Appendix A4 Mid-term Evaluation Report (February 2003) Introduction

Contracting and Terms of Reference

1. 
   Rate the overall quality of your TORs (1= very poor, 5 = excellent):
   

If rating is 3 or lower, identify the main problems with the TORs

2. 
   Rate your satisfaction with the contracting process for your contract (1= very dissatisfied, 5 = very satisfied):
   

If rating is 3 or lower, identify the main problems with contracting process.

Support Provided

3. 
   National consultants:
   
   1. 
      How many national consultants were provided to work with you? (Give number)
      
   2. 
      Were any of these consultants forestry staff? (yes or no). If yes how many? (Give number)
      
   3. 
      For each national consultant assigned to you, rate his or her qualifications and English skills (1 = very poor, 5 = excellent)
      
      1. 
         Qualifications/skills
         
      2. 
         Command of English
         

4. 
   Interpretation (verbal communications):
   
   1. 
      Were you provided with an interpreter? (yes or no)
      
   2. 
      If yes, rate the overall quality of the interpreter(s) provided. (1= very poor, 5 = excellent)
      

5. 
   Adequacy of reports, maps and background information
   
   1. 
      Rate the adequacy of maps, reports and other data provided by the project for your assignment. (1= very poor, 5 = excellent)
      

Interest of Forestry Staff in your assignment(s)

6. 
   Rate the level of interest of Nature Reserve staff in your work
   

7. 
   Rate the level of interest of provincial forestry staff in your work
   

8. 
   Rate the level of interest of state forestry staff (i.e., CPMU) in your work.
   

Results of your Work

9. 
   Rate the relevance of your work results/products to preservation of wetland biodiversity. (1 = 0 or very little relevance, 5 = very high relevance)
   

10. 
    Rate the increase in capacity produced by your assignment. (1 = none or very low, 5 = high, i.e., beneficiaries now able to do this work themselves)
    

11. 
    Rate the practicality of the products/results for preserving wetland biodiversity at the sites in which you worked. (1= not useful, 5 = very useful).
    

Questions about the overall Project

12. 
    Rate the overall quality of the design, execution and supervision of this project compared to other development projects you know about. (Give ratings for each item below)
    
    1. 
       Quality of design.
       
    2. 
       Quality of project execution by UNOPS (i.e., international contracting)
       
    3. 
       Quality of project execution by Central Project Management Unit (i.e., work planning and day-to-day management, coordination and monitoring of activities)
       
    4. 
       Quality of project supervision by UNDP (i.e., guidance and monitoring of the overall project)
       

General Comments and Suggestions

Finally, if you would like a follow-up phone call from the MTR team, please give a location and phone number where you can be reached between now and December 7.

APPENDIX C

International Experts Feedback about the GEF/UNDP China Wetlands Biodiversity and Sustainable Use Project

As part of the MTR of the GEF/UNDP project on Wetland Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use in China, feedback was sought from all the international experts who have participated in the implementation of the project to date. A short questionnaire was used to capture this feedback. It consisted of 12 questions, the majority of which were based around five point scales used to rate aspects of the project and the expert’s experience, and included several sections available for comments.

A. Project Management

• 
  The rating of the overall quality of the consultants Terms of Reference ranged from 2 to 4 with a mean of 2.9 (satisfactory). Several commented that their TORs included no provision for review of previous research findings and the need for background work.
  
• 
  Satisfaction of international consultants with the contracting process was varied. Scores indicated both satisfaction and dissatisfaction with the process.
  
• 
  Rating of quality of project design also varied, with scores ranging from 1 to 4 with a mean of 2.3. Comments by practitioners indicated that centralised implementation was not appropriate in the local context and the focus should have been more provincial.
  
• 
  Ratings of the quality of UNOPS (international contracting) execution of the project were relatively consistent across the 5 respondents, with a mean of 3.
  
• 
  The quality of project execution by the CPMU was rated by 4 of the 6 practitioners, with a mean score of 1.75 – reflecting dissatisfaction with the rather confused approach of the CPMU.
  
• 
  Q
  uality of UNDP project supervision had a mean score of 2, one practitioner commented that they were “Not really aware of this happening”.