Success message
error message
warn message
Integrated Semenawi & Debubawi Bahri-Buri-Irrori-Hawakil Protected Area system for conservation of Biodiversity and Mitigation of Land Degradation
Commissioning Unit: Eritrea
Evaluation Plan: 2017-2021
Evaluation Type: Project
Completion Date: 12/2017
Unit Responsible for providing Management Response: Eritrea
Documents Related to overall Management Response:
 
1. Recommendation:

Recommendation 4.1.1. By October 30, the project management team should critically review and clarify activities and deliverables for each of the project Outputs. For example, Output 1.1 was partly clarified during the MTR mission: the Protected Areas Act is the key legislation to start official establishment, staffing and management of the National PA network in Eritrea. It is likely the Act should be accompanied by Standard Operating Procedures for PA establishment in the country. Output 1.2. for the National PA Agency, for example, should have activities devoted to development of the ToRs for the Agency and its staff, estimation of the Agency budget in the form appropriate for consideration and approval by the GoE. Outputs 1.1-1.5 should include some activities to promote official approval of the developed documents by the GoE (e.g., meetings and consultations with the GoE). It is recommended to change Output 3.1 to include other mechanisms of capacity building for local communities on SLM, SFM, and sustainable fishery rather than Farming/Fishing Schools only (a FFS has unclear structure and implementation mechanism). Suggestions for the Output revision are provided in the Annexes 3 and 4.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/12/29] [Last Updated: 2018/08/15]

Recommendation accepted

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
• Review of Outputs and making activities and deliverables more specific, by January 30, 2018 • Prepare a Standard Operating Procedures for PA establishment in the country, by April 2017 • Develop a Terms of Reference for the National PA Agency, by March 2018
[Added: 2017/12/29] [Last Updated: 2019/05/02]
Senior management and project officer 2019/12 Initiated “Management actions in response to the recommendation have been initiated in May 2018 and though some actions have been implemented, many of them are still ongoing. The main reason is that the Government, since mid-last year, is working on a new national strategic development plan which forced the IP to divert its attention to this national priority and slowing down the implementation of the management action points”. History
2. Recommendation:

Recommendation 4.1.2. By October 30, the project management team should review and update Indicators in the Project Results to coincide with the project Theory of Change, SMART principles, and realities of the country. Suggested revision of the Project Results Framework is provided in the Annexes 3 and 4.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/12/29] [Last Updated: 2017/12/29]

Recommendation accepted.

 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
• Review and update Indicators in the Project Results to harmonize with the project Theory of Change, by March 2018. • Review the indicators to make them SMART, and reflect realities of the country, by March 2018
[Added: 2017/12/29] [Last Updated: 2019/05/02]
Project manager 2019/12 Initiated “Management actions in response to the recommendation have been initiated in May 2018 and though some actions have been implemented, many of them are still ongoing. The main reason is that the Government, since mid-last year, is working on a new national strategic development plan which forced the IP to divert its attention to this national priority and slowing down the implementation of the management action points”. History
3. Recommendation:

Recommendation 4.2.1. It is highly recommended to the project management team to involve experienced International Consultants to work with National Consultants on delivery of Outputs 1.1-1.5 for Outcome 1 due to insufficient capacity and lack of experience on development of PA legislative and institutional framework in Eritrea. Such involvement of international experience will give the project tremendous advantage to build on the best world experience and avoid costly mistakes that may result in failure to achieve the Outcome. This is the key Outcome to provide very necessary institutional sustainability to all other project Outcomes. Also, this is highly desirable to involve International Consultants in the development of management plans for target PAs and local communities (Outputs 2.3, 2.4, and 3.2) to make them implementable and useful in accordance with the Results-Based Management concept. UNDP, IUCN, WBG and other international organizations have rosters of International Consultants with appropriate experience that can be used by the project management team in Eritrea to select the consultants. Also, International Consultants may be useful for delivery of Output 2.2 (capacity building for the PA staff).

