Final evaluation of the project Delivering multiple global environmental benefits through sustainable management of production landscapes

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

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document TOR_EF_Paisajes_Productivos_Sostenibles.pdf tor Spanish 448.33 KB Posted 65
Download document Terminal Evaluation GEF Honduras PIMS 4741 Sustainable Final Review.pdf report English 2579.39 KB Posted 38
Title Final evaluation of the project Delivering multiple global environmental benefits through sustainable management of production landscapes
Atlas Project Number: 85892
Evaluation Plan: 2017-2021, Honduras
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 06/2020
Planned End Date: 06/2020
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 $): 20,000
Source of Funding: project budget
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 19,700
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
GEF Evaluation: Yes
GEF Project Title: Delivering multiple global environmental benefits through sustainable management of production landscapes
Evaluation Type: Terminal Evaluation
Focal Area: Multifocal Areas
Project Type: FSP
GEF Phase: GEF-5
GEF Project ID: 4590
PIMS Number: 4741
Key Stakeholders: UNDP, SAG
Countries: HONDURAS
Lessons
1.

1. Outcome 1: Favorable enabling conditions (policies, markets and finance) exist for delivering multiple global environmental benefits in managed landscapes

  • Key Lesson Learned: Influencing the public sector requires strengthening its capacities first. In the case of the project, there was the assumption that SAG had the capacity, resources and the attitude to approach this project as a strategic partner. A strategy for strengthening the SAG should have been developed with a view to having a strategic partner that could accompany the project more deeply. The creation of a project that would allow it to be presented to international cooperation that included resources for strengthening the SAG carried out early could have allowed for better support for the project.
  • The financial market is not mature enough and the creation of green financing instruments and mechanisms is not a business for them. This task was very prominent in PRODOC, but the diagnosis of the possibilities of influencing them was too optimistic. Small actions were developed that did not compensate for the effort made.
  • Good Practices: The work of promoting the National Livestock Platform that was not consolidated despite of several years of effort by the project, in the last two years it was changed by the push for the formalization and strengthening of local, regional livestock organizations (Yoro and Choluteca) and even the formalization of the southern cattle ranchers’ federation (FEGASURH). It is considered as a good adaptive strategy, a lesson learned and also as a good practice to rethink how to advance in the sustainability of national sustainable livestock policies by strengthening the organization from its bases, starting from the bottom. More organized and empowered foundations could allow, in a more effective time, to concretize with the Platform and give it sustainability in the medium and long term.

2.

2. Outcome 2. Multiple global environmental benefits (biodiversity conservation, reduced land degradation, reduced carbon emissions and increased carbon storage) are delivered in production landscapes in the humid broadleaved forest zone (Region 1) and the dry forest agroecosystem of the south and southwest (Region 2)

  • Key Lesson Learned: The change proposal was very well accepted by farmers and ranchers in the intervention areas. Within a few months, the beneficiaries began to adopt the proposed technologies, this implied that what had been done could have been systematized and demonstrated with case studies in order to leverage resources from other donors and expand the experience. In the opinion of this evaluation, there were deficiencies in systematizing the knowledge of what was produced by the project. The systematization allows reflection and the production of knowledge that would make it possible to sensitize other potential donors with data or to sensitize political actors at different levels so that they become agents for promoting project ideas.
  • Good Practices: Articulation with other actors is essential to multiply the Project's efforts. The work carried out with ICF, with Fundación Panthera, with CDE-MIPYMEs and several other institutions allowed qualitatively improving actions, expanding actions and multiplying resources.
  • RCTs proved to be very effective and good practice. It is true that as a work modality it is not novel, however the experience in the intervention areas articulating improvements in productivity and sustainability in Honduras is relevant to systematize. The role and characteristics of the field technicians was fundamental for the farmers to accept the challenge of practicing new technologies, this is easily detected in the field interviews, however a more scientific study could reveal the key variables of the success of the process of intervention and make comparisons taking advantage of the differences between the two intervention areas or within them. Systematizing and modeling the experience of the technology transfer process is a valuable product that prevents this knowledge from being lost and subsequently multiplies these lessons.
  • • They are also good practices, the carrying out of concrete actions that allow generating work standards for the country such as:
    • The Jaguar Monitoring Protocol
    • Identification and Conservation of Bats
    • The Municipal Plans of Territorial Regulations (PMOT) as instruments of local management that incorporate environmental sustainability
    • Documentation for certification of the Tolpán Yoro Lluvia de Peces Biological Corridor
    • Internal Regulations of the National Biological Monitoring Table,
    • Support for the creation of the National Biodiversity Observatory

