Atlas Project Number: 00060590
Evaluation Plan: 2013-2018, Equatorial Guinea
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 12/2019
Planned End Date: 03/2019
Management Response: Yes
UNDP Signature Solution:
  • 1. Sustainable
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021)
  • 1. Output 2.4.1 Gender-responsive legal and regulatory frameworks, policies and institutions strengthened, and solutions adopted, to address conservation, sustainable use and equitable benefit sharing of natural resources, in line with international conventions and national legislation
SDG Goal
  • Goal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss
SDG Target
  • 15.2 By 2020, promote the implementation of sustainable management of all types of forests, halt deforestation, restore degraded forests and substantially increase afforestation and reforestation globally
Evaluation Budget(US $): 25,000
Source of Funding: PNUD/GEF
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 19,000
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Guido Fern√°ndez de Velasco
GEF Evaluation: Yes
GEF Project Title: "STRENGTHENING OF THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF PROTECTED AREAS IN EQUAOTIRAL GUINEA FOR THE EFFECTIVE CONSERVATION OF REPRESENTATIVE ECOSYSTEMS AND GLOBALLY SIGNIFICANT BIODIVERSITY‚ÄĚ
Evaluation Type: Terminal Evaluation
Focal Area: Biodiversity
Project Type: FSP
GEF Phase: GEF-4
GEF Project ID: 3757
PIMS Number: 4185
Key Stakeholders: Ministerio de Pesca y M. A.
Countries: EQUATORIAL GUINEA
Comments:

Es la evaluación final del proyecto PIMS4185 definido en el documento de Proyecto.

Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1

Design easier to monitor biodiversity conservation indicators. Taking into consideration the Ministry’s and UNDP actual monitoring capacity, more concreate and easier to monitor indicators should have been designed. Lower the expectations at the target level when dealing with laws and regulations.

2

Future conservation projects would require strong community development work for conservation. The impacts of the project on communities has been insignificant and deserves to be strengthened.

3

Double check the risks and proposed mitigation measures at prodoc level since these tend to say or reflect what the financier wishes to hear but not necessarily can be achieved. This could be achieved by means of a project concept / design external auditor.

4

Ensure all capacity building exercises include a capacity baseline (control test) to be requested with the Terms of Reference of all consultancies as well as the formats to be used after the capacity building exercises to ensure capacity changes can be measured.

5

Include an M&E Specialist within the project’s PMU to ensure adequate monitoring and reporting and budget for the position.

6

Conduct a proper analysis of NSPA financing and staffing needs at an early stage, preferably during concept design, if possible, to ensure that activities related to financial sustainability are properly designed and agreed upon during project preparation grant phase.

7

Conduct an independent institutional and individual capacity assessment of the NSPA to properly design a capacity building strategy.

8

At regional level, create an early warning, if it doesn’t exist, to push forward or stop severely delayed projects. Three years can’t go by for projects to initiate activities.

9

Ensure, by means of UNDP and at regional level, that the revised logframe during Inception workshop is used for AWP, QPR and PIR reporting.

10

Only approve AWPs that come together with PSC minutes signed by all authorized stakeholders in the prodoc.

11

UNDP and PMU ought to ensure proper co-financement monitoring. Co-financement should be included in the PIRs. RTA need to stress this fact and UNDP monitor it on the ground.

12

Design and yearly update by means of approval of the PSC an Exit Strategy looking at the environmental, socio-economic and financial sustainability strategy once the project ends.

13

The PAs management action plans ought to be designed taking into consideration the importance of including the communities living within the areas and their traditional uses of the NNRR. More creative ways have to be thought of to ensure the communities active involvement in nature conservation and park management in order to make it fully operational and sustainable.

14

Design and implement an information sharing portal to be hosted by UNDP or GOEG respective Ministry were all GEF project products are mandatory to be posted. This should be done systematically and the M&E expert could be responsible to do so. This will ensure transparency and replicability. Plan for the necessary resources in the prodoc’s budget.

15

Establish, besides the PSC, effective INCOMA and INEFOR-AP coordination mechanisms. Employ a conflict resolution facilitator at the beginning to help identify potential areas of collaboration in favor of Biodiversity conservation.

16

UNDP to hire an environment program officer to effectively support GEF and non-GEF projects and their monitoring and reporting.

17

When inviting government staff / ministries to capacity building exercises, ensure that medium to low managers attend as well. Control participation to ensure knowledge trickles down the command chain. Promote train of trainer’s activities.

18

If there is political certainty that the NSPA will remain under the umbrella of INEFOR-AP, ensure biodiversity conservation and NSPA strengthening projects are hosted within this institution.

1. Recommendation:

Design easier to monitor biodiversity conservation indicators. Taking into consideration the Ministry’s and UNDP actual monitoring capacity, more concreate and easier to monitor indicators should have been designed. Lower the expectations at the target level when dealing with laws and regulations.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/12/09] [Last Updated: 2019/12/11]

Noted. Owing that this project has ended, this recommendation will be taken into consideration on designing similar projects in the future.

Key Actions:

2. Recommendation:

Future conservation projects would require strong community development work for conservation. The impacts of the project on communities has been insignificant and deserves to be strengthened.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/12/09] [Last Updated: 2019/12/11]

Noted. This recommendation will be taken into consideration on designing projects in the future.

