Final Evaluation Financial Sustainability of the National System of Protected Areas (SNAP), Ecuador

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2015-2018, Ecuador
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
10/2016
Completion Date:
04/2017
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
20,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document TOR_Senior Expert SOSTENIBILIDAD FINANCIERA.pdf tor English 994.33 KB Posted 421
Download document Tors Financial Expert sOSTENIBILIDAD FINANCIERA.pdf tor English 6080.83 KB Posted 370
Download document Final Evaluation Report FSP English.docx report English 1110.62 KB Posted 439
Download document TERMINAL EVALUATION TERMS OF REFERENCE.pdf tor English 919.32 KB Posted 319
Download document TE Annexes PSF Eng Final.docx related-document English 5157.40 KB Posted 366
Title Final Evaluation Financial Sustainability of the National System of Protected Areas (SNAP), Ecuador
Atlas Project Number: 00073902
Evaluation Plan: 2015-2018, Ecuador
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 04/2017
Planned End Date: 10/2016
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Others
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
  • 1. Output 1.1. National and sub-national systems and institutions enabled to achieve structural transformation of productive capacities that are sustainable and employment - and livelihoods- intensive
  • 2. Output 1.3. Solutions developed at national and sub-national levels for sustainable management of natural resources, ecosystem services, chemicals and waste
SDG Target
  • 3.1 By 2030, reduce the global maternal mortality ratio to less than 70 per 100,000 live births
  • 3.2 By 2030, end preventable deaths of newborns and children under 5 years of age, with all countries aiming to reduce neonatal mortality to at least as low as 12 per 1,000 live births and under-5 mortality to at least as low as 25 per 1,000 live births
  • 3.8 Achieve universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health-care services and access to safe, effective, quality and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all
Evaluation Budget(US $): 20,000
Source of Funding: project funds
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Jorge Leiva
GEF Evaluation: Yes
Evaluation Type:
Focal Area: Biodiversity
Project Type: FSP
GEF Phase: GEF-1
PIMS Number:
Key Stakeholders: Ministerio del Ambiente
Countries: ECUADOR
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1

Based on the FSP experience, merging several Projects with different (but not exclusive) objectives into one Project is not recommended. The expectations and expected results of each Project must be independently considered and kept clearly visible. Also, if several initiatives are inevitably brought together, the results-based framework should be applied separately to each of the initiatives that come together, regardless of whether the results are interrelated. Merging Projects incorporates serious difficulties for periodic M&E as well as RMT and TE; and results in a more extensive and complex TE Report.

2

Due to the complexity of the Project (financial sustainability), it is critical that the Project has a specialized advisory committee that goes beyond the same actors or beneficiaries of the it, which are mostly in a learning process. Along with the strategic actors (such as TNC and CI), the capacities that the Project needs to strengthen its execution must be identified.

3

The formulation of indicators for the objectives and results of a Project should be as close as possible to the SMART model. While the UNDP’s Financial Sustainability Scorecard (SFS) is a very useful tool which can be applied at the beginning of a Project, it is not recommended to use it to measure progress in short execution periods. In the case of SFP, it was applied properly at the beginning and could have been applied at the end, but not periodically in the PIRs. It is recommended that SMART indicators be used to evaluate the progress of the Project in shorter periods. Additional SMART indicators should always accompany the use of the SFS.

4

The coordination of a PA financing Project requires a specialized executive person, with high technical profile and backed by previous specific and verifiable experience. Leadership in this regard is a critical element not only to obtain quality products and results that lead to lasting impacts, but also must be a resource or source of consultation and ongoing technical advice for strategic partners and other key players. A combination of high technical profile and high executive capacity is indispensable for high-level negotiations, especially related to financial mechanisms that require environmental fiscal reform.

5

In addition to the above leadership, this type of Project should establish a group of external experts (volunteers) to peer review product quality and viability. UNDP can play an instrumental role by mobilizing this type of capacity at the national and regional levels within and outside UNDP.

6

PA financial sustainability is a long-term issue, therefore, it is essential that an exit plan is duly formulated (with due anticipation) and made official. That is, a plan prepared and agreed with its strategic partners and new partners that are linked to the financial mechanisms or cost-saving mechanisms generated through the Project. This will increase the likelihood that strategic partners and new partners will be empowered to give continuity to the Project results before or immediately after the Project ends. This is a very sensitive issue when it comes to financial mechanisms that may be anchored in sectorial agencies that represent productive sectors (e.g. tourism, agriculture, energy) and the private sector (e.g. tourism chambers and industry chambers). The Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) mechanism and CICOP are good examples of the need for a timely and appropriately agreed exit plan, including a defined work plan.

