Terminal Evaluation - Project for Strengthening the Subsystem of Marine Protected Areas in Honduras

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2017-2021, Honduras
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
06/2020
Completion Date:
07/2020
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
20,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document TOR_EF_Marino_Costero.pdf tor Spanish 404.74 KB Posted 57
Download document FINAL TE Report 4826 GEF CMP Honduras_accepted_17jul_signed.pdf report English 2886.09 KB Posted 43
Title Terminal Evaluation - Project for Strengthening the Subsystem of Marine Protected Areas in Honduras
Atlas Project Number: 75855,87533
Evaluation Plan: 2017-2021, Honduras
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 07/2020
Planned End Date: 06/2020
Management Response: Yes
UNDP Signature Solution:
  • 1. Poverty
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 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere
  • Goal 10. Reduce inequality within and among countries
SDG Target
  • 1.4 By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services, ownership and control over land and other forms of property, inheritance, natural resources, appropriate new technology and financial services, including microfinance
  • 10.1 By 2030, progressively achieve and sustain income growth of the bottom 40 per cent of the population at a rate higher than the national average
Evaluation Budget(US $): 20,000
Source of Funding: Project Budget
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 18,255
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Joe Ryan
Rafael Sambula
GEF Evaluation: Yes
GEF Project Title: Strengthening the Sub-system of Coastal and Marine Protected Areas
Evaluation Type: Terminal Evaluation
Focal Area: Biodiversity
Project Type: FSP
GEF Phase: GEF-5
GEF Project ID: 4708
PIMS Number: 4826
Key Stakeholders: UNDP, Mi Ambiente
Countries: HONDURAS
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1

Future projects by UNDP-GEF, MiAmbiente and ICF should incorporate real-time monitoring and evaluation platforms that are based on a measurable pathway toward development impacts (Theory of Change) approach, using SMART outcomes and robust assumptions in all new projects. The TE underscores that development implies change, and that any action, be it a project, political reform, research, capacity development and evaluations MUST measure those changes. Therefore, they must ensure that any new project has an embedded M&E and Decision Support Platform that can help guide planning and apply adaptive management principles to the implementation process.

2

Government institutions and management partners should build on the Healthy Reef’s ICRH Index for measuring coral reef conditions and the Protocol developed by UNAH for measuring changes in artisanal fisheries, as they are just two important indicators that incorporate outcomes in biodiversity management.

3

Future projects undertaken by ICF and MiAmbiente in coastal-marine areas should seriously consider using the Ridge to Reef (R2R) conceptual framework that is increasingly used in other GEF projects around the world. It is essential to reflect the integrated land-sea management and planning framework and the interconnectivity of ecosystems on the land and in the sea. Also, a Social-Ecological Systems (SES) approach should be integrated into the R2R framework (See Gurney et al 2019; Ryan et al 2020).

4

New projects working with SINAPH’s coastal and marine protected areas should prioritize efforts to understand social and economic needs of local stakeholders and develop incentives that go beyond narrowly focusing on awareness campaigns. 

5

The Policy for Wetlands, Coastal-marine spaces and Biodiversity still requires considerable work, as it lacks an integrated, geospatial (e.g., R2R) management framework and support from the highest level of government. Rather than positioning the policy mandate within MiAmbiente, it should be carried out by an inter-institutional committee consisting of that Ministry, together with ICF, the Navy, Merchant Marines, SAG and other pertinent institutions. To have the greatest impact, responsibility for intersectoral coordination and follow up of the Policy’s implementation should be placed close to the Office of the President and with an institution that can coordinate with these other institutions with authority. The Secretariat of Science, Technology and Innovation is one example of a strong institution that could lead and oversee the policy implementation.

6

In a concerted manner, the GEF and UNDP, and to the extent possible, ICF and the new KfW-Life project should be involved, in urgently reviewing the mechanisms that have contributed to the design of projects that are a main reason for some of the relatively low ratings, particularly the paucity of SMART outcome indicators and limited attention paid to the Sustainable Development Goals promoted by UN and the GEF. It also prevents a project from being able to measure development impacts.

7

Future projects must address species conservation through adopting approaches that encompass ecosystem and adaptive management approaches, as stipulated in the Convention on Biological Diversity. However, they require an integrated approach and use of real-time Monitoring and evaluation (M & E) platforms  that measures outcome indicators – not outputs measured by the METT and SINAPH’s management monitoring tools - that can inform decision making is a key instrument to implement adaptive management of ecosystem services (ES)

8

Future projects should focus their awareness and capacity-building investments on actions that involve in situ applications of the learning. For example, the fishery restoration areas offer a good example.