Findings
Recommendations
1

It is recommended at the beginning of the project to carry out at least the following PRODOC analyzes, in order to verify its validity, at the first meeting of the project board or after a maximum of three months from the beginning.

1. Review of Project Theory of Change.

2. Review and analysis of the Consistency and scope of the Objectives’ Framework (Results, products, indicators and goals) in its vertical and horizontal logic, mainly when the design phase distances itself in time from the start of implementation.

3. Review of the SMART standard of the Indicators of the entire Project.

4. Review of the incorporation of cross-cutting concerns (Gender, Participation, Human Rights) in the project. Make sure that they are not only considered, but also that objectives, indicators and goals are defined, with their corresponding budget if possible.

5. Diagnosis of Strategic Partners and their contributions to the operation, governance and counterpart contributions.

2

It is recommended to start the process of monitoring the results and products from the beginning of the project, generating a systematization based on experience in order to be able to subsequently build the Construction Plan and socialize knowledge of the project. This means outlining case studies, replicable experiences, and findings with high potential for knowledge dissemination and spread. In this way, the project design may not have visualized, and therefore is not reflected in the budget, the opportunity to systematize successful experiences or lessons learned that have high impact.

3

Plan the Mid-Term Evaluation from before the mid-term period of the project is completed. Given that the selection processes in many cases take several months, it is advisable to take measures to make sure that you do not fall behind and miss the opportunity that this work serves to make changes in good time. Otherwise there is a danger that midterm and final evaluations will be carried out with little time or distance between them, which does not make practical sense

4

In the event there is no baseline for any indicator and target, take the measures to carry it out at the latest during the first year of operation. It is also necessary to review the assumptions on which the indicators are based and therefore the baselines that may have lost validity since the Project design, which would imply a rectification of the same. The above means an analysis of the impact on the budget of said rectification because this can have a high cost.

5

MTR results should allow decision-making about the goals and even the results that are necessary to reconsider. This reconsideration must be made explicit as an agreement of the Project Board and formally requested to the GEF. This recommendation especially stems from the problems that were encountered in complying with Outcome 1 and although true, were pointed out in the MTR, but were not dimensioned as too ambitious given the context. Management Response was used but did not cover these problems in depth and was not concrete enough with the definition of activities and measurements as the issue of erosion.   

 


The MTR must analyze the assumptions, partners, parties involved, see the management capacity and the resources that are available. It is a comprehensive analysis that must use the recommendations and the Management Response tool in a strategic and operational way. You should also consider new issues that can be great contributions to focal points and country commitments. In this sense, the weakness of SAG as a partner in the project is very necessary to analyze and define actions in this regard as it affected important products and results, as well as issues that arise as opportunities such as the ecological integrity of the jaguar, bats and corridors that managed the project very well.

6

Objectively define in an explicit plan for the entire project, the quantity and periodicity of the measurements of the project indicators.

7

It is important that based on the EMT’s recommendations and in view of the measurement of the operation, the project closure plan is made. It is recommended to do it with the two-year planning if possible, so that the process of socialization, maturation and discussion of the products generated by the project can be carried out. For example, in the project during the month of February, the national study of the livestock value chain (meat and milk) and the market study of Honduras will be handed over, which will display an updated diagnosis on the reality of these sectors. When such important information is available in advance, it not only serves to improve project decision-making, but it is also a tool to raise awareness of the project's theory of change by conducting dissemination and discussion workshops on this type of studies, which cannot currently be carried out for the project.

8

Build a sustainability plan and strategy that ensures the transfer of the project's products and results at least 18 months before the project closes, to stakeholders, including a way to measure if they begin to use and reproduce the experiences, good practices and products of the work of the Draft.

