Project 59495/ARG 10G50: Manejo forestal sostenible en el ecosistema transfronterizo del Gran Chaco Americano

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2016-2020, Argentina
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
04/2018
Completion Date:
12/2017
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
35,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document TOR 10G50.pdf tor English 781.55 KB Posted 72
Download document Informe final evaluac - Proy 10G50.pdf report English 3696.75 KB Posted 166
Title Project 59495/ARG 10G50: Manejo forestal sostenible en el ecosistema transfronterizo del Gran Chaco Americano
Atlas Project Number: 00059495
Evaluation Plan: 2016-2020, Argentina
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 12/2017
Planned End Date: 04/2018
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Others
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
  • 1. Output 5.1. Mechanisms in place to assess natural and man-made risks at national and sub-national levels
  • 2. Output 5.2. Effective institutional, legislative and policy frameworks in place to enhance the implementation of disaster and climate risk management measures at national and sub-national levels
Evaluation Budget(US $): 35,000
Source of Funding: GEF
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 35,000
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: Yes
  • Joint with UN Agencies
  • Joint with GEF requirement/ Managed by UNEP
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Hugo Navajas hnavajas@yahoo.com BOLIVIA
GEF Evaluation: Yes
GEF Project Title: Sustainable Forest Management in the Transboundary Gran Chaco Americano Ecosystem
Evaluation Type: Terminal Evaluation
Focal Area: Land Degradation
Project Type: FSP
GEF Phase: GEF-4
GEF Project ID: 2505
PIMS Number: 4030
Key Stakeholders: Secretariat of the Environment, INTA
Countries: ARGENTINA
Lessons
1.

Lesson 1: The project has established a foundation of demonstrated sustainable
practices that that facilitates future replication and is likely to generate impact. It is
now time for the countries to move the project forward. Although the project teams were
unable to fully achieve all outcomes or the project’s objective, the present situation is a
considerable improvement over the pre-project baseline. The responsibility now lies with the
NEAs and Gran Chaco partners to generate the momentum that is needed to move these
processes forward - both horizontally to an expanding number of Chaco stakeholders, and
vertically as a means to influence government policies and legislation for the region.
 


2.

Lesson 2: Water resources and honey production are fundamental entry points
for sustainable development in the Gran Chaco. Access to water resources is a
fundamental issue throughout the Chaco, and in particular the dry forest regions that
experienced severe drought during the project period. This needs to be acknowledged and
addressed by any project that intends to work with local populations through participatory
approaches. The conservation of water resources was the driving factor for the creation of
biological corridors in Charagua and other pilot sites. Several demonstration projects and
technology validations – i.e. rainwater harvesting, integrated agroforestry-pasture systems,
plastic-lined catchments, drip agriculture and water boxes - have contributed to improved
water management, are highly sustainable and address a fundamental need. The allocation of
funds for rainwater harvesting technologies in Argentina had a significant social impact and
strengthened recipient community organization.
Honey production stands out as a viable sustainable development option that
integrates environmental and socio-economic benefits. This carries several benefits: Greater
income is likely from improved extraction processes and marketing strategies designed for
wholesale and retail commercialization. Transport costs decline when honey is collected from
a central location instead of from individual producers. The conservation of the forest
becomes essential to sustain the supply of pollen and maintain the honey’s organic quality.
This in turn carries social benefits by strengthening campesino land tenure systems and
building local organizational capacities.
 


3.

