Project Terminal Evaluation -” Community-based Forest and Coastal Conservation and Resource Management”

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2018-2022, Papua New Guinea
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
05/2020
Completion Date:
12/2019
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
50,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document TOR_Lead Consultant_UNDP_GEF4_Terminal-Evaluation.pdf tor English 418.50 KB Posted 75
Download document PIMS 3936_PNG_Terminal Evaluation report_final_23 April 2020.pdf report English 12438.01 KB Posted 62
Title Project Terminal Evaluation -” Community-based Forest and Coastal Conservation and Resource Management”
Atlas Project Number: 00062283
Evaluation Plan: 2018-2022, Papua New Guinea
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 12/2019
Planned End Date: 05/2020
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 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 $): 24,000
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
John Carter International Consultant jcart@allstream.net
Katherine Yuave National Consultant kathyuave@gmail.com PAPUA NEW GUINEA
GEF Evaluation: Yes
GEF Project Title: Community-based Forest and Coastal Conservation and Resource Management in Papua New Guinea
Evaluation Type: Terminal Evaluation
Focal Area: Biodiversity
Project Type: FSP
GEF Phase: GEF-4
GEF Project ID: 3954
PIMS Number: 3936
Key Stakeholders: Conservation and Environment Protection Authority, East and West New Britain Provincial Administrations, NGOs and CBOc
Countries: PAPUA NEW GUINEA
Comments:

Terminal Evaluation of the project.

Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1

Pass the draft PA Bill – the Project did handover to CEPA, a Bill that was cleared by State Solicitor and the Legislative Council. As the Bill seems to be hung up on considerations of revenue collection and subsequent distribution (related to Trust Fund mechanisms), it is suggested to not include the details of revenue collection and transfer in the Bill, but to specify instead commitment to examine current precedents for collection and distribution of revenues, that might apply to conservation (for example, the -Road Transport Authority model advised by Department of Treasury during the PA Bill inter-government consultations). These can then be picked up and adapted, as agreed by all parties, in subsequent regulations and guidelines. Furthermore, CEPA can more actively engage with ministers, Members of Parliament, and even the Prime Minister, to encourage quick adoption of the PA Bill, before further time is lost, and cynicism sets in while UNDP supports CEPA in playing the lobbying role. The concerns of private sector lobbyists have been taken into consideration, but the Bill was formulated by the majority of the rural customary landowning communities during the Bill’s extensive consultation process with all the regions of PNG. The Bill has captured the aspirations of the majority rural population for the sake of effective conservation in PNG.

2

Prioritize quickly gazette the WMAs and proposed CCAs facilitated by the project. This gap can be taken by GEF6.

3

With the lack of sufficient technical and financial support, it is recommended to establish more cohesive and coordinated system to continue support the development of provincial institutions that are mandated for conservation. The provincial offices and their functions provide a critical link between national government agencies; districts and local communities, therefore, engaging provincial offices in all project activities that go to local communities, so that their bridging/facilitating role is enhanced. 

4

Developing wide-scale work by CEPA and NGOs and CBOs on conservation areas in the hinterlands (higher altitude forested areas) in West New Britain and East New Britain (Baining, Nakanai, Whiteman range). It is recommended that this effort is initiated with review of the recent biodiversity surveys and detailed analysis of recent GoogleEarth images. Ultimately, the large size and contiguity of forest habitats (evident in the hinterlands) will have a bigger biodiversity impact than the smaller WMAs and CCAs and should therefore be given more attention.

5

Support CEPA and provincial/district governments to develop ecotourism profiles and feasibility studies for each community site in New Britain, being realistic and specific about opportunities, and identifying the required infrastructure and services. 

6

Develop business models for each local community venture (within those communities who have been involved with the GEF4 project), to properly understand viability, timeframes, required investments, potential profits, and benefit sharing associated with such initiatives as cocoa exports, market gardening, ecotourism, etc. (there is scope here for being more expansive and creative about potential business opportunities in the communities, such as insect collection and sales). it is recommended to consider encouraging more WMA accountability for revenue flows related to such ventures (a little more transparent) while ensuring that there are no lapses with the current cocoa export initiative (maintain export flows to meet buyer expectations).