9

Carry out the Final evaluation at least two to three months before the end of the Project in such a way that the evaluation also allows adopting some measures before closure, especially regarding the sustainability and knowledge management of the project.

10

It is very important to follow up on the actions indicated in the sustainability  point of institutions that give continuity to the effects of the Project such as the work of a) Inclusive Territorial Economic Development Program (DEIT Sur); b) Nama Facility, c) the FAO Strengthening Governance Framework for Competitiveness of the Livestock Sector in Honduras; e) the work of the ICF with the process of legalization of the Yoro biological corridor, the work of the Reforestation Program as a source of species for live fences and the actions of SSP and the inclusion of release areas within private farms; f) The work of permanent strengthening of the CDE MIPYMES in the zones of intervention of the PPP

11

In financial markets as immature as that of Honduras, it is advisable to see alternative goals and objectives that allow showing viable experiences with instruments on a local or regional scale that allow the transaction costs of new lines of financing to be measured. It is also advisable to previously carry out a diagnostic study of the possibilities of generating green financing alternatives. In other words, it must be thought that they are pre-competitive markets and it is necessary to generate the bases for change before considering a radical change in the operating logic of these financial markets

1. Recommendation:

It is recommended at the beginning of the project to carry out at least the following PRODOC analyzes, in order to verify its validity, at the first meeting of the project board or after a maximum of three months from the beginning.

1. Review of Project Theory of Change.

2. Review and analysis of the Consistency and scope of the Objectives’ Framework (Results, products, indicators and goals) in its vertical and horizontal logic, mainly when the design phase distances itself in time from the start of implementation.

3. Review of the SMART standard of the Indicators of the entire Project.

4. Review of the incorporation of cross-cutting concerns (Gender, Participation, Human Rights) in the project. Make sure that they are not only considered, but also that objectives, indicators and goals are defined, with their corresponding budget if possible.

5. Diagnosis of Strategic Partners and their contributions to the operation, governance and counterpart contributions.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/06/25] [Last Updated: 2020/06/25]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
This recommendation will be adopted to ensure application in future GEF funded projects at the inception stage and or early project initiation. Particularly, in the first PIR, a more detailed assessment of the project context will be reported, and notes and alarms will be established to adequately monitor adjustments and needs for change in the project implementation strategy. Nonetheless, reviews of the project progress and need for some adjustments were reported in the projects PIRs.
[Added: 2020/06/25] [Last Updated: 2020/07/27]
Sustainable Development Unit 2020/07 Completed Since the recommendation applies to the start-up workshop, it will be considered for the Recover Project (possibly June 2021) and Gold + (2022) History
2. Recommendation:

It is recommended to start the process of monitoring the results and products from the beginning of the project, generating a systematization based on experience in order to be able to subsequently build the Construction Plan and socialize knowledge of the project. This means outlining case studies, replicable experiences, and findings with high potential for knowledge dissemination and spread. In this way, the project design may not have visualized, and therefore is not reflected in the budget, the opportunity to systematize successful experiences or lessons learned that have high impact.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/06/25]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The project had a communicating and monitoring unit in place for its duration. Recommendations will be passed to the implementing agency to strengthen the Communication and Monitoring Unit and its capacities. A communication strategy will be recommended to adequately report and communicate lessons learned and seize opportunities to highlight best practices.
[Added: 2020/06/25] [Last Updated: 2020/08/07]
Sustainable Development 2020/07 Completed The Project coordination sent the final report and the sustainability strategy to all Project board members on January 23, 2020 History
3. Recommendation:

Plan the Mid-Term Evaluation from before the mid-term period of the project is completed. Given that the selection processes in many cases take several months, it is advisable to take measures to make sure that you do not fall behind and miss the opportunity that this work serves to make changes in good time. Otherwise there is a danger that midterm and final evaluations will be carried out with little time or distance between them, which does not make practical sense

