Project Mid-Term Review - “Strengthening the Management Effectiveness of the National System of Protected Areas”

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2018-2022, Papua New Guinea
Evaluation Type:
Mid Term Project
Planned End Date:
11/2019
Completion Date:
11/2019
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
50,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document TOR_MTR International and National Consultant_GEF5 project_Final.pdf tor English 798.50 KB Posted 347
Download document PIMS 5261 MTR_report_20190829_final.pdf report English 3459.44 KB Posted 1255
Title Project Mid-Term Review - “Strengthening the Management Effectiveness of the National System of Protected Areas”
Atlas Project Number: 00087986
Evaluation Plan: 2018-2022, Papua New Guinea
Evaluation Type: Mid Term Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 11/2019
Planned End Date: 11/2019
Management Response: Yes
UNDP Signature Solution:
  • 1. Resilience
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021)
  • 1. Output 1.1.2 Marginalised groups, particularly the poor, women, people with disabilities and displaced are empowered to gain universal access to basic services and financial and non-financial assets to build productive capacities and benefit from sustainable livelihoods and jobs
  • 2. Output 1.4.1 Solutions scaled up for sustainable management of natural resources, including sustainable commodities and green and inclusive value chains
  • 3. Output 2.4.1 Gender-responsive legal and regulatory frameworks, policies and institutions strengthened, and solutions adopted, to address conservation, sustainable use and equitable benefit sharing of natural resources, in line with international conventions and national legislation
SDG Goal
  • Goal 14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development
  • 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
  • 14.5 By 2020, conserve at least 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, consistent with national and international law and based on the best available scientific information
  • 15.1 By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services, in particular forests, wetlands, mountains and drylands, in line with obligations under international agreements
  • 15.2 By 2020, promote the implementation of sustainable management of all types of forests, halt deforestation, restore degraded forests and substantially increase afforestation and reforestation globally
Evaluation Budget(US $): 50,000
Source of Funding: Global Environment Facility
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 50,000
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
James Lenoci Team leader james@lenociltd.com
Katherine Yuave National consultant kathyuave@gmail.com PAPUA NEW GUINEA
GEF Evaluation: Yes
GEF Project Title: “Strengthening the Management Effectiveness of the National System of Protected Areas
Evaluation Type: Mid-term Review
Focal Area: Biodiversity
Project Type: FSP
GEF Phase: GEF-5
GEF Project ID: 5510
PIMS Number: 5261
Key Stakeholders: Conservation and Environment Protection Authority, Tenkile Conservation Alliance, Woodland Park Zoo/Tree Kangaroo Conservation Program, Provinces - East and West Sepik, Madang and Morobe,
Countries: PAPUA NEW GUINEA
Comments:

Mid-Term Review of Project Implementation

Lessons
Findings
1.

3.1 Project Strategy

3.1.1 Project Design

The multifocal area project was approved under the GEF-5 replenishment cycle and aligned to Objective 1 biodiversity (BD) focal area strategy and Objectives 2 and 3 of the land degradation (LD) focal area strategy: • Objective BD-1: Improve Sustainability of Protected Area Systems; Outcome 1.1: Improved management effectiveness of existing and new protected areas; Output 1: New protected areas (number) and coverage (hectares) of unprotected ecosystems. Objective LD-2: Forest Landscapes: Generate sustainable flows of forest ecosystem services in drylands, including sustaining livelihoods of forest dependent people; Outcome 2.3: Sustained flow of services in forest ecosystems in drylands; Output 2.3: Suitable SFM interventions to increase/maintain natural forest cover in dryland production landscapes. • Objective LD-3: Integrated Landscapes: Reduce pressures on natural resources from competing land uses in the wider landscape; Outcome 3.2: Integrated landscape management practices adopted by local communities; Output 3.1: Integrated land management plans developed and implemented.

With regard to the biodiversity focal area strategy, Output 2 under Objective BD-1 might have been more appropriate, as the envisaged protected area expansions are focusing on unprotected threatened species (tree kangaroo); Output 1 is focused on unprotected ecosystems. And, it is unclear why Objective LD-2 was included under the project strategy, as the target landscapes are tropical forest ecosystems. The project design does not include a theory of change. For the purposes of the midterm review and to support a possible redesign of the project, the MTR team prepared a draft theory of change for consideration (Figure 2). Component 1 was designed to address Barrier 1, i.e., inadequate institutional and technical capacities and financial resources to manage and support an effective PA system. Four outputs were formulated to achieve the three outcomes envisaged under this component. It is noted that project outcomes are not included in the project strategy described in the project document. Table B (project framework) of the CEO Endorsement Request includes project outcomes, but these are not reflected in the project document.


Tag: Biodiversity Environment Policy Protected Areas Knowledge management Programme/Project Design Theory of Change

2.

Results Framework

As part of this midterm review, the project results framework for the project was assessed against “SMART” criteria, to evaluate whether the indicators and targets were sufficiently specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and timebound. With respect to the time-bound criterion, all targets are assumed compliant, as they are set as end-of-project performance metrics.

Objective Indicator A is an aggregated capacity development score, an average of scores assessed for CEPA, TCA, TKCP and four provincial government stakeholders, applying a common capacity development scorecard. The MTR team feels that aggregating scores of the separate stakeholders into a single, average score does not provide a relevant measure of PA management capacity. Firstly, the mandates of the stakeholders are different and, in fact, the scorecard is best suited for a PA management institution such as CEPA. There are outcomes in the scorecard that are not relevant for an NGO stakeholder, e.g.: • There is a strong and clear legal mandate for the establishment and management of protected areas. • There are protected area systems. • There is a fully transparent oversight authority for the protected areas institutions. • Protected area institutions are highly transparent, fully audited, and publicly accountable. • There are legally designated protected area institutions with the authority to carry out their mandate. • Protected area policy is continually reviewed and updated. With respect to Objective Indicator B, the baseline of zero (0) villages benefitting from community-based livelihood activities in the YUS and Torricelli landscapes is incorrect. There were villages benefiting from livelihood activities at project baseline. Objective Indicator E was added from the Integrated Results and Resources Framework (IRRF) of the 2014-2017 UNDP Strategic Plan. There was no baseline or end target established for this indicator.


Tag: Natural Resouce management Protected Areas Water resources National Local Governance Monitoring and Evaluation Capacity Building

3.