9

The administration and management of future project should ensure that 80% of the time and staff operate at the local implementation level and only 20% with the central level. That experience has been successful with the ICF in San Pedro and La Ceiba, and with GOAL on the north coast, including Moskitia, Bosque del Mundo and PROCORREDOR (although it was administratively a failure)

10

It is pertinent / necessary that where possible, and the National Government is willing that any new project executed by these government institutions be accompanied by technical support by the UNDP (the GEF focal point). Ultimately, it is the national implementing partner to adopt or not the recommendations issued according to GEF rules, but in some cases, the government staff working on the project did not have the expertise in coastal-marine management issues. This will also help ensure that future projects are executed in accordance with what is stipulated in the PRODOC.

11

It is crucial that in the signing of future government- donor agreements, all those who are actively involved with responsibilities to execute the project should attest that they assume responsibility for executing their duties indicated in the agreement. Not only should the lead partner sign, but so should all other partners who are involved.

12

Future GEF projects of this nature should pay more attention to the functionality of communication tools, as it not only directly impacts on the overall visibility of the GEF, but also the sustainability of interventions beyond the scope and duration of the project.

1. Recommendation:

Future projects by UNDP-GEF, MiAmbiente and ICF should incorporate real-time monitoring and evaluation platforms that are based on a measurable pathway toward development impacts (Theory of Change) approach, using SMART outcomes and robust assumptions in all new projects. The TE underscores that development implies change, and that any action, be it a project, political reform, research, capacity development and evaluations MUST measure those changes. Therefore, they must ensure that any new project has an embedded M&E and Decision Support Platform that can help guide planning and apply adaptive management principles to the implementation process.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/07/20]

Agree

A project monitoring and evaluation system is a valuable tool for the effective management of projects; in these terms MiAmbiente created the Monitoring and Evaluation Unit of the Project Coordination Office (PCO) for the GEF-UNDP projects. This office began with good success accompanying the implementation of the projects establishing milestones to contrast what was planned with what was executed, developing a mechanism to assess the progress and limitations that would allow the identification and adoption of the necessary adjustments to the planning framework in the perspective of achieving the objectives, products and results of the project.  For reasons of staff rotation and readjustment of the Monitoring Unit, there were delays that affected the course of the Project's monitoring actions.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Evaluate and strengthen the monitoring and evaluation structure of GEF projects with an adequate registration system that allows a better control of ongoing activities and measures progress towards the expected result
[Added: 2020/07/20]
MiAmbiente, UNDP CO 2020/12 Initiated This recommendation will be adopted to ensure closer M&E in future GEF funded projects
Adopt an M&E model based on the effective assessment of results, linking it to other instruments for measuring effects and impacts, such as the METT
[Added: 2020/07/20]
MiAmbiente 2020/12 Not Initiated The CO and the IP will review the current M&E model and identify ways of improving monitoring
2. Recommendation:

Government institutions and management partners should build on the Healthy Reef’s ICRH Index for measuring coral reef conditions and the Protocol developed by UNAH for measuring changes in artisanal fisheries, as they are just two important indicators that incorporate outcomes in biodiversity management.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/07/20]

Agree

The ICRH measurement was established by the International Organization Healthy Reef (HR), both the methodology and implementation have been applied in Honduras by HR and have also been adopted by the ICF as the mechanism for assessing the State of Reef Health in Honduras, as well as in the countries that are part of the Mesoamerican Reef System in the Caribbean. The ICRH has been created by international specialists considering elements of technical and financial effectiveness and efficiency under scientific criteria based on the coverage of live coral, macroalgae and key fish for the survival of the reefs.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Develop a space for review and analysis of the methodology developed by Healthy Reefs to evaluate its adoption at the national level as a monitoring and reporting system of reef health indicators for Honduras
[Added: 2020/07/20]
MiAmbiente- ICF, in coordination with UNAH, DIGEPESCA, Merchant Marine 2021/07 Not Initiated The recommendation has been shared with other partners
3. Recommendation:

Future projects undertaken by ICF and MiAmbiente in coastal-marine areas should seriously consider using the Ridge to Reef (R2R) conceptual framework that is increasingly used in other GEF projects around the world. It is essential to reflect the integrated land-sea management and planning framework and the interconnectivity of ecosystems on the land and in the sea. Also, a Social-Ecological Systems (SES) approach should be integrated into the R2R framework (See Gurney et al 2019; Ryan et al 2020).

Management Response: [Added: 2020/07/20]

Partially agree

The project considered a barrier analysis to identify the theory of change and its scope considered the interactions of the basin and the coastal zone. However, it will encourage the use of more

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Organize a meeting with relevant partners to assess opportunities to use more comprehensive and strategic methodological models to ensure proper assessment and positive impacts in the state of reef health
[Added: 2020/07/20]
MiAmbiente- ICF, in coordination with UNAH, DIGEPESCA, Merchant Marine 2021/07 Not Initiated The recommendation will be considered in the design of future GEF projects in coastal areas
4. Recommendation:

New projects working with SINAPH’s coastal and marine protected areas should prioritize efforts to understand social and economic needs of local stakeholders and develop incentives that go beyond narrowly focusing on awareness campaigns. 

