| Commissioning Unit: | Russian Federation |
|---|---|
| Evaluation Plan: | 2011-2017 |
| Evaluation Type: | Project |
| Completion Date: | 03/2012 |
| Unit Responsible for providing Management Response: | Russian Federation
|
| Documents Related to overall Management Response: |
|
Key Action Update History
Management Response: [Added: 2012/06/21] [Last Updated: 2012/06/21]
The Project Team shares the general opinion that sometimes simple testing-by-doing provides much better background and a clearer justification for further interventions than a feasibility study for an intervention which has never been applied to this particular area. Also, the rationale behind inclusion of the alternative component was not to generate as much and stable income as possible but to pilot different activities to demonstrate benefits from PA presence to local communities and reduce current and possible conflicts between two parties. That is why, the logframe indicators for these activities are not financial figures such as reduction of unemployment or growth of per capita income, but the number of agreements between PAs, local administrations and communities, which regulate sustainable use of NTFP and ecological tourism and the percentage of local population, supporting PAs. The last indicator shows critical improvement (74% at the end of the project in comparison with 40% at the project start) of local people attitude to PAs. This is much more important result of the Project in comparison with economical benefits. It was too naïve to wait any tangible economical results from such tiny money intervention while the only Altai Republic, which is one of the poorest territories allocate annually for similar activity USD$35. million. Besides, as reasonably was justified by TE evaluator project initially was designed to be implemented in two phases. The first one was focused on project focal areas and testing of different approaches and mechanisms including alternative livelihood activities while the second phase suppose more focusing on dissemination results and findings from the 1st phase. Unfortunately 2nd phase was not realised and that is a reason for limited upscaling of 1st phase?s results, including achievements in alternative livelihood interventions.
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n/a
[Added: 2012/06/21] |
n/a | 2011/01 | Completed |
Management Response: [Added: 2012/06/21]
The indicators proposed by the TE would not have been fully applicable for the entire Ecoregion since reliable data on human-wildlife conflicts, number of poaching violations of the law, level of disturbance doesn?t exist there. Also, not all the indicators would have been representative: for instance, the analysis of poaching violations revealed that in 99% of cases the violations do not bring immediate threat to the rare and endangered species as the registered poaching more focus in on game animals. Also, values and trends for such indicators as number of human-wildlife conflicts, number of poaching violations of the law, level of disturbance, ranger patrol intensity etc. may be interpreted in two different ways: on the one hand, the increase in the indicator value may show the growth of poaching, conflicts and etc., but on the another hand it could be explained by increased capacity and scope of work of the law enforcement agencies. So in the end one would have to come up with a more complicated indicator taking into account both factors. However, generally the observation regarding the biodiversity indicators (in the first part of the TE observation) is very relevant not only to this project but to a broader portfolio of BD projects.
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n/a
[Added: 2012/06/21] |
n/a | 2011/01 | Completed |
Management Response: [Added: 2012/06/21]
The studies mentioned in the TE observation were performed during development of the management plan for the Reserve Unsunurskaya Kotlovina, supported by the Project and development of joined management plan for the WHS ?Ubsunur? including the territory of Russian Reserve and adjacent Mongolian PAs, supported by the Mongolian UNDP/GEF Project. Also all these issues were taken into consideration during the development of the joined Russian-Mongolian conservation programme for Argali sheep, which was identified as the most critical species for transboundary conservation developed under the Project?s activities. Establishing Sailugem National Park in Russia adjacent to cognominal NP in Mongolia was a real contribution to the conservation programme. Also WWF contributing to the Project funded development of management plan for Katunskiy Reserve, which with the Katon-Karagai NP (MP development funded by Kazakhstan UNDP/GEF) combined transboundary reserve on the border of Russia and Kazakhstan.
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n/a
[Added: 2012/06/21] |
n/a | 2011/01 | Completed |
Management Response: [Added: 2012/06/21]
The observation is highly relevant and is duly appreciated. This generally applies not only to this particular project but to the entire portfolio of the GEF BD projects implemented in Russia. The Altai-Sayan Project Team would like to comment that the establishment of new protected areas within the Project lifespan is indeed the most evident indication of commitment from project partners and stakeholders, and the project should not be considered as a stand-alone effort of the project team but a part of a bigger picture where various stakeholders and endeavors are synergistically implemented towards achievement of a mutual goal.
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n/a
[Added: 2012/06/21] |
n/a | 2011/01 | Completed |
Management Response: [Added: 2012/06/21]
Project Team disagrees with qualification of the mentioned contribution as a baseline financing, since most of the financial support to the Ergaki nature park in Krasnoyarsk Kray was stimulated and operationalized in the region due to the UNDP/GEF Project support; and vice versa, the project?s funding was pledged to the park only on the assumption of a real co-financing from the region, and implemented only when the latter had materialised.
Key Actions:
Management Response: [Added: 2012/06/21]
The Project Team would like to clarify that the above mentioned contribution includes all the projects funded by the WWF in the Ecoregion during the project lifespan
Key Actions:
Management Response: [Added: 2012/06/21]
The Project Team agrees that indeed it is extremely difficult to count each animal, especially for Snow Leopard sometimes never seen by investigators, or Musk Deer, but the only way to get data is to conduct census because official estimation outside of federal PAs are too far from real situation and actually focused on game species and do not cover rare and endangered animals. For each species listed in the project logframe the situation is absolutely different. Undoubtedly the most reliable data exist for Argali, Sheep that occupies comparatively small territory in transboundary zone of Russia and Mongolia and where actually individual census was conducted two times during project simultaneously on Mongolian and Russian territories. In 2011 similar census conducted by WWF proved obtained before data. For Snow Leopard baseline data was obtained from the Strategy of SL Conservation in Russia developed by WWF in 2001. Annual studies in key sites of SL population didn?t revealed any dramatic changes in population, thus the same size of total population within project pilot sites was repeated four times. Similar approach was realized for Siberian Ibex and Musk Deer. For both species the baseline data was obtained at the project start and then if no considerable fluctuation was observed, no changes appeared in final assessment. Census for Saker falcon was conducted three times and covered up to 20 - 25% of nesting plots each time. Results were interpolated the similar way as for the species listed above. Of course, all conducted censuses were not an enumeration of each animal but anyway they are statistically valid
Key Actions:
Management Response: [Added: 2012/06/21]
The Project Team disagrees with the observation that the expansion of Erkaki Park and Establishment of Ukok Nature Park should not be considered among project achievements. Both WWF and UNDP/GEF promoted and facilitated the establishment of new PAs, as well as numerous stakeholders and partners (see above comments to the Issue 5) including the Ergaki Par and Ukok Park. There was a close synergy between UNDP and WWF at all the project stages, including the preparatory phases for the UNDP/GEF intervention. The joint UNDP/WWF team which actually implemented both the WWF Project and the UNDP/GEF PDF made a lot to promote and facilitate establishing of Ergaki and Quiet Zone Ukok nature parks. Support from the coming UNDP/GEF Project to both parks was a critically argument for governments of Altai Republic and Krasnoyarsk Territory to accomplish the PA establishment process. Both parks were established after the submission of Full Project proposal to GEF, where 900,000 ha of new PAs were mentioned. Of course, current situation on PA establishing could be mentioned in Inception report on the data of project start and primary 900,000 ha reduced accordingly but it just a trick, because initial obligation to expand PA system in Altai-Sayan on 900,000 ha according to Project proposal was fully completed (1,006,651ha of new PAs were established since submission of Project proposal to GEF). Thus Ergaki and Ukok parks can not be regarded as the baseline or sole support from WWF.
Key Actions: