Management of the PA System to Better Conserve Endangered Species and their Habitats (EvMT)

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2014-2020, Mexico
Evaluation Type:
Mid Term Project
Planned End Date:
06/2019
Completion Date:
07/2019
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
No
Evaluation Budget(US $):
45,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document ToR consultor nacional.pdf tor Spanish 1037.32 KB Posted 284
Download document Informe Final Español.pdf report Spanish 4261.94 KB Posted 1139
Download document Final Report.pdf report English 3904.33 KB Posted 333
Title Management of the PA System to Better Conserve Endangered Species and their Habitats (EvMT)
Atlas Project Number: 00083944
Evaluation Plan: 2014-2020, Mexico
Evaluation Type: Mid Term Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 07/2019
Planned End Date: 06/2019
Management Response: Yes
UNDP Signature Solution:
  • 1. Sustainable
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021)
  • 1. Output 1.1.1 Capacities developed across the whole of government to integrate the 2030 Agenda, the Paris Agreement and other international agreements in development plans and budgets, and to analyse progress towards the SDGs, using innovative and data-driven solutions
SDG Goal
  • Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts
  • 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
  • 13.1 Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries
  • 13.2 Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning
  • 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 $): 45,000
Source of Funding:
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 40,000
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
José Galindo Consultor Internacional jose@mentefactura.com ECUADOR
Margarita García Consultor Nacional magasa_78@hotmail.com MEXICO
José Galindo Consultor Internacional jose@mentefactura.com ECUADOR
Margarita García Consultor Nacional magasa_78@hotmail.com MEXICO
GEF Evaluation: Yes
GEF Project Title: Strengthening Management of the PA System to Better Conserve Endangered Species and their Habitats
Evaluation Type: Mid-term Review
Focal Area: Biodiversity
Project Type: FSP
GEF Phase: GEF-5
GEF Project ID: 5089
PIMS Number: 4956
Key Stakeholders: The National Commission of Natural Protected Areas (CONANP), Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT), Natural Spaces and Sustainable Development (ENDESU), Mexican Fund for Nature Conservation (FMCN); Local communities
Countries: MEXICO
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1

Midterm Review recommendation 1. The need to raise the political profile of the project within CONANP and SEMARNAT is seen, to contact the authorities at the highest level to achieve a clear commitment to the closure of the project and to the implementation of MTR recommendations. This commitment should be ideally be reflected in the participation of the CONANP Commissioner in the Project Board.

2

Midterm Review recommendation 2. To convene to a meeting of all the project’s partners, in order to confirm their interest in maintaining their participation and execution commitment under the terms defined by the Project Board. At this point in the project, the implementation arrangements that are in force cannot be rethought. However, the time remaining is too short and the risk of failure is too high, as to maintain the level of conflict registered so far. Ultimately it is CONANP that must assume a clear and firm leadership that will guide and mobilize the partners in the face of project rescue.

3

Midterm Review recommendation 3. Promote the formation of an Advisory Committee with expanded participation of key players who are not yet committed to the project, so that it oxygenates, accompanies and strengthens the decision-making of the Project Board.

4

Midterm Review recommendation 4. Build an interinstitutional scaffolding with other government stakeholders, civil society and the private sector; linked to new GEF portfolio projects and national resource windows to jointly develop the project's exit strategy.  17.  As part of the sustainability strategy, it is recommended to look for intra- and inter-sectoral arrangements to manage support in and outside of PNA (for Project Management Strategies) and where there are already, strengthen and formalize the links, such as: livestock management, conflicts with predators (predation attack insurance), reduction/management of livestock grazing to reduce competition with target herbivores (SADER); fire management to improve habitat conditions (CONAFOR); promotion of sustainable fisheries in local communities and modification of fishing gear (CONAPESCA), promoting the creation of ecological corridors to preserve biological connectivity (CONABIO). This should be with the support of CONANP's highest commanders.

5

Midterm Review recommendation 5. PRODOC proposes a team of two people, without counting with the technician in M&E that is not yet hired, the UCP team registers at least 4 people. It is recommended to evaluate the performance and profiles of all UCP staff and define whether existing roles and capabilities are the most appropriate to accompany the closure of the project. The areas that deserve more attention for a project exit strategy are linked to M&E, species information and monitoring systems, capacity building, financial sustainability and community participation.

6

Midterm Review recommendation 12. Developing economic valuation exercises and business cases in connection with BIOFIN, it is also advisable to design a financial sustainability strategy that defines the real gaps according to the previous reference framework, and in which insert the patrimonial fund as one more tool within a diversified and creative menu of funding sources for the species at risk, in order to stop using the GEF resources to replace federal spending. All these supplies can contribute to the development of political discourse and strategic communication strategies in favor of higher priority and allocation of financial resources for species at risk.  

7

Midterm Review recommendation 9. The UCP should be formally and actively linked with the support of DEPC, DGOR and DES in the PNANP, in order to nest the project within the 5 priority axes of the new administration. For this, it is recommended that CONANP consider integrating the UCP Coordinator into its planning team.

8

Midterm Review recommendation 11.  The legacy of the project must be to formulate a conceptual framework that proposes short-, medium- and long-term strategic objectives and a theory of change that aligns with the objectives of the new administration, the new economic scenario of government and opportunities to generate development from the protection of species at risk. Within this framework, there must be included proposals to strengthen the regulatory and institutional framework, and a critical route to guide the reforming proposals of the regulatory and institutional framework.

9

Midterm Review recommendation 13. Formalize adoption and continue with the nesting of the information system and APP within CONANP and CONABIO. This would involve a technical/political process to validate or update the existing design so that it is developed with full knowledge and appropriation of CONANP.

10

Midterm Review recommendation 16. It is not recommended to finance activities in species that have not yet started at the PNA level, or that have not had a positive impact on their conservation and ecosystem, for example, the Vaquita Marina in RB Alto Upper Gulf of California and Colorado River Delta Biosphere Reserve, identify the reasons and consider them within the lessons learned, for cases of possible replication in other PNA.

11

Midterm Review recommendation 18. To count with the communication strategy that includes community plans that support conservation management of species at risk. And, on the other hand, from an economic-political perspective, highlight that the species at risk are good business for Mexico, thereby attracting other co-financers, as well as donations, which would favor the sustainability of conservation actions of the species at risk. It is not recommended to invest funds in expensive outreach or communication campaigns that do not have an impact on populations.

12

Midterm Review recommendation 24. Organize a workshop for the next update to filling METT tabs so that it is objective and has as little bias as possible about the criteria to be evaluated. To request each PA to report not only the file but also the observed changes, explain the possible causes that have led to these changes (favorable or not) and the specific feasible measures for each PNA to continue increasing the effectiveness of the management or the strengthening of capacities or reorienting if they are diminished.

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