7

During the design of a highly technical Project such as the SFP, it is essential that an analysis of the institutional capacity of the potential partners be carried out to select the most appropriate partners; and thus limit the risks of desertion, inter-institutional conflicts or loss of resources.

8

Regarding the participation of strategic partners and key actors, it is recommended that this participation is not limited to the socialization of the activities carried out by the Project, but rather involve the actors in the design of the activities, execution, and M&E.

9

A complex Project that works on financial mechanisms can generate conflicts of interest, it is imperative that when these conflicts occur, the Project team and UNDP work in a coordinated way, for example, to train the Project team in conflict management and resolution. Training in conflict prevention and resolution would have been ideal in the middle of the Project. Financial mechanisms that commonly generate conflicts of interest include payments for environmental services and mechanisms related to tourism in PA that share profits between the PA and beneficiaries in buffer zones. Likewise, there are conflict-prone organizations (such as the CNBRPE) that can benefit from regular training in conflict management and resolution sponsored by UNDP/Project.

10

For future development of the Competitive Fund Mechanism (Fondo de Mecanismos Concursables for its name in Spanish) it is recommended that "Breakeven Analysis" is used to verify that interventions correspond to UN policies on resettlement and livelihoods change to ensure that the changes proposed by such Projects result in a verifiable improvement (increase) of household’s income.

11

With regard to the participation of strategic partners and key stakeholders, it is recommended to develop a scheme with clear roles and responsibilities for each partner and to implement a system of participatory decision-making that involves a shared responsibility in the costs and benefits of the decisions made. UNDP could promote “participation by results” in its GEF interventions.

12

Map the actors that are currently active in biodiversity-related finance, in order to identify key areas in which these actors (institutions) or Projects can support the continuity of the Project’s results, especially with the products that need additional work, for example, CSR, CICOP, SIB, SNAP’s financial strategy and PA business plans.

13

Follow up on the approval and / or implementation of financial regulations for biodiversity finance contained in the TULAS (if approved in the first months of 2017). Once the new Environmental Law is approved.

14

Once the Authorities of MAE are in office (after the April 2017 elections), promote the review of the SNAP’s Sustainable Finance Strategy and the Guidelines for the Elaboration of SFE of each PA, including the plans generated after the application of these guidelines. This aspect is critical to determine if these financial planning tools will have an impact in the future.

15

Continue with the communication strategy (through MAE, BIOFIN and other relevant Projects) including the insertion of better information on the economic impact of the PAs and the SNAP for sectorial development. Specifically oriented to those who make political and financial decisions within key sectors. For example SERNAGUA and Energy in the public sector and also with key actors in the private sector.

16

MAE, through future Projects related to financial sustainability (e.g. GCF, GEF Amazon), should work with GADs, MF and other cluster agencies to identify alternative (decentralized) options to enable PA to retain -at PA level- revenue from tourism related mechanisms and other revenue options. Analyze alternative means to decentralize the financing of the SNAP (all sub-systems including private and community and GAD AP). One option is to look at transfers through autonomous entities such as the GADs. In the future, given their financial autonomy, GADs can support partial funding of all SNAP subsystems. Promoting co-management of PAs (the 4 sub-systems) with GADs can be very productive in the immediate future. In recent years the responsibilities for environmental and tourism management have been decentralized in the GADs.

17

Promote the full development of the SIB so that it can be used to mobilize public and private resources; and to mobilize the political will to approve the missing legislation on PA finance. The most interesting information to support the SNAP’s SFS is financial information, i.e., financial situation, needs and gaps, financial mechanisms, quality of expenditure, investment results and access to detailed information about the CSR program. It would be necessary, in the immediate future, to organize the information on a “client needs basis”, especially for potential investors, enterprises, tourists, the academic sector and the general public. It will also be important to present more information on sub-systems, according to the indicated financial information.

18

Strengthen the work with MINTUR, MAGAP, SENAGUA, and private sector to enable the CSR program to reach its full potential and improve the performance of concessions in PA.

19

Coordinate immediately with BIOFIN (National and Regional Coordinator) to connect BIOFIN with SIB and other mechanisms such as the CSR and CICOP. BIOFIN could incorporate, at least, the CSR program and the revision of CICOP’s business strategy in its financial plan.

20

Continue with the on-going strategic support to ensure the incorporation of all SNAP subsystems as potential beneficiaries of the new fund that will replace the National Environmental Fund (FAN).

21

Develop a strategy to not interrupt for too long the funding to support the Competitive Fund Mechanism –CFM . This includes an adequate mechanism for estimating the potential for PA cost reductions, to define priority action areas; and apply “Break-even” analysis to ensure increased benefits for beneficiaries. This could involve at least MINTUR, MAGAP, the business sector and a specific plan for the Socio-Bosque Program (if it is refinanced). For this, MAE could seek further advice from UNDP to "facilitate" of the process.

