Mid-term Review: Conserving Habitats for Globally Important Flora and Fauna in Production Landscapes

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2017-2021, Thailand
Evaluation Type:
Mid Term Project
Planned End Date:
08/2019
Completion Date:
07/2019
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
35,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document TOR_FF GEF MTR Team Lead_FF.pdf tor English 497.77 KB Posted 17
Download document Approved TOR_National MTR Consultant_FF.pdf tor English 497.77 KB Posted 18
Download document Annex 1_ToR Flora and Fauna MTR International Consultant Team Leader.pdf tor English 534.81 KB Posted 17
Download document Final MTR report FF project_14032019_cleared_NSLF_signed.pdf report English 940.24 KB Posted 2
Title Mid-term Review: Conserving Habitats for Globally Important Flora and Fauna in Production Landscapes
Atlas Project Number: 83158
Evaluation Plan: 2017-2021, Thailand
Evaluation Type: Mid Term Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 07/2019
Planned End Date: 08/2019
Management Response: Yes
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021)
  • 1. Output 1.4.1 Solutions scaled up for sustainable management of natural resources, including sustainable commodities and green and inclusive value chains
Evaluation Budget(US $): 35,000
Source of Funding: GEF
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 32,698
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Walaitat Worakul National Individual Consultant walaitat@hotmail.com THAILAND
GEF Evaluation: Yes
GEF Project Title: Full-sized Conserving Habitats for Globally Important Flora and Fauna in Production Landscapes
Evaluation Type: Mid-term Review
Focal Area: Biodiversity
Project Type: MSP
GEF Phase: GEF-5
GEF Project ID:
PIMS Number: 4839
Key Stakeholders:
Countries: THAILAND
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1

Mid-term Review Recommendation 1: Result Framework, there are seven points that the PMU and Project Board will consider revising indicator/baseline/targets. The key main point concerns to the ES legislation. The ES legislation is not ready and progress towards it has been very slow. It is the view of most of the stakeholders that approved legislation will take a longer time and could be beyond the timeframe of the project.

The targeted provincial plans for the integration of the ES critical habitat has not taken place. There is discussion on this but only at two of the three sites. At the national level no discussion or dialogue or awareness taking place.  Identification of these areas and some form of socialization of their importance is taking place especially at the community level.

 

Revise indicator/baseline/targets

  1. Target for indicator 2 of the project objective is changed to “no overall decline in species status of SPB, WL and ESC” from “No overall decline in species status of species currently listed on the National Red list for Thailand”.
  2. Target for indicator 1 of Outcome1 is changed to “draft Bill recommended to NEB after consultation with stakeholders from “Bill approved by Cabinet”
  3. Target for indicator 2 of Outcome 1 is changed to “land use zoning for ES and critical habitat at these 5 provinces completed and submitted to the TCPD for inclusion in the provincial plans” from “At least 5 provincial plans clearly integrate the designation of critical habitat areas and increase environmental safeguards for development within these areas”
  4. Indicator 4 of Outcome 1 to include indicators 5, 9 and 10 in addition to the current score for indicator 2,3 and 11. 
  5. Baseline for Indicator 2 of Outcome 2 on Spoon-billed Sandpiper to be reduce to 2 from 4 at pilot location in Khok Kham. (This is in line with the suggestion made at the Inception) 
  6. Target for indicator 3 of Outcome 2 is ambiguous – “No increase in area of critical SBS habitat converted to uses incompatible to the long-term survival of SBS in the Khok Kham location”. It should be measured in the form of “ha pan salt” or “mudflats km2” or “ha of new aquaculture and development areas” between the start of the project and end of project, within the habitat in Khok Kham location. MTR team recommends that BCST/IUCN/ONEP to suggest this in the next PB based on the information available.    
  7. Baseline for indicator 3 of Outcome 2 on number of “wild Water Onion collected to exportout of Thailand” seems to be outdated from 2009 figures. There should have been updated data on this from Plan Quarantine Officials. MTR recommends that the baseline level use 2014/15/16 figure.

 

 

2

Project Management, the project needs a no-cost extension of 6 months in order to have adequate time to complete all the activities of the revised work plan.

3

The constant communications between PMU and ONEP must be enhanced. They should meet every fortnight to discuss updates on the implementation of activities without waiting for the PB’s meetings to resolve issues.

4

PB must meet at least twice a year as a best practice for the UNDP GEF projects. In the case of this project, the PB must meet at least three times this year to monitor the progress of the project and expedite decision making.

