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

səhifə	33/33
tarix	24.06.2016
ölçüsü	1.47 Mb.

1 ... 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Audit Clause

The Government will provide the Resident Representative with certified periodic financial statements, and with an annual audit of the financial statements relating to the status of UNDP (including GEF) funds according to the established procedures set out in the Programming and Finance manuals. The Audit will be conducted by the legally recognized auditor of the Government, or by a commercial auditor engaged by the Government.

3. Learning and Knowledge Sharing
Results from the project will be disseminated within and beyond the project intervention zone through a number of existing information sharing networks and forums. In addition:

The project will participate, as relevant and appropriate, in UNDP/GEF sponsored networks, organized for Senior Personnel working on projects that share common characteristics. UNDP/GEF shall establish a number of networks, such as Integrated Ecosystem Management, eco-tourism, co-management, etc, that will largely function on the basis of an electronic platform.

The project will identify and participate, as relevant and appropriate, in scientific, policy-based and/or any other networks, which may be of benefit to project implementation though lessons learned.

The project will identify, analyze, and share lessons learned that might be beneficial in the design and implementation of similar future projects. Identify and analyzing lessons learned is an on- going process, and the need to communicate such lessons as one of the project's central contributions is a requirement to be delivered not less frequently than once every 12 months. UNDP/GEF shall provide a format and assist the project team in categorizing, documenting and reporting on lessons learned. To this end a percentage of project resources will need to be allocated for these activities.

Table G-1 : Indicative Monitoring and Evaluation Work plan and corresponding Budget

Type of M&E activity	Responsible Parties	Budget US$ Excluding project team Staff time	Time frame
Inception Workshop	Project Coordinator UNDP CO UNDP GEF		Within first two months of project start up
Inception Report	Project Team UNDP CO	None	Immediately following IW
Measurement of Means of Verification for Project Purpose Indicators	Project Coordinator will oversee the hiring of specific studies and institutions, and delegate responsibilities to relevant team members	To be finalized in Inception Phase and Workshop. Indicative cost XXXX	Start, mid and end of project
Measurement of Means of Verification for Project Progress and Performance ( measured on an annual basis )	Oversight by Project GEF Technical Advisor and Project Coordinator Measurements by regional field officers and local IAs	To be determined as part of the Annual Work Plan's preparation. Indicative cost xxxx	Annually prior to APR/PIR and to the definition of annual work plans
APR and PIR	Project Team UNDP-CO UNDP-GEF	None	Annually
TPR and TPR report	Government Counterparts UNDP CO Project team UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating Unit	None	Every year, upon receipt of APR
Steering Committee Meetings	Project Coordinator UNDP CO	None	Following Project IW and subsequently at least once a year
Periodic status reports	Project team	5,000	To be determined by Project team and UNDP CO
Technical reports	Project team Hired consultants as needed	15,000	To be determined by Project Team and UNDP-CO
Mid-term External Evaluation	Project team UNDP- CO UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating Unit External Consultants (i.e. evaluation team)	20,000	At the mid-point of project implementation.
Final External Evaluation	Project team, UNDP-CO UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating Unit External Consultants (i.e. evaluation team)	30,000	At the end of project implementation
Terminal Report	Project team UNDP-CO External Consultant	None	At least one month before the end of the project
Lessons learned	Project team UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating Unit (suggested formats for documenting best practices, etc)	15,000 (average 3,000 per year)	Yearly
Audit	UNDP-CO Project team	4,000 (average $1000 per year)	Yearly
Visits to field sites (UNDP staff travel costs to be charged to IA fees)	UNDP Country Office UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating Unit (as appropriate) Government representatives	15,000 (average one visit per year)	Yearly
TOTAL indicative COST Excluding project team staff time and UNDP staff and travel expenses		US$ 250,000^³⁶

Annex G-2: Impact Measurement Template

(These indicators will be drawn from the Logframe Matrix and are related to the measurement of global benefits achieved by the project rather than project implementation progress. They will to be fine tuned and detailed in the Inception Workshop). The table below is an example.

Key Impact Indicator	Target (Year 4)	Means of Verification	Sampling frequency	Location
Km2 of stable xxx forest cover	xxxx forest cover in 86,289 km 2 has not decreased since project start	Satellite imagery	Start, mid,end	All PAs
% decrease of energy derived from unmanaged forest	The percentage of the energy derived from unmanaged Caatinga forest in areas covering 86,289 km2 of the biome has been reduced 25%	Survey of forest product consumption	Start, mid,end	All PAs
xx Hectares of xxx forest under sustainable wood production	3,143 km2 of xxxx forest are under sustainable wood production	register of sustainable production plans	Start, mid,end	xxxxx
Number hectares under protection	An additional 7,000 hectares of xxx have been placed under protection in Private Reserves and Biological Reserves	reports	Annually	xxxxxx
Populations of Indicator species	Populations of fauna indicator species in corridors remain stable or have increased. These species will be selected during the inception phase	Fauna inventories	Start, mid,end	xxxxx
Carbon sequestration	Tons of carbon sequestered per hectare in xxx hectares of project zone	Ground sampling and satellite imagery	Start, mid,end	Target zone
Soil erosion on xxx hectares	Tons of reduction in sedimentation of key waterways; hectares of land restored	Ground sampling; reports	Start, mid,end	Target zone

1 The budget provided for the MTR was the amount normally provided for an evaluation of a project of this size. However, the MTR was expected to do both an evaluation and to provide forward-looking redesign recommendations within an evaluation budget and timeframe.