Lesson 3: Performance was influenced by the geographic scale and dispersion
of activities, complex institutional arrangements, and unrealistic expectations. The
project’s scale and complexity generated significant administrative and logistical demands.
Project performance was influenced by (i) unrealistic timelines for fundamental outputs and
deliverables; (ii) the difficulties of aligning national implementation processes with different
governance and policy contexts; (iii) institutional arrangements that were broad and timeconsuming  to coordinate; (iv) the needs of 75 pilot projects spread across the tri-national
region; and (iv) administrative-financial guidelines that sometimes were not sufficiently
responsive to the project’s needs.
The inclusion of over-ambitious performance targets and indicators is a common
design flaw that “raises the bar” of expectations and can work against the project during
assessments of project performance and impact. The project was expected to harmonize
relevant policy and legal frameworks in three countries, replicate sustainable practices on a
large scale, develop a shared regional development vision, mainstream SLM/SFM policies and
tools at regional and national levels, and reduce carbon emissions. It was clear from empirical
experience that that this level of impact was unlikely to be achieved over a five-year period,
an issue that should have been addressed during the project appraisal review. Project design
also overestimated the regional context: The project commenced implementation without a
functional regional program or institutional framework to build on, and essentially assumed
the role of the SRAP in each country. Hence the project identity was divided by the dual roles
of supporting the inter-governmental SRAP initiative and actually being it. During the
implementation period, the PCU was unable to meet with the Tri-National Commission or
Council established under the Gran Chaco Declaration, despite several attempts that were not
responded (because they are not operational, although the PCU was able to convoke national
UNCCD focal points to the Directive Council meetings) . The absence of a functional SRAP
weakened the project’s ability to build a common regional platform or mainstream SLM/SFM
policies on a tri-national scale. When the project was approved, Bolivia had not – and still has
not – ratified the SRAP. These factors are likely to account for why a follow-up regional
proposal has not been presented by the three governments.
 


4.

 

Lesson 4: There are inevitable difficulties in aligning implementation processes
between countries with different institutional-policy frameworks and governance
cycles. The project was unable to sustain a linear implementation process involving different
national contexts. In practice it was difficult to synchronize activities in the three countries:
Implementation was disrupted on several occasions by presidential elections, policy shifts
and staff turnovers. The project took two years to become operational in Paraguay. In
addition, the delivery of three project components with 75 dispersed pilot initiatives generated continuous administrative and coordination demands that largely fell on the
Project Coordination Unit. This had inevitable repercussions on project delivery and
efficiency.


5.

Lesson 5: Cultural sensitivity is essential in designing projects and working
with rural communities in the Gran Chaco. Several demonstration projects had
implementation problems because they failed to understand or adjust to the cultural or social
contexts they worked in. These projects would have benefited from more field contact during
their design and/or rapid social-cultural assessments by an anthropologist or social scientist.
The handicrafts demonstration project implemented in a traditional Ayoreo village provided
a bromelia plantation (the plant material used for weaving) and an initial order from
Germany. This required a full-time, structured production system that was incompatible with
the traditional weaving practices driven by spontaneous initiative; hence the project was not
functioning when the evaluator visited the village. A nearby project for honey production also
had problems after unknowingly reactivating traditional conflicts between two Guaraní
bands over the use of the extraction facility (it is also possible that this was a strategy
intended to leverage an additional extractor from the project). Honey producers of Chancaní
in Cordoba, Argentina did not have any organizational experience; the project has now
finished and they still lack an organizational structure, have not had contact with the local
government, and lack an agreement for access to the honey extraction center that is located
within a national park. In all cases, the underlying social and cultural variables should have
been detected during the project’s design or field monitoring.


6.

esson 6: The project´s scale and institutional complexity underscore the need
to rationalize administrative arrangements and integrate/streamline procedures to
the extent possible. Implementation arrangements were complex and the participation of
three international agencies raised the administrative workload. There were “diseconomies
of scale” in the juxtaposition of different administrative, financial and reporting guidelines
with limited options for their integration or streamlining. This was reinforced by the
challenges of coordinating dispersed field activities with provincial and local partners. The
lack of foresight in anticipating the administrative complexities of this project represented a
flaw in design that (in the case of UN Environment and UNDP) was at odds with the One UN or
Delivering as One policies that have been promoted over the years. Likewise, the inoperability
of the project in Paraguay during the first two years (affected by successive changes of
government and staff turnover) was below the performance standard expected from NEAs.
 


7.

Lesson 7: Greater national and regional ownership was discouraged to an
extent by a continued reliance on the project’s direct support. The project opened
country offices that were known as SRAP offices, and paid for national staff that assumed
SRAP representation. Although the national executing agencies were expected to assume the
costs of the national project coordinator after the second year, the country teams in Bolivia
and Paraguay continued to be paid with GEF funds until the end of the project. This
dependency gradually shifted the project´s focus from a supportive role towards one of direct
support and ‘gap filling’ that further discouraged national and regional ownership of the
SRAP.
 