5

The project should urgently record the co-financing from the government – ONEP and ZPO, and other institutions like TEI, IUCN to reflect the contribution and commitment of Thailand toward this global biodiversity benefits in the form of ES conservation. The MTR team has provided examples of a template to record in-kind co-financing for the use of the project. UNDP’s co-financing should also be recorded.

6

Monitoring and Evaluation, the GEF tracking tool, Capacity Assessment Scorecard need to be completed immediately in early 2019 and then do another one at the end of the project. 

7

ES recovery and conservation plans at 3 sites, the SBS conservation is the most difficult task for this project/Thailand. There are two forms of conservation reliance - whether management is directed toward populations or toward extrinsic threats. In the case of SBS both are very challenging. As such, there should be a greater emphasis in the form of additional funding and urgent land-use plan discussion at Samut Sakhon. A community empowerment specialist needs to be appointed to form a strong grouping of the community there to support the SBS conservation. 

8

For Water Onion, a tourist coordinator/specialist need to be appointed so that the community’s aspiration for a social enterprise using ecotourism can support sustain the habitat as well as regeneration of WO. In addition, the local provincial government should consider providing “temporary occupation license” to the community on the use of the public land for sustainable livelihood in order to enhance ownership to this effort. 

9

In Buriram, the community is ready to create a social enterprise to develop sustainable agriculture and to provide protection to ESC. The project should support the setting up of such an entity.

10

Stakeholders’ engagement, the new Work Plan 2018-2019 should be verified with LAC and provincial stakeholders in order to get the support from them – the stakeholders need to know their roles, activities, and budgets available for the remaining period of the project.

11

Set up TWGs for the outcome that involves direct functions of related agencies; TWG for eco-tourism, TWG for land use plans with TCP and TWG for Law with the AG office.  The role of Tourism Authority and BEDO need to be redefined so that their involvement will be more meaningful and constructive through these TWGs. The TWGs should be responsible to report the achievements to the PB, instead of relying on the PMU. The RPs should not be driving the interagency coordination but rather facilitate this mechanism. The related agencies should be leading the TWGs.

12

Knowledge management and Communication, Cross learning between the stakeholders in the 3 sites should be enhanced. There should be more field visits between them to learn from one another.

13

Knowledge products need to be developed to showcase the actions and results of the project. For example, the gender dimension in some of the site is very impressive. These stories need to be told in outreach products.

14

Project webpage/Facebook/ need to be created as soon as possible to enhance the awareness and support of the project.

15

Sustainability, the project should develop an exit plan for the sustainability of the outcomes. This is especially with the revised target of the indicator for Outcome 1 from ES Bill approved to draft bill submitted to NEB.

16

Use the opportunity of the project to do capacity building of ONEP and the production landscape agencies on managing a mainstreaming approach, including incentives and disincentive that can be incorporated into development plans of the agencies.

17

The Local Advisory Committee should be institutionalised at the provincial level as the one-stop entity to organise and manage all ES species related funds, projects and activities from government, NGOs and private sector to synergise the ES conservation efforts.

1. Recommendation:

Mid-term Review Recommendation 1: Result Framework, there are seven points that the PMU and Project Board will consider revising indicator/baseline/targets. The key main point concerns to the ES legislation. The ES legislation is not ready and progress towards it has been very slow. It is the view of most of the stakeholders that approved legislation will take a longer time and could be beyond the timeframe of the project.

The targeted provincial plans for the integration of the ES critical habitat has not taken place. There is discussion on this but only at two of the three sites. At the national level no discussion or dialogue or awareness taking place.  Identification of these areas and some form of socialization of their importance is taking place especially at the community level.

 