Gender Mainstreaming and Social Inclusion Analysis

The UNDP social and environmental screening process (SESP) was carried out as part of the project preparation phase (PPG), and the results annexed to the project document. The SESP concluded that the project is rated as MODERATE risk, based on potential conflicts between communities and CEPA regarding natural resource management in the Varirata-Sogeri landscape and the potential damaging effects of increasing the number of alien species in project areas. The mitigation measures described includes ensuring stakeholders concerns are adequately understood, carrying out social mapping and related tools to identify communities and clans with claims on natural resources in the project landscapes, conducting a comprehensive risk/environmental and social impact assessment on any exotic species that will be used for the livelihood activities on the project and completing an indigenous peoples plan as part of the process of formulating the integrated land use plan for the Sirinumu Dam area. There were no gender risks identified in the SESP. A gender analysis and action plan were not made during the PPG phase, and the project results framework is not gender-specific. During the GEF-5 replenishment cycle, UNDP policy required gender analyses and action plans for projects having identified gender risks. The challenges of gender equality in PNG were elaborated in the situation analysis of the project document and a “Medium” rated risk on gender was included in the risk log included in the main body of the project document: “Gender based conflicts over the roles of men and women in natural resource management”. The description of the project strategy included developing a formal gender strategy for the YUS and TMR conservation landscapes, delivering trainings on gender screening and considering gender mainstreaming approaches in the outputs under Component 2. Moreover, a gender assessment was planned as part of the land use planning for the YUS and TMR conservation area landscapes and a specific gender focus was highlighted for Output 2.2 (livelihoods). TKCP completed a gender assessment and action plan for YUS after project implementation started. Climate change risks were not identified in the SESP; however, a “Medium” rated risk regarding climate change was included in the updated risk log in the main body of the project document: “The effects of climate change will make it difficult to plan/implement activities”.


Tag: Climate Change Adaptation Biodiversity Natural Resouce management Gender Mainstreaming Social cohesion Inclusive economic growth Jobs and Livelihoods

4.

3.2 Progress towards Results

3.2.1 Progress towards achievement of Global Environmental Benefits

Improvements in protected area management effectiveness at the three target PA’s are on target to reach the project end targets, and gazettal of the TMR CA and the expanded YUS CA are considered likely to be realized by project closure. With respect to the envisaged global environmental benefits under the LD focal area, the project is on target to achieve three integrated land use plans, one for each of the target conservation landscapes. However, reforestation (or rather rehabilitation) of degraded forests in the Sogeri Plateau and 5% reduction in the rate of sedimentation in the Laloki River are unlikely to be achieved under the project.


Tag: Agriculture land resouces Forestry Biodiversity Environment Policy Natural Resouce management Effectiveness

5.

3.2.2 Progress towards Objective and Outcomes Analysis

Project effectiveness was evaluated by assessing achievement of the project objective and outcomes according to the agreed performance metrics included in the project results framework.

As discussed in Section 3.1 of this MTR report, the MTR team considers that the capacity development scorecard is not applicable for measuring the capacity of NGOs and provincial government administrations; the scorecard is rather designed for a PA institution such as CEPA. The envisaged PA expansion end target is expected to be achieved by project closure. The biodiversity offsets policy that is under development at the time of the MTR mission is expected to be approved by CEPA by the November 2020 closure date. Although the TOR for the consultancy contracted to develop the draft policy has been amended for preparation of a drafting instruction for a regulation for biodiversity offsets, there is a moderately low likelihood that the regulation would be drafted and issued before project closure. The cumulative number of villages engaged at the YUS CA and proposed TMR CA exceed the end target of 60; however, not all of these villages have households involved in alternative livelihood ventures. Regarding Objective Indicator E, the project has not yet defined baseline conditions or end target; MTR suggestions are shown above.


Tag: Agriculture land resouces Biodiversity Protected Areas Effectiveness Local Governance Monitoring and Evaluation Policies & Procedures Jobs and Livelihoods Capacity Building Institutional Strengthening

6.

3.2.3 Project Outputs

Progress towards delivery of project outputs are discussed below.

Component 1:

Output 1.1: Policies and Legislations relating to PA Management and Biodiversity Conservation strengthened

One of the first activities under this output was the development of the Protected Areas Policy Implementation Plan (PAPIP). The plan was drafted with the support of a technical assistance agreement with a national consultant. The PAPIP has been endorsed by the Minister for Environment & Conservation and Climate Change and pending approval by the National Executive Council (NEC). The Plan has supported CEPA in their work planning and budget allocation request. The 2019 government budget indicates PGK 2 million (approx. USD 580,000) are earmarked for 2019 for capacity building for protected areas, and PGK 0.5 million (approx. USD 145,000) per year in 2020 and 2021, respectively. One of the activities included under this output was the development of draft PA regulations, through a technical assistance agreement with a PNG consultancy, Alotau Environmental. The draft PA regulations are complementary to the proposed PA bill and approval of the regulations will follow enactment of the PA bill.


Tag: Biodiversity Protected Areas Effectiveness National Local Governance Rule of law Change Management Project and Programme management Technical Support

7.

Output 1.3: Training Programs targeting PA managers institutionalized

PA Solutions is developing a training programme for PA managers and PA planning staff, based on stakeholder consultations and results of a nationwide competence assessment. As shown below in Figure 4, the number of PA staff varies among PA’s in the country; in fact, the two PA’s with the highest number of staff are the ones targeted under Component 2 of the GEF-5 project, namely Torricelli (TMR CA) and YUS CA. The project has also issued a USD 150,000 grant to the Pacific Adventist University (PAU) to develop a curriculum for community rangers. The description of Output 1.3 in the project document includes implementing SMART13 training for all newly contracted rangers across the three target PA’s. The YUS CA has introduced SMART for their rangers; it would be advisable to share experiences and lessons learned with the other two PA’s, i.e., Varirata NP and TMR CA.


Tag: Agriculture land resouces Global Environment Facility fund National Monitoring and Evaluation Project and Programme management Technical Support

8.

Component 2:

Component 2 is split between two sets of two outputs; Outputs 2.1 and 2.2 are focused on the YUS CA and Outputs 2.3 and 2.4 are designed for the proposed TMR CA.