8.

 

Lesson 8: Other project modalities might have been more effective and merited
consideration at the design stage. The challenges of delivering regional outputs and
outcomes, combined with asymmetries between countries, raise questions on the
comparative advantage of this project modality. It is likely that the project would have made
greater progress had it been divided into separate country projects with selected regional
outcomes. Another viable alternative could have involved a regional UNDP-RLA project linking the three countries, implemented through the UNDP Country Offices and overseen by
a compact regional unit. Both options would involve two instead of three international
agencies, and could have simplified project administration by decentralizing operations with
the advantage of direct country representation. The experience of the GEF Small Grants
Programme would have offered a proven, cost-effective model for guiding the project’s
demonstration component. One project participant has suggested that the SRAP might have
achieved greater regional presence and integrion through a closer association with the
national Chancilleries. There are precedents in this respect that include the bi-national
commission for the Bermejo River Basin (COBINABE) that is directly linked to the
Chancilleries of Argentina and Bolivia, which served as counterpart to the GEF-UNEP-OAS
project for the conservation and sustainable development of the Bermejo basin.


Findings
1.

The general findings of the Terminal Evaluation indicate that “Sustainable Forest
Management in the Transboundary Gran Chaco Americano Ecosystem” was moderately
successful in generating expected results. Likewise, overall project performance was
moderately satisfactory in relation to the established evaluation criteria. These are
positive ratings considering the scale of activities that were implemented across the trinational area, the complex institutional arrangements, and the high coordination and
administrative support needs that resulted.
 


2.

The project was strategically relevant to global, regional and national
environmental objectives. The project goal of reducing land degradation in a
transboundary region with high biodiversity supported the implementation of the
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) and associated National
Action Plans (NAPs) to combat desertification. Project design was aligned with UNEP’s
2010-2013 Medium-Term Strategy and crosscutting priorities of Ecosystems
Management and Climate Change, Environmental Governance. 2 The project addressed
GEF IV’s objective of mainstreaming biodiversity conservation in production landscapes,
and supported sub-programs for strengthening protected area networks, land use and
sustainable forestry management in order to protect raise C02 absorption and lower
GHG emissions. The project’s relevance was reinforced by its connection with the Gran
Chaco Sub-Regional Action Program (SRAP), a tri-national initiative launched by the
governments of Argentina, Bolivia and Paraguay to reduce land degradation and
promote the region’s sustainable development. The SRAP was supported by a 2007
Declaration of national UNCCD focal points that establishes the regional cooperation
framework for the Gran Chaco managed by a Tri-National Commission and Council.
 


3.

The project was moderately effective in delivering its planned outputs and
outcomes. Output delivery was satisfactory: Evaluation findings indicate that practically
90% of the planned outputs have been generated to some extent: 18 (58%) of the
project’s 31 outputs were fully delivered, 10 (32%) partially delivered and only 3 (10
%) undelivered. Among the project components, the field application of sustainable land
and forest management protocols (component 2) was most effective in terms of output
achievement with approximately 80% full delivery; followed by the institutional
strengthening component that delivered more than half (53%) of its planned outputs.
Delivery was lowest for the project exit strategy (component 3) that intended to
document and disseminate sustainable land and forest management practices for up

scaling, replication and mainstreaming at national and regional levels. This was
hindered by the late implementation of demonstration projects in pilot areas and the
subsequent lack of time to effectively disseminate results or systematize practices for
dissemination purposes. Towards its final stages, the project contracted the production
of a very good visual documentary that can assist this process, yet needs to be shown to
a wider audience.
 


4.

Greater progress was made towards country-based outputs and outcomes than
regional deliverables. In particular, the implementation of SLM/SFM demonstration
projects and technology validation projects across 11 pilot sites stands out as one of the
project’s main accomplishments. In-country demonstration projects and technology
validations were more tangible for NEAs and tended to receive received more attention
from the national teams. The absence of an operational tri-national framework or
government-driven SRAP outside of the project also slowed the delivery of regional
outputs that were essential to several outcomes. Design was a contributing factor as
several outputs were excessively ambitious for the allocated timeframes, or were
outside the project’s influence as analyzed in the section on effectiveness.
 


