Integrated Semenawi & Debubawi Bahri-Buri-Irrori-Hawakil Protected Area system for conservation of Biodiversity and Mitigation of Land Degradation

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2017-2021, Eritrea
Evaluation Type:
Mid Term Project
Planned End Date:
07/2017
Completion Date:
12/2017
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
25,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document PA Project_MTR-TOR.docx tor English 80.49 KB Posted 82
Download document PA MTR REPORT Eritrea project.docx report English 1226.08 KB Posted 109
Title Integrated Semenawi & Debubawi Bahri-Buri-Irrori-Hawakil Protected Area system for conservation of Biodiversity and Mitigation of Land Degradation
Atlas Project Number: 00078854
Evaluation Plan: 2017-2021, Eritrea
Evaluation Type: Mid Term Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 12/2017
Planned End Date: 07/2017
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Environment & Sustainable Development
  • 2. Others
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
  • 1. Output 1.3. Solutions developed at national and sub-national levels for sustainable management of natural resources, ecosystem services, chemicals and waste
Evaluation Budget(US $): 25,000
Source of Funding: UNDP/GEF
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 18,000
Joint Programme: No
Mandatory Evaluation: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Mikhail Paltsyn International Consultant mikhail.paltsyn@undp.org RUSSIAN FEDERATION
GEF Evaluation: Yes
GEF Project Title: Integrated Semenawi & Debubawi Bahri-Buri-Irrori-Hawakil Protected Area system for conservation of Biodiversity and Mitigation of Land Degradation.
Evaluation Type: Mid-term Review
Focal Area: Biodiversity
Project Type: FSP
GEF Phase: GEF-5
GEF Project ID: 4559
PIMS Number: 4816
Key Stakeholders: MLWE, MND, MoA, Forestry and Wild Authority, NRS, SRS, MOEM, GEF, FAO.
Countries: ERITREA
Lessons
1. The project incorporated lessons learned from the UNDP/GEF “Conservation Management of Eritrea’s Coastal, Marine and Island Biodiversity” project (ECMIB) completed in early 2008 and some experience from the “SIP SLM Pilot Project – Eritrea” that was under implementation in 2009-2016. One of the ECMIB project objectives was official establishment of 2 Marine PAs, however, that never happened due to delayed project implementation and lack of time. However, the project drafted National Coastal Policy and the Integrated Coastal Area management proclamation that are suggested as a basis for achievements of the Outcomes 1 and 2 in the framework of the PA project . The project is in line with the Eritrea’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP, 2000), the Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, the National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) of 2007, the Draft Eritrean environmental proclamation 2002 (provides basis for development of PA proclamation) and the National Environmental Management Plan 1996 (identifies Buri-Irrori, Semienawi and Debubawi Bahri and Bay of Bera’soli as national priorities for PA establishment), and draft of the Forest and Wildlife Policy 2005 . 363 local people participated in the socio-economic assessment for this project in the project areas in 2013 . 62 local people listed as interviewees in the Protected Areas and Financing Assessment Report (4 of them, or 6% were women). 77 stakeholders participated in the project inception workshop on July 22 2014 . However, full list of stakeholders consulted is lacking. Stakeholder Engagement and Communication Plan is present and well developed with full range of key stakeholders present in the country. The prodoc has assessment of the risks impact and probability, however, risk rating (e.g., High, Moderate, Low) is lacking. Two of the project risks are obviously underestimated given experience of the ECMIB project: Capacity is too low to implement project, the low absorptive capacity results in significant delays in implementation and The Government of Eritrea does not establish the three pilot sites as protected areas. Probability of these two risks should be livelihood provided to local communities will have similar or higher profitability than traditional unsustainable NRM practices; law enforcement in the PA will be sufficient enough to deter illegal activities; government will provide sufficient funding to support effective management of PAs; established PAs will be integrated in the country’s sustainable economic development plans). No assumptions are present to describe pathways from Outcomes to Mid-Term Impacts (reduction of Direct Threats) (e.g., local communities will decrease pressure on PA natural resources due to sufficient benefits provided by the project on the adjacent territories and mixed use zones, etc.). Project Outcomes and Outputs are appropriate to achieve the project Objective, but formulated differently and vary in number in the prodoc and CEO ER. This fact confuses clear understanding of the project results. E.g., in the prodoc Outcome 1 sounds like Establishment of protected area policy and institutional frameworks to operationalize national protected areas system, but in the CEO ER Outcome 1 is divided in three Outcomes: Governance framework for the incorporation of PA and conservation into Eritrea’s development established, Institutional collaboration for effective management of PA increased, Human and financial resources provided to operationalize PA management. Output 1.1. in the prodoc sounds like Regulatory framework for protected areas management, but in the CEO ER it is formulated as National government law/proclamation legalizing the application of IUCN based designations for establishment of terrestrial and marine protected areas. Or Output 2.2 in the prodoc is Model training program implemented for protected area management and staff, but in the CEO ER Output 2.2 sounds like Physical delineation of the three PA done and core infrastructure put in place (border markings, administration centre, outposts). Similar inconsistencies are present for Outcomes 2 and 3 and all other Outputs in the prodoc and CEO ER. Moreover, Outcome 3 in the prodoc has only three Outputs, while in CEO ER it includes six Outputs. Some of the project Outputs in the prodoc are too general and need to be reformulated to make them more clear and specific and avoid ambiguity in understanding: e.g., Output 1.1. Regulatory framework for protected areas management does not provide clear guidance on what legislation documents have to be delivered to make establishment of official PAs