Revise indicator/baseline/targets

  1. Target for indicator 2 of the project objective is changed to “no overall decline in species status of SPB, WL and ESC” from “No overall decline in species status of species currently listed on the National Red list for Thailand”.
  2. Target for indicator 1 of Outcome1 is changed to “draft Bill recommended to NEB after consultation with stakeholders from “Bill approved by Cabinet”
  3. Target for indicator 2 of Outcome 1 is changed to “land use zoning for ES and critical habitat at these 5 provinces completed and submitted to the TCPD for inclusion in the provincial plans” from “At least 5 provincial plans clearly integrate the designation of critical habitat areas and increase environmental safeguards for development within these areas”
  4. Indicator 4 of Outcome 1 to include indicators 5, 9 and 10 in addition to the current score for indicator 2,3 and 11. 
  5. Baseline for Indicator 2 of Outcome 2 on Spoon-billed Sandpiper to be reduce to 2 from 4 at pilot location in Khok Kham. (This is in line with the suggestion made at the Inception) 
  6. Target for indicator 3 of Outcome 2 is ambiguous – “No increase in area of critical SBS habitat converted to uses incompatible to the long-term survival of SBS in the Khok Kham location”. It should be measured in the form of “ha pan salt” or “mudflats km2” or “ha of new aquaculture and development areas” between the start of the project and end of project, within the habitat in Khok Kham location. MTR team recommends that BCST/IUCN/ONEP to suggest this in the next PB based on the information available.    
  7. Baseline for indicator 3 of Outcome 2 on number of “wild Water Onion collected to exportout of Thailand” seems to be outdated from 2009 figures. There should have been updated data on this from Plan Quarantine Officials. MTR recommends that the baseline level use 2014/15/16 figure.

 

 

Management Response: [Added: 2019/07/24]

Partially agree. The MTR suggested to change seven (7) target indicators. The management agreed with the suggested change in  some indicators i.e. no overall decline in species status of SPB, WL and ESC[LF1] , land use zoning for ES and critical habitat at these 5 provinces completed and submitted to the Town Country Planning and Development (TCPD) for inclusion in the provincial plans, Spoon-billed Sandpiper to be reduced to 2 from 4 at pilot location in Khok Kham, change of indicator measurement on “No increase in area of critical SBS habitat converted to uses incompatible to the long-term survival of SBS in the Khok Kham location”.

 

The management disagreed with the suggested change in mainstreaming all three project’s indicators (5,9,10) of ONEP’s scorecard. Only indicator 5 (to increase stakeholder access to biodiversity database) is relevant to the ONEP’s scorecard. Besides, the management partially agreed to change a target that will propose a draft Bill recommended to NEB, but will propose a regulatory/policy recommendation to the sub-committee of NEB (Wetland sub-committee) by the end of the project. As ONEP is a secretariat of the sub-committee of NEB, it is their mandate to ensure that recommendation to include into the sub-committees meeting agenda.  

 

The PMU and PB disagreed with the suggested change in success measurement of the indicator “No increase in the area of critical SBS habitat converted to uses incompatible to the long-term survival of SBS in the Khok Kham location”. This narrative indicator is still relevant.

 

Last, the management disagreed with a shift in the baseline year of “wild Water Onion collected to exported out of Thailand” from 2009 to 2014/15/16. The management will keep the same baseline year and will report that by the end of the project the wild water onion is not illegally exported with reference to Thailand CITES committee report.  

  


 [LF1]Note that in accordance with UNDP-GEF policy we can’t change objective indicator so we cannot change this one. Please state that we cannot change this one due to UNDP-GEF policy. We can focus the reporting on the three target species. The rest look okay but I will confirm when I see the proposed changes in tracked changes on the results framework.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Project team to submit proposed results framework changes to RTA for approval prior to the 2019 PIR
[Added: 2019/07/28]
The project team submitted the proposed result framework changed in track change for RTA reviewed in July 2019. 2019/07 Completed Pending for finalization and approved by RTA.
2. Recommendation:

Project Management, the project needs a no-cost extension of 6 months in order to have adequate time to complete all the activities of the revised work plan.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/07/28] [Last Updated: 2019/07/28]

 

Disagreed.

ZPO nearly makes it reach their output’s objective. The PMU (IUCN) is speeding the activities in 2019 to achieve outcomes. It is able to complete their task within the project time frame. The PMU has completed 40% of activities and will complete 80% by the end of July 2019.  These include land use planning and zoning in Samut Sakhon, training and capacity building, eco-tourism package, project sub-committee at the provincial level. The remaining works will be reviewed by ONEP and UNDP (by mid-June). Both ONEP and UNDP will consolidate current activities as the main work package that will be embedded into existing training government institutes, sustainable tourism authority, provincial office. These government agencies can help to implement the project (through a network).

The PMU (IUCN) is pretty sure that the development outputs can be achieved in July 2019. The terminal evaluation can be prepared in August-September 2019. There is no need to extend the project.

