Midterm Review (MTR) of the National Biodiversity Project: Conservation of Iona National Park (PIMS 4581)

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2015-2019, Angola
Evaluation Type:
Mid Term Project
Planned End Date:
05/2016
Completion Date:
05/2016
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
31,507

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document MTR_TOR.pdf tor English 466.22 KB Posted 281
Download document Mid Term Evaluation Iona Project Angola Final.pdf report English 1545.40 KB Posted 317
Title Midterm Review (MTR) of the National Biodiversity Project: Conservation of Iona National Park (PIMS 4581)
Atlas Project Number: 64743
Evaluation Plan: 2015-2019, Angola
Evaluation Type: Mid Term Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 05/2016
Planned End Date: 05/2016
Management Response: Yes
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
Evaluation Budget(US $): 31,507
Source of Funding: UNDP TRAC funds,
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 31,507
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: Yes
  • Joint with GEF,UNDP, European Union
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
GEF Evaluation: Yes
GEF Project Title:
Evaluation Type:
Focal Area: Biodiversity
Project Type: EA
GEF Phase: GEF-1
GEF Project ID:
PIMS Number: 4581
Key Stakeholders: Project Board, project stakeholders, academia, local government and CSOs
Countries: ANGOLA
Comments:

The project started on February 2013 and is in its third year of implementation. In line with the UNDP-GEF Guidance on MTRs, this MTR process was initiated before the submission of the second Project Implementation Report (PIR).

Lessons
1.

1. Design of these sort of projects should be realistic and not only respond to an overall matrix, one size fits all type of approach;

2. Indicators are key components of design and log frame and should be set at design with their intention made unequivocal: to determine a project’s impacts and effects;

3. Exit strategy and sustainability factors should be part of the design of a project. This should include the realistic framework for results to continue after external aid is concluded, including schemes for accurate financial structures and policy to sustain achievements even after project concludes.


Findings
1.

1. It is recognized that during the project design process some important national conditions were not taken into account or were underestimated. For future projects of this kind (e.g. GEF-6) local conditions will be given particular attention;

2. In future projects (GEF-6), a more user-friendly log frame with more easily understandable and usable indicators will be developed, following the new UNDP-GEF templates for Strategic Results Frameworks;

3. In future projects (GEF-6), more emphasis will be put on developing a realistic exist strategy that takes the local conditions into account.


Recommendations
1

Midterm Review recommendation 1: Design of these sort of projects should be realistic and not only respond to an overall matrix, one size fits all type of approach.

2

Midterm Review recommendation 2: Indicators are key components of design and log frame and should be set at design with their intention made unequivocal:  to determine a project’s impacts and effects.

3

Midterm Review recommendation 3: Exit strategy and sustainability factors should be part of the design of a project.  This should include the realistic framework for results to continue after external aid is concluded, including schemes for accurate financial structures and policy to sustain achievements even after project concludes.

4

Midterm Review recommendation 4: The role, functions, and decision making processes of the Project Board Committee (PBC) should be reviewed and adjustments should be made for it to function properly and transparently with all partners involved.

5

Midterm Review recommendation 5: The work with local communities (nomadic, semi nomadic, etc.) has to begin to take place soonest, and at this stage should include a sort of immediate emergency plan to initiate pilot interventions as soon as possible.  Work with the communities should be based on development principles and up-to-date views on how to integrate indigenous / local communities in protected areas as well as taking into account the community rights to development.  Thorough analysis on what the real impact of a small number of subsistence–level groups truly have on natural resources within an area as large as Iona Park should be the basis for this work and mechanisms to reduce pressure yet upgrade their livelihoods and quality of life should be implemented.  In order for these communities to be on board with new management schemes, true incentives need to be developed and implemented since they are weary of the many unfulfilled promises received

6

Midterm Review recommendation 6: Staffing and consulting roles should be clarified and streamlined in order to have an organizational unit with agile coordination, administration and management that has clear direction and reporting lines. International consultants should be hired temporarily and convened only when no in–country expertise is present, but always with the goal of generating and / or reinforcing capacity in the country.