Output 2.1: Expansion and effective management of the YUS Conservation TKCP has facilitated the development of an integrated YUS landscape level land use plan, as part of the process of expanding the area conservation area to fulfill the landscape approach promoted in the PA Policy. The land use plan is a consolidation of ward-level land use plans, incorporating zoning regulations and outlining permitted and prohibited activities. To facilitate understanding among the local communities, a three-dimensional physical model of the land use plan was created. During the MTR field mission, some community members mentioned that the delineation of the expanded conservation area was clearer in the three-dimensional model – and stressing that they were previously unaware how much of their land is included. It would be advisable to further sensitize the local communities regarding what activities are allowed in the landscape. At the time of the MTR mission, TKCP/WPZ representatives indicated that the documentation for gazettal of the expanded CA are prepared and they had submitted the package to CEPA for review and approval multiple times as CEPA requested new information each time. There were discussions to wait until the proposed PA bill is approved, but considering the timing for approving the bill is uncertain, it was decided to submit under the current legislation. The expanded PA will be the same classification, i.e., conservation area, not a community conservation area which is one of the categories promoted in the proposed PA bill.


Tag: Biodiversity Natural Resouce management Protected Areas Water resources Rule of law

9.

Output 2.2: Community livelihood assistance in the YUS landscape

Commodity conservation has been a modality implemented at the YUS CA for a number of years, for facilitating participation among local communities and reducing threats through alternative livelihood ventures. Conservation coffee (see Figure 8) and conservation cocoa are the primary commodities produced. Coffee and cocoa cooperatives have been established with 317 beneficiaries for each crop (total 634, or about 5% of the cumulative 13,592 people residing in the YUS landscape)16 . As reported in the midterm self-assessment, the first export of YUS Conservation Coffee occurred in 2011 and 120,000 kg have been sold to the Seattle-based Caffe Vita through 2018. More recently, conservation coffee has been supplied to Jasper Coffee based in Melbourne, Australia. During the three full years of project implementation in 2016, 2017 and 2018, production and export of coffee from 22,650 ha were 30 tons, 45 tons and 29.5 tons, respectively. Production of conservation cocoa is not as developed as for coffee, partly because of available marketing channels and damage from the cocoa pod borer pest during the 2016-2018 seasons. The YUS Conservation Cocoa cooperative has a partnership with the PNG-based Queen Emma Chocolate Company for purchase for sale as a premium single-origin chocolate bar named “YUS Kakao”. TKCP is currently conducting a market assessment to assess opportunities for expanding conservation cocoa activities.


Tag: Agriculture co-operatives Biodiversity Protected Areas Partnership Jobs and Livelihoods

10.

Output 2.4: Community livelihood assistance in the Torricelli Mountain Range landscapes proposed CCA: Alternative protein

Providing alternative livelihood options, delivering social co-benefits and increasing awareness among the 50 villages in the TMR conservation landscape are key parts of the strategy that TCA has taken to reduce threats to the threatened tree kangaroo species and to facilitate genuine collaboration by local people towards achieving the conservation objectives. Delivery of 343 water tanks in an EU-financed project completed in 2015 was transformational in the TMR landscape, where local people have traditionally spent hours per day fetching water from nearby streams, traverse steep mountainsides and dense forests. Funding from the GEF-5 project has built upon these achievements, e.g., through delivering additional tin roofing to increase rainwater harvesting rates. Moreover, project resources have been allocated for supporting alternative protein and other food sources, including fishponds (tilapia), rabbit breeding, rice planting, etc. TCA is also exploring options for commodity conservation. Several of the local farmers are growing vanilla, but the TCA board decided not to promote vanilla, as there have been security issues on the supply chain. Eaglewood (source of agar) is a potential commodity that is being trialed at the conservation landscape, with 400 seedlings grown at the Lumi base (see Figure 10).


Tag: Agriculture land resouces Food Security Jobs and Livelihoods Value Chain Awareness raising

11.

3.2.4 Remaining Barriers to Achieving the Project Objective

The barriers that need to be overcome in the second half of the project include: Initiating the planned restructuring of the CEPA organization. The proposed restructuring of the CEPA organization should be initiated incrementally, capitalizing on available GEF funding during the remaining project timeframe. Delivering substantive support to the Varirata NP. The project should work with CEPA and the JICA team in determining the best use of available GEF resources in supporting the Varirata NP. Improving internal and external project coherence. Internal collaboration and coordination should be strengthened; CEPA staff members should be more involved on the project; and synergies with cofinancing partners and other complementary projects and programs should be realized. The MTR team recognizes that CEPA is understaffed and there are competing priorities from other donor projects. CEPA management should work with the donor partners on improving integration of project activities into CEPA’s planning, budgeting and operating processes.


Tag: Global Environment Facility fund Donor relations Partnership Programme Synergy

12.

3.3 Project Implementation and Adaptive Management

Project Implementation and Adaptive Management is rated at: Moderately Satisfactory

3.3.1 Management Arrangements The project is being implemented under a fully supported national implementation modality (NIM), with UNDP as the GEF implementation agency, CEPA as the lead implementing partner, and WPZ and TCA as responsible parties.

Project steering committee:

The project steering committee has convened two times through midterm: • August 2017 • November 2018 The composition of the PSC was designed to include CEPA and UNDP as the project executive function, WPZ and TCA as project senior suppliers, and the provinces of East Sepik, West Sepik, Morobe, Madang and Central as senior beneficiaries. The first meeting in August 2017 was chaired by the CEPA SEP Director and attended by one other CEPA staff member, the UNDP Energy and Environment Programme Analyst, the TKCP Manager and the TCA Chief Operations Manager. The secretariat position was represented by the GEF-4 Technical Specialist and the GEF-5 Project Associate. The provincial, beneficiary members were not present at this meeting; there was a note included in the minutes that UNDP was asked to ensure provincial representatives attend the next meeting. And, there was discussion of exploring the option of constituting a board that would combine the steering committees of all current GEF-financed projects under CEPA. The minutes of the August 2017 PSC meeting also made reference to the separate inception workshops that were held in Lae (for the YUS CA portion of the project) and Wewak (for the TMR CA portion of the project). It is stated in the minutes that no changes were made to the project document at the outcome level or to indicators.


Tag: Energy Environment Policy Change Management Implementation Modality Monitoring and Evaluation Project and Programme management

13.