2 These are the dates the MTR team leader was in China, one team member did a few days of work in October before the main mission started. The timing for the full mission with all team members was slated for November 6 to December 5, with the team leader staying a week after other members left. In fact, the full mission ended November 28, as team members began departing November 29.

3 UNDP Project Amendment to the Cost-sharing Agreement between UNDP and the Government of Australia, signed by UNDP February 15, 2000. Note that in both the original and amended agreement with AusAID, SFA was designated as the executing agency for the “whole project” and that UNOPS and later CICETE were identified as implementing agencies (not executing agencies).

4 Project design document, page 17.

5 Wetlands are often referred to as “the kidneys” of the environment.

6 See the mission report of Gerald Fitzgerald for further details.

7 This is the MTR’s interpretation of the situation; the project document is not explicit about these assumptions.

8 It was reported to the MTR team that AFIP of SFA, the body tasked by SFA to implement the project, was not consulted by the design team; however, we were unable to verify this.

9 The MTR did not review the design history in enough depth to determine whether the element of alternative livelihoods was always integral to project design or if it was added afterwards, when AusAID became interested in the project.

10 An individual told the MTR, that UNOPS retained the management fees allocated for managing the sub-contracts even though the responsibility was handed over to SFA. We could not confirm the accuracy of this information, as the MTR was unable to establish a clear financial picture of the management costs/allocations for the project (see chapter 5 for further financial details).

11 The WMA is useful however, as a project leading group to secure counterpart funding

12 The project document uses both the terms secure and maintained in the statement of overall objectives in different places of the document. We use the term secure for the overall goal as it is the term used in the main text of the project document.

13 See objective statement on page 17 of the project document.

14 It was reported to the MTR that there has been some reluctance on the part of CPMU to hire the best local experts available for a variety of personal and institutional turf reasons.

15 For further details on the socio-economic surveys see the mission report of Gerald Fitzgerald

16 A proper equipment needs assessment should include an itemized list of equipment based on the needs of each site, the schedule for procurement, and a plan for training and local servicing of equipment

17 MTR technical specialists spent considerable time assessing the threats to and opportunities for wetlands. For further details about this analysis see the Mission reports of the experts (available from UNDP).

18 In discussions with the GEF regional coordinator the MTR was told that if the project had to be redesigned that the immediate objectives could be changed so long as the overall objective is not changed. We therefore recommend that the overall objective not be changed but considered a long-term objective and that the immediate objectives be changed and made realistic.

19 We assume re-programming will take at least 3 months, therefore these costs also need to be deducted to determine the total available for re-programming.

20 This is normal practice for counterpart contributions in other projects, although this practice for counterpart salaries is not specified in the project document.

21 i.e.,UNDP CO and the GEF regional coordinator had somewhat different views about the regional coordinator’s role with respect to follow-up on TRP recommendations and reviewing quarterly work plans and advance requests.

22 This is likely to be an issue in 2003, as the resident rep, the deputy res. rep and the UNDP project manager may all leave.

23 See mission report of Gerald Fitzgerald for further details.

24 See mission report of John MacKinnon for further details.

25 The ADB project is called the Sanjiang Plains Wetland Protection project (earlier it was called Integrated Natural Resources Management for Sanjiang Plains)

26 Based on feedback received to the mission briefing report,this section has been modified since the briefing at the end of the mission.

27 A policy has been in place since 1998 when SFA staff reductions occurred that make it difficult to use SFA administrative staff on foreign projects. As SFA administrative staff would be the ones with the most technical experience (i.e. staff from wetlands office, etc.) it may be difficult to fill the technical positions with SFA candidates. This policy also prevents project offices from being located within SFA administrative units, they must be located in business units like AFIP.

28 If the management fees are inadequate, GEF’s policy towards paying UNDP management cost may need to be revisited. As this is a policy issue, the project should not be expected to increase UNDP/GEF supervision costs.

29 Note that the MTR proposed that the duration of the project be extended by two years (See Section 5.2)

30 The MTR proposed that training and provision of equipment be completed first in seven nature reserves, followed by support to neighbouring nature reserves with training given by the staff already trained during the first phase. A third phase would involve spreading the training to the remaining nature reserves in each area. There is disagreement over the proposal and this requires resolution.

31 The Sanjiang Plains Wetland Protection Project

32 Depending on what is covered by the full ADB project there may be a reduced need for inputs from this project in Sanjiang after next year, in which case a budget revision could reallocate excess project resources.

33 There is one more post here than proposed in the MTR report - to allow for a national technical comanager to be trained on the job .

34 including "volunteers"

35 Wetlands are defined as “areas of marsh, peatland or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine water, the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six metres” (Ramsar Convention, 1971)

1 ... 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33