22

To improve concessions in PA, a more detailed consultation with small vendors must be carried out during the design process. Particularly for concessions that involve facilities for multiple uses and objectives (commercial, visitor management and small vendors, tourism, etc.) The consultations should include companies that could play a role in the infrastructure design and business management. These detailed consultations are key to avoid risks of concession in infrastructure that is not fully functional or that may not lead to the increase of concessionary income

23

In order to improve results-based budgeting, MAE could promote the formation of specific working groups to work on PA result-based financial planning, budgeting and execution (considering direct and indirect costs) among the GADs. This can benefit all sub systems of the SNAP. A PA result-based budgeting could be included in the Aula Verde Program.

24

Although the bottlenecks with the CNBRPE already have agreements for resolution, it is recommended that MAE follow up with CNBRPE to comply with these agreements, and develop a work plan as needed.

25

MAE (together with UNDP) communicate to the Provincial Government (Prefecto Provincial), MINTUR, Chamber of Tourism of the Northwest of Pichincha and other key institutions about the conclusion of CICOP and the next steps to start its operation.

26

To enable the operation of CICOP, it is recommended that CNBRPE, with the support of BIOFIN, analyze a new concession model for a private company (an operator of national and international social and business events), which has the capacity to use CICOP for multipurpose events and has an already established clientele. The events will not be restricted to "green" events and the CNBRPE would maintain the right of use of certain spaces. The concessionaire in turn must respect the vision for which CICOP was created. The CNBRPE could work on this matter with MINTUR, the Chambers of Tourism of the Northwest of Pichincha, GAD, and the Municipality of Quito. The CNBRPE, with the support of BIOFIN will formulate the TDR for the development of the CICOP concession. At this point, the concession may be the most immediate and mid-term solution. Depending on the results of the concession, other options that could be analyzed by the CNBRPE in the long-term.

1. Recommendation:

Based on the FSP experience, merging several Projects with different (but not exclusive) objectives into one Project is not recommended. The expectations and expected results of each Project must be independently considered and kept clearly visible. Also, if several initiatives are inevitably brought together, the results-based framework should be applied separately to each of the initiatives that come together, regardless of whether the results are interrelated. Merging Projects incorporates serious difficulties for periodic M&E as well as RMT and TE; and results in a more extensive and complex TE Report.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/05/23] [Last Updated: 2017/05/23]

Actions are coordinated to articulate in generating proposals with greater incidence, and a single approach, where the efforts are aligned to the environmental policy according to the National Development Plan.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
At the operational level based on monitoring and follow-up, actions will be taken so that the programmatic fusion of future Projects is carried out in a cost-efficient manner.
[Added: 2017/05/23] [Last Updated: 2018/11/23]
MAE MAGAP UNDP 2017/07 Completed The GEF is recommended to consider this type of finding for future replenishments History
2. Recommendation:

Due to the complexity of the Project (financial sustainability), it is critical that the Project has a specialized advisory committee that goes beyond the same actors or beneficiaries of the it, which are mostly in a learning process. Along with the strategic actors (such as TNC and CI), the capacities that the Project needs to strengthen its execution must be identified.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/05/23]

The Project established an Advisory Committee with Strategic Partners, such as CI, TNC, UNDP, FAN and local actors. This was done in addition to what was established in the PRODOC governance model.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The specific needs of a Project enter into an open, competitive and transparent selection process, where actors such as TNC and CI often participate.
[Added: 2017/05/23]
UNDP MAE 2017/01 Completed permanent action.
3. Recommendation:

The formulation of indicators for the objectives and results of a Project should be as close as possible to the SMART model. While the UNDP’s Financial Sustainability Scorecard (SFS) is a very useful tool which can be applied at the beginning of a Project, it is not recommended to use it to measure progress in short execution periods. In the case of SFP, it was applied properly at the beginning and could have been applied at the end, but not periodically in the PIRs. It is recommended that SMART indicators be used to evaluate the progress of the Project in shorter periods. Additional SMART indicators should always accompany the use of the SFS.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/05/23]

The Financial Sustainability Project (FSP) monitoring framework included 23 indicators that emphasize SMART attributes: specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and sustainable. Of these 23 indicators only 4 correspond to the Financial Sustainability Scorecard (SFS).