GEF Implementing Agency: UNDP

The UNDP country office (CO) in Port Moresby has provided extensive assistance to the project, firstly through fully supporting CEPA in the implementation of the project. During the time when DEC was transitioning to CEPA, there were also changes made to the management arrangements for UNDP-supported, GEF-financed projects in PNG. A joint project management unit (PMU) was established the UNDP CO, with several functions shared across all GEF projects, including procurement, monitoring & evaluation and financial administration. The international technical coordinator for the GEF-5 project – a term used in lieu of project manager or project coordinator – was also coordinating the GEF4 project. A dedicated project manager was recruited in September 2018, but for nearly 3 years, the coordinator was overseeing both the GEF-4 and GEF-5 projects. For a full-sized GEF project, with a grant of nearly USD 11 million, a fulltime project manager is needed, in the opinion of the MTR team.


Tag: Global Environment Facility fund Implementation Modality Project and Programme management Coordination Technical Support

14.

Lead Implementing Partner: CEPA

Under the fully supported NIM arrangements, CEPA has essentially outsourced the project execution function. The PMU staff members have UNDP contracts and the shared service functions, including procurement, M&E and financial administration are housed at the UNDP country office. The project manager has shared her time between the UNDP office and the CEPA office. During the MTR mission, there was reportedly a decision reached that all PMU staff should be based full time at the CEPA office – this would be an important step towards better engaging the CEPA organization. The head of the SEP Division of CEPA has chaired the two PSC meetings. It is unclear if she is the National Project Director (NPD), or if the Managing Director of CEPA is the NPD. It would be advisable to officially declare who is the NPD, and it is good practice to include the terms of reference of the NPD in the project document (lesson learned). A few other CEPA staff members have been involved on the project, but their roles are not clearly defined. The CEPA SEP officers that have been actively involved in the Project are the Manager of Terrestrial Protected Areas who manages the VNP and the Terrestrial Ecosystem Manager. It would be advisable to better define the roles of these and other CEPA staff members on the project.


Tag: Biodiversity Natural Resouce management Human and Financial resources Implementation Modality Monitoring and Evaluation Partnership Project and Programme management Country Government

15.

3.3.2 Work Planning

The GEF Secretariat approved the project for implementation on 21 July 2015 and the Government of PNG signed the project document on 13 November of that year. CEPA and the two responsible parties WPZ and TCA prepared annual work plans for 2015 – which were all approved on 29 October 2015, but there were no expenditures incurred that year, according to available records. The project document contains a consolidated, 5-year work plan and budget for the project. In the ensuing years of project implementation, separate annual work plans have been prepared by CEPA, WPZ and TCA. It would be advisable to jointly prepare the annual work plans, e.g., through organizing annual stakeholder workshops, and issuing a consolidated work plan in addition to the individual ones (lesson learned). Starting in November 2018, the project organized a partners meeting; such a meeting would be a good platform for jointly developing the annual work plan for the subsequent year. The annual work plans are lacking detail budget breakdowns. For example, the approved Component 1 budget outlined in the 2019 AWP is USD 1.8 million, and there are only 9 line items, including an item for USD 0.64 million (Atlas 72100, “Firms”) with no breakdown included. The November 2018 PSC meeting considered new funding possibilities for supporting the Managalas CA (estimated cost: PGK 565,600 and the legislative review of amendments to the Fauna Control and Protection Act (estimated cost: PGK 376,300). The PSC did not endorse these new funding possibilities. The project results framework is reported on in the annual project implementation review (PIR) reports and was discussed during the project inception workshops. Output level indicators and targets are included in the annual work plans; it would be advisable to include how these output level indicators contribute towards outcome and objective level results (lesson learned)


Tag: Human and Financial resources Partnership Programme/Project Design

16.

3.3.3 Finance and Cofinance

Financial Expenditures:

The cut-off date for project midterm is 31 March 2019. According to available expenditure reports provided by the UNDP CO, a total of USD 5,941,749 of the GEF implementation grant of USD 10,929,358 have been incurred through project midterm, or roughly 54%, as shown below in Table 16.

The USD 2,168,189 incurred under Component 1 represents 42% of the indicative budget for this component. For Component 2, there has been USD 1,634,462 spent under the WPZ portion, or 61% of the indicative budget, and USD 1,668,960 under the TCA portion, or 63% of the indicative budget. The negative USD 44,839 reported in Q1 of 2019 for TCA is a correction; there was an equal sum reversal reported in Q1 2018. For Component 1 (CEPA), financial delivery has ranged from 60% in 2016, 34% in 2017 and 82% in 2018, as shown below in Figure 11. Financial delivery for the WPZ portion of Component 2 was 70% in 2016, 74% in 2017 and 92% in 2018. For the TCA portion of Component 2, financial delivery was 97% in 2016, >100% in 2017 and 99% in 2018. There was an advance made to TCA in Q4 of 2016, hence the >100% delivery in 2017. Project management costs through midterm are USD 470,139, which is 94% of the indicative USD 500,000 allocated in the project document budget. The rate of spending on project management and allocation of costs under project management should be reconciled.


Tag: Protected Areas Global Environment Facility fund Resource mobilization Human and Financial resources Operational Efficiency Oversight Policies & Procedures Project and Programme management

17.

3.3.4 Project-level Monitoring and Evaluation Systems

The monitoring & evaluation (M&E) plan was prepared using the standard UNDP template for GEF-financed projects. The estimated cost for implementation of the M&E plan, as recorded in the project document, is USD 145,000, which is about 1.3% of the GEF grant. This level of resources allocated for M&E is considered by the MTR team to be low. The UNDP template for GEF-6 projects, for example, suggests that the M&E budget be 5% of the value of the project grant. The consolidated version of the project document contains the breakdown of the M&E plan and budget. The component specific project documents contain the standard M&E narrative, but there are no separate M&E plans or budgets presented. The project is being supported by a M&E Officer, a member of the joint PMU at the UNDP country office. A validation workshop was not held prior to finalizing the draft project document, before submittal for approval. The sedimentation issue at the Sirinumu Dam and downstream reaches of the Laloki River described in the project document was not substantiated, for instance. Certain M&E tools, including the capacity development scorecards and tracking tools were also not fully validated with the project partners. And, the indicative breakdown of the project budget in the project document was not shared with some of the implementing partners.22


Tag: Agriculture land resouces Biodiversity Natural Resouce management Water resources Global Environment Facility fund Monitoring and Evaluation Capacity Building

18.