7

Midterm Review recommendation 7: A second workshop (with similar characteristics as the inception workshop held upon project launching) should be held in order to address key issues for the Project’s conclusion phase, to reach comprehensive agreements on aspects that need to be reformulated in order to successfully conclude the intervention, and to clarify roles of different stakeholders. The workshop should be carried out with thorough preparation and with concrete proposals for reformulations or changes presented for analysis.  All reformulations should take into account national issues and national needs.

8

Midterm Review recommendation 8: The role of UNDP within the Project should be strengthened, fully applying its function to guide implementation.  UNDP should leverage implementation closely.  Firstly, by proactive participation in decision–making structures. Second, by exercising fully all the roles revealed at the design level such as providing financial and audit services to the project, overseeing financial expenditures against approved budgets, as well as providing technical support as necessary, with adequate staffing to be able to meet these functions.  UNDP should also create some exigency mechanisms where continued guidance and support is contingent upon achieving milestones. All of the above should be carried out in conjunction with the Government of Angola’s full assimilation of national implementation modalities guidelines and procedures as well as UNDP’s role in national implementation modalities.

9

Midterm Review recommendation 9: Project personnel should be trained and their capacity should be strengthened in order to be versant on all aspects of project implementation.  In particular, there should be a transfer of knowledge of administration procedures, monitoring, implementation modalities, reporting and other requirements that implementation has.

10

Midterm Review recommendation 10: Project should implement a communication strategy, not only a visibility strategy, where the challenges and issues in the sustainable management of protected areas lie in Angola and how the Project is facing them.  It should go beyond mere visibility of partners but should document and communicate issues, achievements, and challenges.

11

Midterm Review recommendation 11: A sustainability strategy with concrete timeline should be generated soonest, not at the end of the Project’s implementation. This exit strategy should include aspects of capacity sustainability, policy tools needed to sustain achievements in the short and medium term as well as a realistic financial strategy to maintain results in the long run.

12

Midterm Review recommendation 12: If an extension request is presented at the time when Project would supposedly conclude, it is this evaluation’s assessment that it should be granted if the following aspects have been taken care in the interim between the mid-term review and the request:

·         There is a demonstrated substantial improvement in implementation, in particular in relation to Outcome 2 expected outputs, products and results.

·         There is a firm exit strategy delineated and sustainability aspects are already implemented by the time of the no – cost extension request.

·         There are substantial improvements with the Project’s decision – making processes.

·         There is a demonstrated reformulation of aspects of the Project that need to be changed with alterations implemented as needed.

·         There is a clear understanding of the results – based framework which is expected to be followed and not just a request to spend allotted funds without a results-oriented strategy.

·         The request furthermore should be clearly articulated and indicate realistic time – bound results expected, and how these are to be achieved.

·         A thorough review of the log frame is carried out and presented with, inter alia, adjustments to it made that reflect an effort towards improving implementation and aiding in monitoring and measuring performance, maintaining expected outcomes. 

·         A thorough review of the log frame indicators should take place. 

·         As importantly is a review of verification methods, moving away from anecdotal verification and towards more substantive methods based on analysis, studies, and methodical obtained data. 

Also regarding verification methods, the log frame should incorporate robustness in the way the indicators are analyzed and verification methods are implemented.

1. Recommendation:

Midterm Review recommendation 1: Design of these sort of projects should be realistic and not only respond to an overall matrix, one size fits all type of approach.

Management Response: [Added: 2016/05/10]

Management response 1: It is recognized that during the project design process some important national conditions were not taken into account or were underestimated. For future projects of this kind (e.g. GEF-6) local conditions will be given particular attention. 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
1.1 Ensure local conditions are fully incorporated in the design of GEF-6 biodiversity projects already at the PIF stage
[Added: 2016/05/13] [Last Updated: 2018/03/23]
UNDP 2016/12 Completed Meetings have been conducted with government to discuss exact content of GEF 6 PIFs. The GEF 6 PIF was concluded and accepted by Government. History
2. Recommendation:

Midterm Review recommendation 2: Indicators are key components of design and log frame and should be set at design with their intention made unequivocal:  to determine a project’s impacts and effects.