 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The Programme Analyst will monitor closely with the project manager regarding the progress of activity and plan to ensure the project is delivered within remaining months of implementation.
[Added: 2019/07/28]
PB and UNDP 2019/10 Initiated The PMU and ZPO made good progress in Outcome 1 and 2. It seems that they can achieve the project objective and agreed on indicator changed. See the progress from the presentation to the Project Board in June 2019.
3. Recommendation:

The constant communications between PMU and ONEP must be enhanced. They should meet every fortnight to discuss updates on the implementation of activities without waiting for the PB’s meetings to resolve issues.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/07/28]

Disagree.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
PMU will create a real-time communication tool and an event calendar.
[Added: 2019/07/28]
PMU and ONEP 2019/04 Completed Group LINE was created in March 2019. It is real time communication tool of ONEP, PMU, ZPO, UNDP as well as a consultant (TEI and BCST), and the Chief of Provincial Office of Natural Resouces. In 2016-2017, there was a change of personnel who reported directly to the Project Director (ONEP). Besides, the project has no Project Manager and team for 4 months. IUCN has been on board as PMU since April 2018. The Team Leader (IUCN) has managed a day to day activity since April. Then, the Project Manager and two coordinators are on board in October 2018. They sit in ONEP. During 4-month vacancy of the project team, UNDP regularly communicated a status of procurement the responsible party to replace the project manager role.
4. Recommendation:

PB must meet at least twice a year as a best practice for the UNDP GEF projects. In the case of this project, the PB must meet at least three times this year to monitor the progress of the project and expedite decision making.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/07/29]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
As ONEP is a secretariat of the PB, ONEP will take this recommendation into the Project Director’s consideration.
[Added: 2019/07/29]
In 2019, the PB is scheduled for three times (Feb, Jun, Sept). 2019/06 Completed The Project Board meeting in June agreed to organize the final project board meeting after the project end. It aims to review the Terminal Evaluation and take away some recommendations for implement further through new funding and regular plan and budget.
5. Recommendation:

The project should urgently record the co-financing from the government – ONEP and ZPO, and other institutions like TEI, IUCN to reflect the contribution and commitment of Thailand toward this global biodiversity benefits in the form of ES conservation. The MTR team has provided examples of a template to record in-kind co-financing for the use of the project. UNDP’s co-financing should also be recorded.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/07/29]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The Project Assistant and Programme Associate of UNDP will collect data from PMU.
[Added: 2019/07/29]
PMU/UNDP 2019/09 Initiated Small size is not required the Tracking Tool by GEF at mid-term. By the way, the tracking tool is under processing by the M&E consultant. It is expected to finish by the end of August 2019. To be used for TE.
Capacity development scorecard to be completed by the end of the project.
[Added: 2019/07/29]
PMU 2019/09 Initiated The Team Leader and the Project Manager (IUCN staff) will work closely with ONEP to response to this recommendation.
6. Recommendation:

Monitoring and Evaluation, the GEF tracking tool, Capacity Assessment Scorecard need to be completed immediately in early 2019 and then do another one at the end of the project. 

Management Response: [Added: 2019/07/29] [Last Updated: 2019/07/29]

Partially agree. As this is a mid-sized project the GEF tracking tool did not need to be completed at mid-term – therefore it will be completed prior to the end of the project.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The Project Assistant of UNDP will process an individual consultant to update the tracking tool ahead of the end of the project.
[Added: 2019/07/29]
PMU/IUCN 2019/09 Initiated The tracking tool is under processing by the M&E consultant. It is expected to finish by the end of June June 2019. To be used for TE. History
7. Recommendation:

ES recovery and conservation plans at 3 sites, the SBS conservation is the most difficult task for this project/Thailand. There are two forms of conservation reliance - whether management is directed toward populations or toward extrinsic threats. In the case of SBS both are very challenging. As such, there should be a greater emphasis in the form of additional funding and urgent land-use plan discussion at Samut Sakhon. A community empowerment specialist needs to be appointed to form a strong grouping of the community there to support the SBS conservation. 