possible. Output 3.1 Farm/Fishing Field Schools established to build local SLM/SFM capacity practically limits the project mechanisms for community capacity buildings to the Schools only without clear explanation of their structure, functional mechanism, and sustainability. Name of the Outcomes sound like activities or components but not results (e.g., Outcome 1. Establishment of protected area policy and institutional frameworks to operationalize national protected areas system). Analysis of the PRF, suggested changes and their justification are shown in the Annex 2. The project has 18 Objective and Outcome Indicators. Some of them are not SMART and need some adjustment (see Annex 1 for details) with the project Theory of Change. For example, Objective Indicator Total hectares legally designated as a national protected area conforming to basic IUCN standards/categories is actually Outcome 2 indicator (official establishment of target PAs). Objective indicator Total hectares of critical habitat conserved within newly established national protected areas should be accompanied with percentage of the entire habitat type area in the country that is more meaningful to measure the project impact at national scale. Three of the indicators of the Outcome 3 actually measure Impact of the entire project, but not achievement of the Outcome 3: Total populations of grazing species found within project’s coastal areas (Long-Term Impact, or GEB Indicator); Total hectares of native assigned as 4 or even 5, not 3 as in the prodoc, because proposed marine PAs have never been established in the ECMIB project. Risk associated with Impact of Climate Change is very general and does not provide information what consequences of the climate change are the most important for the project areas (e.g., increasing frequency of droughts, severity of flooding, increasing frequency of forest fires, or increase of the sea level, etc.) Selected project Conservation Targets (ecosystems and species) are highly representative for Eritrea and selected project areas: - Highland Forests; - Mangroves; - Sea Grass; - Turtle nesting sites; - African wild ass habitat; - African wild ass; - Dorcas Gazelle; - Soemmoring Gazelle The project correctly identifies three general types of Direct Threats for the conservation targets in the project areas: Habitat Loss and Competition, Overexploitation or “Direct Take”, and Climate Change. Some threats (e.g., Overexploitation and Climate Change) are not quantified; thus, their severity is not clear. Climate Change threat does not describe what consequences of the climate change are the most critical for the project area. MTR review of the project Theory of Change suggests more detailed classification of Direct threats to allow their measurement and development of appropriate strategies to reduce them (Annex 3). No Problem Tree (or Conceptual Model) diagram was developed for this project (recommended by UNDP for all project ). Immediate and root causes are not clearly outlined, however, many of them are mentioned in the Threats, Root Causes and Impacts section of the prodoc (e.g., growing human population, high demand for agricultural and livestock products, high dependence of local communities on firewood and charcoal, tourism development, etc.). Barriers on the way to establish and manage National PA system in Eritrea are correctly identified and adequate to the current situation: (1) Limited capacity to design and implement a regulatory framework to support establishment of a national system of conservation areas (the actual barrier is the Lack of regulatory framework to support establishment of a national system of conservation areas), (2) Limited experience and capacity to successfully establish and manage conservation areas, and (3) Limited rural community capacity to maintain ecosystem services and conserve biodiversity. No Theory of Change diagram (recommended by UNDP and GEF) was used to describe the project theory of change and demonstrate clear links between project Outputs, Outcomes, Mid-Term Impacts (direct threat reduction) and Long-Term Impact, or GEBs (e.g., restoration of ecosystems and species). However, the project strategies were described in the Project Objective, Outcome and Output section of the prodoc. Key project assumptions on the pathways from Outputs to Outcomes were explained in the Project Result Framework section, however, some of the key assumptions are missing (e.g., alternative sources of income and forest cover within the Green Belt (Long-Term Impact, or GEB Indicator); Number of FFS participant households and women reporting increased levels of food security (Objective Indicator). One of the Outcome indicators - Number of wildlife monitoring surveys/studies conducted and reported annually by protected area administration for key species and habitats within national protected areas is not appropriate as a measure of functional National Biodiversity Monitoring Programmed (wildlife and ecosystem surveys have been conducted in the project areas since 2013, but the Programme is still non-existent). One of the indicators for Outcome 3 Surface water quality/quantity of main upland streams improved to more closely meet needs of natural ecosystem function is not clear and unmeasurable. Some of the indicators have extremely high end of the project values (e.g., METT score for PA and total funding for National PA system) and need to be reduced by 30-50% given low national capacity and acute deficit of national budget. Other Outcome 3 indicators e.g., Number of project area residents who are participating members of farm/fisheries field (FFS) schools and Number of farm and fishing field school participants adopting ecosystem conservation practices as detailed in the community ecosystem services conservation plans limits all the measurements of the stakeholder involvement in the project and changes of their behavior to only one (FFS) of many possible mechanisms to build capacity. Moreover, the MTR found out that the project stakeholders do not have clear idea of the FFS and its functional model. Thus, if FFSs are never established, but trainings to the communities are delivered via other mechanisms these indicators can be useless. Also, not only FFS participants can start implement sustainable technologies as a result of the project, but also their neighbors and people who learned about the technologies from other means in the project frameworks. Thus, the Objective and Outcome indicators were adjusted by MTR (Annexes 1 and 2) for evaluation purposes and suggested for further use to guide project implementation.

Tag: Biodiversity Sustainability

Findings
1. Overall rating – S (Satisfactory). The project is built on the lessons learned from other UNDP/GEF projects in Eritrea and highly relevant to the country development priorities. The project focuses on highly representative for the country conservation targets (species and ecosystems) and adequately address key direct threats for them. However, the MTR suggested more detailed classification of the direct threats for the project to allow more effective planning of conservation measures. The project adequately addresses key barriers on the way to establish functional PA system in Eritrea, however, does not provide clear explanation of the project Theory of Change. Project Outcomes and Outputs are appropriate to achieve the project Objective, but formulated differently and vary in number in the prodoc and CEO ER. This fact confuses clear understanding of the project expected results. Some of the Outputs, e.g. 1.1. and 3.1, are too general and do not provide clear explanation what exactly products and services need to be delivered in their frameworks. Some of the project Objective and Outcome Indicators are not SMART and needed some adjustment with the project Theory of Change and realities of Eritrea. Some of the project risks were underestimated given experience of other UNDP/GEF projects in Eritrea. The project was developed using participatory approach: more than 360 stakeholders were consulted during the project development, however, percentage of women among them was low (~6%) (see details in Table 2)
Recommendations
1

Recommendation 4.1.1. By October 30, the project management team should critically review and clarify activities and deliverables for each of the project Outputs. For example, Output 1.1 was partly clarified during the MTR mission: the Protected Areas Act is the key legislation to start official establishment, staffing and management of the National PA network in Eritrea. It is likely the Act should be accompanied by Standard Operating Procedures for PA establishment in the country. Output 1.2. for the National PA Agency, for example, should have activities devoted to development of the ToRs for the Agency and its staff, estimation of the Agency budget in the form appropriate for consideration and approval by the GoE. Outputs 1.1-1.5 should include some activities to promote official approval of the developed documents by the GoE (e.g., meetings and consultations with the GoE). It is recommended to change Output 3.1 to include other mechanisms of capacity building for local communities on SLM, SFM, and sustainable fishery rather than Farming/Fishing Schools only (a FFS has unclear structure and implementation mechanism). Suggestions for the Output revision are provided in the Annexes 3 and 4.

2

Recommendation 4.1.2. By October 30, the project management team should review and update Indicators in the Project Results to coincide with the project Theory of Change, SMART principles, and realities of the country. Suggested revision of the Project Results Framework is provided in the Annexes 3 and 4.

3

Recommendation 4.2.1. It is highly recommended to the project management team to involve experienced International Consultants to work with National Consultants on delivery of Outputs 1.1-1.5 for Outcome 1 due to insufficient capacity and lack of experience on development of PA legislative and institutional framework in Eritrea. Such involvement of international experience will give the project tremendous advantage to build on the best world experience and avoid costly mistakes that may result in failure to achieve the Outcome. This is the key Outcome to provide very necessary institutional sustainability to all other project Outcomes. Also, this is highly desirable to involve International Consultants in the development of management plans for target PAs and local communities (Outputs 2.3, 2.4, and 3.2) to make them implementable and useful in accordance with the Results-Based Management concept. UNDP, IUCN, WBG and other international organizations have rosters of International Consultants with appropriate experience that can be used by the project management team in Eritrea to select the consultants. Also, International Consultants may be useful for delivery of Output 2.2 (capacity building for the PA staff).

4

Recommendation 4.2.2. It is highly recommended to the project management team to start delivery of the project Outputs 2.1 (at least support protective regime, make demarcation and zoning of the proposed PAs), 3.1 (trainings for local communities on SLM and CBNRM), and 3.3 (pilot projects on SLM and CBNRM) in two other project areas - Buri-Irrori-Hawakil and Bara’soli - by the end of 2017-beginning 2018 using positive experience of Semenawi&Debubawi Bahri. Implementation of the activities in all project areas will provide necessary territorial balance to the project and will increase its positive impact on ecosystems, wildlife populations, and local communities. For delivery of Output 3.1 it is highly recommended to use all available mechanisms (not only Farm/Fishery Schools) for capacity building of local communities on SLM and CBNRM, including separate trainings provided by different government agencies, specially developed training programmes (repetitive trainings), exchange visits, and demonstration projects. Special attention should be devoted to provide sustainable livelihood opportunities to the local people who has no land for agriculture and lost their traditional income due to enforcement of PA regime.

 

5

Recommendation 4.2.3. Given delayed project implementation it is recommended to the project management team to start active delivery of Outputs 2.2 (capacity building for the PA staff), 2.3 (Management Plans for the PAs), 2.5 (involvement of local communities in the PA management), and 3.2 (sustainable NRM plans for local communities) at the end of 2017 – beginning of 2018 even official PAs are not established yet. For example, in the framework of Output 2.2 trainings and equipment can be delivered to the area managers, rangers and scouts that are already present in the project areas and likely to be included in the staff of officially established PAs. Output 2.3 may focus on development of the so-called ecosystem management plans that includes area of proposed PAs and surrounding communities as elements of the entire landscape. In this case developed plans can be agreed with local communities and Zoba administrations, and finally approved by the MLWE, and then passed to the PAs for implementation after their official establishment. Output 3.2 can be delivered in strong collaboration with delivery of the Outputs 2.3 and 2.5 as a part of the ecosystem management planning.

6

Recommendation 4.2.4. While working on the Outputs 2.3 and 3.2 (management plans for PAs and local communities) the project management team should use following principles to make the plans useful, measurable, and implementable:

?          A MP has to be based on the Result-Based Management concept with clear identification of the plan Goal (desired and achievable status of Conservation Targets - endangered wildlife populations and area of key ecosystems) and Objectives (aimed to reduction of direct threats for the Conservation Targets) and clear links between the plan expected results of different level: Outputs (products and services of the MP implementing team), Outcomes (increased capacity of PA management), Mid-Term Impacts (reduction of direct threats for PA’s biodiversity), Long-Term Impacts (improvement of status of key wildlife species and ecosystems). Results of all levels should be measurable and need to have clear Indicators. For each MP clear Theory of Change should be developed and clarified with key stakeholders based on existing approaches of IUCN First Line of Defense, or WWF’s Open Standards for Conservation Planning, or UNDP’s Management for Development Results, or other models based on the RBM;

?          A MP should be based on detailed ecosystem and habitat map for the area (e.g., interpretation of Landsat 7 and 8 imageries);

?          A MP has to be designed for no more than 5-10 year period and include budgeted M&E plan to allow lessons learning and Adaptive Management;

?          A MP must have clear Operational Plan (2-3 years) with timelines to deliver Outputs, responsible persons, required budgets and indicated sources of the budgets;

?          A MP has to be in agreement with MLWE, FWA, and Zoba’s plans and programmes and has to be officially approved by the MLWE;

?          A MP has to be developed in fully participatory approach and involve all key stakeholders in the planning process, including surrounding communities;

?          A MP has to have clear mechanism for implementation with involvement of communities and private sector to facilitate and control the process of MP implementation.

7

Recommendation 4.2.3. Given delayed project implementation it is recommended to the project management team to start active delivery of Outputs 2.2 (capacity building for the PA staff), 2.3 (Management Plans for the PAs), 2.5 (involvement of local communities in the PA management), and 3.2 (sustainable NRM plans for local communities) at the end of 2017 – beginning of 2018 even official PAs are not established yet. For example, in the framework of Output 2.2 trainings and equipment can be delivered to the area managers, rangers and scouts that are already present in the project areas and likely to be included in the staff of officially established PAs. Output 2.3 may focus on development of the so-called ecosystem management plans that includes area of proposed PAs and surrounding communities as elements of the entire landscape. In this case developed plans can be agreed with local communities and Zoba administrations, and finally approved by the MLWE, and then passed to the PAs for implementation after their official establishment. Output 3.2 can be delivered in strong collaboration with delivery of the Outputs 2.3 and 2.5 as a part of the ecosystem management planning.