3.3.5 Stakeholder Engagement and Partnerships 

The Stakeholder Involvement Plan included in Part III of the project document includes the following statement: “A full Stakeholder Involvement Plan remains however to be prepared upon project inception and this is already an identified activity”. There was no evidence available that a more detailed stakeholder involvement plan was prepared at project inception. The project inception report, dated July 2017, includes the same stakeholder analysis table that is included in the project document, and a list of the following additional key project stakeholders: • Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) • James Cook University • National Capital District Commission • National Forest Authority • Cocoa Board of Papua New Guinea • Coffee Industry Cooperation Stakeholder engagement has been largely compartmentalized according to the project components. CEPA has been mostly involved on Component 1 activities and WPZ/TKCP and TCA have been engaging with the local stakeholders in the two conservation area landscapes. With respect to the five provincial administrations listed in the project stakeholder analysis, the project has primarily involved West Sepik (TMR CA) and Morobe (YUS CA). There has been less involvement by representatives from East Sepik (TMR CA), Madang (YUS CA) and Central (Sogeri). The recently constituted Regional Protected Areas Round Table (RPART) provide very useful and important stakeholder engagement platforms. The GEF-5 project has been supporting CEPA in facilitating the roundtable meetings. CEPA should take the lead in these roundtables on a regular basis as the provincial counterparts depend on CEPA for conservation priorities as this function is not decentralized.


Tag: Agriculture co-operatives Biodiversity Water resources National Civic Engagement Partnership Programme Synergy

19.

3.3.6 Reporting

 There have been two project implementation review (PIR) reports by midterm, one in 2017 and the other in 2018. The internal rating in the 2017 PIR report for the expectation that the project will achieve its global environment objective and yield global environmental benefits (DO) was “moderately satisfactory”. There was no rating for implementation progress (IP) in the 2017 report. And the overall risk rating was “high”. The internal ratings in the 2018 report were considerably improved, with overall DO and IP ratings at “satisfactory”, and the overall risk rating was “low”. The MTR team feels that the IP rating and the overall risk rating in the 2018 report were overly optimistic. There are issues with respect to project implementation, including but not limited to the following: • Delay in gazettal of the TMR CA. • Delay in approval of the proposed PA bill. • Lack of progress with respect to restructuring of CEPA. • Lack of recruitment of PA staff at the Varirata NP. • Financial management shortcomings among the NGO responsible parties. • High rate of project management costs. With respect to project risks, several of the risks identified in the project document were elevated to a higher level of risk during project inception, including social risks.


Tag: Challenges Communication Human and Financial resources Project and Programme management

20.

3.3.7 Communications 

With respect to internal communications among the project implementing partners, there has been one partners meeting, held in November 2018. The primary approach has been interacting via email, e.g., delivering inputs for progress reports, email, telephone and through independent spot checks and financial audits. It would be advisable to organize cross-visits among the project sites, rotating the PSC meetings and hold more frequent partner meetings. The project partners have communicated project information through posts on websites, production of documentary films, publication of online stories such as “A Home in the Clouds” published on the UNDP website with inputs from WPZ/TKCP and TCA (see Figure 14), social media posts, radio and television programs, presentations at professional conferences, printed media and community awareness campaigns, including during World Environment Day celebrations in Port Moresby in June 2018.


Tag: Communication Knowledge management Partnership Programme/Project Design

21.

3.4 Sustainability

Sustainability is generally considered to be the likelihood of continued benefits after the GEF funding ends. Under GEF criteria each sustainability dimension is critical, i.e., the overall ranking cannot be higher than the lowest one among the four assessed risk dimensions.

Supporting Evidence: ? Improved management effectiveness of three target conservation areas ? On track to achieve PA expansion targets ? Continued donor funding (e.g., GEF, Australian Government, JICA, USAID, etc.) ? Fund raising skills, endowments and innovative approaches by NGOs and foundations ? Community conservation areas a cornerstone of the PA policy and draft PA bill ? Strengthened engagement of local communities in YUS and TMR, providing scale-able demonstrations ? Strengthened enabling environment, e.g., PA management training, proposed restructuring of CEPA ? Reduced pressures on ecosystems and threatened species in target conservation landscapes ? Draft biodiversity offset policy (under development) ? Strengthened participatory land use planning in the Varirata-Sogeri Plateau landscape ? Limited involvement of CEPA staff in project activities ? Insufficient collaboration with complimentary projects and programs ? Limited government funding for conservation ? Limited cross-learning among the project partners and project sites ? Capacity shortcomings of community based organizations in the target conservation landscapes ? Constraints on establishment of trust funds (Public Money Management Regularization Act 2017) ? Unclear timeline for approval of draft PA bill ? Continued development pressures, including among the mineral resource, oil & gas and forestry sectors ? Long-term impacts of climate change

 


Tag: Biodiversity Protected Areas Sustainability Local Governance Donor relations Human and Financial resources Project and Programme management Capacity Building

22.

3.4.1 Financial Risks to Sustainability

There are a number of factors that contribute towards mitigating the financial risks associated with achieving and sustaining effective PA management in PNG. Firstly, donor funding remains substantial. At the time of the MTR of this project, preparations were underway to initiate the implementation of a GEF-6 project that focuses on sustainable PA financing. The Australian Government continues to provide financial and technical assistance through the Kokoda Initiative and other programs. JICA has provided long-standing financial and technical assistance on environmental management issues, including the ongoing support to the Varirata NP that is directly complementary to the GEF-5 project. And, the USAID is initiating a 5-year, USD 19 million biodiversity program in PNG. Apart from multilateral and bilateral donor funding, NGOs and foundations continue to make significant investments in biodiversity conservation in PNG. The endowment fund set up for the YUS Conservation Area is a good example of such funding; it is important that disbursements from the endowment balance scientific research needs with community livelihood needs, in order to maintain meaningful engagement with local communities over the long-term The fund-raising skills of local NGOs, including TCA and TKCP further enhance the likelihood that results achieved on the project will be sustained, if properly managed and local structures such as CBOs are integrated into the collaborative management processes. TKCP has successfully established a YUS Conservation Area Management Endowment that is housed and managed at WPZ which provides sustainable funding for a portion of management activities. More investment is needed. There is need to strengthen the financial management capacities of CBOs, in order to enable them to successful raise their own funding and establish functional working connections with local level government units.