Recommendations
1

 

Recommendation 1: National executing agencies must continue to support the consolidation and dissemination of project results in order to replicate sustainable
land and forest management practices on a broader scale.
 

2

 

Recommendation 2: NEAs and executing partners need to continue providing technical assistance and backstopping support to the various pilot initiatives that were
implemented through the project. The two year period allocated for the implementation of demonstration projects was often insufficient to generate the expected results and follow-up is needed to consolidate results.
 

3

Recommendation 3: Further GEF support for the Gran Chaco’s Sub-regional Action Program should be contingent on the demonstration of tangible government commitments at policy and budgetary levels.
 

4

 

Recommendation 4: The GEF and UN Environment evaluation offices should conduct a thematic desk review of evaluated regional GEF projects that have been implemented in Latin America.
 

5

 

 

Recommendation 5: GEF and UN Environment should ensure that the Terms of Reference for project audits are expanded to include an assessment of administrative and financial management practices by the project teams and implementing/executing agencies. This would be closer to a performance audit, and could help GEF agencies target problems at an early stage and apply corrective measures.
 

6

 

Recommendation 6: GEF needs to assess the suitability of agency/institutional arrangements and resulting administrative guidelines at the project appraisal stage.
 

7

 

Recommendation 7: Future project appraisals by UN Environment should ensure that outputs, outcomes and performance indicators are realistic and achievable with the proposed timeframes.
 

1. Recommendation:

 

Recommendation 1: National executing agencies must continue to support the consolidation and dissemination of project results in order to replicate sustainable
land and forest management practices on a broader scale.
 

Management Response: [Added: 2018/04/17] [Last Updated: 2018/12/18]

The expected large-scale replication of demonstrated practices will depend on continued assistance by NEAs or new projects for the Gran Chaco. Likewise, the national executing agencies will need to promote learning and knowledge management based on the results of the 160 SFM/SLM practices that were demonstrated. The project finished operations – and closed country offices - in Bolivia and Argentina, and will be closing soon in Paraguay. To ensure further adoption and enable a measurable regional impact on land degradation, it is essential that NEAs:

  • Continue to socialize project results and hold national/regional dissemination events with NEA partners, Chaco stakeholders and interested donors or projects, as a means to encourage larger scale adoption and influence government policy levels. 
  • Assist the designated UPEAs technically and institutionally in assuming their role as centers for demonstration and dissemination. 
  • Organizing national and regional events that were planned, are still pending and are essential (at a very late stage) to make institutional contacts for continued dissemination and adoption.  
  • Broker agreements with programs and projects that offer “entry points” for continued replication. These include the Bosque y Comunidad program and native forest legislation in Argentina, the national watershed plan and related programs in Bolivia, and upcoming projects for green commodities and integrated sustainable development in Paraguay. Likewise, the GEF Small Grants Programme (SGP) offers a potential vehicle for extending best practices to other areas of the Gran Chaco in each country.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
This recommendation is directed at the local partners. Regarding the agencies, from our end we shall follow up with them on the application of the products and lessons provided by the project for mainstreaming conservation efforts into various institutional agendas including productive sectors and finance. Coordination among agencies for follow up. Socialize results: distribution of systematization material (print and online) Assist UPEAs: coordinate with undp/oas locally Organize events: small scale funding for events Broker agreements: analyze opportunities together
[Added: 2018/12/18]
Local partners and Agencies 2019/12 Initiated
2. Recommendation:

 

Recommendation 2: NEAs and executing partners need to continue providing technical assistance and backstopping support to the various pilot initiatives that were
implemented through the project. The two year period allocated for the implementation of demonstration projects was often insufficient to generate the expected results and follow-up is needed to consolidate results.
 

Management Response: [Added: 2018/04/17] [Last Updated: 2018/12/18]

The projects were successfully implemented with boxes and extraction equipment installed; the first harvests were expected shortly after the evaluation visit. However, there will be need for further guidance on the organizational and marketing aspects if the project is to have the expected economic impact and be sustained over time. Marketing guidance is needed for the honey demonstration projects in order to become fully operational and fulfill their considerable impact potential. It is also recommended that NEAs and other Chaco partners facilitate the international certification of organic honey, an investment that would open direct export opportunities and higher prices through fair trade networks.