8

Recommendation 4.3.1. By October 30 the project management team should fully clarify the project management arrangements that were shaped during the MTR mission (Fig. 2 B) with MLWE as Implementing Partner and Executing Agency and MMR, FWA, and Zoba Administrations as Key Actors (or Responsible Parties). Each Key Actor should have clear responsibility for particular project Outcome (e.g., MLWE Department of Environment can be directly responsible for delivery of the Outcome 1 (institutional and legislative framework for PA establishment), MMR and FWA can share responsibility for establishment and management of marine and terrestrial PAs (Outcome 2), and Zoba Administrations – for achievement of the Outcome 3 (capacity building of local community on SLM and CBNRM). Remember, please, “When everyone is responsible, no one is responsible”[1]. Also, role of UNDP in the project management arrangements should be clarified given its tremendous importance to assure the project funding and support of the project implementation (now UNDP is not even a member of the Project Steering Committee and do not present on the last project management diagram developed by MLWE). If GoE can see no possibility to include UNDP in the Project Steering Committee other mechanisms of UNDP involvement in the management arrangement should be clarified (e.g., regular technical sessions between UNDP, MLWE, MMR, and FWA). Implementation of this recommendations should be one of the conditions to continue the project funding by UNDP and GEF

 


 

9

4.3.2. By October 30, right after project management arrangements are clarified, the MLWE as Executing Agency should establish official Project Mangement Unit (PMU). It is highly recommended to have classical PMU used by great majority UNDP/GEF NIM projects -  with detached project management staff: at least the Project Manager and 3 Coordinators responsible for delivery of each of the project Outcomes and involved in the project management full time. If due to limited capacity issue the classical PMU is not possible, another option is so-called distributed PMU: when experts from different government agencies are assigned to implement project management functions: e.g., one official from MLWE’s Department of Environment can be assigned on the role of the project manager, and relevant staff from MMR, FWA and Zoba Administrations can play roles of Coordinators to ensure achievement of the project Outcomes. Officials assigned to the distributed PMU have to be involved in the project management at least 20 hours a week and ideally should receive financial bonuses for implementation of their management functions to keep their motivation high. The members of the PMU should implement full set of management functions including planning, implementation, monitoring, and communication. Implementation of this recommendations should be one of the conditions to continue the project funding by UNDP and GEF

10

Recommendation 4.3.3. By December 15, when the PMU is officially established, UNDP CO should provide 3-5 day training to the PMU staff on the Results-Based Mangement (RBM) and UNDP/GEF requirements for project planning, management, reporting and communication. Each member of the PMU should clearly understand his/her role and responsibilities in the project implementation including all functions mentioned above.

11

Recommendation 4.3.4. It is highly recommended to the Project Manager to consider monthly and quarterly planning and reporting as obligatory function for all PMU staff responsible for achievement of particular project Outcomes. It will help easily monitor progress on delivery of particular project Outputs and implement adaptive management of the project.

12

Recommendation 4.3.5. By December 30, it is highly recommended to the PMU to critically review all project Outputs and activities that are necessary to deliver the Outputs based on the Project Work Plan 2017-2020 and recommendations of the MTR (Annexes 3 and 4), and identify key partners for delivery of each Output, especially International and National Consultants. UNDP can provide tremendous support on selection of appropriate International Consultants to bring the best world experience in Eritrea to avoid costly mistakes and build the project implementation on the best practices. The sport champions hire the best international coaches and the most progressive governments have the best international advisors. Why Eritrea should be different and do not use this brilliant resource for the country development?  

1. Recommendation:

Recommendation 4.1.1. By October 30, the project management team should critically review and clarify activities and deliverables for each of the project Outputs. For example, Output 1.1 was partly clarified during the MTR mission: the Protected Areas Act is the key legislation to start official establishment, staffing and management of the National PA network in Eritrea. It is likely the Act should be accompanied by Standard Operating Procedures for PA establishment in the country. Output 1.2. for the National PA Agency, for example, should have activities devoted to development of the ToRs for the Agency and its staff, estimation of the Agency budget in the form appropriate for consideration and approval by the GoE. Outputs 1.1-1.5 should include some activities to promote official approval of the developed documents by the GoE (e.g., meetings and consultations with the GoE). It is recommended to change Output 3.1 to include other mechanisms of capacity building for local communities on SLM, SFM, and sustainable fishery rather than Farming/Fishing Schools only (a FFS has unclear structure and implementation mechanism). Suggestions for the Output revision are provided in the Annexes 3 and 4.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/12/29] [Last Updated: 2018/08/15]

Recommendation accepted

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
• Review of Outputs and making activities and deliverables more specific, by January 30, 2018 • Prepare a Standard Operating Procedures for PA establishment in the country, by April 2017 • Develop a Terms of Reference for the National PA Agency, by March 2018
[Added: 2017/12/29] [Last Updated: 2018/08/22]
Senior management and project officer 2018/01 Overdue-Initiated
2. Recommendation:

Recommendation 4.1.2. By October 30, the project management team should review and update Indicators in the Project Results to coincide with the project Theory of Change, SMART principles, and realities of the country. Suggested revision of the Project Results Framework is provided in the Annexes 3 and 4.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/12/29] [Last Updated: 2017/12/29]

Recommendation accepted.

