Terminal Evaluation - Institutional Strengthening to Implement CBPF

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2011-2015, China
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
12/2015
Completion Date:
11/2015
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
40,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document CBPF Project TE TOR.doc tor English 84.00 KB Posted 1229
Download document CBPF_PIMS 2902 China IS TE report 2015 final.pdf report English 1300.84 KB Posted 1365
Title Terminal Evaluation - Institutional Strengthening to Implement CBPF
Atlas Project Number: 00059593
Evaluation Plan: 2011-2015, China
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 11/2015
Planned End Date: 12/2015
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Others
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021)
  • 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 $): 40,000
Source of Funding:
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Nationality
Li He Professor
James Lenoci
GEF Evaluation: Yes
GEF Project Title:
Evaluation Type: Terminal Evaluation
Focal Area: Biodiversity
Project Type: FSP
GEF Phase: GEF-4
GEF Project ID: 2435
PIMS Number: 2902
Key Stakeholders:
Countries: CHINA, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1 A sustainability plan should be developed, that clearly identifies activities that will require follow-up action after project closure, and roles and responsibilities assigned for ensuring sustainability of project outcomes.
2 The concept regarding the CBPF coordination mechanism was developed back in 2006-2007, and informed in part by a partner survey completed in December 2006. Considering the changes in China since that time, the role and function of a CBPF coordination mechanism should be reassessed. An updated CBPF partner survey should be carried out by an independent consultant or organization, one that is not a member of the CBPF, in order to assess the current expectations from the partners regarding the role and function of a CBPF Secretariat or other form of a coordination mechanism, and the willingness to cofinance the operation of such a body.
3 Based upon the survey results, an updated the operational plan of the CBPF coordination mechanism should be prepared, including, but not limited to, the following: (a) objectives, (b) roles and responsibilities, (c) annual operation plan, (d) financing plan, and (e) monitoring and evaluation plan.
4 As part of the recommended updated survey, CBPF partners should be asked what their expectations are with respect to a common monitoring framework, and the results consolidated into the operational plan for the CBPF coordination mechanism.
5 It would be advisable to develop a ?road map? for advancing the policy recommendations formulated under the project, in order to better guide governmental level stakeholders with advocating for further support toward eventual adoption of policies, and also to provide CBPF partners and the broader donor community with funding and advocacy opportunities.
6 Use remaining time and budget on documenting results, focusing on how the various outputs contributing to the intended project outcomes, and consolidating these into informative knowledge products.
7 Establish foundational links between the CBPF coordination mechanism and the national CBD clearinghouse mechanism, which, as of 2015, FECO is responsible to maintain, and also the MEP Information Centre.
8 Identify opportunities for upscaling and replication from the activities supported by the project, and share these with CBPF partners and the broader donor community.
9 Quantitative monitoring data should be provided for as many of the outcome indicators as practicable, including but not limited to the following: ? Objective, Indicator 2: Biodiversity conservation resources available from government and private sector. Baseline figures are unclear and no monitoring data are available to assess progress. ? Outcome 2, Indicator 2: Extent of use of NBSAP in sectoral work. The annual work plans of some of the key line ministries and agencies, including the MOA, SFA, SOA, etc., could be reviewed for this information. ? Outcome 4, Indicator 1: Amount of funding for biodiversity conservation from all types of market-based PES schemes. Monitoring toward the indicator of 10 market-based PES schemes in at least 2 sectors has not been carried out. ? Outcome 5, Indicators 1 and 2: Adaptation of national and provincial sectoral conservation plans with respect to incorporating adaptation to climate change. According to interviewed stakeholders during the TE mission, several sectors have incorporated climate change aspects into conservation plans and policies.
10 Based upon the difficulties in recruiting experts for certain project assignments and the need to disseminate knowledge among the professional community with respect to some of the technical guidelines produced over the course of the project, a capacity needs assessment should be made among the professional community and a plan developed to design and deliver trainings on key topics, including market-based payment for ecosystem services, integrating climate change impacts to biodiversity into EIA and SEA processes, valuation of ecosystem services, etc.
11 Consider continuing to support the CBPF coordination mechanism, for example, over the next one or two GEF funding cycles, allowing more time for the mechanism to gain traction among a more developed biodiversity governance system in China as compared to the situation at project entry in 2009.
12 Advocate for a clear role of the CBPF coordination mechanism in the design of GEF financed projects, including participation in monitoring and evaluation, knowledge management, and capacity building aspects.
13 It might be advisable to consider setting up a roster of pre-qualified national and international experts, making procurement more efficient and enabling project management teams more guidance in selecting external support services.
1. Recommendation: A sustainability plan should be developed, that clearly identifies activities that will require follow-up action after project closure, and roles and responsibilities assigned for ensuring sustainability of project outcomes.
Management Response: [Added: 2016/01/12]

It?s a good advice. During the remaining time of this project, PMO will develop a plan with activities to ensure the sustainability of project including the existing outcomes? outreach and follow-up work after the project is closed in March 2016.

Key Actions:

2. Recommendation: The concept regarding the CBPF coordination mechanism was developed back in 2006-2007, and informed in part by a partner survey completed in December 2006. Considering the changes in China since that time, the role and function of a CBPF coordination mechanism should be reassessed. An updated CBPF partner survey should be carried out by an independent consultant or organization, one that is not a member of the CBPF, in order to assess the current expectations from the partners regarding the role and function of a CBPF Secretariat or other form of a coordination mechanism, and the willingness to cofinance the operation of such a body.
Management Response: [Added: 2016/01/12]

Yes. We will contract with an independent consultant or an organization to make the survey to all the original CBPF partner for their current expectations, and then, based on the survey, to reassess the CBPF coordination mechanism, and to enhance the roles and functions of CBPF Secretariat.

