Appendix A4 Mid-term Evaluation Report (February 2003) Introduction
|
|  Yüklə 1.47 Mb.
|
1. IntroductionThe Mid-term review (MTR) for this project took place between 28 October and 12 December 2002 in country and an incomplete final report was received on 19 February 2003 from the MTR Team Leader. Chapter 5 (on subcontracts) is still missing at the time of writing. There are also individual reports from the five other MTR team members that have not been distributed but are available at the UNDP CO. The MTR team concluded that although an impressive amount of activities had been carried out there are a number of serious design and implementation faults that demand redesign of the project in order to ensure that future activities contribute effectively to the project's overall objective, which is: "To secure the conservation of globally significant wetland biodiversity in China". The MTR team proposed new programmes under this overall objective, based upon their conclusions on design and implementation and the local circumstances at each of the project sites. The MTR team stressed that the recommended changes in programme can be made only if there is commitment from all parties to fundamental strengthening of project management so that it is "professional", "flexible" and linked effectively with government programmes. The MTR report emphasised that the proposed changes to programming will also require more decentralized management, with provincial and NR staff being given more responsibility (and more accountability) for outputs and results. Recommendations for major changes to management structure and operation have been linked with the programming changes in one package. This concept paper summarizes the MTR conclusions and illustrates how the project could be redesigned based on the MTR recommendations The concept paper follows the MTR. It deliberately does not make changes to the recommendations apart from when required to by GEF Secretariat on the arrangement of the work programmes. 2. Lessons learned and responses proposed2.1 ScopeThe MTR team assessed the site level threats to wetlands and wetland biodiversity and also the underlying causes of those threats, or constraints that affect efforts to address the site level threats. They concluded that the threat analysis in the original project document was flawed and that this led to poor project design. The MTR report states that the project designers missed the two most serious threats to wetlands, namely (i) lack of agency/sectoral cooperation and coordination and (ii) low priority given by government to biodiversity compared to that accorded economic development and poverty alleviation. Wider than nature reserves Nature reserves alone cannot protect biodiversity. First, they are not large enough to cover the annual ranges of many of the important species. And second there are interactions with the wider ecosystem. Many of the threats to nature reserves arise from outside the borders. Pollution, for example arises both inside and outside nature reserves, but control over pollution from outside is beyond the control of the nature reserves. It is now clear to project management that work on threats to wetlands and wetland biodiversity far outside nature reserves is vital and that such threats will be addressed under the redesigned project. Ecological Services The global biodiversity values of wetlands are not of immediate interest to many of the local people and to local governments. Wetland functions such as provision of ecological services will be given more attention under the redesigned project. Alternative livelihood component The MTR team concluded that provision of "alternative livelihoods" are not a suitable means to decrease local pressure on biodiversity in any of the four project sites and that the component should be dropped. 2.2 ApproachesWorking with government programmes The project document stated that the CPMU would be strengthened to coordinate wetland conservation nationally. This is clearly an inefficient use of project resources because the CPMU will disappear at the end of the project. The MTR team recommended that the project be linked closely with the national programmes related to wetland conservation, particularly in SFA (various divisions within the Department of Plant and Animal Conservation) but also in SEPA and other agencies. Government coordination The project has attempted to tackle the underlying threats, or constraints, through establishment of "Wetland Management Authorities"but this approach has not succeeded. . Without a programme to enhance natural resource governancethe project will not advance towards its overall objective. The new project design will include more work with national, provincial and local governments and other organizations on institutional coordination, policy and planning. Capacity Development The MTR team concluded that as far as possible capacity building will be done through practical on the job training or “learning by doing”, rather than "learning by watching experts". This approach to capacity building will make it more sustainable, but also will take longer, necessitating an extension of the project. There was great reliance on international consultants during the first half of the project, with national consultants mainly working only for the short periods that international consultants were in country. Under the redesigned project more and better use will be made of highly qualified national consultants, and they will be properly remunerated and contracted with clear tasks International consultants will work in support of the national consultants' long term efforts. Integration of activities The MTR pointed out that many of the project activities were poorly linked or not done in the proper sequence and that value was lost as a result. In particular some of the outputs attributed to the project under government cofunding are at best not contributing towards the objectives and at worst obstructing progress. A coherent programme for the whole project will be established, linking all activities, whether funds originate from government GEF, AusAID or elsewhere. Social considerations, although vital, should not be separated as a separate component (alternative livelihoods) but integrated into most aspects of the project. |