Appendix A4 Mid-term Evaluation Report (February 2003) Introduction
|
|  Yüklə 1.47 Mb.
|
RecommendationsThis chapter presents our overall recommendations as well as suggested next steps. Chapters 4 and 5 present a number of specific design and management recommendations and options. However, implementation of these specific recommendations in and of themselves is insufficient. What this project is missing and sorely needs is an integrated vision and strategic approach. Specific recommendations must be implemented in the context of such a framework to be effective. In this chapter we outline the key programming and management elements that we recommend be integrated into a cohesive package. In addition, we identify a number of preconditions that we believe the project’s senior partners (UNDP, GEF, SFA) need to address before changing the project’s programming and management. Section 6.1 presents the preconditions for redesign of the project. Sections 6.2 – 6.4 outline the MTR team’s thinking regarding redesign of the project’s programming and management. The final section presents our recommended next steps.
Should the project continue?Not unless the project is changed – given the lack of achievement of results and the project’s numerous design and implementation flaws, we do not think the project should continue as it is. If there are not significant changes made to both the design of the project and how it is implemented we recommend that the project stop. What needs to be changed? We believe that the project can be turned around, but it will take two major changes:
We view the first of these changes – partners changing their way of thinking and working – as a precondition for redesign, because if these fundamental changes are not made the project will fail even if it is redesigned. The preconditions are described below and the second set of changes – programming and management changes – are described in 6.2-6.4. Precondition for Redesign – Partners must change their commitment and mindset towards the projectAll the key partners in this project – UNDP, GEF, SFA, and CPMU – need to change their mindset and commitment towards this project. The partners need to work together to solve problems and to think beyond their narrowly defined roles and responsibilities. GEF projects are somewhat demanding of partners, they require innovation, learning as you go and working together. Unless the partners are willing to work this way and to change their internal procedures and systems to allow these ways of working to happen, this project will fail. So before redesigning the project, all of the partners need to ask themselves if they are willing to change and work together this way? The MTR has identified a number of specific changes that each partner needs to make to their internal procedures and approaches to ensure they are working together constructively and as a team. These lessons are as follows. GEF Lessons:
UNDP Lessons:
SFA Lessons:
Why partners should make changes and do this project This type of project (innovative and adaptive) will become more common in future, as China’s development needs change. Thus the GEF project provides a wonderful learning opportunity both for individuals and units within SFA, UNDP, GEF and provincial forestry bureaus, of the “way of the future.” In addition, for China, the substance of the project is important for three main reasons:
|