Management Response: [Added: 2019/07/29]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The Project Manager (PMU/IUCN) will empower BCS in developing a community tourism package benefit sharing among the private saltpan’s owners.
[Added: 2019/07/29]
PMU/IUCN 2019/09 Initiated The leaders from the Bird Conservation Society of Thailand (BCST) can take a role as a community empowerment specialist. There are some conflict issue arises from Kok Kham communities on land use. Twice Community Consultation meetings, on 8 March 2019 and 4 June 2019, to solve community conflicts and Learning Center management prior to propose to Samut Sakhon Provincial Working Group meeting on 12 June 2019. The conflict is extremely out of the project’s authority to control. If the conflict mentioned here was “solar farm”, it has been ongoing since 2014. The best solution to lessen the level of conflict is to ensure equal benefit sharing among the two groups from the learning centers, community based tourism and alternative livelihood supported by the project. Provincial Governor and PONRE are aware of this issue. Capacity of community to manage Community based tourism” has been assessed by Silapakon University (consultancy contract). The tourism packages and training needs to enhance community’s capacity ensuring that they can utilize the centers as well as manage their own tourism-related activities properly, will be identified and developed. BCST is going to sign MoU with the Department of Marine and Coastal Resources (DMCR). This MoU is a policy to protect the salt pan and mangrove forest of the SBP SBS habitat. The BCST is being launch a fund raising campaign for saving SBP habitat.
8. Recommendation:

For Water Onion, a tourist coordinator/specialist need to be appointed so that the community’s aspiration for a social enterprise using ecotourism can support sustain the habitat as well as regeneration of WO. In addition, the local provincial government should consider providing “temporary occupation license” to the community on the use of the public land for sustainable livelihood in order to enhance ownership to this effort. 

Management Response: [Added: 2019/07/29]

Partially agree.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The PMU/IUCN will consider promoting tourism in the 3 pilot sites.
[Added: 2019/07/29]
PMU/IUCN/ Local Action Committee (LAC) 2019/09 Initiated The tourism promotion is not a success target indicator. However, the representative from the department of sustainable tourism is a member of the project committee at the provincial level. S/he has mandated to mainstream the sustainable tourism opportunity from the project in their development plan. The local guide has been addressed as “Local nature interpreter”, which the term has been accepted widely in the light of community development scheme, capacity building for community members, and community engagement. No license required for being a local nature interpreter. Today, community-based tourism has been mainstreamed in the national policy of community development. The official government agencies in charge of community-based tourism are the Provincial office of Tourism and Sport and the Provincial office of Community Development. The best option to formalize the group establishment is to register as “Community Enterprise Group”. This mechanism will ensure government support and potential financial support from the government agencies.
9. Recommendation:

In Buriram, the community is ready to create a social enterprise to develop sustainable agriculture and to provide protection to ESC. The project should support the setting up of such an entity.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/07/29]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The PMU and ZPO will make a capacity building plan and exiting strategy for this project sustainability.
[Added: 2019/07/29]
PMU/ZPO 2019/09 Initiated The organic rice farmer (Sarus rice brand) has already registered as a social enterprise under the Ministry of Commerce. The project did not involve with this registration. It was supported by the government programme “Pra-Cha-Rat” and private company “Thai Bev”. After the construction of Eastern Sarus Crane learning center finished. First period, the project plan to set up the committees for managing all activities, including of support the communities’ enterprise. The first budget supports by Buriram Sugar factory with co-management of ZPO. However, it will be developed to be foundation in future.
10. Recommendation:

Stakeholders’ engagement, the new Work Plan 2018-2019 should be verified with LAC and provincial stakeholders in order to get the support from them – the stakeholders need to know their roles, activities, and budgets available for the remaining period of the project.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/07/29]

Disagree. In fact, the project team did a consultation with local stakeholders through Provincial Office on Natural Resource (PONRE) officer in Samut Sakhon, Ranong, Burirum who is a focal point of the Governors when it comes to environmental issues. Especially, the ZPO team works closely with the school and Head of Wildlife Protected Area in Sarus Crane monitoring plan.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The PMU will ensure that the LAC is aware of the work plan by sending information to LAC one-two weeks before the meeting dates.
[Added: 2019/07/29]
PMU/LAC 2019/06 Completed The current PMU works closely with PONRE officer who is the key actor of the project’s provincial committee. The project work plan 2018-2019 is well informed. The new WP 2019 was shared to LAC and PONRE to know their roles, activities and budget available. Activities calendar throughout the year was also shared among concerned parties. The event calendar is also shared. History
11. Recommendation:

Set up TWGs for the outcome that involves direct functions of related agencies; TWG for eco-tourism, TWG for land use plans with TCP and TWG for Law with the AG office.  The role of Tourism Authority and BEDO need to be redefined so that their involvement will be more meaningful and constructive through these TWGs. The TWGs should be responsible to report the achievements to the PB, instead of relying on the PMU. The RPs should not be driving the interagency coordination but rather facilitate this mechanism. The related agencies should be leading the TWGs.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/07/29]