Management Response: [Added: 2020/06/25]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The project document established a suggested period to carry out the MTE, and sometimes are delayed due to late project start. Planning will be revised to ensure procurement processes are initiated with enough time to guarantee mid-term evaluations are conducted at the appropriate time to add value to the project´s implementation
[Added: 2020/06/25] [Last Updated: 2020/07/27]
Sustainable Development / Program Management Support Unit/PMSU-UNDP 2020/07 Completed This is already being done and with PMSU will continue to coordinate and monitor the EMT dates of ongoing projects to ensure that this recommendation is met. History
4. Recommendation:

In the event there is no baseline for any indicator and target, take the measures to carry it out at the latest during the first year of operation. It is also necessary to review the assumptions on which the indicators are based and therefore the baselines that may have lost validity since the Project design, which would imply a rectification of the same. The above means an analysis of the impact on the budget of said rectification because this can have a high cost.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/06/25]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
This recommendation will be adopted in future GEF projects Special attention will be paid to the time elapsed between the design and start-up of the project to establish a baseline for each indicator and to report it in the first PIR
[Added: 2020/06/25] [Last Updated: 2020/07/27]
Sustainable Development 2020/07 Completed This recommendation has already been taken into account for the PIR 2019-2020 of ongoing projects that are in their first year (Conecta +, COPs, Adaptarc + and Río Motagua), emphasizing with the project teams the need to prepare baselines for the indicators that are required. History
5. Recommendation:

MTR results should allow decision-making about the goals and even the results that are necessary to reconsider. This reconsideration must be made explicit as an agreement of the Project Board and formally requested to the GEF. This recommendation especially stems from the problems that were encountered in complying with Outcome 1 and although true, were pointed out in the MTR, but were not dimensioned as too ambitious given the context. Management Response was used but did not cover these problems in depth and was not concrete enough with the definition of activities and measurements as the issue of erosion.   

 


The MTR must analyze the assumptions, partners, parties involved, see the management capacity and the resources that are available. It is a comprehensive analysis that must use the recommendations and the Management Response tool in a strategic and operational way. You should also consider new issues that can be great contributions to focal points and country commitments. In this sense, the weakness of SAG as a partner in the project is very necessary to analyze and define actions in this regard as it affected important products and results, as well as issues that arise as opportunities such as the ecological integrity of the jaguar, bats and corridors that managed the project very well.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/06/25] [Last Updated: 2020/06/25]

Agree.

The EMT results were addressed in the Project´s Steering Committee meeting, adjustments were made to some indicators. The EMT results were valuable and the changes were registered in the PIRs, and submitted to GEF

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
This recommendation will be addresses in future GEF funded projects
[Added: 2020/06/25]
Sustainable Development 2020/07 Completed The recommendations were assessed with the project´s counterparts and analyzed within the CO
6. Recommendation:

Objectively define in an explicit plan for the entire project, the quantity and periodicity of the measurements of the project indicators.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/06/25]

Partially agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
There was an existing monitoring plan for the whole duration of the Project, the compliance is mandatory and monitoring of indicators is carried out each semester and presented in the project´s steering committee meetings. Actions will be considered to ensure a better timing and quality of the monitoring report and activities in future GEF funded projects.
[Added: 2020/06/25] [Last Updated: 2020/08/07]
Sustainable Development 2020/07 Completed This recommendation is being taken into account for ongoing projects, work is being done to improve compliance with the monitoring plan and its quality with the Project teams and PMSU History
7. Recommendation:

It is important that based on the EMT’s recommendations and in view of the measurement of the operation, the project closure plan is made. It is recommended to do it with the two-year planning if possible, so that the process of socialization, maturation and discussion of the products generated by the project can be carried out. For example, in the project during the month of February, the national study of the livestock value chain (meat and milk) and the market study of Honduras will be handed over, which will display an updated diagnosis on the reality of these sectors. When such important information is available in advance, it not only serves to improve project decision-making, but it is also a tool to raise awareness of the project's theory of change by conducting dissemination and discussion workshops on this type of studies, which cannot currently be carried out for the project.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/06/25]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Coordination with Government authorities, FAO and Heifer have been discussed to ensure continuity of the recommendations presented in the National Livestock value chain study
[Added: 2020/06/25] [Last Updated: 2020/07/27]
Sustainable Development 2020/07 Completed The recommendation will be applied to ongoing projects, regarding the study of the livestock value chain, Heifer held a national event to disseminate the final results, where more than 100 institutions participated, and the official delivery of the document was carried out (November, 2019 History
8. Recommendation:

Build a sustainability plan and strategy that ensures the transfer of the project's products and results at least 18 months before the project closes, to stakeholders, including a way to measure if they begin to use and reproduce the experiences, good practices and products of the work of the Draft.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/06/25]

Partially Agree
A year and a half prior to the end of the Project, general guidelines for sustainability strategy were provided. Likewise, in all the Project meetings, sustainability measures of the Project were presented. National forums were also held where sustainability measures were shared

Along with the closure of the Project, the Project Exit Strategy was presented, which was built with key stakeholders as a product of their commitment to monitoring

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The implementing partner has been requested to share with stakeholders and beneficiaries the project´s sustainability strategy.
[Added: 2020/06/25] [Last Updated: 2020/08/07]
Sustainable Development Unit 2020/07 Completed At the closing meeting held in January 2020, the project's Sustainability Strategy was shared with the members of the Project Boar History
9. Recommendation:

Carry out the Final evaluation at least two to three months before the end of the Project in such a way that the evaluation also allows adopting some measures before closure, especially regarding the sustainability and knowledge management of the project.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/06/25]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The recommendation Will be adopted in future GEF funded projects. Better planning will be carried out to ensure the final evaluation is carried on the suggested time. A more careful planning and follow up of the monitoring plan will be established.
[Added: 2020/06/25] [Last Updated: 2020/07/27]
Sustainable Development Unit 2020/07 Completed The recommendation will be applied to ongoing projects when the final evaluations correspond and adequate monitoring will be carried out with the Project and PMSU teams. The Energy Efficiency Project will end in October 2021, being the most immediate Project to which the recommendation will apply History
10. Recommendation:

It is very important to follow up on the actions indicated in the sustainability  point of institutions that give continuity to the effects of the Project such as the work of a) Inclusive Territorial Economic Development Program (DEIT Sur); b) Nama Facility, c) the FAO Strengthening Governance Framework for Competitiveness of the Livestock Sector in Honduras; e) the work of the ICF with the process of legalization of the Yoro biological corridor, the work of the Reforestation Program as a source of species for live fences and the actions of SSP and the inclusion of release areas within private farms; f) The work of permanent strengthening of the CDE MIPYMES in the zones of intervention of the PPP

Management Response: [Added: 2020/06/25]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Meeting with MiAmbiente, SAG, ICF and the CDE-MIPYMES, alongside with FAO and COSUDE are being promoted to ensure continuity of project results. About DEIT, MiAmbiente and COSUDE signed an agreement to follow up on projects activities in the Yoro region.
[Added: 2020/06/25] [Last Updated: 2020/07/27]
Sustainable Development Unit 2020/09 Completed UNDP was an honorary witness in the agreement signed between MiAmbiente + and the DEIT Project (financed by SDC and executed by Ayuda en Acción). As a follow-up action to the results of the PP Project, DEIT supports the strengthening of the livestock chain and strengthens the FEGASURH (Federation of Southern Ranchers) History
11. Recommendation:

In financial markets as immature as that of Honduras, it is advisable to see alternative goals and objectives that allow showing viable experiences with instruments on a local or regional scale that allow the transaction costs of new lines of financing to be measured. It is also advisable to previously carry out a diagnostic study of the possibilities of generating green financing alternatives. In other words, it must be thought that they are pre-competitive markets and it is necessary to generate the bases for change before considering a radical change in the operating logic of these financial markets

Management Response: [Added: 2020/06/25]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Actions have been carried out to further promote access of small producers to bank credits and financial mechanisms. UNDP is supporting dialogue and capacities in gender inclusion at the National Bank for Housing and Production- BANHPROVI, to tailor financial products of small producers. UNDP is also supporting BANHPROVI to become certified by the Green Climate Fund
[Added: 2020/06/25] [Last Updated: 2020/07/27]
Sustainable Development Unit 2020/12 Initiated 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