The international agencies have a mandate to assist countries that goes beyond a 5 year project and will follow up on the technical elements that were developed to support decision making for conservation and sustainable growth. The management response to the recommendations will be followed up by UN Environment on a biannual basis in collaboration with UNDP and GS/OAS.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Within their “mandate to assist countries beyond the project”, agencies will indeed “follow up on the technical elements that were developed to support decision making for conservation and sustainable growth”. Agencies cooperate in the exploration of opportunities for follow up projects to mainstream project efforts. Compile List of individual projects that represent entry points for collaboration and match with emerging financing opportunities e.g. Paraguay adaptation project with UN Environment and financial initiative.
[Added: 2018/12/18]
UN agencies 2019/12 Initiated
3. Recommendation:

Recommendation 3: Further GEF support for the Gran Chaco’s Sub-regional Action Program should be contingent on the demonstration of tangible government commitments at policy and budgetary levels.
 

Management Response: [Added: 2018/04/17] [Last Updated: 2018/12/18]

The project has established a base that potentially offers the SRAP greater momentum on a regional scale. However, the main limiting factor continues to be government commitment. At the moment, only Argentina appears to demonstrate this commitment. There are parallel initiatives and projects in the three countries (some supported by GEF and UNEP) that could assist the dissemination of sustainable practices. Although a follow-up project for the Gran Chaco has not been proposed (either regionally or nationally), further continuity is needed to build on the progress achieved.  GEF and UN Environment need to ensure that there is an operational government-driven regional program in place – or at least that the national components are functioning - before further support is considered. Future assistance should be focused on assisting ongoing national/regional initiatives and not substituting them.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The SRAP did not sustain the initial momentum and the political will to restore it did not materialize during the project. While the agencies stand ready to support initiatives that would continue mainstreaming and upscaling efforts of valuable tools and lessons produced by the project, we agree that to set up a regional initiative a government-driven regional program that is operational has to be in place. - Continued monitoring of government disposition to establish a regional platform or program. - Analysis of financing opportunities from various sources to develop follow up initiatives, national or regional is ongoing.
[Added: 2018/12/18]
UN Agencies 2019/12 Initiated
4. Recommendation:

 

Recommendation 4: The GEF and UN Environment evaluation offices should conduct a thematic desk review of evaluated regional GEF projects that have been implemented in Latin America.
 

Management Response: [Added: 2018/04/17] [Last Updated: 2018/12/18]

The objectives of this study would be to (i) analyze recurring issues that influence regional project performance and impact, (ii) recommend adjustments to the regional project approaches so as to address these issues, and (iii) offer inputs for the improved design of future regional GEF projects. There have been several regional GEF projects in the region over the past decade that have essentially similar approaches: In the southern cone region GEF has implemented the Bermejo Basin, Lake Titicaca, River Plate Basin and Gran Chaco projects over the past decade. All of these projects have shared an ecosystems-based approach with structural and methodological similarities.  Similarly, their evaluations highlight a recurrence of common issues that have affected performance both positively and negatively. A comprehensive, in-depth desk review with selected stakeholder interviews could provide deeper insight and suggest remedial actions of interest to GEF, UN Environment, OAS, UNDP and other partner agencies. Such a study would look into design and operational issues that influence the performance of ecosystems-based regional GEF initiatives, and propose alternative approaches or modalities for consideration. 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
This recommendation is directed at the evaluation office and it is up to them to perform the recommended review. UN Environment has a long-standing track record of successfully implemented regional projects executed by GS/OAS. The partners will continue to apply this successful model building on this experience.
[Added: 2018/12/18]
evaluation office 2018/12 Completed NA since depends on whether the evaluation offices decide to follow up on this recommendation.
5. Recommendation:

 

 

Recommendation 5: GEF and UN Environment should ensure that the Terms of Reference for project audits are expanded to include an assessment of administrative and financial management practices by the project teams and implementing/executing agencies. This would be closer to a performance audit, and could help GEF agencies target problems at an early stage and apply corrective measures.
 

