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 87
Download document Approved TOR_National MTR Consultant_FF.pdf tor English 497.77 KB Posted 88
Download document Annex 1_ToR Flora and Fauna MTR International Consultant Team Leader.pdf tor English 534.81 KB Posted 82
Download document Final MTR report FF project_14032019_cleared_NSLF_signed.pdf report English 940.24 KB Posted 89
Title Mid-term Review: Conserving Habitats for Globally Important Flora and Fauna in Production Landscapes
Atlas Project Number: 00083158
Evaluation Plan: 2017-2021, Thailand
Evaluation Type: Mid Term Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 07/2019
Planned End Date: 08/2019
Management Response: Yes
UNDP Signature Solution:
  • 1. Energy
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
SDG Goal
  • Goal 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable
  • Goal 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns
  • Goal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss
SDG Target
  • 11.a Support positive economic, social and environmental links between urban, peri-urban and rural areas by strengthening national and regional development planning
  • 12.b Develop and implement tools to monitor sustainable development impacts for sustainable tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture and products
  • 15.1 By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services, in particular forests, wetlands, mountains and drylands, in line with obligations under international agreements
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] [Last Updated: 2019/12/27]
PB and UNDP 2019/10 Completed The key activities have been completed since September 2019. The result report (in Thai) is attached. The English version will be followed. The result is published on UNDP Exposure site. https://undp-biodiversity.exposure.co/cooperation-for-coexistence?source=share-undp-biodiversity History
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] [Last Updated: 2019/12/27]
PMU/UNDP 2019/09 Completed The tracking tool is updated. See attachment. History
Capacity development scorecard to be completed by the end of the project.
[Added: 2019/07/29] [Last Updated: 2019/12/27]
PMU 2019/09 Completed As reported in the 2019 PIR and confirmed during interviews, the target to increase the ONEP capacity development indicator scores to 3 was met for all indicators. This includes an additional indicator (Indicator 5) that was added after the MTR. This indicator is ‘Access and sharing environmental information by stakeholders’; the score of 3 is described as ‘Comprehensive environmental information is available and shared through and adequate information management structure’, and is partially due to training on GIS provided by the project. History
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] [Last Updated: 2019/12/27]
PMU/IUCN 2019/09 Completed Tracking Tool has been updated. 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] [Last Updated: 2019/12/27]
PMU/IUCN 2019/09 Completed In September 2019, BCS received 8 million THB from a public donation. They purchased the 49-3-90 rai (8 ha) of salt pan area in order to preserve it as a bird habitat. This news was announced in public through Thai PBS TV programme, on-line newspapers. https://news.thaipbs.or.th/content/283883 https://www.bcst.or.th/essential_grid_category/latest-updates/ History
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] [Last Updated: 2019/12/27]
PMU/IUCN/ Local Action Committee (LAC) 2019/09 Completed The community-based tourism management plan that is being developed by Silpakorn University should be presented to the Provincial Advisory Committees and relevant sectoral agencies, such as the Provincial Office of Tourism and Sports, for consideration regarding support to the communities involved in the project All of the communities visited as part of the evaluation mission discussed ecotourism, based around the target endangered species and associated conservation messages and experiences, as an economic and livelihood opportunity. From a conservation perspective, this may provide a sustainable livelihood that is sympathetic to the conservation of the species. The evaluation team observed significant differences in the extent of preparedness for this and in the approaches being proposed. In some locations, there were still fundamental questions to be addressed of what the tourism product and market would be. The communities involved in the project would benefit from support and guidance in many aspects of developing ecotourism. History
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] [Last Updated: 2019/12/27]
PMU/ZPO 2019/09 Completed The Governor of Buriram and the Tourism Authority of Thailand have already committed at the launching ceremony for the Eastern Sarus Crane Learning Center to promote eco-tourism. History
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] [Last Updated: 2019/12/27]
PMU/PB/UNDP/ONEP 2019/06 Completed ONEP and UNDP agreed with the project manager's suggestion. The project team has already incorporate the salt product, sarus rice with OTOP development. History
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] [Last Updated: 2019/12/27]
PMU/RPs/UNDP 2019/09 Completed A human story for the project on gender-inclusive has been published on the UNDP EBD EXPOSURE website. https://undp-biodiversity.exposure.co/cooperation-for-coexistence?source=share-undp-biodiversity History
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] [Last Updated: 2019/12/27]
PMU/RPs/UNDP 2019/09 Completed Reports on database of endangered species (includes link to public website with species information: http://chff.onep.go.th/) History
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] [Last Updated: 2019/12/27]
PMU/RP/ONEP/PB/UNDP 2019/09 Completed Community interest and support for the three species is high. Local structures in each target location are in place to oversee conservation, raise awareness and link to sustainable livelihood activities. The project has worked closely with the provincial planning process and structures to embed species conservation locally. Five land use plans were developed through engagement with representatives from concerned agencies. Hence, the plans that will be included in city plans should be consistent with the priorities of individual agencies and the communities living in the habitat areas. ONEP is proposing to list new migratory bird flyway sites under the East Asian–Australasian Flyway, in Buriram and Khok Kham. ZPO is now working more closely with the Buriram community and adopting result-based planning and management approach. Crane-friendly rice-growing practices and farmer behaviors are embedded in the farming community at Buriram. History
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] [Last Updated: 2019/12/27]
PMU/RP/ONEP/PB/UNDP 2019/09 Completed The database is linked with ONEP website. http://chff.onep.go.th/ History
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] [Last Updated: 2019/12/27]
PMU/RP/ONEP/PB/UNDP 2019/09 Completed The project has been successful in raising awareness of the three target species in the respective provinces and working to build their conservation requirements into provincial plans. A key part of this has been the establishment of provincial committees led by ONEP and PONRE to provide coordination and facilitate high-level provincial support. These provincial committees or similar mechanisms must continue beyond the project to ensure that the species continue to be incorporated into the relevant plans. This is not only important for the conservation of the target species, it is also very important for the overall strategy of the project: influencing provincial and local planning processes to encourage ES and critical habitat conservation. History

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

1 UN Plaza
DC1-20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel. +1 646 781 4200
Fax. +1 646 781 4213
erc.support@undp.org