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

B. Supporting Consultants and Resources

This section was broken down into four different categories, reflected in the legend of figure 2. The same five point scale was used, 1 indicating “very poor”, 5 indicating “excellent”.

• 
  Overall qualifications and skills of the national consultants were rated by five respondents – four of those ratings fell between 2 and 3, with a mean score of 2.67.
  
• 
  Command of the English language was generally judged to be good with a mean of 3.4.
  
• 
  This rating was reflected in the relatively high quality of interpreters (scores ranging from 3 to 5) as often times the national consultants were acting as interpreters for the international consultants.
  
• 
  T
  he supply and quality reports, maps and background information were judged to be seriously inadequate (mean 1.3), mainly due to the lack of this kind of information being provided, or even available.
  

C. Project Staff Interest

The staff interest referred to here is nature reserve staff, provincial forestry staff/PPMU and SFA staff/ CPMU. In this case the five point scale used in the questionnaire ran from “very low interest” (1) to “very high interest” (5).

• 
  Nature reserve staff showed consistently high levels of interest, ranging from 5 to 3 (rated by all six respondents).
  
• 
  The overall interest of provincial forestry staff had a range of 2.5 between the five experts who answered, with a mean of 3.2.
  
• 
  The interest levels of SFA/CPMU staff were rated very low by two of the five respondents, and average to good by the remaining three.
  

The comments of International consultants indicated that in the case of reserve and provincial staff, interest levels varied between the various sites they had worked in – averages were therefore used to generate the ratings below. It was also stated by one respondent that though interest levels were high at the time, it is suspected that they have decreased since. Also, participatory and multiple stakeholder methods seemed to be problematic for staff.

Benefits and outcomes of the Expert’s Work

In the questionnaire benefits and outcomes of the expert’s contribution to the project were indicated by the relevance of the work and the results and products to preservation of wetland biodiversity, the increase in capacity produced by the work (are beneficiaries now able to do this work themselves) and the practicality of the products and results for preserving wetland biodiversity at the relevant sites.

• 
  All respondents regarded the work as mostly relevant, and in some cases highly relevant. The mean of 4.3 reflects these responses.
  
• 
  The extent of capacity increase was rated as low, the five scores ranging from 1 to 3.
  
• 
  The practicality of results was only rated by three respondents, with scores of 2.5, 4 and 4.
  

S
ummary:

The international experts who worked on this project and who responded to the evaluation questionnaire regarded project management, especially by the CPMU and the UNDP, as unsatisfactory, and the weakest overall aspect of the project. Project support was considered generally satisfactory, though the lack of maps, reference material, and translation of project documents received the lowest overall score for any of the aspects of the project, and came in for a lot of criticism. The nature reserve staff were considered to be the most interested in and committed to the project. Not surprisingly, the experts’ felt that their involvement was worthwhile, but they had low expectations that the capacity-building benefits might endure.

Appendix A5 Report of Tripartite Review (March 2003)

Date: 18 March 2003

Venue: State Forestry Administration, Beijing

Agenda: see Annex 1

Participants: see Annex 2

1. 
   Introduction
   

The Tripartite Project Review (TPR) was the second one held since the Project Document was approved in December 1999 and project implementation started in spring 2000. The first TPR meeting was held on 4 August 2001 in Ruoergai, Sichuan Province.

1. 
   All TPR decisions from the first TPR have been carried out. Consultations have been held to improve the capacity and the management of WMAs;
   
2. 
   Sub-contracts 1-3 were signed and implementation commenced;
   
3. 
   New CTA was recruited jointly by SFA, UNOPS and UNDP;
   
4. 
   UNVs were recruited for each province;
   
5. 
   A state audit was conducted in 2001;
   
6. 
   A documentary film on wetlands was produced by TVE (commissioned by UNDP);
   
7. 
   MTR was conducted in October-Decemeber 2002;
   
8. 
   Publicity activities were strengthened.
   

2. 
   Record of Discussion, recommendations taken
   

The crucial issues to be decided by the TPR were listed in the “Draft decisions of the TPR meeting” document, which was prepared jointly by SFA and UNDP. The document was circulated among TPR participants shortly before the TPR. The discussion followed the structure of this document, item by item, after they were presented by the CTA. There was discussion on whether the TPR meeting would make binding decisions and it was agreed that the final record of the meeting would reflect the recommendations of the TPR, and thus actions to be taken by the project. There was discussion on whether the The following recommendations were given and agreed upon by the TPR meeting would make binding decisions and no clear agreement by the end of the meeting on that poing. The following decisions agreed upon in principle by the TPR, but are regarded by SFA as recommendations to the Project Leading Group (additional comments in italic).

• 
  emphasis on activities that address the underlying causes of the immediate threats to biodiversity,
  
• 
  increased project involvement outside nature reserves,
  
• 
  increased attention to ecological services in addition to biodiversity,
  
• 
  integration of social aspects, including local people and their livelihoods, throughout the project, with appropriate coordination and support to policy formulation,
  
• 
  strengthened links with national government programmes for wetland conservation
  
• 
  substantial input to policy and agency coordination for wetland and nature reserve management at all administrative levels,
  
• 
  focus on capacity building through practical on the job training,
  
• 
  joint work planning for government (co-funding) and GEF inputs to ensure coherent and timely funding support,
  
• 
  stronger management to ensure technical quality, coordination of inputs, and adaptive management to respond to needs,
  
• 
  increased participation of site and provincial personnel in project planning and implementation,
  
• 
  strong participation with local people at the wetland sites
  

• 
  Immediate Objective One: To ensure conservation of globally significant wetland biodiversity at four demonstration sites;
  
• 
  Immediate Objective Two: To incorporate wetlands biodiversity conservation into national conservation plans, legislation and processes.
  

• 
  UNDP: Adequate technical and strategic support shall be provided. Continuity shall be ensured despite staff changes. Monitoring capacity shall be increased;
  
• 
  SFA: There shall be a shift of focus from management of inputs to achievement of results, especially at the policy formulation level, and greater involvement with government programmes in wetland and nature reserve conservation;
  
• 
  CPMU: Management shall be strengthened. The staff needs to fully understand the project in order to plan and manage the activities efficiently.
  

• 
  Administrative Co-manager
  
• 
  Technical Co-manager (CTA)
  
• 
  Biodiversity Capacity Development Officer
  
• 
  Biodiversity Information Officer
  
• 
  Administrative Officer
  
• 
  Accountant
  
• 
  Translator
  

4. 
   Conclusion and the Follow-up Actions
   

The above ten recommendations will be implemented as described, so as to pave the way for the redesign of the project. Consensus was reached to restart the project as soon as possible. The project was urged to begin the provincial workplanning workshops without further delay.

Whether the AusAID support will be channeled through a sub-contract or as regular cost-sharing (supporting earmarked activities) will remain to be decided shortly after the TPR. The appropriate management of these funds will be decided accordingly. Further discussions are required between UNDP, AusAID, MOFTEC and SFA.