Management Response: [Added: 2017/12/29] [Last Updated: 2017/12/29]

Recommendation accepted provided the government approves recruitment the recommended expert. This recommendation will have to be discussed with the Government (IP) for their approval.  

 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
• Discuss with the Government (IP) to convince them to accept this recommendation • Should the counterpart accept the idea, initiate recruitment process and complete by March 30, 2018.
[Added: 2017/12/29] [Last Updated: 2019/05/02]
Senior management and project officer 2019/12 Initiated “Management actions in response to the recommendation have been initiated in May 2018 and though some actions have been implemented, many of them are still ongoing. The main reason is that the Government, since mid-last year, is working on a new national strategic development plan which forced the IP to divert its attention to this national priority and slowing down the implementation of the management action points”. History
4. Recommendation:

Recommendation 4.2.2. It is highly recommended to the project management team to start delivery of the project Outputs 2.1 (at least support protective regime, make demarcation and zoning of the proposed PAs), 3.1 (trainings for local communities on SLM and CBNRM), and 3.3 (pilot projects on SLM and CBNRM) in two other project areas - Buri-Irrori-Hawakil and Bara’soli - by the end of 2017-beginning 2018 using positive experience of Semenawi&Debubawi Bahri. Implementation of the activities in all project areas will provide necessary territorial balance to the project and will increase its positive impact on ecosystems, wildlife populations, and local communities. For delivery of Output 3.1 it is highly recommended to use all available mechanisms (not only Farm/Fishery Schools) for capacity building of local communities on SLM and CBNRM, including separate trainings provided by different government agencies, specially developed training programmes (repetitive trainings), exchange visits, and demonstration projects. Special attention should be devoted to provide sustainable livelihood opportunities to the local people who has no land for agriculture and lost their traditional income due to enforcement of PA regime.

 

Management Response: [Added: 2017/12/29] [Last Updated: 2017/12/29]

Recommendation accepted.   

 

 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
• Comprehensive plan will be prepared to implement large scale bio-physical measures to protected, conserve and enrich the natural bases within the protected area system, January 30, 2018 • The project team will monitor the implementation of the planned SWC measures, every quarter, 2018
[Added: 2017/12/29] [Last Updated: 2019/05/02]
Project manager 2019/12 Initiated “Management actions in response to the recommendation have been initiated in May 2018 and though some actions have been implemented, many of them are still ongoing. The main reason is that the Government, since mid-last year, is working on a new national strategic development plan which forced the IP to divert its attention to this national priority and slowing down the implementation of the management action points”. History
• Comprehensive plan will be prepared to implement large scale bio-physical measures to protected, conserve and enrich the natural bases within the protected area system, January 30, 2018 • The project team will monitor the implementation of the planned SWC measures, every quarter, 2018
[Added: 2017/12/29] [Last Updated: 2019/05/02]
Project manager 2019/12 Initiated “Management actions in response to the recommendation have been initiated in May 2018 and though some actions have been implemented, many of them are still ongoing. The main reason is that the Government, since mid-last year, is working on a new national strategic development plan which forced the IP to divert its attention to this national priority and slowing down the implementation of the management action points”. History
5. Recommendation:

Recommendation 4.2.3. Given delayed project implementation it is recommended to the project management team to start active delivery of Outputs 2.2 (capacity building for the PA staff), 2.3 (Management Plans for the PAs), 2.5 (involvement of local communities in the PA management), and 3.2 (sustainable NRM plans for local communities) at the end of 2017 – beginning of 2018 even official PAs are not established yet. For example, in the framework of Output 2.2 trainings and equipment can be delivered to the area managers, rangers and scouts that are already present in the project areas and likely to be included in the staff of officially established PAs. Output 2.3 may focus on development of the so-called ecosystem management plans that includes area of proposed PAs and surrounding communities as elements of the entire landscape. In this case developed plans can be agreed with local communities and Zoba administrations, and finally approved by the MLWE, and then passed to the PAs for implementation after their official establishment. Output 3.2 can be delivered in strong collaboration with delivery of the Outputs 2.3 and 2.5 as a part of the ecosystem management planning.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/12/29] [Last Updated: 2017/12/29]

Recommendation accepted.   