Key Actions:

3. Recommendation:

Double check the risks and proposed mitigation measures at prodoc level since these tend to say or reflect what the financier wishes to hear but not necessarily can be achieved. This could be achieved by means of a project concept / design external auditor.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/12/09] [Last Updated: 2019/12/11]

As the project has ended, this recommendation will be taken on board when designing similar projects in the future.

Key Actions:

4. Recommendation:

Ensure all capacity building exercises include a capacity baseline (control test) to be requested with the Terms of Reference of all consultancies as well as the formats to be used after the capacity building exercises to ensure capacity changes can be measured.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/12/09] [Last Updated: 2019/12/11]

Acknowledged. This recommendation will be taken into consideration in ongoing future projects.

Key Actions:

5. Recommendation:

Include an M&E Specialist within the project’s PMU to ensure adequate monitoring and reporting and budget for the position.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/12/09] [Last Updated: 2019/12/11]

Noted. This recommendation will be taken into consideration on designing projects in the future.

Key Actions:

6. Recommendation:

Conduct a proper analysis of NSPA financing and staffing needs at an early stage, preferably during concept design, if possible, to ensure that activities related to financial sustainability are properly designed and agreed upon during project preparation grant phase.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/12/09] [Last Updated: 2019/12/11]

As the project has ended, this recommendation will be taken into consideration on designing projects in the future.

Key Actions:

7. Recommendation:

Conduct an independent institutional and individual capacity assessment of the NSPA to properly design a capacity building strategy.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/12/09] [Last Updated: 2019/12/11]

UNDP rejects this recommendation as it is not about the project.

Key Actions:

8. Recommendation:

At regional level, create an early warning, if it doesn’t exist, to push forward or stop severely delayed projects. Three years can’t go by for projects to initiate activities.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/12/09] [Last Updated: 2019/12/11]

Noted. An early warning system does exist at the regional level. This project was delayed due to the late disbursement of the funds in the project.

Key Actions:

9. Recommendation:

Ensure, by means of UNDP and at regional level, that the revised logframe during Inception workshop is used for AWP, QPR and PIR reporting.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/12/09] [Last Updated: 2019/12/11]

Noted. This has been the case throughout the project cycle. However, we could improve on this process in implementing projects in the future.

Key Actions:

10. Recommendation:

Only approve AWPs that come together with PSC minutes signed by all authorized stakeholders in the prodoc.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/12/09] [Last Updated: 2019/12/11]

Noted. We will take this into consideration going forward with future projects.

Key Actions:

11. Recommendation:

UNDP and PMU ought to ensure proper co-financement monitoring. Co-financement should be included in the PIRs. RTA need to stress this fact and UNDP monitor it on the ground.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/12/09] [Last Updated: 2019/12/11]

Noted. Co-finance monitoring is usually done through Atlas for every project by UNDP. However, this recommendation will be taken into consideration on implementing projects in the future.

Key Actions:

12. Recommendation:

Design and yearly update by means of approval of the PSC an Exit Strategy looking at the environmental, socio-economic and financial sustainability strategy once the project ends.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/12/09] [Last Updated: 2019/12/11]

Noted. This will be incorporated in the design of new and similar future project as the project has ended.

Key Actions:

13. Recommendation:

The PAs management action plans ought to be designed taking into consideration the importance of including the communities living within the areas and their traditional uses of the NNRR. More creative ways have to be thought of to ensure the communities active involvement in nature conservation and park management in order to make it fully operational and sustainable.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/12/09] [Last Updated: 2019/12/11]

As the project has ended, this recommendation will be taken into consideration on implementing projects in the future.

Key Actions:

14. Recommendation:

Design and implement an information sharing portal to be hosted by UNDP or GOEG respective Ministry were all GEF project products are mandatory to be posted. This should be done systematically and the M&E expert could be responsible to do so. This will ensure transparency and replicability. Plan for the necessary resources in the prodoc’s budget.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/12/09] [Last Updated: 2019/12/11]

Noted. Information portal of all GEF projects exists in HQ and is managed by M&E expects in HQ. Also, the ERC exists which is a public portal where all GEF evaluations are posted.

Key Actions:

15. Recommendation:

Establish, besides the PSC, effective INCOMA and INEFOR-AP coordination mechanisms. Employ a conflict resolution facilitator at the beginning to help identify potential areas of collaboration in favor of Biodiversity conservation.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/12/09] [Last Updated: 2019/12/11]

Owing that this is a terminal evaluation, this recommendation will be taken into consideration on designing and implementing projects in the future.

Key Actions:

16. Recommendation:

UNDP to hire an environment program officer to effectively support GEF and non-GEF projects and their monitoring and reporting.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/12/09] [Last Updated: 2019/12/11]

UNDP has just hired a Programme Analyst at NOB level who will support GEF and non-GEF projects.

Key Actions:

17. Recommendation:

When inviting government staff / ministries to capacity building exercises, ensure that medium to low managers attend as well. Control participation to ensure knowledge trickles down the command chain. Promote train of trainer’s activities.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/12/09] [Last Updated: 2019/12/11]

As the project has ended, this recommendation will be taken into consideration on designing and implementing projects in the future.

Key Actions:

18. Recommendation:

If there is political certainty that the NSPA will remain under the umbrella of INEFOR-AP, ensure biodiversity conservation and NSPA strengthening projects are hosted within this institution.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/12/09] [Last Updated: 2019/12/11]

As the project has ended, this recommendation will be taken into consideration on designing and implementing projects in the future.

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