In addition, the Project design went through the review processes of the MAE, UNDP and the GEF approving the results framework and indicators as initially proposed. It is worth mentioning that the recommendations of the MTE regarding indicators were timely  taken in.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The use of SMART Indicators is defined in the design and evaluation policies of UNDP - GEF Projects.
[Added: 2017/05/23]
UNDP 2017/02 Completed The quantitative analysis of the SFS provided the Ministry of Environment of Ecuador with the opportunity to have timely and quality information for decision-making and also feedback for the planning of subsequent years.
4. Recommendation:

The coordination of a PA financing Project requires a specialized executive person, with high technical profile and backed by previous specific and verifiable experience. Leadership in this regard is a critical element not only to obtain quality products and results that lead to lasting impacts, but also must be a resource or source of consultation and ongoing technical advice for strategic partners and other key players. A combination of high technical profile and high executive capacity is indispensable for high-level negotiations, especially related to financial mechanisms that require environmental fiscal reform.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/06/06]

The Project changed coordinator after the first year and a half of its implementation and this was decisive in its execution. The project performance evaluation passed from from "Unsatisfactory" in 2011 to "Highly Satisfactory" in 2014 up to 2016.

 

The Project team, and particularly its last coordinator, was considered an advising arm for decision makers of the Ministry of Environment of Ecuador, even under different administrations.

 

The UNDP Country Office disagrees with the approach to this finding, the experience from the CO’s projects portfolio indicates that a highly technical and specialized profile is not necessarily adequate to coordinate a Project. Experience shows that a managerial profile, with enough technical knowledge management and high communication and incidence capacity is better suited.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The use of SMART Indicators is defined in the design and evaluation policies of UNDP - GEF Projects.
[Added: 2017/06/06]
UNDP 2017/04 Completed The quantitative analysis of the SFS provided the Ministry of Environment of Ecuador with the opportunity to have timely and quality information for decision-making and also feedback for the planning of subsequent years
5. Recommendation:

In addition to the above leadership, this type of Project should establish a group of external experts (volunteers) to peer review product quality and viability. UNDP can play an instrumental role by mobilizing this type of capacity at the national and regional levels within and outside UNDP.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/06/06]

Within the framework of the Project, several peer review exercises were performed for strategic issues. To this end, the Project used the specialists platform of The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) in Ecuador

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
UNDP has a series of multidisciplinary specialists and several inter-agency and civil society platforms (eg. CERES) which are available for the Projects. This suggestion is accepted within the framework of the Project Documents and the Delegation of Authority submitted to the Country Office at the beginning of the Projects.
[Added: 2017/06/06]
UNDP 2017/04 Completed
6. Recommendation:

PA financial sustainability is a long-term issue, therefore, it is essential that an exit plan is duly formulated (with due anticipation) and made official. That is, a plan prepared and agreed with its strategic partners and new partners that are linked to the financial mechanisms or cost-saving mechanisms generated through the Project. This will increase the likelihood that strategic partners and new partners will be empowered to give continuity to the Project results before or immediately after the Project ends. This is a very sensitive issue when it comes to financial mechanisms that may be anchored in sectorial agencies that represent productive sectors (e.g. tourism, agriculture, energy) and the private sector (e.g. tourism chambers and industry chambers). The Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) mechanism and CICOP are good examples of the need for a timely and appropriately agreed exit plan, including a defined work plan.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/06/06]

The exit strategy, more than a document, was a work plan for the last year. And it was approved on January 22, 2016 by the National Steering Committee (Ministries of Environment, Finance and UNDP) see Annex 1.

 

For this reason, in the last year the Project paid special attention to the processes of Institutionalization of mechanisms and tools generated; As well as empowerment and capacity building.

 

The level of uncertainty regarding FAN and the lack of institutional appropriation and maturity of the Private Forest Network made it difficult to work in detail. However, the Project was able to manage the continuity of actions in the working agendas of other initiatives in accordance with the recommendations of the FE.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
BIOFIN has carried out actions in coordination with the UNDP CO to follow up on the sustainability of CICOP CSR is a mechanism included in the work plan of the Sustainable Environmental Investment Fund. The constitution of the FIAS is an issue that has yet to be defined at the political level.
[Added: 2017/06/06]
UNDP MAE BIOFIN 2017/04 Completed BIOFIN in its Cost Estimating Study and Financing Gap determined (in R13) that the SNAP will have a surplus of financing for the period 2017-2020, based on the proposed mechanisms, an impact that reverses the trend of financing needs of the SNAP.
7. Recommendation:

During the design of a highly technical Project such as the SFP, it is essential that an analysis of the institutional capacity of the potential partners be carried out to select the most appropriate partners; and thus limit the risks of desertion, inter-institutional conflicts or loss of resources.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/06/07]

All partner organizations

(Total 20) were subject to institutional evaluations under the methodology of "micro-financial administrative assessments" See Annex 2.

