- Evaluation Plan:
- 2017-2022, Lebanon
- Evaluation Type:
- Mid Term Project
- Planned End Date:
- 10/2018
- Completion Date:
- 12/2018
- Status:
- Completed
- Management Response:
- Yes
- Evaluation Budget(US $):
- 20,000
Sustainable Land Management of the Qaraoun Project
Share
Document | Type | Language | Size | Status | Downloads |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
tor | English | 369.33 KB | Posted | 1109 |
![]() |
report | English | 1301.59 KB | Posted | 1552 |
Title | Sustainable Land Management of the Qaraoun Project | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Atlas Project Number: | 00037371 | ||||||||||||||
Evaluation Plan: | 2017-2022, Lebanon | ||||||||||||||
Evaluation Type: | Mid Term Project | ||||||||||||||
Status: | Completed | ||||||||||||||
Completion Date: | 12/2018 | ||||||||||||||
Planned End Date: | 10/2018 | ||||||||||||||
Management Response: | Yes | ||||||||||||||
Focus Area: |
|
||||||||||||||
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021) |
|
||||||||||||||
SDG Goal |
|
||||||||||||||
SDG Target |
|
||||||||||||||
Evaluation Budget(US $): | 20,000 | ||||||||||||||
Source of Funding: | Project | ||||||||||||||
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): | 20,000 | ||||||||||||||
Joint Programme: | No | ||||||||||||||
Joint Evaluation: | No | ||||||||||||||
Evaluation Team members: |
|
||||||||||||||
GEF Evaluation: | Yes
|
||||||||||||||
Key Stakeholders: | Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Public Works and Transport, CDR, Lebanese Agriculture Research Institute | ||||||||||||||
Countries: | LEBANON |
Lessons | |
---|---|
Findings |
Recommendations | |
---|---|
1 |
|
2 | 2.1 The project should consider a no-cost extension of 12 – 18 months to account for the delays experienced at the start of the project and ensure that there is enough time available to achieve all of the desired objectives. |
3 | 3.1 The scientific foundation established by the project is impressive. However, the project should consider moving forward with pilot activities to learn implementation modalities while the scientific assessments are still being completed 3.2 The implementation of agricultural SLM interventions should begin as soon as possible. This is to ensure that the project reaches its intended targets. In addition, agricultural interventions demonstrate benefits over the short-term and can enhance community buy-in for SLM interventions. 3.3 The project should develop a formal workplan for capacity development and institutional strengthening activities to ensure that it reaches its intended targets. |
4 | 4.1 The PMU should prepare a report that shows actual and planned co-financing commitments 4.2 The PMU should complete the GEF LD Tracking tool to include the mid-term results of the project |
5 | The PMU should ensure that the independent consultant team developing the LUPs continues this engagement with municipalities to promote ownership of the LUPs |
Key Action Update History
- As SLM is a relatively new concept in Lebanon, the project should ensure that results of the SLM interventions, land use plan development process and scientific information collected in the preparatory assessments are communicated to a wide audience
- The project is developing scientifically rigorous methodologies for forest and rangeland restoration. The project should ensure that these scientific protocols are shared widely to guide further restoration efforts in the country
- The project could consider translating the restoration projects into Arabic to ensure that they are available to a wide range of stakeholders.
- It would be beneficial if the project reported on risks identified as moderate severity in the PIRs.
- The project may consider limiting the scope of Output 2.4 to strengthening the capacity of the MoE and targeted municipalities to enforce compliance with land use plans. It may be beyond the scope of the project to establish enforcement measures
- The project may consider limiting the scope of Output 3.2 to developing a range of proposed economic incentives/disincentives to promote adherence by the agricultural sector to sustainable land use practices. It may be beyond the scope of the project to trial or implement these incentives/disincentives.
- The project should focus on involving women in the alternative income generating activities.
- Where possible, the results framework of the project should be amended to include gender-disaggregated indicators.