Tag: Energy Natural Resouce management Sustainability Human and Financial resources

23.

3.4.2 Socioeconomic Risks to Sustainability

With respect to socioeconomic risks to sustainability, the project has successfully demonstrated community-driven conservation modalities, something that is highlighted in the PA policy approved in 2014 and the draft PA bill. Reaching consensus among the large number of customary landowners in the YUS and TMR landscapes and inclusive participation in the development of integrated land use plans further enhances the likelihood that project results will be sustained. The participatory conservation initiatives have resulted in numerous social co-benefits delivered to the communities, e.g., rainwater harvesting, improved health and hygiene, skills training for sustainable livelihood ventures and strengthened social cohesion. The activities in the YUS and TRM landscapes have also empowered women, e.g., increased decision-making roles, introduction of livelihood skills and saved time as a result of improved water supplies. Despite the complexities associated with gender mainstreaming within the Melanesian context and in the absence of specific gender specific activity, the importance of disaggregated data for sex and age for planning purposes is helpful. The social co-benefits generated in the local communities demonstrate the shortcomings that local level governments have in delivering such services. The limited capacities and inappropriate allocations of funding and/or lack of funding to local and provincial governmental agencies diminishes the sustainability prospects.


Tag: Sustainability Partnership Inclusive economic growth Jobs and Livelihoods Capacity Building Women and gilrs Youth

24.

3.4.3 Institutional Framework and Governance Risks to Sustainability

The development and approval of the PA policy implementation plan enhances the institutional framework in PNG for PA management, providing CEPA with a practical roadmap. The trainings delivered to CEPA staff and other PA stakeholders will further contribute to the institutional enabling environment. Moreover, the proposed restructuring plans for CEPA and the draft biodiversity offsets policy under development are important steps towards achieving sustainable operation of the authority and effective governance of the national PA system. Community level governance modalities strengthened at the YUS and TMR conservation landscapes are scale-able demonstrations across the PA system. The limited involvement of CEPA staff in project activities and unclear pathways for institutionalizing project outputs diminish overall project sustainability. For example, restructuring plans, including recruitment of additional CEPA staff, have been put on hold. Limited feedback has been given to draft consultancy deliverables, and CEPA staff have not made regular visits to the YUS or TMR landscapes. Moreover, the timeline for approval of the draft PA bill is uncertain, and these delays will likely be extended partly due to the recent change in government (end of May 2019).


Tag: Biodiversity Protected Areas Sustainability Local Governance Rule of law Coordination

25.

3.4.4 Environmental Risks to Sustainability

The project is on track to meet the envisaged PA expansion targets, with an estimated 331,000 ha expected. This expansion would result in improved conservation of unprotected species and ecosystems. Reduced pressures on ecosystems and threatened species in the target PA landscapes, as of increased uptake of alternative protein sources, strengthened livelihood ventures among the target communities and collaborative management of PA’s, further enhance the likelihood that project results will be sustained. Although there are vast expanses of pristine terrestrial and marine ecosystems in PNG, development pressures remain a concern, as the country is rich in mineral resources, oil & gas, forests and fish (e.g., tuna) and other marine resources. Invasive alien species (IAS) have been identified as a concern in PNG, as is the case in many other countries in the Pacific. The Varirata NP has widespread invasive shrub species (clidemia miconia crenata) along walking tracks while small invasive tree species (spiked pepper piper adnucum) in YUS. And, the potential consequences and uncertainties associated with long term climate change impacts diminish sustainability. A likely rating has been applied for the environmental sustainability dimension at midterm.


Tag: Climate Change Adaptation Biodiversity Protected Areas Sustainability

Recommendations
1

Improve project coherence through strengthening project governance arrangements, internal coordination

and communication. Improvements should include, but not be limited to:

(a) include TCA and WPZ/TKCP on project steering committee (PSC);

(b) prepare a project-specific terms of reference (TOR) for the PSC;

(c) consider inviting DNPM to co-chair the PSC;

(d) officially identify and prepare a TOR for the National Project Director;

(e) update the TOR for the project manager;

(f) invite JICA and Kokoda Initiative representatives to PSC meetings (as observers);

(g) rotate PSC meetings among project sites; and

(h) organize cross-learning exchanges among the project sites.

2

Increase involvement of CEPA staff and advocate and facilitate institutionalization of project outputs.

Recommended actions included, but not limited to: 

(a) identify the roles of CEPA staff members on the project; 

(b) assign a CEPA staff member with each technical assistance team; 

(c) issue and brand project outputs as CEPA deliverables; 

(d) link this issue to risk management process and regularly report progress/issues.

3

Prioritize mobilization of on-the-ground support to the Varirata National Park. In coordination with CEPA and JICA teams, prepare an adaptive management implementation plan for the final 1-1/2 years of the project regarding the Varirata NP, including coordination of recruitment of NP staff to the organization proposed in draft management plan for the NP. 

 

The annual work plan for 2019 should be reviewed to according to the agreed support to the Varirata NP, which might affect the new funding considerations for the Managalas CA & Review of Fauna (Control & Protection) Act.

4

Improve financial controls and oversight. Recommended improvements for strengthening financial management include, but are not limited to: (a) responsible parties should retain support from professional financial professionals or service providers; 

(b) allocation of project management costs should be reconciled;

(c) cofinancing contributions should be regularly tracked, also including cofinancing materialized after start of implementation.

5

Improve project monitoring & evaluation. Recommended improvements include, but are not limited to:

 (a)finalize the midterm tracking tool assessments and clear with the UNDP-GEF RTA, including reconciling midterm METT scores; 

(b) adapt the capacity development scorecard according to the mandates of the NGO responsible parties and provincial government administrations; 

(c) update the project results framework;

 (d) integrate gender mainstreaming objectives into the results framework; 

(e) reflect the envisaged project outcomes in the results framework; 

(f) orient project M&E according to progress towards long-term impact considerations and maintain a record; 

6

Strengthen project oversight, through :

 

(a) recruiting a part-time chief technical advisor to support review of technical outputs and liaise with CEPA officials, ensuring value-for-money of the services rendered and

increasing the likelihood that project outputs are sustained after GEF funding ceases, and

 (b) increasing engagement with the UNDP-GEF regional technical advisor based in Bangkok, e.g., supporting approval of high value contracts, delivering strategic guidance and facilitating South-South cooperation among other UNDP-GEF

projects in the region.