 

These exercises are considered highly positive because they guided the selection of these initiatives and the strengthening of their capabilities

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The micro-evaluation procedure for analyzing the institutional capacities of the strategic partners has been a frequent practice in UNDP Projects.
[Added: 2017/06/07]
UNDP 2017/04 Completed Of the 20 initiatives selected, only FUNDAR defected, due to disagreements in the implementation determined by the evaluation of its capabilities. This timely desertion allowed the inclusion of other partners that generated successful results like in the Wetland of “La Tembladera”.
8. Recommendation:

Regarding the participation of strategic partners and key actors, it is recommended that this participation is not limited to the socialization of the activities carried out by the Project, but rather involve the actors in the design of the activities, execution, and M&E.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/06/07]

The meetings of the Advisory Committee with key stakeholders such as MAE, CNBRPE and Tembladera and with strategic partners such as CI and TNC were spaces for socializing, articulating and complementing actions. Results were also shared and peer reviewed..

 

However, in the design of activities, TORs, selection processes, budgets, etc., only key stakeholders can be included. Including strategic partners like CI and TNC in these processes would generate a conflict of interest since these institutions usually participate as offerents in the consulting processes.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
As a rule, in all Project activities, from the design, TORs, selection processes, product approvals, POAs and in decision-making only the stakeholders directly involved in the Project (MAE, CNBRPE, Tembladera) participate following the established times, protocols and formats. Strategic partners such as CI or TNC are potential consultants and therefore do not participate in TOR design processes, selection processes, product approvals or POAs. A most active involvement of other similar Projects at national or regional level is proposed, not only to share information such as TOR, planning, etc; but also lessons learned and best practices. In conclusion, a regional community of practice that would avoid conflicts of interest and would expand the vision embodied in the products.
[Added: 2017/06/07]
UNDP - MAE CNBRPE Tembladera 2017/04 Completed Additionally, each new process or activity to be approved must be accompanied by a request from the National Environmental Authority, as implementing partner of the Project.
9. Recommendation:

A complex Project that works on financial mechanisms can generate conflicts of interest, it is imperative that when these conflicts occur, the Project team and UNDP work in a coordinated way, for example, to train the Project team in conflict management and resolution. Training in conflict prevention and resolution would have been ideal in the middle of the Project. Financial mechanisms that commonly generate conflicts of interest include payments for environmental services and mechanisms related to tourism in PA that share profits between the PA and beneficiaries in buffer zones. Likewise, there are conflict-prone organizations (such as the CNBRPE) that can benefit from regular training in conflict management and resolution sponsored by UNDP/Project.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/06/07]

The Project sponsored and participated in a program of situational leadership, high performance teams, negotiation and conflict management, dictated by Coaching People in July 2015.

 

The case of the CNBRPE or Private Forests Network is a particular issue (it is one of the 22 Projects of the CFM - FSP) that has to do more with internal conflicts within the organization itself, than with the implementation of the FSP.

In spite of this, the Project and UNDP expended efforts to improve their participation, understanding and commitment. Everything is properly documented.

See answers to recommendation No. 6

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The suggestion is taken and the experience generated by the FSP in the resolution of conflicts is valued.
[Added: 2017/06/07]
UNDP MAE 2017/04 Completed The relationship with the CNBRPE was relatively good most of the time. However, this was changed at the end of the last year due to changes in the organization's management which removed a series of interests from within, a fact that transcends Project management.
10. Recommendation:

For future development of the Competitive Fund Mechanism (Fondo de Mecanismos Concursables for its name in Spanish) it is recommended that "Breakeven Analysis" is used to verify that interventions correspond to UN policies on resettlement and livelihoods change to ensure that the changes proposed by such Projects result in a verifiable improvement (increase) of household’s income.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/06/07]

The small projects of the Competitive Fund Mechanism (CFM) included a  Cost - Benefit Analysis. These exercises in addition to assessing economic income (single variable at break-even) takes into account the multiple benefits of the intervention.

 

When assessing the multiple benefits in the intervention, it was possible to analyze in detail the contribution of each initiative in the different management programs of each PA. Results that we would not have with a break-even analysis.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The Country Development vision and the UNDP cooperation framework refer to a comprehensive analysis of the different variables that influence development orientation, which is not limited to an economic analysis from a private perspective.
[Added: 2017/06/07]
UNDP MAE PASNAP 2017/04 Completed
11. Recommendation:

With regard to the participation of strategic partners and key stakeholders, it is recommended to develop a scheme with clear roles and responsibilities for each partner and to implement a system of participatory decision-making that involves a shared responsibility in the costs and benefits of the decisions made. UNDP could promote “participation by results” in its GEF interventions.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/06/07]

Please see response to recommendation No.8

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The roles and responsibilities of strategic partners and stakeholders; As well as the implementation mechanisms have been clearly defined in the PRODOC.
[Added: 2017/06/07]
UNDP MAE 2017/04 Completed Additionally, each new process or activity to be approved must be accompanied by a request from the National Environmental Authority, as implementing partner of the Project, and validated by the Project Steering Committee (as stipulated in PRODOC).
12. Recommendation:

Map the actors that are currently active in biodiversity-related finance, in order to identify key areas in which these actors (institutions) or Projects can support the continuity of the Project’s results, especially with the products that need additional work, for example, CSR, CICOP, SIB, SNAP’s financial strategy and PA business plans.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/06/07]

The FSP generated a “Project proposal” that will give continuity to several of the results achieved. This proposal has been submitted to the International Cooperation Office of the Ministry of Environment of Ecuador.