 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
• Review and update Indicators in the Project Results to harmonize with the project Theory of Change, by March 2018. • Review the indicators to make them SMART, and reflect realities of the country, by March 2018
[Added: 2017/12/29] [Last Updated: 2018/08/22]
Project manager 2018/03 Overdue-Initiated
3. Recommendation:

Recommendation 4.2.1. It is highly recommended to the project management team to involve experienced International Consultants to work with National Consultants on delivery of Outputs 1.1-1.5 for Outcome 1 due to insufficient capacity and lack of experience on development of PA legislative and institutional framework in Eritrea. Such involvement of international experience will give the project tremendous advantage to build on the best world experience and avoid costly mistakes that may result in failure to achieve the Outcome. This is the key Outcome to provide very necessary institutional sustainability to all other project Outcomes. Also, this is highly desirable to involve International Consultants in the development of management plans for target PAs and local communities (Outputs 2.3, 2.4, and 3.2) to make them implementable and useful in accordance with the Results-Based Management concept. UNDP, IUCN, WBG and other international organizations have rosters of International Consultants with appropriate experience that can be used by the project management team in Eritrea to select the consultants. Also, International Consultants may be useful for delivery of Output 2.2 (capacity building for the PA staff).

Management Response: [Added: 2017/12/29] [Last Updated: 2017/12/29]

Recommendation accepted provided the government approves recruitment the recommended expert. This recommendation will have to be discussed with the Government (IP) for their approval.  

 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
• Discuss with the Government (IP) to convince them to accept this recommendation • Should the counterpart accept the idea, initiate recruitment process and complete by March 30, 2018.
[Added: 2017/12/29] [Last Updated: 2018/08/22]
Senior management and project officer 2018/03 Overdue-Initiated
4. Recommendation:

Recommendation 4.2.2. It is highly recommended to the project management team to start delivery of the project Outputs 2.1 (at least support protective regime, make demarcation and zoning of the proposed PAs), 3.1 (trainings for local communities on SLM and CBNRM), and 3.3 (pilot projects on SLM and CBNRM) in two other project areas - Buri-Irrori-Hawakil and Bara’soli - by the end of 2017-beginning 2018 using positive experience of Semenawi&Debubawi Bahri. Implementation of the activities in all project areas will provide necessary territorial balance to the project and will increase its positive impact on ecosystems, wildlife populations, and local communities. For delivery of Output 3.1 it is highly recommended to use all available mechanisms (not only Farm/Fishery Schools) for capacity building of local communities on SLM and CBNRM, including separate trainings provided by different government agencies, specially developed training programmes (repetitive trainings), exchange visits, and demonstration projects. Special attention should be devoted to provide sustainable livelihood opportunities to the local people who has no land for agriculture and lost their traditional income due to enforcement of PA regime.

 

Management Response: [Added: 2017/12/29] [Last Updated: 2017/12/29]

Recommendation accepted.   

 

 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
• Comprehensive plan will be prepared to implement large scale bio-physical measures to protected, conserve and enrich the natural bases within the protected area system, January 30, 2018 • The project team will monitor the implementation of the planned SWC measures, every quarter, 2018
[Added: 2017/12/29] [Last Updated: 2018/08/22]
Project manager 2018/01 Overdue-Initiated
• Comprehensive plan will be prepared to implement large scale bio-physical measures to protected, conserve and enrich the natural bases within the protected area system, January 30, 2018 • The project team will monitor the implementation of the planned SWC measures, every quarter, 2018
[Added: 2017/12/29] [Last Updated: 2018/08/22]
Project manager 2018/01 Overdue-Initiated
5. Recommendation:

Recommendation 4.2.3. Given delayed project implementation it is recommended to the project management team to start active delivery of Outputs 2.2 (capacity building for the PA staff), 2.3 (Management Plans for the PAs), 2.5 (involvement of local communities in the PA management), and 3.2 (sustainable NRM plans for local communities) at the end of 2017 – beginning of 2018 even official PAs are not established yet. For example, in the framework of Output 2.2 trainings and equipment can be delivered to the area managers, rangers and scouts that are already present in the project areas and likely to be included in the staff of officially established PAs. Output 2.3 may focus on development of the so-called ecosystem management plans that includes area of proposed PAs and surrounding communities as elements of the entire landscape. In this case developed plans can be agreed with local communities and Zoba administrations, and finally approved by the MLWE, and then passed to the PAs for implementation after their official establishment. Output 3.2 can be delivered in strong collaboration with delivery of the Outputs 2.3 and 2.5 as a part of the ecosystem management planning.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/12/29] [Last Updated: 2017/12/29]

Recommendation accepted.   