7

Design and implement a project communication and knowledge management strategy and action plan. It would be advisable to prepare a joint communication and knowledge management strategy and action plan.

8

Develop and implement a sustainability strategy and action plan. Link the strategy and action plan to the project theory of change (draft theory of change provided in the MTR report). Implementation of the action plan should start during the second half of the project and extend over the timelines outlined in the theory of change. One part of the sustainability strategy should address increasing involvement and strengthening capacities of landowners and community-based organizations (CBOs) in leading community conservation modalities.

9

Increase participation of the PNG professional community. Create a roster of PNG specialists and institute a policy of assigning a national counterpart with each international consultancy.

10

Commission an analysis of lessons learned and best practices regarding implementation of commodity conservation. Commodity conservation is an important modality for PNG and is widely promoted globally. Such an analysis would provide valuable insight for PA management administrations, PA institutions, local governments and the broader conservation community

1. Recommendation:

Improve project coherence through strengthening project governance arrangements, internal coordination

and communication. Improvements should include, but not be limited to:

(a) include TCA and WPZ/TKCP on project steering committee (PSC);

(b) prepare a project-specific terms of reference (TOR) for the PSC;

(c) consider inviting DNPM to co-chair the PSC;

(d) officially identify and prepare a TOR for the National Project Director;

(e) update the TOR for the project manager;

(f) invite JICA and Kokoda Initiative representatives to PSC meetings (as observers);

(g) rotate PSC meetings among project sites; and

(h) organize cross-learning exchanges among the project sites.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/12/16] [Last Updated: 2021/02/02]

UNDP will stregthen the governance arrangment for the project 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
CEPA confirmed that they will remain the co-chair of the SC. And DNPM can participate in the SC.
[Added: 2019/12/16] [Last Updated: 2020/10/05]
Project Manager and Team Leader 2020/09 Completed No change as CEPA is the current Co-chair and provides great oversight for the Project activities. DNPM has not attended any meetings all last year, despite a formal invitation (see formal invitation letter attached) send from CEPA MD. History
2. Recommendation:

Increase involvement of CEPA staff and advocate and facilitate institutionalization of project outputs.

Recommended actions included, but not limited to: 

(a) identify the roles of CEPA staff members on the project; 

(b) assign a CEPA staff member with each technical assistance team; 

(c) issue and brand project outputs as CEPA deliverables; 

(d) link this issue to risk management process and regularly report progress/issues.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/12/17] [Last Updated: 2021/02/02]

Management agree with the recommendation, the project is full CO support to NIM, hence, TOR will be prepared to identify CEPA’s staff role in the project management.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
By March 2020: 1- Project will finalize the TOR for CEPA staff and identify the technical assistance to provide by CEPA staff. 2- UNDP will ensure that project branding will include CEPA as part project visibility plan. 3- Lessons Learned and Risk Management will be updated every 3 months
[Added: 2019/12/17] [Last Updated: 2020/04/06]
Project PMU 2020/03 Completed To date, ToRs for missions compiled post MTR have reflected CEPA staff roles for the mission. For example, the Drone missions conducted in 2019 were led by a CEPA staff. There were 9 drone missions [16-20 April in Kokopo; 15-18 August in PoM; 19-20 August in Wewak; 21-23 August in Lumi; 24-27 August in Lae & 28-31 August in Kokopo; 27-30 September in Vanimo; 1-5 November in Ambunti; 6-7 November in Wewak]. In addition, the CEPA staff finalized the Protected Areas (PA) management standards/guidelines in October 2019 and this included CEPA branding. CEPA will have to formalize these guidelines via their internal processes now. Documentation on lessons learnt from the CEPA capacity building was also completed (see attached pdf – CEPA 3_lessons learned capacity building – CEPA report). The Terminal Evaluation process will also feature a consultancy documenting lessons learnt from the Project that includes interviews with CEPA staff – PMU finalizing ToRs now together with the TE Team. History
3. Recommendation:

Prioritize mobilization of on-the-ground support to the Varirata National Park. In coordination with CEPA and JICA teams, prepare an adaptive management implementation plan for the final 1-1/2 years of the project regarding the Varirata NP, including coordination of recruitment of NP staff to the organization proposed in draft management plan for the NP. 

 

The annual work plan for 2019 should be reviewed to according to the agreed support to the Varirata NP, which might affect the new funding considerations for the Managalas CA & Review of Fauna (Control & Protection) Act.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/12/17] [Last Updated: 2021/02/02]

Management accepted the recommendation and more coordination will be applied with the revision of the work-plan

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Project started initiating the Varirata Business Plan with Queensland Park and Wild Life Services As the activity will be also implemented in 2020, the project has updated the AWP including the activity “1.4 Activity in the work-plan” CEPA will take the responsibility of Managalas CA & Review of Fauna
[Added: 2019/12/17] [Last Updated: 2020/03/12]
PROJECT PMU 2020/02 Completed QPWS has been working with CEPA and the VNP UNV Community Rangers since January 2020. The latest mission resulted in progress of the VNP management workplan specifically for the Rangers. The QPWS Ranger has visa exemption status and works most of his time with the VNP Rangers and CEPA. Uploaded is the email dialogue and the draft documents. History
4. Recommendation:

Improve financial controls and oversight. Recommended improvements for strengthening financial management include, but are not limited to: (a) responsible parties should retain support from professional financial professionals or service providers; 

(b) allocation of project management costs should be reconciled;

(c) cofinancing contributions should be regularly tracked, also including cofinancing materialized after start of implementation.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/12/17] [Last Updated: 2021/02/02]

Management agreed 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
1- RPs have hired dedicated finance person to management the RP resources and provide more control on the resource utilization. 2- UNDP Project Management team will work with GEF team on identify the amount and take the appropriate action in Jan 2020 3- UNDP project management team continuously following up with CEPA on the co-financing. However, it seems it is quite challenging to fully get the exact co-financing contribution from other donors.
[Added: 2019/12/17] [Last Updated: 2020/11/04]
project PMU 2020/10 Completed The third action was the only pending action. So CEPA co-financing information has been updated in the table attached. History
5. Recommendation:

