BRA09/G32 -Catalyzing the contribution of Indigenous Lands to the conservation of Brazil’s forest ecosystems

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2017-2021, Brazil
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
01/2017
Completion Date:
06/2017
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
20,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document UNDP-GEF-Terminal-Evaluation-Terms-of-Reference BRA09G32 FINAL.docx tor English 66.82 KB Posted 157
Download document Final BD Brazil BD Indigenous Protected Areas-Terminal Evaluation Report - Clean.pdf report English 3300.69 KB Posted 167
Title BRA09/G32 -Catalyzing the contribution of Indigenous Lands to the conservation of Brazil’s forest ecosystems
Atlas Project Number: 00057517
Evaluation Plan: 2017-2021, Brazil
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 06/2017
Planned End Date: 01/2017
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Others
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
  • 1. Output 2.5. Legal and regulatory frameworks, policies and institutions enabled to ensure the conservation, sustainable use, and access and benefit sharing of natural resources, biodiversity and ecosystems, in line with international conventions and national
Evaluation Budget(US $): 20,000
Source of Funding: GEF
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Guilherme Martins Macedo guimanaus@yahoo.com.br BRAZIL
GEF Evaluation: Yes
GEF Project Title: BRA09/G32 - -Catalyzing the contribution of Indigenous Lands to the conservation of Brazil’s forest ecosystems
Evaluation Type: Terminal Evaluation
Focal Area: Biodiversity
Project Type: EA
GEF Phase: GEF-4
GEF Project ID: 2934
PIMS Number: 3600 SFM-SO1; BD-SP3
Key Stakeholders: MMA. ICMBIO
Countries: BRAZIL
Lessons
1.

Conclusion 4: After the beginning of the Project in 2010 and the establishment of the PMU in the following year, there was a period of consultation and discussion with the indigenous peoples of the 32 areas to obtain consensus among beneficiaries about the planning of local actions. This activity of consultation was extensive and took a long time during the Project, requiring further extension of its end date.

Lesson learned: The activity fulfilled the guidelines of Convention 169 of the International Labour Organisation, comprising the requirement for prior consultations to obtain free and informed consent of the groups involved before the implementation of any public policy or government action. This period of consultation, however long, generated opposite reactions among beneficiaries: while it strengthened the Project by increasing indigenous participation and receiving from the groups the direction necessary for action, increasing the chances of positive outcomes, it also created expectations regarding performance that were frustrated by the delay of the very consultation stage. In addition, the expansion of the number of reference areas also required longer consultations. However, direct communication with indigenous groups in the villages, and not only through individuals representing communities, was instrumental for Project strengthening.


Tag: Civil society

Findings
1.

Conclusion 5: The Project worked efficiently as it balanced the institutionalization of actions and their incorporation by the public agency in charge (FUNAI), and streamlined direct execution, using partnerships and mechanisms not provided for initially. Execution by FUNAI suffered delays due to bureaucracy and slow approval of activities. One of the proofs of the difficulty of execution by the institution is the number of approvals that must be obtained by several staff (with no less than six steps in different departments) for procurement by FUNAI's Regional Coordination. Since each department has its own rhythm, its own priorities and forms of control, purchases occurred slowly. On the other hand, the fact that the institution's staff was mobilized, enabled incorporation of the actions and experiences generated by the Project. As of 2014, UNDP was used increasingly to make purchases and contracts (through letters of agreement and microprojects), which accelerated execution. This balance was necessary for the institution to incorporate the knowledge generated, and so that the activities could be carried out without being compromised due to delays.

Lesson learned: The balance achieved by the Project between its institutionalization and its implementation in part independent of FUNAI should be used right from the start of activities.

Lesson learned Although there was no change in Project objectives or outcomes, adaptive management was more intensively used during execution. The implementation of activities through various ways (through the regional coordination of FUNAI for micro- or small projects, through letters of agreement with partners) proved to be a valuable strategy and largely responsible for the Project´s success.

Lesson learned: The use of various levels of partnership (national, regional and local) with NGOs, universities, indigenous organizations, and local indigenous associations proved to be an effective way of executing activities. Both the Project´s technical capacity and its ability to operate locally were multiplied (using the capacity of partners). It would have otherwise been much more difficult to operate in 32 areas from a base in Brasilia. In the case of local indigenous associations and regional organizations, there was an exchange of benefits: Project activities relied on the experience and activities of indigenous peoples and their organizations were strengthened by the Project.


2.