Management Response: [Added: 2016/05/10]

Management response 2: In future projects (GEF-6), a more user-friendly log frame with more easily understandable and usable indicators will be developed, following the new UNDP-GEF templates for Strategic Results Frameworks.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
2.1 Develop user-friendly log frame with easily communicable indicators for GEF-6 proposals
[Added: 2016/05/13] [Last Updated: 2018/03/23]
UNDP 2016/12 Completed PIF development in process. PRODOC development in process. History
3. Recommendation:

Midterm Review recommendation 3: Exit strategy and sustainability factors should be part of the design of a project.  This should include the realistic framework for results to continue after external aid is concluded, including schemes for accurate financial structures and policy to sustain achievements even after project concludes.

Management Response: [Added: 2016/05/10]

Management response 3: In future projects (GEF-6), more emphasis will be put on developing a realistic exist strategy that takes the local conditions into account.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
3.1 Build realistic exit strategy into GEF-6 biodiversity proposals
[Added: 2016/05/13] [Last Updated: 2018/03/23]
UNDP 2016/12 Completed PIF development in process incorporating exit strategy. PRODOC development in process incorporating exit strategy. History
4. Recommendation:

Midterm Review recommendation 4: The role, functions, and decision making processes of the Project Board Committee (PBC) should be reviewed and adjustments should be made for it to function properly and transparently with all partners involved.

Management Response: [Added: 2016/05/10]

Management response 4: MINAMB has decided to set up the Steering Committee / Project Board at a high political level, chaired by the Minister of the Environment. Its meetings have been relatively infrequent (about once per year) and have not been able to deal with the technical details of the project. On the other hand, these meetings are essential for high-level policy coordination and political buy-in. The Project Management response to this situation has been to create a more technical “lower house” of the Steering Committee in the form of a Technical Committee of the Steering Committee, chaired by the Director General of INBAC, that meets 3-4 times per year (3 meetings in 2015, one meeting so far in 2016) and discusses technical issues, including quarterly reports, and can also help prepare the high-level Board meetings where key issues can then be discussed and decided based on the recommendations of the Technical Committee. This division of the Steering Committee into an “upper house” and a “lower house” seems functional and efficient although more experience needs to be gathered especially with regard to the interactions between the two “houses”. In addition to the Steering Committee meetings, thematic meetings at technical level on specific issues (e.g. ongoing consultancies) are frequently held at INBAC with the participation of UNDP and often other participants, such as consulting companies involved in the topics to be discussed at the respective meeting.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
4.1 Hold quarterly Technical Committee meetings; 4.2 Hold two high-level Project Board meetings with preparation from Technical Committee.
[Added: 2016/05/13] [Last Updated: 2018/03/23]
MINAMB, UNDP 2016/12 Completed Quarterly Technical committee meetings are being held. So far it has only been possible to hold one Board meeting per year. Monitoring and evaluation missions were held during 2017 with government and donors official. History
5. Recommendation:

Midterm Review recommendation 5: The work with local communities (nomadic, semi nomadic, etc.) has to begin to take place soonest, and at this stage should include a sort of immediate emergency plan to initiate pilot interventions as soon as possible.  Work with the communities should be based on development principles and up-to-date views on how to integrate indigenous / local communities in protected areas as well as taking into account the community rights to development.  Thorough analysis on what the real impact of a small number of subsistence–level groups truly have on natural resources within an area as large as Iona Park should be the basis for this work and mechanisms to reduce pressure yet upgrade their livelihoods and quality of life should be implemented.  In order for these communities to be on board with new management schemes, true incentives need to be developed and implemented since they are weary of the many unfulfilled promises received

Management Response: [Added: 2016/05/10]