(See Annex 3)

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The Ministry of Environment has a mapping of potential donors and Projects, which have been informed about the needs to continue and enhance the actions carried out.
[Added: 2017/06/07] [Last Updated: 2018/11/23]
MAE – DNB International Cooperation 2017/08 Completed History
13. Recommendation:

Follow up on the approval and / or implementation of financial regulations for biodiversity finance contained in the TULAS (if approved in the first months of 2017). Once the new Environmental Law is approved.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/06/07]

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The need is shared and these issues are constantly being followed up.
[Added: 2017/06/07] [Last Updated: 2018/11/23]
MAE -DNB Legal Coordination 2017/12 Completed History
14. Recommendation:

Once the Authorities of MAE are in office (after the April 2017 elections), promote the review of the SNAP’s Sustainable Finance Strategy and the Guidelines for the Elaboration of SFE of each PA, including the plans generated after the application of these guidelines. This aspect is critical to determine if these financial planning tools will have an impact in the future.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/06/07]

The technical staff of the MAE is trained and empowered with the tools and mechanisms generated by the Project.

 

In addition, the Project has institutionalized 11 new competencies in “Organic Functional of the Ministry of Environment of Ecuador”, to ensure the continuity of actions beyond administrative changes.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The technical staff of the MAE will be responsible for promoting the use and importance of the tools generated with the new authorities to continue the actions and to generate feedback.
[Added: 2017/06/07]
MAE - DNB 2017/07 Completed
15. Recommendation:

Continue with the communication strategy (through MAE, BIOFIN and other relevant Projects) including the insertion of better information on the economic impact of the PAs and the SNAP for sectorial development. Specifically oriented to those who make political and financial decisions within key sectors. For example SERNAGUA and Energy in the public sector and also with key actors in the private sector.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/06/07]

The Project positioned several communication tools that allow to generate incidence strategically. These tools have been transferred to the different projects (RRGG and Wildlife) to give continuity and adapt them according to the necessities.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
To continue with the advocacy actions, the experience of the project was capitalized and a communications and advocacy officer was hired to support the entire DNB under the auspice of some investment projects. This person coordinates and catalyzes actions with the Communications Direction of MAE and other communication agencies nationwide.
[Added: 2017/06/07]
DNB DIRCOM and Investment Projects. 2017/01 Completed
16. Recommendation:

MAE, through future Projects related to financial sustainability (e.g. GCF, GEF Amazon), should work with GADs, MF and other cluster agencies to identify alternative (decentralized) options to enable PA to retain -at PA level- revenue from tourism related mechanisms and other revenue options. Analyze alternative means to decentralize the financing of the SNAP (all sub-systems including private and community and GAD AP). One option is to look at transfers through autonomous entities such as the GADs. In the future, given their financial autonomy, GADs can support partial funding of all SNAP subsystems. Promoting co-management of PAs (the 4 sub-systems) with GADs can be very productive in the immediate future. In recent years the responsibilities for environmental and tourism management have been decentralized in the GADs.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/06/07]

The Ministry of Environment works permanently with GADs in territory. The cooperation earned by the GADs in 2015 increased to 32%, as one of the most significant contributions, of a total of 17 funding sources between government, private, cooperation, etc.

 

The National System of Protected Areas (SNAP) has a management model that allows and encourages the co-programming of budgets in the management of AP.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Future inter-sectoral Projects should promote the implementation of the Environmental Expenditure Guidance Classifier (Clasificador Orientador del Gasto Ambiental, in Spanish) at both the sectoral and decentralized levels to strengthen environmental finance.
[Added: 2017/06/07]
MAE MGAP UNDP 2017/04 Completed Data provided by the accounting report of Financial Board in the SIB - SUIA.
17. Recommendation:

Promote the full development of the SIB so that it can be used to mobilize public and private resources; and to mobilize the political will to approve the missing legislation on PA finance. The most interesting information to support the SNAP’s SFS is financial information, i.e., financial situation, needs and gaps, financial mechanisms, quality of expenditure, investment results and access to detailed information about the CSR program. It would be necessary, in the immediate future, to organize the information on a “client needs basis”, especially for potential investors, enterprises, tourists, the academic sector and the general public. It will also be important to present more information on sub-systems, according to the indicated financial information.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/06/07]

The SIB has proven to be one of the most powerful tools for generating information that facilitates decision making.