Disagree. There are existing mechanisms that can be integrated with rather than establishing new groups.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The Project Manager (PMU/IUCN) will discuss with ONEP and UNDP about the need to set up the TWG and potential existing alternatives that might work better than establishing new TWGs.
[Added: 2019/07/29]
PMU/PB/UNDP/ONEP 2019/06 Overdue-Initiated The TWGs for the outcome that involves direct functions may not be needed to be set up due to both existing Ranong TWG on Water Lily Conservation, Chair by Ranong Governor, and Samut Sakhon TWG on Spoon-billed Sandpiper, Chair by Samut Sakhon Deputy Governor, comprise of representative from Provincial Tourist Office. Chairs of TWGs are PB members who have mandates to report the progress on project implementation. The provincial activities well are integrated into the provincial plan. It would be better to incorporate into “Nawatwitthi” project of the community. The Nawatwitthi was promoted to all communities by the Community Development Department (CDD)--create community tourism with One Tambol One Product (OTOP).
12. Recommendation:

Knowledge management and Communication, Cross learning between the stakeholders in the 3 sites should be enhanced. There should be more field visits between them to learn from one another.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/07/29]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The PMU/ZPO will create the cross-learning activity into the work plan 2019.
[Added: 2019/07/29]
PMU/RPs/UNDP 2019/06 Completed Activity is being done in Q1-Q2/2019. The cross leaning between the stakeholders in ES were included in the plan, both from international and domestic best practices. M&E consultant is monitoring this output.
13. Recommendation:

Knowledge products need to be developed to showcase the actions and results of the project. For example, the gender dimension in some of the site is very impressive. These stories need to be told in outreach products.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/07/29]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The PMU/ZPO will collect data on gender, youth dimensions.
[Added: 2019/07/29]
PMU/RPs/UNDP 2019/09 Initiated The knowledge product was developed since the beginning of the project duration. It was done by ZPO and UNDP such as VDO clip, articles, and fact sheets. The PMU is creating the data aggregation on gender and youth. The communication consultant was hired by UNDP. She is working on a human story for the project on UNDP EBD EXPOSURE platform sharing successes
14. Recommendation:

Project webpage/Facebook/ need to be created as soon as possible to enhance the awareness and support of the project.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/07/29]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The PMU will ensure visibility of the project in line with UNDP GEF communication guideline.
[Added: 2019/07/29]
PMU/RPs/UNDP 2019/09 Initiated Project information and actives are published and updated on IUCN, as PMU, website. The PMU has already hired a company to create a project website exclusively. It will link with ONEP page.
15. Recommendation:

Sustainability, the project should develop an exit plan for the sustainability of the outcomes. This is especially with the revised target of the indicator for Outcome 1 from ES Bill approved to draft bill submitted to NEB.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/07/29]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The PB needs to decide and endorsed the proposa l from the PMU.
[Added: 2019/07/29]
PMU/RP/ONEP/PB/UNDP 2019/09 Initiated To ensure responsibility of project beyond the lifetime, the PMU needs to proceed the project activities through the government agencies responsible for training, sustainable tourism, biodiversity database, etc. The Team Leader and Project Manager (IUCN) are aware of the need to develop an Exit strategy. They are exploring the consultant to develop the plan.
16. Recommendation:

Use the opportunity of the project to do capacity building of ONEP and the production landscape agencies on managing a mainstreaming approach, including incentives and disincentive that can be incorporated into development plans of the agencies.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/07/29]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The PMU will work with ONEP division responsible for ES database and exchange learning from other countries.
[Added: 2019/07/29]
PMU/RP/ONEP/PB/UNDP 2019/09 Initiated Supported, capacity building of ONEP of ES conservation including ES database was incorporated into an existing plan for future ES monitoring and management. On-going training on GIS database management for national ES list.
17. Recommendation:

The Local Advisory Committee should be institutionalised at the provincial level as the one-stop entity to organise and manage all ES species related funds, projects and activities from government, NGOs and private sector to synergise the ES conservation efforts.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/07/29]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The PMU will work closely with ONEP to look at existing committee relevant to the role of LAC.
[Added: 2019/07/29]
PMU/RP/ONEP/PB/UNDP 2019/09 Initiated The Local Advisory Committee (LAC) was in the plan to set up at the community level to manage ES conservation fund and relevant activities. The PMU is working on the ES economic valuation and finance solutions to support the set up of LAC or use of an existing committee.

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