7

For any future involvement in conservation area, it is recommended to reduce the involvement of intermediaries for community conservation and alternative livelihood initiatives, since they increase the cost of project delivery (and it is not always clear that there is added value from them).

8

Communities are encouraged to develop more specific action plans for their conservation activities (monitoring and evaluation of their WMAs), since at the moment, the status of their protected areas is often unclear and based on subjective perceptions. As noted previously, a time-series of GoogleEarth or drone images of each conservation area (updated every two years) could be developed5. These can then be housed in the PA Registry at CEPA. Youth in these communities could be engaged in science projects related to conservation and biodiversity monitoring (youth in several communities that were consulted expressed keen interest in doing this). Related to this, if there are specific zones or land use plans in the community conservation management plan, there is a need to set capacity limits for all activities within those zones. This means limiting the number of people or number of activities in specific zones.

9

It is beneficial to consider volunteer-type people with little cash incentives from the project or CEPA to work in the communities at least 3-4 weeks at a time and 4-5 times per year, if more technical support to be provided to local communities (whether conservation-related or addressing alternative livelihood development), that will help creating traction and develop effective working relationships.

10

Encourage setting up exchanges between WMAs/CCAs in New Britain, to disseminate the lessons learned (good and bad experiences) to all communities interested in conservation and developing alternative livelihoods.

11

For future, it is recommended to accurately assess the progress in building capacity through tracking all training events as a separate file, with topics, name of trainer, names and gender of trainees, and their positions/affiliations at the time of training (for ease of tracking capacity-building programmes).

12

In all future project performance reporting, do not revert to ‘cumulative”’ to show previous achievements; retain a record of project achievements for each specific year (otherwise, future evaluations will have to revert to “forensic” review to determine project accountability for annual workplans, as these details will remain obscure). Also, be clear in reporting what has actually been done and achieved; avoid aspirational statements about results expected in the future.

13

Review gender action plan to clarify on the level of women engagement and their role in the project and ensure a project reporting system includes gender disaggregated data.

14

The METT scoring system for PA management effectiveness is a “given” with GEF conservation type projects and is intended to help track progress during a project and also supposedly to allow comparisons between projects and countries. The METT experience with the GEF4 project, however, was mixed7. On the one hand, the report on METT scores in 2017 is a very useful “round-up” of PA status throughout PNG, based on the perceptions of the communities associated with these protected areas. On the other hand, there were issues with how questions were perceived, as well as how the answers were obtained (in a workshop format, without clear on-the-ground verification8). A true measure of PA management effectiveness is the area and quality of habitats and biodiversity in specific areas (this information being obtained scientifically and objectively). While many of the discussion points in the METT system are relevant and interesting, the evaluators believe it is important to introduce actual evidence of PA management effectiveness into the METT observations and scores (for example, drone images, or time-series of GoogleEarth images). Further, the utility of the METT scores is greatly increased when each WMA/CCA, or institution, develops a specific action plan directly responding to the constraints and issues evident in the scores. In other words, the METT scores and apparent constraints are reviewed with the WMAs, and responsive action plans are developed.

15

It is recommended to undertake a feasibility study (one site, as a pilot) for mini or micro-hydropower (using a horizontal Straflo-type turbine in the river).
Also based on field observations, it is recommended to examine the feasibility and develop gravity feed water systems in all project communities where this seems practical (simple plastic pipes coming from the river, streams, or springs) and feeding a community water storage tank, and then individual household feeds.

Management Response Documents
1. Recommendation:

Pass the draft PA Bill – the Project did handover to CEPA, a Bill that was cleared by State Solicitor and the Legislative Council. As the Bill seems to be hung up on considerations of revenue collection and subsequent distribution (related to Trust Fund mechanisms), it is suggested to not include the details of revenue collection and transfer in the Bill, but to specify instead commitment to examine current precedents for collection and distribution of revenues, that might apply to conservation (for example, the -Road Transport Authority model advised by Department of Treasury during the PA Bill inter-government consultations). These can then be picked up and adapted, as agreed by all parties, in subsequent regulations and guidelines. Furthermore, CEPA can more actively engage with ministers, Members of Parliament, and even the Prime Minister, to encourage quick adoption of the PA Bill, before further time is lost, and cynicism sets in while UNDP supports CEPA in playing the lobbying role. The concerns of private sector lobbyists have been taken into consideration, but the Bill was formulated by the majority of the rural customary landowning communities during the Bill’s extensive consultation process with all the regions of PNG. The Bill has captured the aspirations of the majority rural population for the sake of effective conservation in PNG.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/04/24]