 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
• Conduct capacity building for PA staff and field staff from key stakeholders, March 2018 • Prepare community based Natural Resources Management plans, March 2018 • Conduct joint key stakeholder field monitoring, biannual 2018
[Added: 2017/12/29] [Last Updated: 2018/08/22]
Project manager and project team 2018/03 Overdue-Initiated
6. Recommendation:

Recommendation 4.2.4. While working on the Outputs 2.3 and 3.2 (management plans for PAs and local communities) the project management team should use following principles to make the plans useful, measurable, and implementable:

?          A MP has to be based on the Result-Based Management concept with clear identification of the plan Goal (desired and achievable status of Conservation Targets - endangered wildlife populations and area of key ecosystems) and Objectives (aimed to reduction of direct threats for the Conservation Targets) and clear links between the plan expected results of different level: Outputs (products and services of the MP implementing team), Outcomes (increased capacity of PA management), Mid-Term Impacts (reduction of direct threats for PA’s biodiversity), Long-Term Impacts (improvement of status of key wildlife species and ecosystems). Results of all levels should be measurable and need to have clear Indicators. For each MP clear Theory of Change should be developed and clarified with key stakeholders based on existing approaches of IUCN First Line of Defense, or WWF’s Open Standards for Conservation Planning, or UNDP’s Management for Development Results, or other models based on the RBM;

?          A MP should be based on detailed ecosystem and habitat map for the area (e.g., interpretation of Landsat 7 and 8 imageries);

?          A MP has to be designed for no more than 5-10 year period and include budgeted M&E plan to allow lessons learning and Adaptive Management;

?          A MP must have clear Operational Plan (2-3 years) with timelines to deliver Outputs, responsible persons, required budgets and indicated sources of the budgets;

?          A MP has to be in agreement with MLWE, FWA, and Zoba’s plans and programmes and has to be officially approved by the MLWE;

?          A MP has to be developed in fully participatory approach and involve all key stakeholders in the planning process, including surrounding communities;

?          A MP has to have clear mechanism for implementation with involvement of communities and private sector to facilitate and control the process of MP implementation.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/12/29] [Last Updated: 2017/12/29]

Recommendation accepted.   

 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
• The project management team will adopt the Management Plan principles proposed by the consultant to make the plans useful, measurable, and implementable. • Project management team and the key stakeholders will monitor and evaluate the implementation of the principles in the course of the implementation of the project.
[Added: 2017/12/29] [Last Updated: 2018/08/22]
Project manager and project team 2018/10 Overdue-Initiated
7. Recommendation:

Recommendation 4.2.3. Given delayed project implementation it is recommended to the project management team to start active delivery of Outputs 2.2 (capacity building for the PA staff), 2.3 (Management Plans for the PAs), 2.5 (involvement of local communities in the PA management), and 3.2 (sustainable NRM plans for local communities) at the end of 2017 – beginning of 2018 even official PAs are not established yet. For example, in the framework of Output 2.2 trainings and equipment can be delivered to the area managers, rangers and scouts that are already present in the project areas and likely to be included in the staff of officially established PAs. Output 2.3 may focus on development of the so-called ecosystem management plans that includes area of proposed PAs and surrounding communities as elements of the entire landscape. In this case developed plans can be agreed with local communities and Zoba administrations, and finally approved by the MLWE, and then passed to the PAs for implementation after their official establishment. Output 3.2 can be delivered in strong collaboration with delivery of the Outputs 2.3 and 2.5 as a part of the ecosystem management planning.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/12/29]

Recommendation accepted.   

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
• Conduct capacity building for PA staff and field staff from key stakeholders, March 2018 • Prepare community based Natural Resources Management plans, March 2018 • Conduct joint key stakeholder field monitoring, biannual 2018
[Added: 2017/12/29] [Last Updated: 2018/08/22]
Project manager and protect team 2018/03 Overdue-Initiated
8. Recommendation:

Recommendation 4.3.1. By October 30 the project management team should fully clarify the project management arrangements that were shaped during the MTR mission (Fig. 2 B) with MLWE as Implementing Partner and Executing Agency and MMR, FWA, and Zoba Administrations as Key Actors (or Responsible Parties). Each Key Actor should have clear responsibility for particular project Outcome (e.g., MLWE Department of Environment can be directly responsible for delivery of the Outcome 1 (institutional and legislative framework for PA establishment), MMR and FWA can share responsibility for establishment and management of marine and terrestrial PAs (Outcome 2), and Zoba Administrations – for achievement of the Outcome 3 (capacity building of local community on SLM and CBNRM). Remember, please, “When everyone is responsible, no one is responsible”[1]. Also, role of UNDP in the project management arrangements should be clarified given its tremendous importance to assure the project funding and support of the project implementation (now UNDP is not even a member of the Project Steering Committee and do not present on the last project management diagram developed by MLWE). If GoE can see no possibility to include UNDP in the Project Steering Committee other mechanisms of UNDP involvement in the management arrangement should be clarified (e.g., regular technical sessions between UNDP, MLWE, MMR, and FWA). Implementation of this recommendations should be one of the conditions to continue the project funding by UNDP and GEF

 


 

Management Response: [Added: 2017/12/29]

Recommendation accepted.   