Management Response: [Added: 2020/07/20]

Partially agree

The integration of socioeconomic variables in the management and administration of the Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) is of special relevance and they are part of the new management system to be developed in Honduras; The Coastal Marine Project promoted the adoption of socioeconomic variables as part of MPA management through the National Biological Monitoring Board, an entity attached to MiAmbiente and supported by the ICF, which developed a participatory formulation process for the design of comprehensive monitoring tools that include social and economic elements.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Promote the revision of the Biological Monitoring System developed by the National Biological Monitoring Board for MPA Management.
[Added: 2020/07/20]
MiAmbiente- ICF, in coordination with UNAH, DIGEPESCA, Merchant Marine 2021/07 Not Initiated
5. Recommendation:

The Policy for Wetlands, Coastal-marine spaces and Biodiversity still requires considerable work, as it lacks an integrated, geospatial (e.g., R2R) management framework and support from the highest level of government. Rather than positioning the policy mandate within MiAmbiente, it should be carried out by an inter-institutional committee consisting of that Ministry, together with ICF, the Navy, Merchant Marines, SAG and other pertinent institutions. To have the greatest impact, responsibility for intersectoral coordination and follow up of the Policy’s implementation should be placed close to the Office of the President and with an institution that can coordinate with these other institutions with authority. The Secretariat of Science, Technology and Innovation is one example of a strong institution that could lead and oversee the policy implementation.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/07/20]

Agree

The formulation of the Policy for wetlands, coastal-marine spaces and biodiversity was carried out with the support of the Coastal Marine Project, having developed different consultation workshops in which all sectors linked to the management of wetlands, biodiversity and coastal marine spaces participated, including local organizations, government institutions: MiAmbiente, ICF, DIGEPESCA, Merchant Marine, academia, municipal authorities, indigenous peoples, private enterprise, NGOs.

The structure and contents of the policy have been elaborated in correspondence with the guidelines established by the Secretariat of General Coordination of Government, a body that by mandate supervises and reviews the development of national policies, which have been involved in the revision of this policy.  

In general, the policy contains relevant elements that give it the connotation of a comprehensive policy that also integrates a framework of indicators, responsible parties and budget; the final review by the Secretariat of Government Coordination and formal approval remains to be determined.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Establish a follow-up mechanism for the approval of the policy, leading to review by the Government Coordination Secretariat, referral and review by the Council of Ministers and publication in the official journal "La Gacetaā€¯.
[Added: 2020/07/20]
MiAmbiente Co-managers of protected areas 2021/08 Not Initiated
6. Recommendation:

In a concerted manner, the GEF and UNDP, and to the extent possible, ICF and the new KfW-Life project should be involved, in urgently reviewing the mechanisms that have contributed to the design of projects that are a main reason for some of the relatively low ratings, particularly the paucity of SMART outcome indicators and limited attention paid to the Sustainable Development Goals promoted by UN and the GEF. It also prevents a project from being able to measure development impacts.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/07/20]

Agree

Approaches have already been made at the management level with ICF and the KfW project to review the results, lessons learned, areas of complementarity and challenges identified in the framework of the Coastal Marine Project; a short review process at the technical level remains to be done to establish mechanisms to integrate lessons learned and address challenges in the framework of the new KFW project and other related projects.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Arrange meetings and technical agreements between ICF-Environment-KFW and UNAH, for the adoption of mechanisms, goals linked to Knowledge sharing, lessons learned, and challenges derived from the Coastal Marine Project
[Added: 2020/07/20]
MiAmbiente-ICF 2021/03 Initiated
7. Recommendation:

Future projects must address species conservation through adopting approaches that encompass ecosystem and adaptive management approaches, as stipulated in the Convention on Biological Diversity. However, they require an integrated approach and use of real-time Monitoring and evaluation (M & E) platforms  that measures outcome indicators – not outputs measured by the METT and SINAPH’s management monitoring tools - that can inform decision making is a key instrument to implement adaptive management of ecosystem services (ES)

Management Response: [Added: 2020/07/20]

Partially agree

Adaptive management was one of the purposes of developing a model for monitoring MPAs based on the integration of ecological, social and economic variables through the National Biological Monitoring Board; this mechanism was formulated, however it was not formalized or fully implemented.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Promote the review and analysis of the MPA Monitoring System and increase local capacity for data gathering through innovation and technology, with the participation of UNAH, DIGEPESCA, Merchant Marine, local organizations, NGOs
[Added: 2020/07/20]
MiAmbiente-ICF 2020/12 Not Initiated
8. Recommendation:

Future projects should focus their awareness and capacity-building investments on actions that involve in situ applications of the learning. For example, the fishery restoration areas offer a good example.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/07/20]

Agree

The project developed local capacities for good practices within the framework of the code of responsible fishing, improvement of fishing yields, local fisheries management, ecology of coastal ecosystems, administration and marketing of fishery products, marine engine mechanics, all in accordance with the needs identified on the basis of community diagnoses.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Establish technical spaces to identifying gaps and needs for complementarity of planned projects to be implemented in the region, as is the case of the KFW project.
[Added: 2020/07/20]
MiAmbiente-ICF 2020/12 Not Initiated The recommendation will be transferred to the IP
9. Recommendation:

The administration and management of future project should ensure that 80% of the time and staff operate at the local implementation level and only 20% with the central level. That experience has been successful with the ICF in San Pedro and La Ceiba, and with GOAL on the north coast, including Moskitia, Bosque del Mundo and PROCORREDOR (although it was administratively a failure)

Management Response: [Added: 2020/07/20]

Partially agree

The Coastal Marine Project permanently maintained a field office located in La Ceiba, headquarters of the technical and administrative team, as well as an office in Puerto Lempira in La Moskitia, Honduras, in this case only for technical personnel. For the purposes of management at central government institution level, the Project Coordinator alternated his time between Tegucigalpa and La Ceiba, moving periodically between Roatan, Puerto Lempira, Omoa and Tela.

Based on the experience and lessons learned from the project, it is considered appropriate to improve the availability of administrative staff in the local offices, particularly in Moskitia.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Adopt provisions and mechanisms to ensure more effective management on the ground, particularly at the administrative level.
[Added: 2020/07/20]
MiAmbiente 2020/12 Not Initiated This recommendation will be considered in future projects
10. Recommendation:

It is pertinent / necessary that where possible, and the National Government is willing that any new project executed by these government institutions be accompanied by technical support by the UNDP (the GEF focal point). Ultimately, it is the national implementing partner to adopt or not the recommendations issued according to GEF rules, but in some cases, the government staff working on the project did not have the expertise in coastal-marine management issues. This will also help ensure that future projects are executed in accordance with what is stipulated in the PRODOC.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/07/20]

Agree

The project was supported by a UNDP technical officer who participated in the quarterly meetings held to evaluate progress and develop and/or adjust the quarterly planning framework, as well as to develop strategic project milestones, such as the process of management and governance of fisheries in La Moskitia, The formulation of the Fishing Law, integrating an indigenous chapter in the processes of fishing evaluation, the MPA Monitoring Platform, management and advocacy with key partners such as DIGEPESCA, DiBio-MiAmbiente, ICF, UNAH, Merchant Marine, IDB, Goal, international NGOs and MPA managers.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Strengthen joint MiAmbiente-UNDP monitoring plans and programs
[Added: 2020/07/20]
MiAmbiente UNDP- Sustainable Development Unit 2020/12 Initiated
11. Recommendation:

It is crucial that in the signing of future government- donor agreements, all those who are actively involved with responsibilities to execute the project should attest that they assume responsibility for executing their duties indicated in the agreement. Not only should the lead partner sign, but so should all other partners who are involved.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/07/20]

Partially agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Regular joint meetings between implementing partners and responsible project partners will be encouraged for coordination activities and reporting on progress and achievement of results.
[Added: 2020/07/20]
MiAmbiente UNDP- Sustainable Development Unit 2020/12 Not Initiated This recommendation will be considered in future projects
Establish technical and administrative procedures, which guarantee the recruitment of key personnel with appropriate experience in correspondence with the thematic aspects of the projects.
[Added: 2020/07/20]
MiAmbiente UNDP- Sustainable Development Unit 2020/12 Not Initiated
12. Recommendation:

Future GEF projects of this nature should pay more attention to the functionality of communication tools, as it not only directly impacts on the overall visibility of the GEF, but also the sustainability of interventions beyond the scope and duration of the project.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/07/20]

Partially agree                                     

Communication and mechanisms to make it efficient are of vital importance and constitute an effective means to achieve awareness, information and knowledge, positioning and visibility of the purposes, goals, achievements and challenges; in general, the project had communication resources developed with good success, however it is important to develop an assessment of the limitations, achievements and challenges in terms of communication based on the experience of the Coastal Marine Project

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Develop an assessment of communication constraints, achievements and challenges, based on the experience of the Coastal Marine Project;
[Added: 2020/07/20]
MiAmbiente 2020/12 Not Initiated
To adopt the technical-administrative recommendations on communication in the development of new related projects
[Added: 2020/07/20]
MiAmbiente 2020/12 Not Initiated

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