Implementing a “Ridge to Reef” Approach to Protecting Biodiversity and Ecosystem functions within and around Protected Areas in Grenada (00091627)

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2017-2021, Barbados
Evaluation Type:
Mid Term Project
Planned End Date:
03/2018
Completion Date:
03/2018
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
30,000
Mid-Term Review Ratings
Evaluation Measure Rating
Overall Objective: To ensure that biodiversity and ecosystems functions within and around Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and Terrestrial Protected Areas (TPAs) in Grenada are better protected from threats through the adoption of an integrated “Ridge to Reef” approach that increases Protected Area (PA) management effectiveness and applies targeted sustainable land management practices. U
Outcome 1: Establishment and effective management of new and existing Protected Areas U
Outcome 2: Climate resilient SLM practices applied in the Beauséjour watershed to reduce threats adjacent to and upstream of PAs MU
Project Implementation & Adaptive Management U
Likelihood of Sustainability U

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HS= Highly Satisfactory, S= Satisfactory, MS=Moderately Satisfactory, MU= Moderately Unsatisfactory, U=Unsatisfactory, HU=Highly Unsatisfactory

Given the above ratings which indicate serious problems with the Project, a recommendation is made that UNDP consider an independent extraordinary review within (maximum) one year of this MTR to monitor how the MTR recommendations are being implemented, to troubleshoot as may be required, and to decide at that time whether a project extension is warranted.

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document Final MTR Report Grenada R2R Project NM-1.PDF.pdf tor English 267.04 KB Posted 28
Download document Final MTR Report Grenada R2R Project NM-1.pdf report English 1453.13 KB Posted 34
Title Implementing a “Ridge to Reef” Approach to Protecting Biodiversity and Ecosystem functions within and around Protected Areas in Grenada (00091627)
Atlas Project Number: 00091627
Evaluation Plan: 2017-2021, Barbados
Evaluation Type: Mid Term Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 03/2018
Planned End Date: 03/2018
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 $): 30,000
Source of Funding: Project
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 36,264
Joint Programme: No
Mandatory Evaluation: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
GEF Evaluation: Yes
GEF Project Title: Implementing a “Ridge to Reef” Approach to Protecting Biodiversity and Ecosystem functions within and around Protected Areas in Grenada
Evaluation Type: Mid-term Review
Focal Area: Biodiversity
Project Type: FSP
GEF Phase: GEF-5
GEF Project ID: 5069
PIMS Number: 5087
Key Stakeholders: GEF
Countries: BARBADOS
Lessons
1.

Project design must take into account actual GoG capacities and allow adaptation of activities and/or implementation method, including through collaboration with additional non-governmental partners, as needed.
ii. The contracting of a qualified project team at project outset is of paramount importance.
iii. Bypassing the compulsory inception workshop can have serious consequences as it allows for project implementation that may no longer be adapted to the current institutional and organisational context.


Findings
1.

Key Findings

There have been some successful efforts supported by the Project but at this point the project is not on track to reach its objective by project end 22 months from now. There is insufficient progress to date on both Outcome 1 and Outcome 2.

Key Successes

The education and awareness activities including the Reef Guardians, Junior Rangers and Summer Camp programs are all very innovative and relevant programs which, although not initiated by this Project, have been successfully supported by the Project. These programs can have a very positive impact at both individual and societal levels. There is enthusiastic participation and plans being built in to the effort to enhance uptake by partners and sustainability of the effort.

Infrastructure has been improved which if used according to its intended use is expected to have a positive impact (e.g. Interpretation Centre at Morne Gazo). Once operational guidelines for the structure are finalized, the success of this project investment can be better evaluated.

A substantial number of training activities related to SLM have been undertaken with good attendance. The success of this project investment can only be determined once the necessary equipment is provided to allow for the implementation of SLM techniques in which people were trained.

Equipment has been provided which has significantly enhanced the capacity of key partners to implement important activities and evidence suggests much (but not all) of the equipment is being put to good use (i.e. the boat provided to Fisheries).