 

However, the step-by-step that involves a development process exceeds the implementation times of a Project.

 

The Project generated information at the PA level (which was never available until 2012), this disaggregation effort impacted on the management and transparency dynamics of the Provincial Directorates.

 

To continue advancing in the evaluation of cost-effectiveness of expenditure, it is necessary enhance the monitoring and follow-up systems to understand expenditure levels, evaluate them and continue improving the system.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Internal actions are coordinated with SUIA to give continuity to the SIB monitoring processes at the PGOA, EEM and TF levels. Actions are also coordinated to complete the PGOA monitoring phase and to align this database with others at the national level (MAGAP - MINTUR, etc.)
[Added: 2017/06/07] [Last Updated: 2018/11/23]
MAE - DNB SUIA Projects MAE - PNUD 2018/12 Completed History
18. Recommendation:

Strengthen the work with MINTUR, MAGAP, SENAGUA, and private sector to enable the CSR program to reach its full potential and improve the performance of concessions in PA.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/06/07]

The Mechanisms of CSR and Concessions in PA were identified as very significant, so that the necessary actions have been coordinated.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
MAE-UNDP are developing Projects with GEF and GCF funds to strengthen the landscape vision (MAGAP, MINTUR, SENAGUA) and integrate the private sector with the budget co-programming mechanism.
[Added: 2017/06/07] [Last Updated: 2018/11/23]
MAE MINTUR MAGAP SENAGUA BIOFIN - FIAS 2017/12 Completed History
19. Recommendation:

Coordinate immediately with BIOFIN (National and Regional Coordinator) to connect BIOFIN with SIB and other mechanisms such as the CSR and CICOP. BIOFIN could incorporate, at least, the CSR program and the revision of CICOP’s business strategy in its financial plan.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/06/07]

The inputs, databases, products and agreements related to the CSR were transferred to BIOFIN, the FAN liquidating Board, Socio Bosque Program and Green Point Certification Program.

 

Likewise, everything related to CICOP was transferred to BIOFIN.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Actions have been coordinated to monitor and promote the CSR Mechanism and CICOP. However, in the case of CICOP, there is no evident response from the CNBRPE, therefore it is not considered appropriate to promote the process on this side
[Added: 2017/06/07]
DNB BIOFIN FIAS Socio Bosque SCA – SPN Punto Verde 2017/04 Completed Biofin is a small project that will be completed in the upcoming months. Since its implementation it is planned to promote the CSR mechanism to ensure that it is installed in longer-term processes.
20. Recommendation:

Continue with the on-going strategic support to ensure the incorporation of all SNAP subsystems as potential beneficiaries of the new fund that will replace the National Environmental Fund (FAN).

Management Response: [Added: 2017/06/07]

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The Environmental Organic Code (COA) is pending approval from the National Assembly. Roles and functions will be established for the National Environmental Management Fund, from which the Environmental Authority will be able to determine the role of the FIAS.
[Added: 2017/06/07] [Last Updated: 2018/11/23]
MAE BIOFIN FIAS 2017/12 Completed History
21. Recommendation:

Develop a strategy to not interrupt for too long the funding to support the Competitive Fund Mechanism –CFM . This includes an adequate mechanism for estimating the potential for PA cost reductions, to define priority action areas; and apply “Break-even” analysis to ensure increased benefits for beneficiaries. This could involve at least MINTUR, MAGAP, the business sector and a specific plan for the Socio-Bosque Program (if it is refinanced). For this, MAE could seek further advice from UNDP to "facilitate" of the process.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/06/07]

The SNAP Support Program with the support of the SGP/UNDP continues the application of the Competitive Funds Mechanism (CFM) under the landscape approach.

 

Also, some PA through the CSR mechanism have also obtained support to continue with Projects of CFM such as the RPFCG and the RPFC.

