Success message
error message
warn message
National Biodiversity Project: Conservation of Iona National Park Terminal Evaluation Report
Commissioning Unit: Angola
Evaluation Plan: 2015-2019
Evaluation Type: Project
Completion Date: 07/2018
Unit Responsible for providing Management Response: Angola
Documents Related to overall Management Response:
 
1. Recommendation:

Recommendation 1: INBAC should raise financial resources to revise the management plan of the Iona National Park for it to become a management guiding tool, and subsequently provide resources for its implementation.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/07/02]

Management Response: UNDP agrees with the recommendation and will support INBAC in its efforts to allocate and/or raise funds for the revision and implementation of the management plan. Considering that the budget allocation by the Government to environment has tended to decrease over the last years and that several other parks have no management plans at all, it may be difficult to allocate government resources to a revision of the management plan of Iona NP. On the other hand, it may be possible to attract regional funding to the transboundary Iona-Skeleton Coast area that could also benefit a revised, joint management plan for the two areas.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Attract regional funding to the transboundary Iona-Skeleton Coast area.
[Added: 2018/07/02] [Last Updated: 2018/10/31]
INBAC 2018/12 Completed INBAC obtained follow up funding from the EU for a regional project with Namibia on Iona-Skeleton Coast Transfrontier area. History
2. Recommendation:

Recommendation 2: To increase the environmental and socioeconomic sustainability, in the management of the Iona National Park, INBAC should focus on the: (1) strengthening of patrolling to reduce the negative effects of poaching on wildlife populations, (2) strengthening of environmental education, (3) implementation of the zoning plan, (4) development of community-based tourism to strengthen the awareness of the value of biodiversity to local communities, and (5) provision of water for livestock drinking away from the most sensitive grasslands of the park used by wildlife.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/07/02]

Management Response: UNDP agrees with the recommendations and will support INBAC in raising funds for follow-up actions in the park. It should be noted that some park ranger training will be provided through GEF5 and GEF6 projects that can take up these points, while environmental education and community based tourism are components of a follow-up project in Iona and Skeleton Coast National Parks funded by the EU (without UNDP involvement). At least along the coast, the implementation of the zoning plan will also be strengthened through the GEF6 MPA project. Water for livestock will be provided through the Government funded Water for All program. An existing MoU between Ministry of Environment and Ministry of the Interior could also lead to greater involvement of police in patrolling of protected areas.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Provide training to park rangers through GEF5 and GEF6 projects.
[Added: 2018/07/02] [Last Updated: 2019/04/08]
INBAC with UNDP support 2019/12 Initiated History
3. Recommendation:

Recommendation 3: In protected areas with people living inside or in the periphery such as Iona National Park and most protected areas in Angola, in addition to park administrators and field rangers, INBAC should recruit a community liaison or public relations officer to lead the implementation of social and economic actions of protected areas management, such as stakeholder engagement, environmental education, tourism development and communications.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/07/02]

Management Response: UNDP agrees with the recommendation and will attempt to incorporate it into its GEF5 and GEF6 projects, although funding for such a position would have to be ensured by Government in order to increase sustainability of the position.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Advocate for the recruitment of a community liaison officer within INBAC for the implementation of social and economic actions in protected areas.
[Added: 2018/07/02] [Last Updated: 2019/07/23]
UNDP 2019/12 Initiated History
4. Recommendation:

Recommendation 4: In parallel to the routine counting of wildlife along the roads, the Iona National Park should analyze the data collected, to generate trends in distribution and relative abundance of wildlife species that can be used in park management decisions, including the distribution of patrolling effort.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/07/02]

Management Response: UNDP agrees that data collected should be analyzed by the park staff (or possibly students working with INBAC) although we have some doubts about the quantitative value of the road counts. In future projects, it would be better to use the time of project staff to establish and implement quantitative monitoring methodologies.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
To perform quantitative monitoring methodologies for fauna surveys in future projects.
[Added: 2018/07/02] [Last Updated: 2018/10/31]
INBAC with UNDP support 2019/12 Completed Several fauna surveys in national parks using quantitative methodologies have been contracted and implemented in GEF5 project. History
5. Recommendation:

Recommendation 5:  INBAC should develop a guideline and standard template to be followed in the design of protected areas management plan and enforce that its preparation is participatory and based on field ecological and socioeconomic data. Participation builds ownership of the management plan by stakeholders and eases collaboration and division of tasks and responsibilities for implementation.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/07/02]

Management Response:  UNDP fully agrees with the recommendation. Participation has been built into the elaboration of management plans under the GEF5 project, although the result of this still needs to be seen since the management plans (Bicuar, Cangandala, Kissama) have not been finalized nor intermediate products presented yet.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Develop participatory management plans for Bicuar, Cangandala, Quiçama, Maiombe and Luando PAs in the scope of GEF5 and GEF6 projects
[Added: 2018/07/02] [Last Updated: 2018/12/12]
INBAC with UNDP support. 2019/07 Completed The management plan for Cangandala NP is now completed and can serve as a model for future management plans for protected areas in Angola. History
6. Recommendation:

Recommendation 6:  In future projects, MINAMB should delegate the leadership of the PSC to the Secretary of State of Environment or to the General Director of INBAC for this body to meet more often, which will facilitate monitoring and evaluation, accelerate decision-making processes, and consequently increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the project.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/07/02]