The coral reef restoration effort (coral nursery and transplanting) is progressing well although coral maintenance remains an issue due to lack of permanent gardeners. Moreover, the long-term survival of the corals may be at risk if existing threats (e.g. broken outfall pipe) are unaddressed.

Key Challenges

The government counterpart contribution made to date does not reflect the substantial commitment made at Project signing. This has seriously affected the ability of the Project to effectively implement necessary actions toward the achievement of the project objective. The capacity issues of the key Government partners as it currently exists pose a significant risk to the successful completion of the Project.

There are some design issues which affect project implementation. Given that the following risk was identified in the PRODOC (“Government fails to sustain its political and financial support for PA planning and operations”, and, “The Government declared a plan to cut recurrent spending by 20% for a number of years from 2014 onward, thereby putting at risk the integration of PAs into the Government’s Annual Recurrent Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure Program”, the project design did not adequately mitigate that risk, placing too much emphasis on Government partners (Forestry and Fisheries) and too little on including others (e.g., NGOs, academic institutions, and the private sector).

Adaptive management related to key constraints has not been adequate. Notwithstanding recognition of the reality regarding Government institutional capacity, the approach to project implementation has not been modified to reflect the new reality. There has been no concerted attempt to identify additional project implementation partners despite clear recognition by the main Government partners, Project Board (PB) members, and Project Management (PM) that the capacity does not currently exist for these partners to contribute all that is necessary for the successful achievement of the Project’s outcomes and objective.

With only a Project Officer and no Project Coordinator on board more than halfway through the project, Project management has been sub-optimal. This has seriously affected progress made towards expected Outcomes. Although a Chief Technical Advisor was recently contracted (late 2017) and is expected to assume some (but by no means all) responsibilities normally associated with a Project Coordinator, it is too early to determine whether this will significantly improve progress. The CTA is expected to travel to Grenada three times per year and to have weekly Skype calls with the Project Officer. This should accelerate progress, but the CTA had been on board for only a short time as of the time of the MTR and therefore it is not possible for the MTR to make a sound assessment on whether his involvement will make a significant difference.

Project oversight, including the PB and support provided by UNDP-Barbados, requires significant strengthening to ensure the Project is effectively steered toward its objective.

The Project has supported some activities which do not contribute to the Project objective and for which Project funds should not have been used.

Due diligence prior to providing project support has been inadequate, resulting in some cases in inappropriate or inefficient use of Project funds.

There has been insufficient information obtained about relevant initiatives and insufficient coordination with those initiatives. This has meant that R2R is a somewhat isolated project and that duplication of effort is a risk in some areas while there may be lost cooperation opportunities in others. A “sit back and wait” approach has been adopted rather than a proactive informed adaptive management approach. This has contributed to lack of progress in certain areas.

Quality of TOR for consultancies is generally poor. As a result, in some cases, the Project is spending resources on reports/outputs which may not contribute as much as they should to the Outcomes.

Greater emphasis needs to be placed on seeking intended impact, not simply on undertaking activities because a project document (PRODOC) included them. There needs to be a greater focus on results, i.e. greater results-based management and impact monitoring of Project-supported activities.

Co-financing is not being tracked. Tracking co-financing is not only a GEF requirement but this practice is considered essential to ensuring that committed co-financing contributions are provided.

The PRODOC recognized the importance of co-management, i.e. sharing Protected Area (PA) management responsibilities with non-government entities including NGOs, CBOs, academic institutions, and private sector entities. This project was designed in part to support Government to define co-management modalities and to demonstrate how co-management can be implemented in Grenada. Given the situation that Government does not have the capacity to effectively manage all of Grenada’s PAs, supporting the Government to pilot co-management should be one of the most important Project contributions, one which will directly contribute to achieving the Project objective. Thus far, the Project has contributed little in this regard.

Although the Project strategy outlines an integrated “Ridge to Reef” approach, this approach has not been effectively translated in most Project activities undertaken to date including in the Beauséjour watershed (which is supposed to highlight this approach).