 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
• Conduct capacity building for PA staff and field staff from key stakeholders, March 2018 • Prepare community based Natural Resources Management plans, March 2018 • Conduct joint key stakeholder field monitoring, biannual 2018
[Added: 2017/12/29] [Last Updated: 2019/05/02]
Project manager and project team 2019/12 Initiated “Management actions in response to the recommendation have been initiated in May 2018 and though some actions have been implemented, many of them are still ongoing. The main reason is that the Government, since mid-last year, is working on a new national strategic development plan which forced the IP to divert its attention to this national priority and slowing down the implementation of the management action points”. History
6. Recommendation:

Recommendation 4.2.4. While working on the Outputs 2.3 and 3.2 (management plans for PAs and local communities) the project management team should use following principles to make the plans useful, measurable, and implementable:

?          A MP has to be based on the Result-Based Management concept with clear identification of the plan Goal (desired and achievable status of Conservation Targets - endangered wildlife populations and area of key ecosystems) and Objectives (aimed to reduction of direct threats for the Conservation Targets) and clear links between the plan expected results of different level: Outputs (products and services of the MP implementing team), Outcomes (increased capacity of PA management), Mid-Term Impacts (reduction of direct threats for PA’s biodiversity), Long-Term Impacts (improvement of status of key wildlife species and ecosystems). Results of all levels should be measurable and need to have clear Indicators. For each MP clear Theory of Change should be developed and clarified with key stakeholders based on existing approaches of IUCN First Line of Defense, or WWF’s Open Standards for Conservation Planning, or UNDP’s Management for Development Results, or other models based on the RBM;

?          A MP should be based on detailed ecosystem and habitat map for the area (e.g., interpretation of Landsat 7 and 8 imageries);

?          A MP has to be designed for no more than 5-10 year period and include budgeted M&E plan to allow lessons learning and Adaptive Management;

?          A MP must have clear Operational Plan (2-3 years) with timelines to deliver Outputs, responsible persons, required budgets and indicated sources of the budgets;

?          A MP has to be in agreement with MLWE, FWA, and Zoba’s plans and programmes and has to be officially approved by the MLWE;

?          A MP has to be developed in fully participatory approach and involve all key stakeholders in the planning process, including surrounding communities;

?          A MP has to have clear mechanism for implementation with involvement of communities and private sector to facilitate and control the process of MP implementation.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/12/29] [Last Updated: 2017/12/29]

Recommendation accepted.   

 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
• The project management team will adopt the Management Plan principles proposed by the consultant to make the plans useful, measurable, and implementable. • Project management team and the key stakeholders will monitor and evaluate the implementation of the principles in the course of the implementation of the project.
[Added: 2017/12/29] [Last Updated: 2019/05/02]
Project manager and project team 2019/12 Initiated “Management actions in response to the recommendation have been initiated in May 2018 and though some actions have been implemented, many of them are still ongoing. The main reason is that the Government, since mid-last year, is working on a new national strategic development plan which forced the IP to divert its attention to this national priority and slowing down the implementation of the management action points”. History
7. Recommendation:

Recommendation 4.2.3. Given delayed project implementation it is recommended to the project management team to start active delivery of Outputs 2.2 (capacity building for the PA staff), 2.3 (Management Plans for the PAs), 2.5 (involvement of local communities in the PA management), and 3.2 (sustainable NRM plans for local communities) at the end of 2017 – beginning of 2018 even official PAs are not established yet. For example, in the framework of Output 2.2 trainings and equipment can be delivered to the area managers, rangers and scouts that are already present in the project areas and likely to be included in the staff of officially established PAs. Output 2.3 may focus on development of the so-called ecosystem management plans that includes area of proposed PAs and surrounding communities as elements of the entire landscape. In this case developed plans can be agreed with local communities and Zoba administrations, and finally approved by the MLWE, and then passed to the PAs for implementation after their official establishment. Output 3.2 can be delivered in strong collaboration with delivery of the Outputs 2.3 and 2.5 as a part of the ecosystem management planning.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/12/29]

Recommendation accepted.   

