Terminal Evaluation Report for the project "Sustaining agricultural biodiversity in the face of climate change in Tajikistan"

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2016-2020, Tajikistan
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
04/2016
Completion Date:
07/2016
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
10,925

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document UNDP-GEF-Terminal-Evaluation_ToR_AgroBio_FINAL.pdf tor English 1064.65 KB Posted 160
Download document 3647 PIMS_Tajikistan EBD TE July2015_0.pdf report English 2998.69 KB Posted 262
Title Terminal Evaluation Report for the project "Sustaining agricultural biodiversity in the face of climate change in Tajikistan"
Atlas Project Number: 57096
Evaluation Plan: 2016-2020, Tajikistan
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 07/2016
Planned End Date: 04/2016
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Environment & Sustainable Development
  • 2. Others
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
  • 1. Output 2.5. Legal and regulatory frameworks, policies and institutions enabled to ensure the conservation, sustainable use, and access and benefit sharing of natural resources, biodiversity and ecosystems, in line with international conventions and national
Evaluation Budget(US $): 10,925
Source of Funding: core, donor funds
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 10,925
Joint Programme: No
Mandatory Evaluation: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Alisher Nazirov Local Evaluation Consultant
GEF Evaluation: Yes
GEF Project Title: Sustaining agricultural biodiversity in the face of climate change in Tajikistan
Evaluation Type: Terminal Evaluation
Focal Area: Biodiversity
Project Type: FSP
GEF Phase: GEF-1
GEF Project ID:
PIMS Number: 3647
Key Stakeholders: NPC/line ministries/ state departments/district administration/CBOs/private sector
Countries: TAJIKISTAN
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1

Recommendations for the Project design

  • To pay specific attention to the Project “Theory of Changes”, its strategy and “causal outcomes-impacts pathways”, coordination and synergy of intermediate results, removing barriers, risks and assumptions
  • Developing SMART indicators to the outputs, not only objective and outcomes, and associated targets to them could guide the Project team in proper planning of activities across the years. The targets of outputs (outcomes as well) could be divided into annual milestones (keeping their relative flexibility), which would make easy the reporting process as well as providing an idea of which activities to focus on in subsequent years.
  • This would help to avoid excessive ambitions and elaborate more adequate and measurable, not duplicative indicators for targets and outputs. For example, explanation of the key measurable Project targets (such as hectares of the Project affected area, number of species/varieties conserved, number of farmers involved, etc.) should be more clear in terms of activities undertaken in each particular case.
  • Nevertheless, evaluators fully understand and even can recommend that projects like these should set ambitious goals (but not extreme) in order to have flexibility in planning and prioritizing within the Project development.
  • The ways to check and approve any scientific hypothesis like Homologue approach and relative modelling tools should be clearly scientifically and practically identified at the Project development phase in order to realize its feasibility and generate practical steps for this purpose.
  • Any investments in agriculture, especially in environmentally fragile mountainous regions cannot avoid assessment of land degradation/desertification issues and comprehensive analysis of its cross-links with biodiversity conservation, climate change vulnerability, and other environmental and socio-economic issues. For GEF projects an assessment of possible integrated impact (positive or adverse) related to all focal areas should be obligatory at all scales of implementation.
  • The application of the ecosystem services approach and payments for them (PES) is seen as an opportunity in many of environmental projects, including those of GEF-funding. So, PES application is likely to be evaluated in all the projects like this even there are no evident capacities in the country to realize it from the start. Building national capacities could be one of the Project’s aims in this connection.
1. Recommendation:

Recommendations for the Project design

  • To pay specific attention to the Project “Theory of Changes”, its strategy and “causal outcomes-impacts pathways”, coordination and synergy of intermediate results, removing barriers, risks and assumptions
  • Developing SMART indicators to the outputs, not only objective and outcomes, and associated targets to them could guide the Project team in proper planning of activities across the years. The targets of outputs (outcomes as well) could be divided into annual milestones (keeping their relative flexibility), which would make easy the reporting process as well as providing an idea of which activities to focus on in subsequent years.
  • This would help to avoid excessive ambitions and elaborate more adequate and measurable, not duplicative indicators for targets and outputs. For example, explanation of the key measurable Project targets (such as hectares of the Project affected area, number of species/varieties conserved, number of farmers involved, etc.) should be more clear in terms of activities undertaken in each particular case.
  • Nevertheless, evaluators fully understand and even can recommend that projects like these should set ambitious goals (but not extreme) in order to have flexibility in planning and prioritizing within the Project development.
  • The ways to check and approve any scientific hypothesis like Homologue approach and relative modelling tools should be clearly scientifically and practically identified at the Project development phase in order to realize its feasibility and generate practical steps for this purpose.
  • Any investments in agriculture, especially in environmentally fragile mountainous regions cannot avoid assessment of land degradation/desertification issues and comprehensive analysis of its cross-links with biodiversity conservation, climate change vulnerability, and other environmental and socio-economic issues. For GEF projects an assessment of possible integrated impact (positive or adverse) related to all focal areas should be obligatory at all scales of implementation.
  • The application of the ecosystem services approach and payments for them (PES) is seen as an opportunity in many of environmental projects, including those of GEF-funding. So, PES application is likely to be evaluated in all the projects like this even there are no evident capacities in the country to realize it from the start. Building national capacities could be one of the Project’s aims in this connection.
Management Response: [Added: 2017/01/06]

Recommendation will be taken into account in the ongoing and new initiatives

Key Actions:

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