Conclusion 6 There was a close approach and effective coordination among the different government institutions working on the Project. FUNAI and the Ministry of Environment (represented by ICM-Bio) actually managed to coordinate their efforts to achieve Project outcomes.

Lesson learned: The Project demonstrated that coordination among different Ministries is not only possible but desirable, as it promoted the necessary synergies for the planned activities. The training of officials of quasi-governmental bodies was also important to disseminate the value of the Project's objectives, knowledge on the theme of Indigenous Lands, and their role in the conservation of biological diversity. The model used should be replicated in other opportunities.


3.

Conclusion 7 The GATI project experience demonstrated that METT (Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool) is an inadequate and inappropriate instrument for measuring environmental management effectiveness in indigenous lands.

Lesson learned: For other GEF indigenous projects related to environment, other instruments should be applied, such as the tool developed by The Nature Conservancy in partnership with the GATI project based on the METT. This tool was applied in seven of the project’s reference areas, and besides showing a greater robustness, had a good acceptance by the communities involved.


Recommendations
1

 

 The Steering Committee, with its equal representation of government agencies (MMA and FUNAI) and indigenous representatives, represented an important innovation by the Project. However, its operation was irregular. The interviews showed that its powers were not very clear to its members in terms of whether the Committee was a forum for decision-making or just monitoring.

Recommendation 1: In new initiatives involving indigenous peoples and government agencies, the monitoring and operation of the Project Steering Committee (with the participation of indigenous leaders and government officials) should be safeguarded. Its duties and responsibilities, including the committee's decision-making level and its role in monitoring, social oversight, and evaluation should be better defined. The meetings should be regular, and evaluations, decisions and modifications suggested by the committee should be recorded.

2

 

The Outcome indicators formulated for the Project text did not follow the criteria of simplicity, objectivity, and measurability. The text of the indicators was overly complex, and the provision on feasibility of monitoring was inadequate. Throughout the Project, the PMU tried to respond to this complexity, reporting activities and results that met the outcomes. However, the original design of the indicators hindered their effective use to measure the achievement of expected outcomes.

Recommendation 2.1: In a forthcoming initiative, the process of elaboration of indicators (during the stage of Project definition and planning) should be discussed among participating consultants and bodies. There should be a specific check on the quality of the indicators proposed to ensure their feasibility as Project instruments.

Recommendation 2.2: After the beginning of the Project, there should be an opportunity to correct any problems with the indicators, or replace them, while maintaining their original intent . The identification of problems should be carried out during the Mid-term Review, and a substantive review should be proposed. The Review should not be guided by the guarantee of success in achieving the goals, but by indicators' feasibility of measurement. Suggestions for modifications, brought about by the reality of Project implementation, can be gathered by the executing team, consolidated before the Mid-term Review, and discussed during it.

3

 

The design of the PMU in the GATI Project did not have an area or personnel responsible for monitoring progress towards the goals set out in the ProDoc. All of the responsibility for implementing the monitoring befell the team responsible for implementing the activities. The lack of a team or a professional responsible for monitoring indicators also hindered their analysis and monitoring.

Recommendation: In new initiatives, ProDocs should provide for an area or personnel to be responsible for monitoring indicators, which can be combined with Project communication tasks. The designated monitoring individual/ team could be responsible for monitoring activities, progress of indicators, assessing the strategies employed, and the systematization and dissemination of information at different levels: steering committee, institutional reports, donors, publications to disseminate results, etc

4

Conclusion 4: After the beginning of the Project in 2010 and the establishment of the PMU in the following year, there was a period of consultation and discussion with the indigenous peoples of the 32 areas to obtain consensus among beneficiaries about the planning of local actions. This activity of consultation was extensive and took a long time during the Project, requiring further extension of its end date.

 

Lesson learned: The activity fulfilled the guidelines of Convention 169 of the International Labour Organisation, comprising the requirement for prior consultations to obtain free and informed consent of the groups involved before the implementation of any public policy or government action. This period of consultation, however long, generated opposite reactions among beneficiaries: while it strengthened the Project by increasing indigenous participation and receiving from the groups the direction necessary for action, increasing the chances of positive outcomes, it also created expectations regarding performance that were frustrated by the delay of the very consultation stage. In addition, the expansion of the number of reference areas also required longer consultations. However, direct communication with indigenous groups in the villages, and not only through individuals representing communities, was instrumental for Project strengthening.

Recommendation: In a forthcoming initiative in the same subject area, a more expedited plan should be prepared, based on the Project experience. Communities already consulted and with their plans already defined, could start their activities while other indigenous lands are being consulted. This reduces the chances of frustrated expectations. In this way, the Project will not suffer as many delays in implementing the activities

1. Recommendation:

 

 The Steering Committee, with its equal representation of government agencies (MMA and FUNAI) and indigenous representatives, represented an important innovation by the Project. However, its operation was irregular. The interviews showed that its powers were not very clear to its members in terms of whether the Committee was a forum for decision-making or just monitoring.

Recommendation 1: In new initiatives involving indigenous peoples and government agencies, the monitoring and operation of the Project Steering Committee (with the participation of indigenous leaders and government officials) should be safeguarded. Its duties and responsibilities, including the committee's decision-making level and its role in monitoring, social oversight, and evaluation should be better defined. The meetings should be regular, and evaluations, decisions and modifications suggested by the committee should be recorded.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/11/03] [Last Updated: 2017/11/03]

The project acknowledge the importance of Project Steering Committment and will safeguard in case of new projects. 

Key Actions:

2. Recommendation:

 

The Outcome indicators formulated for the Project text did not follow the criteria of simplicity, objectivity, and measurability. The text of the indicators was overly complex, and the provision on feasibility of monitoring was inadequate. Throughout the Project, the PMU tried to respond to this complexity, reporting activities and results that met the outcomes. However, the original design of the indicators hindered their effective use to measure the achievement of expected outcomes.

Recommendation 2.1: In a forthcoming initiative, the process of elaboration of indicators (during the stage of Project definition and planning) should be discussed among participating consultants and bodies. There should be a specific check on the quality of the indicators proposed to ensure their feasibility as Project instruments.

Recommendation 2.2: After the beginning of the Project, there should be an opportunity to correct any problems with the indicators, or replace them, while maintaining their original intent . The identification of problems should be carried out during the Mid-term Review, and a substantive review should be proposed. The Review should not be guided by the guarantee of success in achieving the goals, but by indicators' feasibility of measurement. Suggestions for modifications, brought about by the reality of Project implementation, can be gathered by the executing team, consolidated before the Mid-term Review, and discussed during it.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/11/03] [Last Updated: 2017/11/03]

The project acknowledge the importance of  SMART indicators and will  provide special attention to it in new projects. 

Key Actions:

3. Recommendation:

 

The design of the PMU in the GATI Project did not have an area or personnel responsible for monitoring progress towards the goals set out in the ProDoc. All of the responsibility for implementing the monitoring befell the team responsible for implementing the activities. The lack of a team or a professional responsible for monitoring indicators also hindered their analysis and monitoring.

Recommendation: In new initiatives, ProDocs should provide for an area or personnel to be responsible for monitoring indicators, which can be combined with Project communication tasks. The designated monitoring individual/ team could be responsible for monitoring activities, progress of indicators, assessing the strategies employed, and the systematization and dissemination of information at different levels: steering committee, institutional reports, donors, publications to disseminate results, etc

Management Response: [Added: 2017/11/03] [Last Updated: 2017/11/03]

The PMU acknowledge the relevance of  monitoring progress, Special attention to monitoring will be provided in future initiatives. 

Key Actions:

4. Recommendation:

Conclusion 4: After the beginning of the Project in 2010 and the establishment of the PMU in the following year, there was a period of consultation and discussion with the indigenous peoples of the 32 areas to obtain consensus among beneficiaries about the planning of local actions. This activity of consultation was extensive and took a long time during the Project, requiring further extension of its end date.

 

Lesson learned: The activity fulfilled the guidelines of Convention 169 of the International Labour Organisation, comprising the requirement for prior consultations to obtain free and informed consent of the groups involved before the implementation of any public policy or government action. This period of consultation, however long, generated opposite reactions among beneficiaries: while it strengthened the Project by increasing indigenous participation and receiving from the groups the direction necessary for action, increasing the chances of positive outcomes, it also created expectations regarding performance that were frustrated by the delay of the very consultation stage. In addition, the expansion of the number of reference areas also required longer consultations. However, direct communication with indigenous groups in the villages, and not only through individuals representing communities, was instrumental for Project strengthening.

Recommendation: In a forthcoming initiative in the same subject area, a more expedited plan should be prepared, based on the Project experience. Communities already consulted and with their plans already defined, could start their activities while other indigenous lands are being consulted. This reduces the chances of frustrated expectations. In this way, the Project will not suffer as many delays in implementing the activities

Management Response: [Added: 2017/11/04]

In a forthcoming initiative i a more expedited plan will be prepared, based on the Project experience. 

Key Actions:

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