Evaluation Detail

Final Evaluation of Niger Delta Biodiversity Conservation Project

Evaluation Plan:: 2018-2022, Nigeria
Evaluation Type:: Final Project
Planned End Date:: 11/2020
Completion Date:: 01/2021
Status:: Completed
Management Response:: Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):: 20,000

Document	Type	Language	Size	Status	Downloads
ToR PIMS 2047 _ UNDP GEF Terminal Evaluation_2020.pdf	tor	English	478.48 KB	Posted	978
NDBP_TE_Final.pdf	report	English	10248.76 KB	Posted	1084

Title

Final Evaluation of Niger Delta Biodiversity Conservation Project

Atlas Project Number:

61066

Evaluation Plan:

2018-2022, Nigeria

Evaluation Type:

Final Project

Status:

Completed

Completion Date:

01/2021

Planned End Date:

11/2020

Management Response:

Yes

Focus Area:

1. Sustainable
2. Others

Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021)

1. Output 2.1.1 Low emission and climate resilient objectives addressed in national, sub-national and sectoral development plans and policies to promote economic diversification and green growth

SDG Goal

Goal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss

SDG Target

15.9 By 2020, integrate ecosystem and biodiversity values into national and local planning, development processes, poverty reduction strategies and accounts

Evaluation Budget(US $):

20,000

Source of Funding:

Evaluation Expenditure(US $):

38,000

Joint Programme:

Joint Evaluation:

Evaluation Team members:

Name	Title	Nationality
Stanislaw MANIKOWSKI	International Consultant
Steve ABAH	National Consultant

GEF Evaluation:

Yes

GEF Project Title:	Niger Delta Biodiversity
Evaluation Type:	Terminal Evaluation
Focal Area:	Biodiversity
Project Type:	FSP
GEF Phase:	GEF-4
GEF Project ID:	4090
PIMS Number:	2047

Key Stakeholders:

Federal Ministry of Environment

Countries:

NIGERIA

Lessons
Findings

Recommendations
1	TE mission recommends to the FMoE and UNDP to introduce as compulsory formal cost-benefit evaluation of the important project activities. It is fundamental for the project sponsoring institution such as GEF, UNDP, or Government not solely to receive the accounting information but also know the values of outputs they financed.
2	TE mission recommends to the FMoE and UNDP to make the allocation of budget during the project execution conditional on the completeness of the M&E reporting
3	To FMoE. Critically evaluate the value of the project outcomes in terms of (i) importance of their contribution to the realization of the Ministry's objective, (ii) feasibility and replicability, (iii) cost-benefit and feasibility, and (iv) degree of acceptance by the direct beneficiaries. For the priority outcomes, evaluate the costs of their support and timeframe of execution, and identify the source of financing
4	To FMoE. Evaluate the technical value of the project documentation deposited in the Ministry; place in the WWW the documents judged important
5	To the FMoE. To strengthen the rural communities’ interest in sustainable biodiversity exploitation and conservation, require that the other existing and the future projects with biodiversity protection components consider the rural communities as the key stakeholders and incorporate their leaders into the projects steering institutions, implicated directly in activities execution and in M&E.
6	To UNDP. Require the projects to produce the exit strategy document and discuss its utility as a contribution to the reinforcement of the project sustainability and impact.
7	To UNDP. Projects with an important set of activities concerning the rural or urban communities should prepare an adjustable plan of engagement with decentralized stakeholders. This plan should include a description of the community project implementation modality, plan of integration with other project's structures and other projects operating in the region, and the follow-up activities.
8	To SMoE and UNDP. Since the community environmental management and biodiversity protections interest stakeholders of various ethnic origin and of different education levels, for the sake of efficiency and economy, the project should complete its consultants' roster by specialists coming from the beneficiaries’ communities
9	The TE team recommends to SMoE and UNDP to introduce as compulsory the RBM of the projects and require the project managers to demonstrate that their proposed work program is cost effective and/or cost efficient.

Management Response Documents

Management Response_NDBP_final.pdf

1. Recommendation:

TE mission recommends to the FMoE and UNDP to introduce as compulsory formal cost-benefit evaluation of the important project activities. It is fundamental for the project sponsoring institution such as GEF, UNDP, or Government not solely to receive the accounting information but also know the values of outputs they financed.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/10/13]

Fully accept - agrees entirely with all the recommendation and will seek actions to achieve the recommendation.

Key Actions:

Key Action	Responsible	DueDate	Status	Comments	Documents
For subsequent projects with resources from the same donor, the CO will conduct cost-benefit evaluation of the important project activities to enable GEF, UNDP, or Government know the values of outputs financed. [Added: 2021/12/08]	UNDP	2021/01	Completed	This has already been done with other GEF projects

2. Recommendation:

TE mission recommends to the FMoE and UNDP to make the allocation of budget during the project execution conditional on the completeness of the M&E reporting