Management Response:  UNDP fully agrees and has promoted this delegation for some while already. Recent SC meetings of GEF funded projects implemented by UNDP in Angola were generally chaired either by the Secretary of State for Environment or by a National Director, plus UNDP CD or his representative.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Delegate the leadership of PSC to the Secretary of State of National Director.
[Added: 2018/07/02] [Last Updated: 2018/12/12]
MINAMB and UNDP 2019/07 Completed History
7. Recommendation:

Recommendation 7:  In future projects, MINAMB should delegate the authority to approve contracts of consultancy services for protected areas to INBAC, to prevent delays and speed up project implementation.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/07/02]

Management Response:  This delegation has effectively happened in the first half of 2017 and has greatly reduced administrative delays related to contracting within the Ministry. In the future, MINAMB may also strengthen its procurement mechanisms and UNDP could support this process through institutional capacity building.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
MINAMB should delegate the authority to approve contracts related to PAs to INBAC.
[Added: 2018/07/02] [Last Updated: 2018/12/12]
MINAMB 2019/05 Completed History
8. Recommendation:

Recommendation 8:  Despite implementation under NIM, given its initial stage of developing technical expertise, the executing agency (MINAMB) should request assistance from the implementing agency or from external sources in the selection of contractors and in the review of deliverables to ensure that the deliverables are of satisfactory quality.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/07/02]

Management Response:  Since the beginning of Iona project, procedures of contracting in the UNDP-GEF projects in Angola have evolved and in recent contracting procedures, UNDP has been fully involved and supported the Government in all phases. UNDP also reviews all deliverables before making payments, although it must be said that in some cases this review happens too late to still make major corrective actions without delaying project implementation.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
MINAMB should request assistance from the implementing agency (UNDP) in the selection of contractors and review of deliverables
[Added: 2018/07/03] [Last Updated: 2018/10/30]
MINAMB 2019/12 Completed History
9. Recommendation:

Recommendation 9:  In future project, the implementing agency (UNDP) should allocate adequate staff to provide guidance to the executing agency throughout the implementation period.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/07/02]

Management Response:  UNDP certainly agrees with this recommendation. Adequate staffing of the CO to support an increasing number of UNDP-GEF projects will be a challenge that will need constant attention and innovative approaches to address (e.g. through UNVs, JPOs, etc.).

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Allocate adequate staff in future projects to provide guidance to the executing agency.
[Added: 2018/07/03] [Last Updated: 2019/04/08]
UNDP 2019/12 Initiated History
10. Recommendation:

Recommendation 10:  UNDP should intensify efforts to explain National Implementation Modality rules to avoid misperceptions and wrong interpretation of its role and responsibility by both executing agency and donors, but also provide adequate assistance and guidance to the executing agency throughout the implementation period.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/07/02]

Management Response:  The CO has repeatedly held workshops with the Government partners involved in NIM projects to explain the details of the modality and respective roles and responsibilities. These workshops were perceived as useful by the Government participants and should be repeated in the future. More important, however, is the continuous interaction with the executing partners and it is the experience of this CO that weekly meetings with the National Directors and/or national coordinators of all projects are needed to avoid delays in implementation.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
To hold weekly meetings between UNDP and National Directors and/or coordinators of all projects.
[Added: 2018/07/03] [Last Updated: 2019/08/05]
UNDP and MINAMB 2019/07 Completed Iona Final Report. History
11. Recommendation:

Recommendation 11:  The design of future projects must be adapted to local circumstances and conditions and be based on a comprehensive and participatory analysis of risks, opportunities, strengths and weaknesses to ensure that the project is composed of realistic outcomes, outputs and activities to make an impact on the ecological or socioeconomic environment.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/07/03]

Management Response:  UNDP fully agrees with the recommendation and is making great efforts in projects currently under development (PPG) to base project design on such a comprehensive analysis of the situation. With increasing capacity of the Government counterparts and increasing presence of competent NGO partners in the country, this task is becoming easier though still challenging.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
PRODOCs of the future projects should be adapted to local circumstances.
[Added: 2018/07/03] [Last Updated: 2019/08/05]
UNDP 2019/07 Completed Prodoc GEF5, Prodoc GEF6 Marine, Prodoc GEF6 illegal wildlife trade History
12. Recommendation:

Recommendation 12:  To facilitate monitoring and evaluation during the implementation phase, all outputs must have the corresponding indicators with realistic baseline and target values, and means of verification with robust methods to measure the performance of the project towards their accomplishment.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/07/03]

Management Response:  UNDP agrees and is making an extra effort to make sure that this recommendation is fully followed in the GEF-6 projects currently being designed.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Identify clear indicators for project outputs in GEF6
[Added: 2018/07/03] [Last Updated: 2019/08/05]
UNDP 2019/07 Completed Prodoc GEF6 MPA History
13. Recommendation:

Recommendation 13:  In projects using different currencies, the implementing and the executing agency should negotiate with donors the conversion of the full amount of funding to the currency to be used by the implementing agency at the start of the project, to buffer the effects of variability in exchange rates, in particular the reduction in the rate and in the total funding provided.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/07/03]

Management Response:  While we agree that this would be a good solution to the currency fluctuation risk, in the case of the EU such a negotiation would have to take place at central level and for large, multi-year projects it would most likely not be possible to negotiate such an arrangement since it would block large amounts of donor funds over several years and reduce donor control over the project. Fortunately, there are other ways to control this risk by more closely tracking the funds received in both currencies (rather than only in US$) so that eventual budget shortfalls are detected in time and can be responded to.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Tracking the funds received in currencies other than US$ more closely.
[Added: 2018/07/03] [Last Updated: 2019/08/02]
undp 2019/07 Completed All current funding is being received in us dollars. 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