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The project management arrangements that were shaped during the MTR mission (Fig. 2 B) will be refined and agreed by the key implementing partners (MoLWE as Implementing Partner and Executing Agency and MMR, FWA, and Zoba Administrations as Key Actors (or Responsible Parties) by February 2018.
[Added: 2017/12/29] [Last Updated: 2018/08/22]
Senior management, project manager and project team 2018/03 Overdue-Initiated
9. Recommendation:

4.3.2. By October 30, right after project management arrangements are clarified, the MLWE as Executing Agency should establish official Project Mangement Unit (PMU). It is highly recommended to have classical PMU used by great majority UNDP/GEF NIM projects -  with detached project management staff: at least the Project Manager and 3 Coordinators responsible for delivery of each of the project Outcomes and involved in the project management full time. If due to limited capacity issue the classical PMU is not possible, another option is so-called distributed PMU: when experts from different government agencies are assigned to implement project management functions: e.g., one official from MLWE’s Department of Environment can be assigned on the role of the project manager, and relevant staff from MMR, FWA and Zoba Administrations can play roles of Coordinators to ensure achievement of the project Outcomes. Officials assigned to the distributed PMU have to be involved in the project management at least 20 hours a week and ideally should receive financial bonuses for implementation of their management functions to keep their motivation high. The members of the PMU should implement full set of management functions including planning, implementation, monitoring, and communication. Implementation of this recommendations should be one of the conditions to continue the project funding by UNDP and GEF

Management Response: [Added: 2017/12/29]

: Partially accepted—the Government argues that there is no need of a separate PMU for each project. The government policy is to establish a coordination unit that would cater for a number of projects.    

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The management will exert maximum effort towards building the capacity of key stakeholders to help speedy and efficient implementation of the project.
[Added: 2017/12/29] [Last Updated: 2018/08/22]
Project manager and project team 2018/03 Overdue-Initiated
10. Recommendation:

Recommendation 4.3.3. By December 15, when the PMU is officially established, UNDP CO should provide 3-5 day training to the PMU staff on the Results-Based Mangement (RBM) and UNDP/GEF requirements for project planning, management, reporting and communication. Each member of the PMU should clearly understand his/her role and responsibilities in the project implementation including all functions mentioned above.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/12/29]

Recommendation accepted.   

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
A short term training will be organized to the PMU/coordinating unit staff on the Result-based Management (RBM) and UNDP/GEF requirements for project planning, management, reporting and communication, by April 2018
[Added: 2017/12/29] [Last Updated: 2018/08/22]
Project manager and project team 2018/04 Overdue-Initiated
11. Recommendation:

Recommendation 4.3.4. It is highly recommended to the Project Manager to consider monthly and quarterly planning and reporting as obligatory function for all PMU staff responsible for achievement of particular project Outcomes. It will help easily monitor progress on delivery of particular project Outputs and implement adaptive management of the project.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/12/29]

Recommendation partially accepted. Monthly planning is not feasible 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Quarterly planning and reporting practice will be enhanced and strictly followed.
[Added: 2017/12/29] [Last Updated: 2018/08/22]
Project manager 2018/03 Completed Ongoing
12. Recommendation:

Recommendation 4.3.5. By December 30, it is highly recommended to the PMU to critically review all project Outputs and activities that are necessary to deliver the Outputs based on the Project Work Plan 2017-2020 and recommendations of the MTR (Annexes 3 and 4), and identify key partners for delivery of each Output, especially International and National Consultants. UNDP can provide tremendous support on selection of appropriate International Consultants to bring the best world experience in Eritrea to avoid costly mistakes and build the project implementation on the best practices. The sport champions hire the best international coaches and the most progressive governments have the best international advisors. Why Eritrea should be different and do not use this brilliant resource for the country development?  

Management Response: [Added: 2017/12/29]

Recommendation accepted.   

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Review all project Outputs and activities will be conducted in order to deliver the Outputs based on the Project Work Plan 2017-2020 and recommendations of the MTR (Annexes 3 and 4), and key partners for delivery of each Output will be identified.
[Added: 2017/12/29] [Last Updated: 2018/08/22]
Project manager 2018/03 Overdue-Initiated

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