There has been insufficient project progress for SLM in the Beauséjour watershed to ensure results achievement (increased C intake and reduced pollution/runoff), e.g. insufficient outreach of SLM training (limited n° of farmers involved), Extension Division lacking some tools, no clarity or decisive action re. what is intended as re-planting and where (is this agroforestry on private land or restoration of degraded native forest with native species on crown forest lands) / also the issue of bamboo removal (is this to go forward or not), yet to establish water quality monitoring procedure or training given (yet equipment has already been provided), draft watershed management plan yet to be discussed between stakeholders).

The lack of an SLM monitoring mechanism and the limited outreach of implemented activities may negatively affect overall results, hence the need to accelerate SLM activities through a more comprehensive activity programme and/or seeking complementarities with other interventions and external stakeholders.

Threats to both marine and terrestrial biodiversity still exist which if not addressed may pose a risk to the ability of the Project’s investments to have the desired impact.

Given the timeframe of the Project and the insufficient progress made to date, there is a need now to prioritize activities related to both Outcomes (focusing to a greater extent on some while eliminating others). (See recommendations section)


Recommendations
1

Support the development of a sustainable finance system for the PA network (the Project should work closely with the Grenada Sustainable Development Fund in this regard).

2

Provide support as required to ensure the legislative and regulatory framework is adequate regarding classification of PAs in Grenada (different categories of both TPAs and MPAs) and definitions of permissible and not permissible uses in each category.

3

Support a smaller number of strategically chosen PAs (based on biodiversity conservation importance and potential for long-term biodiversity conservation) on which to focus Project support henceforth, leaving others aside for the time being.

4

Support a process to facilitate Government decision making regarding which co-management model/s to pursue/apply in the Grenada context. It is important to hold the workshops on co-management models (see previous recommendation) before taking this decision so that all stakeholders clearly understand the various roles and responsibilities of the various entities involved in different models of legal co-management of PAs.

5

The Fisheries Division already has a standard template they use for MPA management plans but there is no standard template used by Forestry for TPA management plans. It is therefore recommended that a standard template for TPA management plans be developed/use of an existing best international practice template (IUCN or other) and a standard process adopted in developing management plans.

6

The relevance and feasibility of creating an inter-sectoral committee should be re-assessed with a comprehensive land use planning approach versus decentralised management based on sectoral guidelines (due to the issue of fragmented land tenure). It is recommended that if a committee is to be formed, the lead institution on watershed management has to be designated, meeting of stakeholder representatives convened, training on watershed management defined, TORs for the committee drafted and technical/sectoral groups set up, technical/sectoral guidelines and requested project support drafted as part of the management plan design.

7

A bamboo consultant should be contracted to aid Government in addressing the bamboo issue (eradicate or use as a resource and formulate industry development plan); at the same time or shortly afterwards, discussions should be held with NEFO and major volunteer land lords of forested areas in the watershed to actually design a plan of action for reforestation through an informal council or through a formalised subgroup of the (future) Beauséjour watershed inter-sectoral committee.

8

CSA/SLM activities (e.g., awareness raising) need to be accelerated to increase outreach using an integrated program formulation (objective, activities, expected results and planning for 24 months, M&E plan, stakeholders’ role definition) involving Forestry, Extension and beneficiaries.

9

It is recommended that relationships with relevant ongoing projects, activities and systems be formalised as a platform to pursue greater complementarities (such as cost-sharing) with other interventions.

10

Sustainable strategic partnerships need to be developed and existing ones strengthened for the expansion of the project's education and awareness activities (Junior Ranger, Reef Guardian and summer camp programme).

11

Expand the environmental education/awareness activities the project is supporting, particularly in the area of internships and media products.

12

An exit strategy should be developed to cover the education activities, SLM replication through model farm/composting unit (multi-purpose use) with NEFO, regular pollution monitoring through supporting relevant institution (e.g. NAWASA) and coral nurseries (business plan based on UNEP’s experience e.g. volunteer tourism, dive tours, partnerships with hotels, etc.)

13

It is recommended to contract a consultant to support both Government staff and local associations directly involved in watershed management to implement activities in a gender-adapted fashion so as to increase women inclusiveness in the R2R approach.

14

Strengthen the Steering committee by integrating project oversight best practice and expanding its membership include representatives of the Grenada Sustainable Development Fund, the Academic community (SGU would seem to be a logical choice as they have a Marine Biology Department),  a key NGO focused on biodiversity conservation and the private sector.

15

An orientation should be given to the PB. This orientation should include a solid overview of the project and the focus of project activities during the second “half” of the project as per MTR recommendations, the responsibilities of PB members and of all other parties, expectations of PB members, agreed procedures (sharing of minutes, comment periods, what types of decisions can and cannot be taken without PB review, attendance requirements, etc.).

16

Rebuild the Results Framework based on the same objective and outcomes but with improved indicators and target descriptions that reflect MTR recommendations regarding what the Project should do henceforth. Seek the involvement of the CTA to undertake this exercise.

 

17

It is recommended that in the absence of a form Technica Advisory Committee, the Project engage technical expertise to discuss matters where technical inputs may be required by the Steering Committee in determining what the Project should or should not do.

18

It is recommended that a transportation budget be assigned for the Project Team to support site visits for implementation and monitoring activities.

19

Begin tracking and reporting on co-financing as per GEF requirements.

20

The government should take immediate action to address its counterpart contribution in order for the Project to be able to succeed. This would require at a minimum the appointment of several additional rangers as well as a Director of National Parks and Protected Areas within three months to allow the Project a realistic chance to implement activities agreed as per the PRODOC and to meet its objectives. Provision for recurrent costs associated with travel, fuel and other basic needs to allow for the proper undertaking of their responsibilities is equally critical to the success of the Project.

21

Regarding Project support for infrastructure, it is recommended that the project refrain from providing any further support until the Operational Guidelines for Morne Gazo are finalized. If these are in keeping with the original intended purpose of the building on the basis of which Project funds were provided, the Project may continue to support other infrastructure development (e.g. Interpretation Centres) but in all cases this support should be exclusively directed at infrastructure for PAs (as stipulated in the PRODOC) and only for those PAs that have been legally declared.

22

If key issues are addressed within the next ten months, a no-cost extension of 12 months should be considered.

23

Given the overall ratings assigned to this Project which indicate serious issues, a recommendation is made that UNDP consider an independent extraordinary review within one year of this MTR (and preferably before end of 2018) to monitor how the MTR recommendations are being implemented, to troubleshoot as may be required, and to advise at that time whether a project extension is warranted.

1. Recommendation:

Support the development of a sustainable finance system for the PA network (the Project should work closely with the Grenada Sustainable Development Fund in this regard).

Management Response: [Added: 2018/09/24]

Dialogue with the Grenada Sustainable Development Fund and other key stakeholders and the recruitment of relevant technical expertise to support the development of a comprehensive Protected Area business plan

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Develop a PA business plan
[Added: 2018/09/24] [Last Updated: 2018/11/15]
UNDP 2018/12 Overdue-Initiated A consultant has been selected to develop a PA business plan
2. Recommendation:

Provide support as required to ensure the legislative and regulatory framework is adequate regarding classification of PAs in Grenada (different categories of both TPAs and MPAs) and definitions of permissible and not permissible uses in each category.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/09/24]

Review of the relevant legislative and regulatory framework in currently being conducted by a legal consultant

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Complete the review of the PA legislative and regulatory framework
[Added: 2018/09/24] [Last Updated: 2018/11/15]
UNDP & Project Management Unit 2019/03 Initiated Ongoing; expected completion in March 2019.
3. Recommendation:

Support a smaller number of strategically chosen PAs (based on biodiversity conservation importance and potential for long-term biodiversity conservation) on which to focus Project support henceforth, leaving others aside for the time being.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/09/24]

The project is supporting PAs based on the PA Systems Plan.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Develop Management Plans
[Added: 2018/09/24]
UNDP and Project Management Unit 2018/12 Overdue-Initiated
4. Recommendation:

Support a process to facilitate Government decision making regarding which co-management model/s to pursue/apply in the Grenada context. It is important to hold the workshops on co-management models (see previous recommendation) before taking this decision so that all stakeholders clearly understand the various roles and responsibilities of the various entities involved in different models of legal co-management of PAs.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/09/24] [Last Updated: 2018/09/24]

It has been noted that different co-management models applicable for protected areas management are not widely recognised in Grenada. The workshops will be organised as recommended to facilitate government decision making. The workshops can be held in conjunction with the 8th PSC meeting.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Hire local consultant(s) to organise workshops on co-management options
[Added: 2018/09/24] [Last Updated: 2018/11/15]
UNDP & Project Management Unit 2019/02 Initiated Draft TOR prepared; Consultant to come on board in December 2018
5. Recommendation:

The Fisheries Division already has a standard template they use for MPA management plans but there is no standard template used by Forestry for TPA management plans. It is therefore recommended that a standard template for TPA management plans be developed/use of an existing best international practice template (IUCN or other) and a standard process adopted in developing management plans.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/09/24]

Consultancies are underway to develop management plans for 2 TPAs (Mt. St. Catherine and Morne Gazo). The final management plans will guide the government on possible template standardisation.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Finalise the 2 TPA management plans
[Added: 2018/09/24] [Last Updated: 2018/11/15]
UNDP and Project Management Unit 2019/01 Initiated
6. Recommendation:

The relevance and feasibility of creating an inter-sectoral committee should be re-assessed with a comprehensive land use planning approach versus decentralised management based on sectoral guidelines (due to the issue of fragmented land tenure). It is recommended that if a committee is to be formed, the lead institution on watershed management has to be designated, meeting of stakeholder representatives convened, training on watershed management defined, TORs for the committee drafted and technical/sectoral groups set up, technical/sectoral guidelines and requested project support drafted as part of the management plan design.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/09/24]

The intersectoral committee was established as per the ProDoc. The TOR has been developed and 3 meetings convened to date. The other recommendations will be considered in future sessions.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Consider the recommendations on watershed management in future inter-sectoral committee meetings
[Added: 2018/09/24] [Last Updated: 2018/11/19]
UNDP & Project Management Unit 2018/12 Overdue-Initiated
7. Recommendation:

A bamboo consultant should be contracted to aid Government in addressing the bamboo issue (eradicate or use as a resource and formulate industry development plan); at the same time or shortly afterwards, discussions should be held with NEFO and major volunteer land lords of forested areas in the watershed to actually design a plan of action for reforestation through an informal council or through a formalised subgroup of the (future) Beauséjour watershed inter-sectoral committee.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/09/24] [Last Updated: 2018/09/25]

A local bamboo consultant will be engaged in early 2019 to address the bamboo issue. A reforestation action plan will be developed by the established intersectoral committee.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Hire bamboo consultant
[Added: 2018/11/15] [Last Updated: 2018/11/19]
UNDP and Project Management Unit 2019/01 Initiated
8. Recommendation:

CSA/SLM activities (e.g., awareness raising) need to be accelerated to increase outreach using an integrated program formulation (objective, activities, expected results and planning for 24 months, M&E plan, stakeholders’ role definition) involving Forestry, Extension and beneficiaries.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/09/25]

 The TOR for the Beausejour Watershed Management Plan is being revised to make the current draft a more comprehensive plan. The recommended actions will be taken into account in the revision process.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Revise the draft Beausejour Watershed Management Plan
[Added: 2018/09/25] [Last Updated: 2018/11/15]
UNDP and Project Management Unit 2018/12 Overdue-Initiated
9. Recommendation:

It is recommended that relationships with relevant ongoing projects, activities and systems be formalised as a platform to pursue greater complementarities (such as cost-sharing) with other interventions.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/09/25]

Based on the list of relevant interventions provided as part of the MTR report, a stakeholder engagement plan will be developed and MOUs with partner organisations established as necessary.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
A stakeholder mapping exercise and engagement plan will be developed.
[Added: 2018/09/25] [Last Updated: 2018/11/19]
UNDP and Project Management Unit 2018/12 Overdue-Initiated
10. Recommendation:

Sustainable strategic partnerships need to be developed and existing ones strengthened for the expansion of the project's education and awareness activities (Junior Ranger, Reef Guardian and summer camp programme).

