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

Appendix B8 Assumptions and risk analysis

This is an ambitious project because it aims to change attitudes and practice in coordination between a range of different agencies when it is not necessarily within the interests of those agencies to work together closely. However, it is certainly in both the short and long term interests of China and the Chinese people as a whole that coordination be improved. The success of the project depends on these agencies’ agreement to collaborate effectively and then their actions to facilitate such collaboration. And this is required both for activities organized by the project and normal activities outside the project and after the project finishes. The project requires genuine involvement of the partners listed in Appendix B6. These partners have already been consulted and in principle support the project but there is a risk that the participation will be superficial, perhaps only for training activities, and that changes in practices and approaches will not outlive the project.

• 
  That it would be possible to establish integrated wetland management approaches covering wetlands both inside and outside protected areas and involving many agencies working together
  
• 
  That Provincial Wetland Management Authorities under the leadership of a high ranking official would be an effective way to get different agencies working together
  
• 
  That it would prove beyond the capacities of government partners, due to technical weaknesses and narrowness of outlook and experience, to adopt new approaches to grassland and wetland management and to take into account the needs of groups not represented in existing authority structures (e.g., nomadic pastoralists)
  
• 
  That the demonstration and extension approach adopted in the project would ensure that the results provide lasting benefits after the end of the project
  

The following were listed as risk management or mitigation measures or conditions:

• 
  The Government’s strong commitment at all levels to wetland conservation, demonstrated by a very high level of co-financing including for recurrent activities after the end of the project and support for the creation of permanent new institutional arrangements for wetland management (WMAs)
  
• 
  Strong training element for implementing partner staff in relevant new technical approaches and outlooks
  
• 
  Creation of “biodiversity overlays” and integration into development plans for the sites
  
• 
  Links with implementation of the Naional Wetland Conservation Action Plan and the National Biodiversity Conservation Action Plan
  

The Mid Term Evaluation concluded in effect that these assumptions had failed to hold good: that it had proved beyond the capacity of the appointed management team to establish integrated wetland management approaches, useful “biodiversity overlays” and effective Provincial Wetland Management Authorities and indeed to manage the project in a coherent and coordinated way that could provide benefits through demonstrations and extension.

• 
  a reduction in emphasis on nature reserves and increased attention to integrated wetland management
  
• 
  more learning by doing as opposed to formal training
  
• 
  site specific approaches as opposed to generic approaches
  
• 
  switching style from “supply driven” to “demand driven” so that inputs are targeted more effectively
  
• 
  the project does not try to establish new institutions – rather use existing planning processes to influence decision making
  
• 
  reduction in management complexity
  
• 
  decentralization of management
  
• 
  linking cofinancing and GEF funding tightly through joint work planning
  
• 
  strengthening project management capacity – supervision, strategic direction, financial and quality control, links between administrative and technical work, office systems and procedures, links with SFA policy development and provincial and nature reserve personnel, links with agencies outside SFA
  
• 
  concentration on results rather than inputs, and strengthened monitoring and supervision by UNDP CO
  
• 
  ensuring that all partners understand the vision of the project and GEF
  
• 
  fostering goodwill and trust among all partners
  
• 
  keeping project planning adaptive, so that activities are defined precisely only at the work planning stage, not in the project document
  
• 
  formation of strong partnerships outside SFA and with other units within SFA
  
• 
  use of short term international TA to provide ecological thinking and outside approaches, in support of longer term national TA
  
• 
  keen attention to quality of national TA
  
• 
  review of consultancy rates for both national and international TA
  
• 
  a new programme (see Appendix A4)
  

This new project document takes into account the MTE recommendations in both management and design, but the risk of project management deficiencies remains because the new design requires significantly strengthened management and coordination. To reduce and manage risk significant improvements in project implementation and management have been or will be made in the following areas:

• 
  UNDP CO allocate sufficient staff time to manage and monitor the project outcomes. The UNDP Resident Representative and the SFA Vice Administrator have agreed on a strategy for this.
  

• 
  SFA keep to the project objectives and use the technical assistance and other resources available more efficiently.
  

• 
  The PSC be expanded to incorporate all the key sectoral agencies, have high-level representation and the will to meet and make decisions on the project at least twice each year.
  

• 
  The TAG which will be put in place for this project because of the project’s past record and relatively high risk, will provide early warning of potential problems that might stop the project reaching its objectives.
  

• 
  The CTA reports quarterly on bottlenecks in project implementation and the project quarterly review meetings are aimed at freeing such bottlenecks.
  

• 
  Decentralisation of the project activities will be strengthened through the deployment of more long-term and full time project staff at each demonstration site. This will be achieved through the UNV programme and by employing national “outcome coordinators” to track and manage each project outcome.
  

• 
  “Point of contact staff” within all partner agencies at the national level will be identified and supported through the project – this will allow more direct access to partner agency initiatives and ensure better coordination and collaboration on a day-to-day basis.
  

• 
  Based upon a redesigned system of project reporting and funds control, project funds will be transferred directly to project sites
  

The table on the next page summarizes the assumptions made in the Logical Framework and the measures taken or to be taken as part of the project’s risk management strategy.