Management response 5: Strengthening the work with the communities is clearly a priority for the remaining time of the project and the time that this work will require for lasting impact is a key reason for the intended extension request. Already park staff are interacting with the communities frequently, but this does not happen within a strategic engagement plan. In order to improve interaction and engagement with local communities, the National Park Administrator will attend the regular meetings of the traditional chiefs (sobas) in Iona Commune. Once the major use (and non-use) zones of the park have been defined (about May-June 2016), a program for communicating and discussing this plan with the communities will be implemented by the park staff (rangers) and a local NGO that will be contracted for this purpose. The project team is also preparing an ecotourism strategy whose implementation will involve the communities. Finally, the project has funds for improving the access to water and sanitation of the communities in the park whose precise use is currently being discussed by the park management and project team.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
5.1 Regular participation of park administrator in meetings in Iona with traditional chiefs; 5.2 Finalize park management plan including zoning; 5.3 Design and implement communication strategy about park management plan and zoning, with involvement of local NGO; 5.4 Design and implement ecotourism strategy involving local communities; 5.5 Improve access to water and sanitation of local communities.
[Added: 2016/05/13] [Last Updated: 2018/03/23]
National Park Administrator;MINAMB, with UNDP support 2016/12 Completed 5.1 Meetings have been scheduled to discuss locations of community managed tourism sites; 5.2 Plan has been finalized; 5.3 NGO is about to be contracted; 5.4 Ecotourism strategy has been designed and discussed at local workshop: Implementation is about to start; 5.5 Company has been contracted to provide water access.4 campsites for community based tourism strategy are under construction; a local tour operator has started the training on tourism with communities; a local company is drilling water for communities. History
6. Recommendation:

Midterm Review recommendation 6: Staffing and consulting roles should be clarified and streamlined in order to have an organizational unit with agile coordination, administration and management that has clear direction and reporting lines. International consultants should be hired temporarily and convened only when no in–country expertise is present, but always with the goal of generating and / or reinforcing capacity in the country.

Management Response: [Added: 2016/05/10]

Management response 6: We believe that this is already the case. According to the project design, and international park manager would have led the on-the-ground work in Iona NP during the first 2 years then handing over to an incoming national park manager, but this unfortunate design has been overcome and now the international park manager is working alongside the national park administrator to build his capacity for eventual hand-over and to train the 20 park rangers. At central level, the National Project Coordinator is based within INBAC with reporting lines within the Government and is advised (but not supervised in a formal, administrative sense) by UNDP staff. International consultants are only hired as needed, often by national consulting companies for example in the set of studies under Outcome 2, and their use is limited by the current difficulties for national organizations to obtain international currency.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
6.1 Ensure capacity building and progressive taking over of responsibility by National Park Administrator
[Added: 2016/05/13] [Last Updated: 2016/11/29]
INBAC, International Park Manager No due date Completed Capacity and responsibilities of park administrator have significantly increased- History
7. Recommendation:

Midterm Review recommendation 7: A second workshop (with similar characteristics as the inception workshop held upon project launching) should be held in order to address key issues for the Project’s conclusion phase, to reach comprehensive agreements on aspects that need to be reformulated in order to successfully conclude the intervention, and to clarify roles of different stakeholders. The workshop should be carried out with thorough preparation and with concrete proposals for reformulations or changes presented for analysis.  All reformulations should take into account national issues and national needs.

Management Response: [Added: 2016/05/10]

Management response 7: The suggested workshop could be useful and could be combined with the presentation and discussion of the park management plan. It should be held in Namibe Province to maximize participation of local stakeholders. The workshop report and decisions could then be discussed and endorsed by the Project Board and would provide important guidance especially for the no-cost extension phase of the project. This workshop will be discussed during an upcoming visit to Namibe province by members of the project management team.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
7.1 Organize project workshop in Namibe Province; 7.2 Prepare workshop report.
[Added: 2016/05/13] [Last Updated: 2016/11/29]
MINAMB, with UNDP support 2016/12 Completed Workshop on key community components (especially tourism strategy) has been held. History
8. Recommendation:

Midterm Review recommendation 8: The role of UNDP within the Project should be strengthened, fully applying its function to guide implementation.  UNDP should leverage implementation closely.  Firstly, by proactive participation in decision–making structures. Second, by exercising fully all the roles revealed at the design level such as providing financial and audit services to the project, overseeing financial expenditures against approved budgets, as well as providing technical support as necessary, with adequate staffing to be able to meet these functions.  UNDP should also create some exigency mechanisms where continued guidance and support is contingent upon achieving milestones. All of the above should be carried out in conjunction with the Government of Angola’s full assimilation of national implementation modalities guidelines and procedures as well as UNDP’s role in national implementation modalities.