Key Actions:

3. Recommendation: Based upon the survey results, an updated the operational plan of the CBPF coordination mechanism should be prepared, including, but not limited to, the following: (a) objectives, (b) roles and responsibilities, (c) annual operation plan, (d) financing plan, and (e) monitoring and evaluation plan.
Management Response: [Added: 2016/01/12]

Yes. An updated operational plan of the CBPF coordination mechanism will be developed based on the above assessment, which should take into the advices of TE Consultants.

Key Actions:

4. Recommendation: As part of the recommended updated survey, CBPF partners should be asked what their expectations are with respect to a common monitoring framework, and the results consolidated into the operational plan for the CBPF coordination mechanism.
Management Response: [Added: 2016/01/12]

The expectations from CBPF partners will be asked during the assessment and written into the operation the operational plan for coordination mechanism based on the 3 and the 4.

Key Actions:

5. Recommendation: It would be advisable to develop a ?road map? for advancing the policy recommendations formulated under the project, in order to better guide governmental level stakeholders with advocating for further support toward eventual adoption of policies, and also to provide CBPF partners and the broader donor community with funding and advocacy opportunities.
Management Response: [Added: 2016/01/12]

Yes. PMO will develop the road map for advancing the policy recommendations based on the outputs of this project during the remaining time and the road map will be implemented by Division IV of FECO in consultation with Department of Ecology and Nature Conservation of MEP.

Key Actions:

6. Recommendation: Use remaining time and budget on documenting results, focusing on how the various outputs contributing to the intended project outcomes, and consolidating these into informative knowledge products.
Management Response: [Added: 2016/01/12]

PMO will strengthen the knowledge management of this project during the remaining time, and this advice will be accepted.

Key Actions:

7. Recommendation: Establish foundational links between the CBPF coordination mechanism and the national CBD clearinghouse mechanism, which, as of 2015, FECO is responsible to maintain, and also the MEP Information Centre.
Management Response: [Added: 2016/01/12]

The foundational link will be done when the web for national CBD clearinghouse mechanism redesigned, which is being developed by Division IV, FECO.

Key Actions:

8. Recommendation: Identify opportunities for upscaling and replication from the activities supported by the project, and share these with CBPF partners and the broader donor community.
Management Response: [Added: 2016/01/12]

Yes. During the remaining time and after the closure of the project, PMO and FECO will explore all avenues to upscale and popularize the outputs of the activities. This will be written into the sustainability plan as an important component.

Key Actions:

9. Recommendation: Quantitative monitoring data should be provided for as many of the outcome indicators as practicable, including but not limited to the following: ? Objective, Indicator 2: Biodiversity conservation resources available from government and private sector. Baseline figures are unclear and no monitoring data are available to assess progress. ? Outcome 2, Indicator 2: Extent of use of NBSAP in sectoral work. The annual work plans of some of the key line ministries and agencies, including the MOA, SFA, SOA, etc., could be reviewed for this information. ? Outcome 4, Indicator 1: Amount of funding for biodiversity conservation from all types of market-based PES schemes. Monitoring toward the indicator of 10 market-based PES schemes in at least 2 sectors has not been carried out. ? Outcome 5, Indicators 1 and 2: Adaptation of national and provincial sectoral conservation plans with respect to incorporating adaptation to climate change. According to interviewed stakeholders during the TE mission, several sectors have incorporated climate change aspects into conservation plans and policies.
Management Response: [Added: 2016/01/12]

In the remaining time of this project, the M&E indicators will be updated and some important data will be highlighted and collected based on the practicability.

Key Actions:

10. Recommendation: Based upon the difficulties in recruiting experts for certain project assignments and the need to disseminate knowledge among the professional community with respect to some of the technical guidelines produced over the course of the project, a capacity needs assessment should be made among the professional community and a plan developed to design and deliver trainings on key topics, including market-based payment for ecosystem services, integrating climate change impacts to biodiversity into EIA and SEA processes, valuation of ecosystem services, etc.
Management Response: [Added: 2016/01/12]

Yes. This is a very good advice. FECO have recognized importance of the issue through the implementation of IS project and TE team gave highlights on that. FECO will make a capacity assessment and design some training on some key topics before or while implementing the new projects in the future, which will smooth the delivery rate of projects.

Key Actions:

11. Recommendation: Consider continuing to support the CBPF coordination mechanism, for example, over the next one or two GEF funding cycles, allowing more time for the mechanism to gain traction among a more developed biodiversity governance system in China as compared to the situation at project entry in 2009.
Management Response: [Added: 2016/01/12]

FECO will try to coordinate the related stakeholders and facilitate the realization of CBPF coordination mechanism with support of the future GEF funding.

Key Actions:

12. Recommendation: Advocate for a clear role of the CBPF coordination mechanism in the design of GEF financed projects, including participation in monitoring and evaluation, knowledge management, and capacity building aspects.
Management Response: [Added: 2016/01/12]

It?s a good advice for FECO. The role of the CBPF coordination mechanism will be written clearly in the design of new projects including the GEF VI based on the assessment on the mechanism recommended by TE consultants

Key Actions:

13. Recommendation: It might be advisable to consider setting up a roster of pre-qualified national and international experts, making procurement more efficient and enabling project management teams more guidance in selecting external support services.
Management Response: [Added: 2016/01/12]

FECO, respectively for Division IV will adopt this recommendation to make an assessment and set up a roster of pre-qualified national and international experts, which will smooth the implementation of projects.

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