Improve project monitoring & evaluation. Recommended improvements include, but are not limited to:

 (a)finalize the midterm tracking tool assessments and clear with the UNDP-GEF RTA, including reconciling midterm METT scores; 

(b) adapt the capacity development scorecard according to the mandates of the NGO responsible parties and provincial government administrations; 

(c) update the project results framework;

 (d) integrate gender mainstreaming objectives into the results framework; 

(e) reflect the envisaged project outcomes in the results framework; 

(f) orient project M&E according to progress towards long-term impact considerations and maintain a record; 

Management Response: [Added: 2019/12/17] [Last Updated: 2021/02/02]

Management agree, especially this note was captured in the CO audit for FY2018.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The Mid-term tracking tool, RRF, integrating gender mainstream, risk log management all were reviwewed and the final updated version will be ready in Feb 2020
[Added: 2019/12/17] [Last Updated: 2020/03/12]
PROJECT PMU 2020/02 Completed The consultant was engaged to workshop this particular recommendation from the 9-10 Dec 2019. See attached IC Offerors Letter (John Carter) and the Workshop ToRs and related docs (Community Perspectives, Workshop Agenda, GEF 5 Project Strengths and Weaknesses todate, The GEF 5 Project Analysis) & the Final M & E Workshop Report addressing this recommendation was submitted on the 20 January 2020. History
6. Recommendation:

Strengthen project oversight, through :

 

(a) recruiting a part-time chief technical advisor to support review of technical outputs and liaise with CEPA officials, ensuring value-for-money of the services rendered and

increasing the likelihood that project outputs are sustained after GEF funding ceases, and

 (b) increasing engagement with the UNDP-GEF regional technical advisor based in Bangkok, e.g., supporting approval of high value contracts, delivering strategic guidance and facilitating South-South cooperation among other UNDP-GEF

projects in the region.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/12/17] [Last Updated: 2021/02/02]

Management Partially agreed – PMU cost has fixed percentage and the project cannot exceed it, project team will follow up with the RTA on this recommendation to test the ability of increasing the capacity of project and hire TA.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Procurement unit in the CO was not centralized. This issue has caused incompliances, hence since 2019, CO has centralized the procurement unit to ensure all the process compliance with UNDP procurement rules and regulation and value for money is fully adhered to Project Management Team will inform CO procurement Unit to engage with GEF team for high value contract.
[Added: 2019/12/17] [Last Updated: 2020/04/06]
PROJECT PMU 2020/03 Completed The GEF 5 PMU has worked closely with the procurement team on tenders, evaluation, contract signoffs as well as the PSU for Grant modalities such as LoA for QPWS and the Low Value Grant for Blue Mountains World Heritage Institute (BMWHI), all in keeping with the procurement requirements of UNDP. The PMU reports directly to the Environment Portfolio Head and meets with the GEF 6 CTA and Team on a weekly basis to share progress and also problem solving. The PSU, Procurement and Finance support to the PMU provides good guidance. There has been increasing interaction with the RTA for example to support the GEF 4 TE process, facilitating specific requests eg photo story from PNG; closure process for GEF 5 and possible covid 19 no cost extension for the NIM projects under GEF 5. History
7. Recommendation:

Design and implement a project communication and knowledge management strategy and action plan. It would be advisable to prepare a joint communication and knowledge management strategy and action plan.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/12/17] [Last Updated: 2021/02/02]

Management agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The project will initiate the process in January, and finalize the communication plan by March
[Added: 2019/12/17] [Last Updated: 2020/08/04]
PROJECT PMU 2020/07 Completed The communication and knowledge management strategy as per pages 48 - 51 of the GEF 5 M&E Workshop Report History
8. Recommendation:

Develop and implement a sustainability strategy and action plan. Link the strategy and action plan to the project theory of change (draft theory of change provided in the MTR report). Implementation of the action plan should start during the second half of the project and extend over the timelines outlined in the theory of change. One part of the sustainability strategy should address increasing involvement and strengthening capacities of landowners and community-based organizations (CBOs) in leading community conservation modalities.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/12/17] [Last Updated: 2021/02/02]

MANAGEMENT AGREE

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
This work is part of work done on recommendation 5 and the report will be ready by Feb
[Added: 2019/12/17] [Last Updated: 2020/03/12]
PROJECT PMU 2020/02 Completed The recommendation was workshopped from the 9-10 December 2019, with the M&E consultant and an analysis of the new theory of change proposed in the MTR is reflected in the Final M & E Workshop Report. The 2 NGOs were asked to participate in the Workshop and only TCA were able to attend. The Final Workshop Report was forwarded (see attached emails) to the 2 NGOs to reflect the findings especially for highlighting activities in the 2020 AWP that showed firstly, completion by the operational closure of the Project and secondly, the sustainability component to some extent. Evidence is the Final M & E Workshop Report. Both NGOs submitted their 2020 AWPs reflecting the findings of the M & E Final Report (attached). History
9. Recommendation:

Increase participation of the PNG professional community. Create a roster of PNG specialists and institute a policy of assigning a national counterpart with each international consultancy.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/12/17] [Last Updated: 2021/02/02]

Management agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
CEPA has established already a roster of professionals that they can call upon.
[Added: 2019/12/17] [Last Updated: 2019/12/22]
PROJECT PMU 2019/12 Completed CEPA has established already a roster of professionals that they can call upon. History
10. Recommendation:

Commission an analysis of lessons learned and best practices regarding implementation of commodity conservation. Commodity conservation is an important modality for PNG and is widely promoted globally. Such an analysis would provide valuable insight for PA management administrations, PA institutions, local governments and the broader conservation community

Management Response: [Added: 2019/12/17] [Last Updated: 2021/02/02]

Management agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
This is part of 2020 AWP for GEF5 and looking at lessons learned from GEF4 to ensure synergies and sustainability
[Added: 2019/12/17] [Last Updated: 2020/04/06]
PROJECT PMU 2020/03 No Longer Applicable [Justification: The Activity was dropped due to the reduction of funds in 2020. ]
Funds for 2020 AWP focused on priorities for the GEF 5 targets, namely the MTR recommendation on attention to the Varirata National Park refurbishments as not much efforts had been directed to the Park in previous years of the Project. As such this activity was dropped, given the reduction in funds for 2020. 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