 

Finally, the CFM continuity proposal was included in GEF Amazonia and FVC Project.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The lessons learned from the project’s CFM will be shared with the SGP, GEF Amazonia, FVC, PASNAP and Socio Bosque. Additionally; the potential to continue with the CFM through the FIAS will be analyzed with the establishment of a multipurpose seed fund that is nourished from several sources of financing: GEF, and later at the sectoral level.
[Added: 2017/06/07] [Last Updated: 2018/11/23]
MAE PASNAP – PPD Socio Bosque 2017/08 Completed The CFM has proven to be highly efficient to generate positive impact on territory, in a short time. History
22. Recommendation:

To improve concessions in PA, a more detailed consultation with small vendors must be carried out during the design process. Particularly for concessions that involve facilities for multiple uses and objectives (commercial, visitor management and small vendors, tourism, etc.) The consultations should include companies that could play a role in the infrastructure design and business management. These detailed consultations are key to avoid risks of concession in infrastructure that is not fully functional or that may not lead to the increase of concessionary income

Management Response: [Added: 2017/06/07]

Business feasibility studies developed by the Project were done for the design of several infrastructures (high mountain shelters and interpretation centers). This  exercise was very positive and opportune.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The necessary actions will be coordinated to enrich the design of the planned infrastructure to make them more competitive for concession models.
[Added: 2017/06/07] [Last Updated: 2018/11/23]
MAE PASNAP Proyecto PANE 2017/12 Completed History
23. Recommendation:

In order to improve results-based budgeting, MAE could promote the formation of specific working groups to work on PA result-based financial planning, budgeting and execution (considering direct and indirect costs) among the GADs. This can benefit all sub systems of the SNAP. A PA result-based budgeting could be included in the Aula Verde Program.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/06/07]

Please see response to recommendation No.16

 

The SNAP management model allows and encourages co-budgeting.

 

In addition, the Project developed an Administrative and Financial Module for the “Aula Verde” training program, which includes results-based budgeting

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The State and its institutions use a "Government by Results" tool to guide actions towards the achievement of national objectives and concrete results that improve the execution of the government budget, through a Balance Scored Card. To strengthen this approach at the PA budgeting level, greater emphasis will be placed on the training processes of the Aula Verde Program, taking advantage of the contributions generated by the Project.
[Added: 2017/06/07]
MAE- DNB- Aula Verde 2016/12 Completed
24. Recommendation:

Although the bottlenecks with the CNBRPE already have agreements for resolution, it is recommended that MAE follow up with CNBRPE to comply with these agreements, and develop a work plan as needed.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/06/07]

The Project reached a formal agreement with PASNAP to carry out the CICOP inspection (at the year of construction) as a step prior to final delivery.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The MAE -with the support of PASNAP- will follow up on the issues agreed between the parties. Mainly on the delivery of guarantees and the inspection of the built infrastructure.
[Added: 2017/06/07] [Last Updated: 2018/11/23]
MAE PASNAP PNUD 2017/12 Completed History
25. Recommendation:

MAE (together with UNDP) communicate to the Provincial Government (Prefecto Provincial), MINTUR, Chamber of Tourism of the Northwest of Pichincha and other key institutions about the conclusion of CICOP and the next steps to start its operation.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/06/07]

An official communication from UNDP was issued to the Provincial Government with the purpose of promoting support for the CNBRPE.

 

Likewise, from the communication tools of the Project and the MAE, progress has been disseminated and promoted in relation to CICOP. As well as the Tembladera and all CFM initiatives.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Despite many insistences, there is evident response or commitment from the CNBRPE to continue investing in a supportive relationship. (See previous comments) There are other initiatives promoted by the Project that have had greater social, environmental and financial impact, and which could generate greater results in cross-sectoral alliances.
[Added: 2017/06/07]
MAE – PNUD – CNBRPE 2017/04 Completed
26. Recommendation:

To enable the operation of CICOP, it is recommended that CNBRPE, with the support of BIOFIN, analyze a new concession model for a private company (an operator of national and international social and business events), which has the capacity to use CICOP for multipurpose events and has an already established clientele. The events will not be restricted to "green" events and the CNBRPE would maintain the right of use of certain spaces. The concessionaire in turn must respect the vision for which CICOP was created. The CNBRPE could work on this matter with MINTUR, the Chambers of Tourism of the Northwest of Pichincha, GAD, and the Municipality of Quito. The CNBRPE, with the support of BIOFIN will formulate the TDR for the development of the CICOP concession. At this point, the concession may be the most immediate and mid-term solution. Depending on the results of the concession, other options that could be analyzed by the CNBRPE in the long-term.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/06/07]

The Project at the end of its management - and after overcoming the conflict with the CNBRPE - delivered a proposal of Terms of Reference for the concession of CICOP to CNBRPE.

 

This proposal includes the inputs of the FE and proposes the diversification in the use of the space, as well as the generation of multipurpose events respecting the vision of the site.

A list of potential interested parties was also delivered.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The principle of public law is to comply with the regulations in force, which constitutes a mandate and limit for public policy. UNDP and BIOFIN have repeatedly insisted on the possibility of providing support. However, there is no response from the CNBRPE. It is not considered viable or strategic to insist on support that is not welcome.
[Added: 2017/06/07]
BIOFIN - CNBRPE 2017/04 Completed

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