The Bill was led by CEPA during extensive meaningful consultations over 18 months and supported by the GEF 4 Project. For sustainability purposes, CEPA has ownership of the Bill and is responsible for progressing the Bill to enactment. The Government shall lead now the process for endorsing the Bill.

Key Actions:

2. Recommendation:

Prioritize quickly gazette the WMAs and proposed CCAs facilitated by the project. This gap can be taken by GEF6.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/04/24]

This is the area that CEPA has to lead on. One gazettal has been completed by CEPA and the East New Britain Provincial Administration. CEPA will continue to progress the gazettal of the other WMAs, in collaboration with their other Project Partners, where relevant, given that CEPA administers the relevant Conservation laws.

Key Actions:

3. Recommendation:

With the lack of sufficient technical and financial support, it is recommended to establish more cohesive and coordinated system to continue support the development of provincial institutions that are mandated for conservation. The provincial offices and their functions provide a critical link between national government agencies; districts and local communities, therefore, engaging provincial offices in all project activities that go to local communities, so that their bridging/facilitating role is enhanced. 

Management Response: [Added: 2020/04/24]

Acknowledged, despite that no key actions are required at this stage as the project will be closed, however, UNDP will ensure its continuous support is provided to strengthen the relation between CEPA and its provincial counterparts through other programme and projects.

Key Actions:

4. Recommendation:

Developing wide-scale work by CEPA and NGOs and CBOs on conservation areas in the hinterlands (higher altitude forested areas) in West New Britain and East New Britain (Baining, Nakanai, Whiteman range). It is recommended that this effort is initiated with review of the recent biodiversity surveys and detailed analysis of recent GoogleEarth images. Ultimately, the large size and contiguity of forest habitats (evident in the hinterlands) will have a bigger biodiversity impact than the smaller WMAs and CCAs and should therefore be given more attention.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/04/24]

Acknowledged, this work shall be performed now by CEPA, so far the later initiated the support to the Provincial Administration of West New Britain to support the gazettal application of Via River Catchment; exercised a follow-up on a separate application of the Nakanai Range under the UNESCO WHS tentative list and used drone to follow-up on the status of OSR with the landuse planning that incorporates conservation uses as a proposed WHS. Under GEF 5, CEPA’s capacity.

Key Actions:

5. Recommendation:

Support CEPA and provincial/district governments to develop ecotourism profiles and feasibility studies for each community site in New Britain, being realistic and specific about opportunities, and identifying the required infrastructure and services. 

Management Response: [Added: 2020/04/24]

Partially agree; UNDP will commit to working through other GEF funded projects on some sites, committing to other sites is not possible to guarantee at present. Greater support might be provided through the established Biodiversity Fund, if it is capitalised and operational.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Scanning exercise of in West New Britain. Tourism is identified as a finance option for this area.
[Added: 2020/04/24]
GEF6 team 2020/01 Completed Action taken.
Conduct a financial and technical feasibility linked to the Kimbe Bay MPA.
[Added: 2020/04/24]
GEF6 team 2021/01 Not Initiated Action to be taken.
6. Recommendation:

Develop business models for each local community venture (within those communities who have been involved with the GEF4 project), to properly understand viability, timeframes, required investments, potential profits, and benefit sharing associated with such initiatives as cocoa exports, market gardening, ecotourism, etc. (there is scope here for being more expansive and creative about potential business opportunities in the communities, such as insect collection and sales). it is recommended to consider encouraging more WMA accountability for revenue flows related to such ventures (a little more transparent) while ensuring that there are no lapses with the current cocoa export initiative (maintain export flows to meet buyer expectations).