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
• Conduct capacity building for PA staff and field staff from key stakeholders, March 2018 • Prepare community based Natural Resources Management plans, March 2018 • Conduct joint key stakeholder field monitoring, biannual 2018
[Added: 2017/12/29] [Last Updated: 2019/05/02]
Project manager and protect team 2019/12 Initiated “Management actions in response to the recommendation have been initiated in May 2018 and though some actions have been implemented, many of them are still ongoing. The main reason is that the Government, since mid-last year, is working on a new national strategic development plan which forced the IP to divert its attention to this national priority and slowing down the implementation of the management action points”. History
8. Recommendation:

Recommendation 4.3.1. By October 30 the project management team should fully clarify the project management arrangements that were shaped during the MTR mission (Fig. 2 B) with MLWE as Implementing Partner and Executing Agency and MMR, FWA, and Zoba Administrations as Key Actors (or Responsible Parties). Each Key Actor should have clear responsibility for particular project Outcome (e.g., MLWE Department of Environment can be directly responsible for delivery of the Outcome 1 (institutional and legislative framework for PA establishment), MMR and FWA can share responsibility for establishment and management of marine and terrestrial PAs (Outcome 2), and Zoba Administrations – for achievement of the Outcome 3 (capacity building of local community on SLM and CBNRM). Remember, please, “When everyone is responsible, no one is responsible”[1]. Also, role of UNDP in the project management arrangements should be clarified given its tremendous importance to assure the project funding and support of the project implementation (now UNDP is not even a member of the Project Steering Committee and do not present on the last project management diagram developed by MLWE). If GoE can see no possibility to include UNDP in the Project Steering Committee other mechanisms of UNDP involvement in the management arrangement should be clarified (e.g., regular technical sessions between UNDP, MLWE, MMR, and FWA). Implementation of this recommendations should be one of the conditions to continue the project funding by UNDP and GEF

 


 

Management Response: [Added: 2017/12/29]

Recommendation accepted.   

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The project management arrangements that were shaped during the MTR mission (Fig. 2 B) will be refined and agreed by the key implementing partners (MoLWE as Implementing Partner and Executing Agency and MMR, FWA, and Zoba Administrations as Key Actors (or Responsible Parties) by February 2018.
[Added: 2017/12/29] [Last Updated: 2019/05/02]
Senior management, project manager and project team 2019/12 Initiated “Management actions in response to the recommendation have been initiated in May 2018 and though some actions have been implemented, many of them are still ongoing. The main reason is that the Government, since mid-last year, is working on a new national strategic development plan which forced the IP to divert its attention to this national priority and slowing down the implementation of the management action points”. History
9. Recommendation:

4.3.2. By October 30, right after project management arrangements are clarified, the MLWE as Executing Agency should establish official Project Mangement Unit (PMU). It is highly recommended to have classical PMU used by great majority UNDP/GEF NIM projects -  with detached project management staff: at least the Project Manager and 3 Coordinators responsible for delivery of each of the project Outcomes and involved in the project management full time. If due to limited capacity issue the classical PMU is not possible, another option is so-called distributed PMU: when experts from different government agencies are assigned to implement project management functions: e.g., one official from MLWE’s Department of Environment can be assigned on the role of the project manager, and relevant staff from MMR, FWA and Zoba Administrations can play roles of Coordinators to ensure achievement of the project Outcomes. Officials assigned to the distributed PMU have to be involved in the project management at least 20 hours a week and ideally should receive financial bonuses for implementation of their management functions to keep their motivation high. The members of the PMU should implement full set of management functions including planning, implementation, monitoring, and communication. Implementation of this recommendations should be one of the conditions to continue the project funding by UNDP and GEF

Management Response: [Added: 2017/12/29]

: Partially accepted—the Government argues that there is no need of a separate PMU for each project. The government policy is to establish a coordination unit that would cater for a number of projects.    