Management Response: [Added: 2018/12/10]
The first three recommendations relate to awareness raising of project activities and outputs which will be included in the upcoming annual workplans.
For recommendation 1.4, the CO will ensure that the project risks that are identified as moderate severity in the PIR are reported
For recommendation 1.5 and 1.6, the revised log frame takes into consideration the limitation of scope of outputs 2.4 and 3.2, the CO will request that it be revised if allowed by the GEF
Recommendations 1.7 and 1.8 will be taken into consideration during the design of future altnernative income generating activities and the results framework will be revised accordingly.
Key Actions:
Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1.1 - 1.3 Awareness raising activities included in the AWP
[Added: 2018/12/10] [Last Updated: 2019/11/06] |
UNDP CO | 2019/12 | Completed | AWP includes awareness activities New risk related requirements added in ATLAS and MTR report History | |
1.4 New risk-related requirements included in the PIR
1.5 - 1.6 Logframe changes requested and granted
[Added: 2018/12/18] [Last Updated: 2019/11/06] |
UNDP CO | 2019/12 | Completed | Log frame changes accepted in MTR History |
2.1 The project should consider a no-cost extension of 12 – 18 months to account for the delays experienced at the start of the project and ensure that there is enough time available to achieve all of the desired objectives.
Management Response: [Added: 2018/12/10]
The recommendation is accepted
Key Actions:
Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
The CO requests and received a no-cost time extension of 14 months.
[Added: 2018/12/10] [Last Updated: 2019/11/06] |
UNDP CO | 2019/12 | Completed | Completed during midterm review History |
3.1 The scientific foundation established by the project is impressive. However, the project should consider moving forward with pilot activities to learn implementation modalities while the scientific assessments are still being completed
3.2 The implementation of agricultural SLM interventions should begin as soon as possible. This is to ensure that the project reaches its intended targets. In addition, agricultural interventions demonstrate benefits over the short-term and can enhance community buy-in for SLM interventions.
3.3 The project should develop a formal workplan for capacity development and institutional strengthening activities to ensure that it reaches its intended targets.
Management Response: [Added: 2018/12/10]
For recommendations 3.1 and 3.2, the pilot activities and agricultural SLM interventions will be initiated in 2019 to ensure the timely implementation of the scientific assessments.
For recommendation 3.3, a capacity development plan will be prepared for the coming year (and additional extension) in order to expand outreach
Key Actions:
Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
For 3.1 and 3.2 – AWP includes pilot activities
[Added: 2018/12/10] [Last Updated: 2019/11/06] |
UNDP CO | 2019/12 | Completed | Capacity development plan developed and under implementation History | |
For 3.3 - Capacity Development plan developed
[Added: 2018/12/18] [Last Updated: 2019/11/06] |
UNDP | 2019/12 | Completed | Capacity development plan developed and under implementation History |
4.1 The PMU should prepare a report that shows actual and planned co-financing commitments
4.2 The PMU should complete the GEF LD Tracking tool to include the mid-term results of the project
Management Response: [Added: 2018/12/10]
Both of these recommendations are accepted and UNDP will act accordingly.
Key Actions:
Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
4.1 Report on co-financing commitments submitted
4.2 GEF LD Tracking tool completed
[Added: 2018/12/10] [Last Updated: 2019/11/06] |
UNDP CO | 2019/12 | Completed | Completed during MTR History |
The PMU should ensure that the independent consultant team developing the LUPs continues this engagement with municipalities to promote ownership of the LUPs
Management Response: [Added: 2018/12/10]
UNDP PMU will ensure that the consultants engage with municipalities to promote the ownership of LUPs.
Key Actions:
Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Engagement-related responsibilities included in the TOR of IC’s
[Added: 2018/12/10] [Last Updated: 2019/11/06] |
UNDP CO | 2019/12 | Completed | Municipalities engaged in the LUPs through various activities History |