Management Response: [Added: 2018/09/25]

A recruitment process will be launched to fill the vacancy created by the departure of the Forestry Education Coordinator. Once the new coordinator has come onboard, potential partnerships with external organisations, including GAEA and SGU, will be sought.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Recruit a new Forestry Education Coordinator
[Added: 2018/09/25] [Last Updated: 2018/11/15]
UNDP and Project Management Unit 2018/10 Completed New coordinator came on board in August 2018
Identify and engage third-party organisations to explore and develop strategic partnerships
[Added: 2018/09/25] [Last Updated: 2018/11/15]
Project Management Unit 2018/12 Overdue-Initiated Draft stakeholder engagement plan completed and to be finalised by December 2018
11. Recommendation:

Expand the environmental education/awareness activities the project is supporting, particularly in the area of internships and media products.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/09/25] [Last Updated: 2018/09/25]

The project will expand the education activities through 2019.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
As part of the Annual Work Plan for 2019, the project will support environmental education internships in partnership between universities/community colleges and PAs and the launch of weekly media engagement (TV and/or radio) on environmental issues of relevance to the Project
[Added: 2018/09/25] [Last Updated: 2018/11/19]
Project Management Unit and Project Steering Committee 2019/01 Initiated Draft AWP for 2019 to include support for environmental education internships
12. Recommendation:

An exit strategy should be developed to cover the education activities, SLM replication through model farm/composting unit (multi-purpose use) with NEFO, regular pollution monitoring through supporting relevant institution (e.g. NAWASA) and coral nurseries (business plan based on UNEP’s experience e.g. volunteer tourism, dive tours, partnerships with hotels, etc.)

Management Response: [Added: 2018/09/25]

Exit strategies for the areas highlighted will be discussed and agreed upon by the PSC in 2019.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Develop exit strategies for Education, SLM replication, pollution monitoring and coral nurseries.
[Added: 2018/09/25] [Last Updated: 2018/11/19]
Project Management Unit and Steering Committee 2019/06 Initiated
13. Recommendation:

It is recommended to contract a consultant to support both Government staff and local associations directly involved in watershed management to implement activities in a gender-adapted fashion so as to increase women inclusiveness in the R2R approach.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/09/25]

The Intersectoral Committee will discuss how best to implement activities for watershed management in a gender-responsive manner with potential support from the UNDP Gender Focal Point

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Intersectoral Committee to discuss gender-responsive watershed management approaches
[Added: 2018/09/25] [Last Updated: 2018/11/19]
Project Management Unit 2018/12 Overdue-Initiated
14. Recommendation:

Strengthen the Steering committee by integrating project oversight best practice and expanding its membership include representatives of the Grenada Sustainable Development Fund, the Academic community (SGU would seem to be a logical choice as they have a Marine Biology Department),  a key NGO focused on biodiversity conservation and the private sector.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/09/25]

The TOR for the PSC will be revisited and the recommended PSC composition discussed at the next PSC meeting.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The TOR for the PSC will be revisited and the recommended PSC composition discussed at the next PSC meeting.
[Added: 2018/09/25]
Steering Committee 2018/06 Completed
15. Recommendation:

An orientation should be given to the PB. This orientation should include a solid overview of the project and the focus of project activities during the second “half” of the project as per MTR recommendations, the responsibilities of PB members and of all other parties, expectations of PB members, agreed procedures (sharing of minutes, comment periods, what types of decisions can and cannot be taken without PB review, attendance requirements, etc.).

Management Response: [Added: 2018/09/25]

If the PSC decides on its reconstitution, an orientation will be provided to the reconstituted PSC.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Conduct an orientation for the PSC
[Added: 2018/09/25] [Last Updated: 2018/11/15]
UNDP and Steering Committe 2018/12 Overdue-Initiated As new members have been added to the PSC, the orientation will be conducted at the next PSC meeting
16. Recommendation:

Rebuild the Results Framework based on the same objective and outcomes but with improved indicators and target descriptions that reflect MTR recommendations regarding what the Project should do henceforth. Seek the involvement of the CTA to undertake this exercise.