Management Response: [Added: 2020/04/24]

Partially agree. There is an assumption here that there has not been any work done in terms of business modelling. The New Britain Provinces have had a long history in agribusiness and information is probably located under various public and private entities that could be subject of a separate study. The WMA comprise parts of the natural environment of the Provinces and managed locally and it should be stated here that the East New Britain Provincial Administration is probably the best functioning provincial governments in PNG, with good infrastructure and communications facilities, compared to other Provinces. Furthermore, where WMAs are concerned, that the CEPA can cultivate linkages with other national government entities, for technical support but only at the invitation of the respective Provincial administrations, for ownership and sustainability purposes.

Key Actions:

7. Recommendation:

For any future involvement in conservation area, it is recommended to reduce the involvement of intermediaries for community conservation and alternative livelihood initiatives, since they increase the cost of project delivery (and it is not always clear that there is added value from them).

Management Response: [Added: 2020/04/24]

Acknowledged, the recommendation will be taken into consideration in any future involvement with community conservation. During the Inception Workshop of GEF6, CEPA and UNDP are committed to build more flexibility in partnering directly with Districts and community groups.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Based on GEF4 lessons, provide inputs to review arrangements and stakeholder engagement plan of GEF6.
[Added: 2020/04/24]
GEF team 6 2020/01 Completed Discussions made with ongoing GEF projects from 5-14 Feb 2020 as part of handover.
Share experience of grant making to communities with GEF6 to influence the design of the grant making process with communities under the Biodiversity Fund. it will be incorporated into the design of the biodiversity fund operational manual. Dec 2020.
[Added: 2020/04/24] [Last Updated: 2020/09/20]
GEF team 6) 2021/12 Not Initiated Establishment of Biodiversity fund operational & governance mechanism/structures is still a work in progress. History
8. Recommendation:

Communities are encouraged to develop more specific action plans for their conservation activities (monitoring and evaluation of their WMAs), since at the moment, the status of their protected areas is often unclear and based on subjective perceptions. As noted previously, a time-series of GoogleEarth or drone images of each conservation area (updated every two years) could be developed5. These can then be housed in the PA Registry at CEPA. Youth in these communities could be engaged in science projects related to conservation and biodiversity monitoring (youth in several communities that were consulted expressed keen interest in doing this). Related to this, if there are specific zones or land use plans in the community conservation management plan, there is a need to set capacity limits for all activities within those zones. This means limiting the number of people or number of activities in specific zones.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/04/24]

Through the Project and GEF 5, CEPA has facilitated for drones to be purchased and also for drone training, in collaboration with the East and West New Britain Provincial Administrations to support landuse planning that incorporates protected areas. The respective Administrations have taken ownership of this process and as such there is continuity and sustainability of the drone initiative that the Project started.


East and West New Britain provincial administrations have committed to establish an information hub to house stitched images to monitor real-time forest and land cover and resource inventory as well as to reconfirm demarcated boundaries of a protected area. Drone images that will be hosted in CEPA’s PA Registry was reflected in the PA Registry manual as part of follow-up action.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Continuing GEF5 drone trainings to include GEF4 sites
[Added: 2020/04/24]
GEF5 2020/11 Initiated Included in the approved GEF5 2020 AWP
Facilitate sharing of stitched drone images between CEPA and provinces
[Added: 2020/04/24]
GEF5 2020/11 Not Initiated Action to be taken.
9. Recommendation:

It is beneficial to consider volunteer-type people with little cash incentives from the project or CEPA to work in the communities at least 3-4 weeks at a time and 4-5 times per year, if more technical support to be provided to local communities (whether conservation-related or addressing alternative livelihood development), that will help creating traction and develop effective working relationships.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/04/24]

In partial agreement. The management will consider the recommendation when developing other programmes and projects. CEPA may have their own constraints on resources and competing priorities to take this recommendation forward and will need developing partners for this outreach but at the invitation of the communities and the respective provincial administrations.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Cost efficiency will be factored through the development of GEF 7 FOLUR, in collaboration with CEPA.
[Added: 2020/04/24] [Last Updated: 2020/07/02]
UNDP project manager for FOLUR project 2020/06 Completed The management response is self-explanatory in recognising that CEPA has its own resource constraints and the invitation has to emanate from the respective provincial administration in collaboration with CEPA. This is government business. In addition, the GEF 7 FOLUR is currently in design phase and CEPA is actively participating in this design phase. History
10. Recommendation:

Encourage setting up exchanges between WMAs/CCAs in New Britain, to disseminate the lessons learned (good and bad experiences) to all communities interested in conservation and developing alternative livelihoods.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/04/24]

Acknowledged, CEPA will prepare their follow up action plan based on the evaluation report and will consider the recommendation as part of their plan.

