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

Design and Management Issues

1. Design Improvements Needed

1. 
   Understanding of Background and Context – as described in chapter 3, the analysis of threats to wetlands¹⁷ that forms the basis for design is flawed. Clearly, the designers lacked a good understanding of either institutional or socio-economic conditions and so missed the two most serious threats to wetlands: (i) the lack of agency/sectoral cooperation and coordination; and (ii) the low priority given to biodiversity compared to that accorded economic development and poverty alleviation. If these had been understood the project would have been designed differently. For example, because economic and poverty priorities are so dominant, it is clear that biodiversity initiatives, to be effective, must be link to socio-economic policies and developments rather than working in splendid isolation. The design contains many examples of project designers not understanding the situation properly, and therefore proposing incorrect or unrealistic actions – including alternative livelihoods, PA management planning, WMAs, sub-contracting out major components of the work, etc. Redesign of the program must be based on a sound multi-disciplinary understanding of threats and opportunities. Where understanding is lacking, basic research must be done before specific interventions are programmed.
   

Table 4.1: Design Improvements Needed

• 
  Threats to wetlands and opportunities need to be better understood and the project fundamentally redesigned to make it realistic, suitable for Chinese situation, supported by implementers and likely to achieve its planned objectives.
  

• 
  The project lacks a coherent vision – one is needed.
  

• 
  Clarification of objectives – intermediate objectives and outputs are unrealistic.
  

• 
  Narrow scope – project is too broad and should focus on implementation and management of wetland biodiversity conservation
  
• 
  Reduce emphasis on NR – work more with provinces solving threats beyond NR control
  
• 
  Alternative livelihood focus – this is inappropriate and should be dropped
  

• 
  Change capacity development concept – shift to SFA “learning by doing” instead of experts doing the work
  
• 
  Clarification of the meaning and place for co-management in the project.
  
• 
  Integration of work activities – activities need to be linked together not isolated
  
• 
  Design site specific approaches – provision of training and equipment should be tailored to each site, not generic
  
• 
  Reduce level of detail about activities – project document reads like a prescriptive blue print, it is inflexible and prevents improvement and learning during implementation
  
• 
  Support needs and priorities of beneficiaries (vs. supply driven)
  
• 
  Revise role of WMA to project leading group – use existing planning processes to link with decision-making rather than setting up new ones
  

• 
  Reduce complexity of management structures – to 1 EA, 1-2 less sub-contracts, 2 IAs
  
• 
  Clarify roles and responsibilities – UNDP, GEF/UNDP, coordination between different groups
  
• 
  Decentralize management of provincial and nature reserve activities
  

• 
  Money is needed for planning and implementation by provinces and NRs
  
• 
  Structure and management of the project should support integration
  

• 
  Clarification of the links between co-financing and GEF financing is needed
  

• 
  Possible need for development of project management capacity
  

2. 
   Clarification of the project objectives and vision – as explained in chapter 2, there is a major disconnect between the stated and unstated objectives of this project. Also, the secondary objectives of poverty alleviation and gender objectives are not well integrated into the project. The lack of clear objectives has caused confusion among the partners – and prevents everyone from working towards a common purpose. A clear vision¹⁸ for the project needs to be articulated that all partner support.
   

3. 
   Make plans and management flexible – this is an experimental program, yet the activities for the entire five-year project are laid out in the project document. Such a rigid and prescriptive project document prevents the project from evolving or being experimental. This is no way to develop new models or approaches for preserving biodiversity. What should happen is that as the project progresses, unsuccessful activities should be dropped and the focus should shift to those that are working. A more flexible approach to work planning is needed – activities should not be detailed in the project document, instead they should be developed annually on the basis of what has been learned the previous year.
   

4. 
   Simplify management structures – the management structures are unnecessarily complicated, which is causing inefficiencies, un-necessary expense and miscommunication. There are 2 EAs and 4 sub-contracts. In terms of efficiency, it would be best to drop CICETE as an EA and folding at least one sub-contract (#2) directly into the project. Consideration also should be given to folding the remainder of sub-contract 1 directly into the sub-contract and to keeping sub-contract 4, but integrating it closely with other program activities.
   

5. 
   Change delivery model for capacity development – capacity development of nature reserve, provincial and other SFA staff should be based on learn by doing with the aim of developing SFAs skills. Experts should be used to support, guide and introduce new methodologies but not to do the work.
   

6. 
   Focus on practical and needed activities – all activities, equipment and capacity development provided by the project should be i) needed by the beneficiaries; and ii) within the budgets, resources and capabilities of the beneficiaries to do.
   

7. 
   Assign SFA responsibilities that are within its mandate – Project activities SFA is asked to do should relate to its mandate, which includes managing and setting policies for wetlands and SFA nature reserves. However, SFA does not have the mandate for land-use or development planning, so SFA should not be expected to deliver results for these areas. Similarity, it is unrealistic to expect the SFA to be able to set-up an effective body to inter-agency integration body (i.e. WMA), SFA has no mandate to do this. The project should use other partners with the mandate or contacts to work effectively across sectors (such as Provincial Planning Commissions or NGOs like WWF).
   

8. 
   Coordinate the co-financing more closely with GEF/Third Party funded activities – the co-financing so far has mainly been for buildings (monitoring stations and environmental centers) and project personnel. The MTR team found that the project may be encouraging development of buildings and facilities which cannot be maintained under the small recurrent budgets of Nature reserves. Also some of the infrastructure actually detracts from biodiversity conservation. Finally, in efforts to generate operating revenues, some nature reserves are building facilities that undermine biodiversity conservation (like a pheasant shoot gallery at Dafung). Rather than supporting these incorrect approaches, the project should make sure it does not facilitate wasteful spending of GOC funds on unsustainable activities.