 

Management Response: [Added: 2018/09/25]

Revision of the Project Results Framework will be proposed by the CTA at the next PSC meeting.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Revise the Project Results Framework
[Added: 2018/09/25]
Steering Committee and Project Management Unit 2018/06 Completed
17. Recommendation:

It is recommended that in the absence of a form Technica Advisory Committee, the Project engage technical expertise to discuss matters where technical inputs may be required by the Steering Committee in determining what the Project should or should not do.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/09/25]

The required technical expertise may be integrated into the Steering Committee based on the pending proposal to reconsitute and strengthen the same.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Steering Comittee to decide on its potential reconstitution
[Added: 2018/09/25]
Steering Comittee 2018/06 Completed New members attended Sept meeting
18. Recommendation:

It is recommended that a transportation budget be assigned for the Project Team to support site visits for implementation and monitoring activities.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/09/25]

It will need to be determined how best to assign a transport budget to Project Management Unit.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Determine methodology for determining a transport budget for the PMU.
[Added: 2018/10/29] [Last Updated: 2018/11/15]
UNDP & Project Management Unit 2018/10 Completed Methodology to claim transport expenses identified and communicated to PMU; Based on the 2018 Q4 record, 2019 budget to be determined
19. Recommendation:

Begin tracking and reporting on co-financing as per GEF requirements.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/09/25]

Practical ways to track and report on co-financing will need to be determined.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Determine the way to track and report on co-financing
[Added: 2018/09/25] [Last Updated: 2018/11/15]
Ministry of Climate Resilience et al. and Project Management Unit 2018/10 Completed Methodologies for tracking and reporting co-financing determined and agreed upon
20. Recommendation:

The government should take immediate action to address its counterpart contribution in order for the Project to be able to succeed. This would require at a minimum the appointment of several additional rangers as well as a Director of National Parks and Protected Areas within three months to allow the Project a realistic chance to implement activities agreed as per the PRODOC and to meet its objectives. Provision for recurrent costs associated with travel, fuel and other basic needs to allow for the proper undertaking of their responsibilities is equally critical to the success of the Project.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/09/25]

The government will consider the possibility of increasing its counterpart contribution as recommended.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Government to consider increasing its counterpart contribution
[Added: 2018/09/25] [Last Updated: 2018/11/19]
Ministry of Climate Resilience et al. 2018/12 Overdue-Initiated PSC to further discuss this recommendation at next meeting on Dec 4.
21. Recommendation:

Regarding Project support for infrastructure, it is recommended that the project refrain from providing any further support until the Operational Guidelines for Morne Gazo are finalized. If these are in keeping with the original intended purpose of the building on the basis of which Project funds were provided, the Project may continue to support other infrastructure development (e.g. Interpretation Centres) but in all cases this support should be exclusively directed at infrastructure for PAs (as stipulated in the PRODOC) and only for those PAs that have been legally declared.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/09/25]

The recommendation that any infrastructure development under the project should be aligned with its objectives is duly noted.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Carefully examine the purposes of future infrastructure development under the project
[Added: 2018/09/25] [Last Updated: 2018/11/19]
Project Steering Committee 2019/01 Initiated PSC to further discuss the matter
22. Recommendation:

If key issues are addressed within the next ten months, a no-cost extension of 12 months should be considered.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/09/25]

The possibility of conducting an independent extraordinary review will be considered. Depending on its findings, a project no-cost extension may be requested.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
UNDP will request a no-cost extension, pending the outcome of the extraordinary review
[Added: 2018/09/25] [Last Updated: 2018/11/19]
UNDP 2019/03 Not Initiated This will be initiated only after there has been an agreement on the extraordinary review and the associated outcome.
23. Recommendation:

Given the overall ratings assigned to this Project which indicate serious issues, a recommendation is made that UNDP consider an independent extraordinary review within one year of this MTR (and preferably before end of 2018) to monitor how the MTR recommendations are being implemented, to troubleshoot as may be required, and to advise at that time whether a project extension is warranted.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/09/25]

The possibility of conducting an independent extraordinary review will be considered.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Conduct an independent extraordinary review
[Added: 2018/09/25] [Last Updated: 2018/11/19]
UNDP 2019/03 Initiated PSC to further discuss the need for such a review; this discussion will take place during the PSC meeting on Dec 6.

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