Management Response: [Added: 2018/04/17] [Last Updated: 2018/12/18]

The audits conducted by UNDP and OAS provide summarized financial data that are part of the broader corporate audits that cover a wide spectrum of projects and activities. The audit information that is presented lacks any analysis or interpretation, and provides little insight into financial management or delivery issues. Neither the regional PCU, NEAs nor country teams were contacted during (or aware of) the audits, nor were the PCU’s financial records or other documents considered. Future audits need to look more closely at actual financial and administrative operations in order to assess their efficiency and effect on expenditure, and propose remedial actions.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
This recommendation is directed at the higher echelons of the organization, who can decide if it is appropriate to add performance audits to the financial audits required from executing agencies. As for the agency itself, it is regularly subject to several types of audits including financial, performance, operations, procedures and others as the internal supervisory boards see fit. The standard UN Environment Project Cooperation Agreement explicitly states the audit requirements, and these are strictly complied with by executing agencies. Broad corporate audits are no longer accepted at UN Environment and specific project audits are required on an annual basis as well as at end of project. This has already been implemented and is a change from the initial audits presented by this project. Comment on UNENv internal audits on processes.
[Added: 2018/12/18]
UN Environment 2018/12 Completed
6. Recommendation:

 

Recommendation 6: GEF needs to assess the suitability of agency/institutional arrangements and resulting administrative guidelines at the project appraisal stage.
 

Management Response: [Added: 2018/04/17] [Last Updated: 2018/12/18]

The division of implementation and execution responsibilities among three international agencies with different guidelines raised the administrative workloads for regional and country project teams significantly, distracting attention from more substantive issues. Some of the administrative guidelines that were applied were not considered optimally suited for a project that had to service a large number of dispersed, small-scale initiatives over a wide geographic area. These aspects need to be considered when appraising prospective GEF implementing or executing agencies.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
This recommendation is directed at GEF and it is up to them to take it up. From our perspective, we agree that GEF must consider the complexity of implementing arrangements when suggesting the change of a successful formula. In this case, it was GEF who after a long project preparation phase carried out by UN Environment and GS/OAS asked that UNDP be included as co-implementing agency “because of their local presence in the countries” (UNDP has Country Offices in the three countries that participated in this project). In the end this inclusion not only increased the transaction cost enormously and delayed local implementation of pilots quite contrary to the expectations, but also dispersed actions into three independent UNDP country projects and one regional effort trying to integrate it all. The measure taken on the agencies’ side is an improved assessment of implementing arrangements, in particular when co-implementation is being suggested. Lengthy discussions and analysis has been performed by UNDP and UN Environment officers in the past years assessing the pros and cons of co-implementation. This also included the participation in the “Collaboration Typology Analysis” carried out in 2012 by a UNDP-UNEP task force. If this particular project was to start today, there are many arguments that would speak against co-implementation
[Added: 2018/12/18]
GEF UNEP 2018/12 Completed History
7. Recommendation:

 

Recommendation 7: Future project appraisals by UN Environment should ensure that outputs, outcomes and performance indicators are realistic and achievable with the proposed timeframes.
 

Management Response: [Added: 2018/04/17] [Last Updated: 2018/12/18]

Project timelines are often difficult to reconcile with actual processes on the ground. Several outcomes and outputs were clearly unlikely to be achieved within the five-year period, and less so on a tri-national scale. In some cases this was due to late or partial delivery of key outputs that prevented the project from achieving the intermediate states that precede impact. In other cases, outcome indicators were excessively ambitious in relation to the time or resources that were available. Indicators often assume that project deliverables will be applied by project partners – i.e. mainstreaming SLM/SFM policies within governments, harmonizing national policy frameworks – when these require institutional or budgetary decisions that are outside the project’s influence. For these reasons, it is important that project appraisals ensure that outputs and outcomes are achievable within approved timeframes and budgets, as achievable within the project’s attributions.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
This comment is about the design/ appraisal phase of the project. Since then, the issues have already been addressed and are being applied in project appraisals. In more recent project appraisals UN Environment Quality Assurance Section (QAS) is ensuring that a Theory of Change exercise is performed in combination with the logframe and indicator development. This is delivering results that are more achievable and better monitored.
[Added: 2018/12/18]
UNEP 2018/12 Completed

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