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The management will exert maximum effort towards building the capacity of key stakeholders to help speedy and efficient implementation of the project.
[Added: 2017/12/29] [Last Updated: 2019/05/02]
Project manager and project team 2019/12 Initiated “Management actions in response to the recommendation have been initiated in May 2018 and though some actions have been implemented, many of them are still ongoing. The main reason is that the Government, since mid-last year, is working on a new national strategic development plan which forced the IP to divert its attention to this national priority and slowing down the implementation of the management action points”. History
10. Recommendation:

Recommendation 4.3.3. By December 15, when the PMU is officially established, UNDP CO should provide 3-5 day training to the PMU staff on the Results-Based Mangement (RBM) and UNDP/GEF requirements for project planning, management, reporting and communication. Each member of the PMU should clearly understand his/her role and responsibilities in the project implementation including all functions mentioned above.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/12/29]

Recommendation accepted.   

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
A short term training will be organized to the PMU/coordinating unit staff on the Result-based Management (RBM) and UNDP/GEF requirements for project planning, management, reporting and communication, by April 2018
[Added: 2017/12/29] [Last Updated: 2019/05/02]
Project manager and project team 2019/12 Initiated “Management actions in response to the recommendation have been initiated in May 2018 and though some actions have been implemented, many of them are still ongoing. The main reason is that the Government, since mid-last year, is working on a new national strategic development plan which forced the IP to divert its attention to this national priority and slowing down the implementation of the management action points”. History
11. Recommendation:

Recommendation 4.3.4. It is highly recommended to the Project Manager to consider monthly and quarterly planning and reporting as obligatory function for all PMU staff responsible for achievement of particular project Outcomes. It will help easily monitor progress on delivery of particular project Outputs and implement adaptive management of the project.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/12/29]

Recommendation partially accepted. Monthly planning is not feasible 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Quarterly planning and reporting practice will be enhanced and strictly followed.
[Added: 2017/12/29] [Last Updated: 2018/08/22]
Project manager 2018/03 Completed Ongoing History
12. Recommendation:

Recommendation 4.3.5. By December 30, it is highly recommended to the PMU to critically review all project Outputs and activities that are necessary to deliver the Outputs based on the Project Work Plan 2017-2020 and recommendations of the MTR (Annexes 3 and 4), and identify key partners for delivery of each Output, especially International and National Consultants. UNDP can provide tremendous support on selection of appropriate International Consultants to bring the best world experience in Eritrea to avoid costly mistakes and build the project implementation on the best practices. The sport champions hire the best international coaches and the most progressive governments have the best international advisors. Why Eritrea should be different and do not use this brilliant resource for the country development?  

Management Response: [Added: 2017/12/29]

Recommendation accepted.   

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Review all project Outputs and activities will be conducted in order to deliver the Outputs based on the Project Work Plan 2017-2020 and recommendations of the MTR (Annexes 3 and 4), and key partners for delivery of each Output will be identified.
[Added: 2017/12/29] [Last Updated: 2019/05/02]
Project manager 2019/12 Initiated “Management actions in response to the recommendation have been initiated in May 2018 and though some actions have been implemented, many of them are still ongoing. The main reason is that the Government, since mid-last year, is working on a new national strategic development plan which forced the IP to divert its attention to this national priority and slowing down the implementation of the management action points”. History

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

220 East 42nd Street
20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel. +1 646 781 4200
Fax. +1 646 781 4213
erc.support@undp.org