Management Response: [Added: 2016/05/10]

Management response 8: The MTR visit to Angola took place at a time when UNDP’s role in the project was weakened by the departure of a key program officer and prior to the arrival of the replacement. In the meantime, the role of UNDP in the project has been significantly strengthened, and UNDP is now advising the project and providing assistance in all technical and managerial matters. This involves weekly meetings with the National Project Coordinator at UNDP as well as frequent meetings at INBAC. This stronger role of UNDP is recognized and welcomed by the project partners.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
8.1 Weekly meeting between MINAMB and UNDP; 8.2 Ad hoc meetings.
[Added: 2016/05/13] [Last Updated: 2016/11/29]
MINAMB and UNDP 2016/12 Completed Working meetings between MINAMB and UNDP are held at least weekly, ad hoc meetings when needed. History
9. Recommendation:

Midterm Review recommendation 9: Project personnel should be trained and their capacity should be strengthened in order to be versant on all aspects of project implementation.  In particular, there should be a transfer of knowledge of administration procedures, monitoring, implementation modalities, reporting and other requirements that implementation has.

Management Response: [Added: 2016/05/10]

Management response: This capacity building is taking place continuously and at all levels. At the park level, the International Park Manager’s principal role is to build the capacity of the National Park Administrator, who will take on his role after project closure, as well as that of the 20 park rangers. The International Park Manager is also now more engaged directly with the consultants of the two key products, the park management plan and the community study, and will accompany closely their renewed field work in April-May 2016. At Luanda level, intensive and frequent interactions between UNDP staff and the project team from INBAC are taking place, including through weekly meetings between the National Project Coordinator and the UNDP team as well as frequent meetings at INBAC that are chaired by the Director General of INBAC or his deputy. Innovations proposed by UNDP have been adopted by INBAC, such as more detailed planning of consultancies and regular meetings with consultants conducting studies for the project. Interactions of the Project Coordinator with the Finance and Administrative Assistant of the project are also frequent and close and help build local capacity in administrative matters. It can be said that this concern is being addressed by the project team. Participation in UNDP-GEF regional community of practice meetings and project manager trainings held at Addis Ababa can be envisaged for 2016 but will depend on the availability of funds. 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
9.1 Scheduled (weekly) and ad hoc meetings between UNDP and project management to guide implementation process; 9.2 Active involvement of National Park Administrator in project and park management, under the guidance of the International Park Manager
[Added: 2016/05/13] [Last Updated: 2016/11/29]
MINAMB, UNDP 2016/12 Completed 9.1 Weekly meetings are being held. 9.2 National Park Manager is actively involved in many activities, including local procurement of service providers and community relations History
10. Recommendation:

Midterm Review recommendation 10: Project should implement a communication strategy, not only a visibility strategy, where the challenges and issues in the sustainable management of protected areas lie in Angola and how the Project is facing them.  It should go beyond mere visibility of partners but should document and communicate issues, achievements, and challenges.

Management Response: [Added: 2016/05/10]

Management response 10: The project has developed a communication and visibility strategy in 2014 and included it as annex in its 2014 annual report. During 2014 and 2015, a number of visibility activities have been implemented, including designing and printing leaflets and posters and producing a movie about Iona park that is being finalized. The remaining funds are now quite limited (USD 30,000) and will be used to finalize the movie and conduct the project workshop (Recommendation 7) that is also an essential part of the visibility of the project, especially in the province. Therefore, the possibility of carrying out additional visibility activities within the Iona project are quite limited. However, simultaneous with the remaining part of the Iona project, the new GEF/UNDP “Expansion of Protected Areas System” project will be initiated by MINAMB and will offer additional opportunities to communicate about Angola’s protected areas system and efforts at restoring it.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
10.1 Prepare outdoors for Iona NP; 10.2 Organize project workshop in Namibe Province (see 7.1).
[Added: 2016/05/13] [Last Updated: 2017/10/05]
MINAMB, with UNDP support 2016/12 Completed 10.1 Outdoors have been designed and are under evaluation by the EU. 10.2 Project workshop has been held in August 2016.A billboard campaign to promote the image of the Iona National Park was launched History
11. Recommendation:

Midterm Review recommendation 11: A sustainability strategy with concrete timeline should be generated soonest, not at the end of the Project’s implementation. This exit strategy should include aspects of capacity sustainability, policy tools needed to sustain achievements in the short and medium term as well as a realistic financial strategy to maintain results in the long run.

Management Response: [Added: 2016/05/10]

Management response: It is recognized that the current sustainability strategy of the project is insufficient. The project invests major efforts in capacity building of the Iona Park staff (National Park Administrator and 20 guards) through the day-to-day, on-the-job training through a dedicated International Park Manager. At the same time, UNDP in Luanda is making continuous efforts at improving capacity and introducing more effective project management procedures, which are being adopted and welcomed by INBAC. The planned, increased engagement with the communities of the park is also key for the sustainability of the park, and may involve local NGOs to increase the stakeholder basis of the park. However, more needs to be done on the key question of financial sustainability of the Park, even if this is a difficult question to address in the current situation of financial crisis of the Government. This will be a major topic to be addressed during the remaining time of the project and especially the extension phase. The objective will be that by the end of the project, INBAC is ready to absorb the national park staff into its structure and budget and to ensure the means for their operations. Regulations allowing the use of park entrance fees, collected fines, possibly concession fees of tourism operators (PPP) etc. for covering the costs of the park will be helpful but, realistically, most of the funds of the park will presumably have to come out of the budgets of central and provincial governments for the years to come. The urgency of the need to discuss these issues at the various levels of government, as well as the Project Board, is recognized. The transboundary aspect of the Park and international publicity and awareness raising events such as World Environment Day in Angola in 2016 will be helpful in creating the political will at various levels for allocating the financial resources for a sustainable protected areas system.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
11.1 Negotiate an increasing contribution to the cost of park maintenance from Government at various levels, including at meetings of the Project Board.
[Added: 2016/05/13] [Last Updated: 2018/03/23]
UNDP, MINAMB, Park Management 2016/12 Completed The inclusion of park staff in government payroll is frequently discussed, but difficult topic at this time because of general hiring ban. Issue to be discussed with the new elected government. History
12. Recommendation:

Midterm Review recommendation 12: If an extension request is presented at the time when Project would supposedly conclude, it is this evaluation’s assessment that it should be granted if the following aspects have been taken care in the interim between the mid-term review and the request:

·         There is a demonstrated substantial improvement in implementation, in particular in relation to Outcome 2 expected outputs, products and results.

·         There is a firm exit strategy delineated and sustainability aspects are already implemented by the time of the no – cost extension request.

·         There are substantial improvements with the Project’s decision – making processes.

·         There is a demonstrated reformulation of aspects of the Project that need to be changed with alterations implemented as needed.

·         There is a clear understanding of the results – based framework which is expected to be followed and not just a request to spend allotted funds without a results-oriented strategy.

·         The request furthermore should be clearly articulated and indicate realistic time – bound results expected, and how these are to be achieved.

·         A thorough review of the log frame is carried out and presented with, inter alia, adjustments to it made that reflect an effort towards improving implementation and aiding in monitoring and measuring performance, maintaining expected outcomes. 

·         A thorough review of the log frame indicators should take place. 

·         As importantly is a review of verification methods, moving away from anecdotal verification and towards more substantive methods based on analysis, studies, and methodical obtained data. 

Also regarding verification methods, the log frame should incorporate robustness in the way the indicators are analyzed and verification methods are implemented.

Management Response: [Added: 2016/05/10]

Management response: A no-cost extension request for the project is currently being prepared. This request will explain in detail how the MTR queries have been or are being addressed, additional to the points already discussed under the previous recommendations.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
12.1 Prepare and submit request for extension, detailing responses to MTR queries.
[Added: 2016/05/13] [Last Updated: 2016/10/13]
UNDP with input from MINAMB 2016/12 Completed Extension request has been submitted and approved by the GEF. History

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

220 East 42nd Street
20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel. +1 646 781 4200
Fax. +1 646 781 4213
erc.support@undp.org