Key Actions:

11. Recommendation:

For future, it is recommended to accurately assess the progress in building capacity through tracking all training events as a separate file, with topics, name of trainer, names and gender of trainees, and their positions/affiliations at the time of training (for ease of tracking capacity-building programmes).

Management Response: [Added: 2020/04/24]

Agree. As the project has ended, the CO will ensure capturing this recommendation through other programme and projects.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Develop Training Tracking tools and share with other projects.
[Added: 2020/04/24]
GEF6 team, CEPA, UNDP 2021/03 Not Initiated Action to be taken.
12. Recommendation:

In all future project performance reporting, do not revert to ‘cumulative”’ to show previous achievements; retain a record of project achievements for each specific year (otherwise, future evaluations will have to revert to “forensic” review to determine project accountability for annual workplans, as these details will remain obscure). Also, be clear in reporting what has actually been done and achieved; avoid aspirational statements about results expected in the future.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/04/24]

Acknowledged, clear and proper reporting on indicators and results will be ensured.

Key Actions:

13. Recommendation:

Review gender action plan to clarify on the level of women engagement and their role in the project and ensure a project reporting system includes gender disaggregated data.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/04/24]

Agree- Gender action plan will be developed for other GEF-funded projects.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The GEF 6 will develop a gender analysis and action plan.
[Added: 2020/04/24]
GEF6 team 2021/03 Not Initiated Discussions made with ongoing GEF projects from 5-14 Feb 2020 as part of handover.
14. Recommendation:

The METT scoring system for PA management effectiveness is a “given” with GEF conservation type projects and is intended to help track progress during a project and also supposedly to allow comparisons between projects and countries. The METT experience with the GEF4 project, however, was mixed7. On the one hand, the report on METT scores in 2017 is a very useful “round-up” of PA status throughout PNG, based on the perceptions of the communities associated with these protected areas. On the other hand, there were issues with how questions were perceived, as well as how the answers were obtained (in a workshop format, without clear on-the-ground verification8). A true measure of PA management effectiveness is the area and quality of habitats and biodiversity in specific areas (this information being obtained scientifically and objectively). While many of the discussion points in the METT system are relevant and interesting, the evaluators believe it is important to introduce actual evidence of PA management effectiveness into the METT observations and scores (for example, drone images, or time-series of GoogleEarth images). Further, the utility of the METT scores is greatly increased when each WMA/CCA, or institution, develops a specific action plan directly responding to the constraints and issues evident in the scores. In other words, the METT scores and apparent constraints are reviewed with the WMAs, and responsive action plans are developed.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/04/24]

Agree- METT will be improved through other GEF funded projects.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Activity to re-examine PNG METT
[Added: 2020/04/24]
CEPA, GEF6 team 2021/09 Not Initiated Included in approved GEF6 2020 AWP
Revised METT for PNG
[Added: 2020/04/24]
CEPA, GEF6 team 2021/12 Not Initiated TOR to be advertised by GEF6 project in Q2.
15. Recommendation:

It is recommended to undertake a feasibility study (one site, as a pilot) for mini or micro-hydropower (using a horizontal Straflo-type turbine in the river).
Also based on field observations, it is recommended to examine the feasibility and develop gravity feed water systems in all project communities where this seems practical (simple plastic pipes coming from the river, streams, or springs) and feeding a community water storage tank, and then individual household feeds.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/04/24]

This is to acknowledge the recommendation, as the Community-based Forest and Coastal Conservation and Resource Management project will be closed, the recommendation will be implemented through other projects as per the targeted sites approved in these projects.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Feasibility study will be conducted through RE project.
[Added: 2020/04/24]
Renewable Energy project. 2021/03 Not Initiated Action to be taken.

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