Ana səhifə

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


Yüklə 1.47 Mb.
səhifə7/33
tarix24.06.2016
ölçüsü1.47 Mb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   ...   33

Management/Implementation Improvements Needed

Improvements are presented in this section that same way as they are presented in Section 4.1. The category of implementation improvements are listed in Table 4.2, most of which are in the form of recommendations. The management showstoppers that must be fixed are described below.




  1. Focus on results not inputs – SFA, UNDP and UNOPS all need to shift their focus from spending money and completing activities to delivering value for money. This mean they must focus on results and the quality of products delivered. To do this, all members of the senior management team (SFA, UNDP and UNOPS) must allocate competent technical resources and sufficient management time to do proper supervision and quality control.




  1. Senior partners need to work together as a team – communications and trust among the partners were poor at the time of the MTR. For the project to work, all partners need to work together to solve problems, they cannot not stay within narrowly defined “contractual” roles. At the same time, clarification of roles and responsibilities is needed and will help reduce the misunderstandings. Formal procedures and mechanisms to improve coordination and communication between the partners need to be developed – such as semi-weekly meetings, quarterly meetings about work plans, etc. The project is too complicated to rely on informal approaches. This project needs both to good communications and cooperation within and across provinces and agencies to work. To achieve this UNDP and SFA/CPMU need to demonstrate leadership to the other partners regarding communications and cooperation – they are not doing this at present.




  1. Review CICETE’s role – CICETE has not, so far provided value for money. It has not shown any technical expertise or interest in the project, its management of the bidding/contracting process for sub-contract 4 has been unsatisfactory and its relations with SFA/CPMU are troubled. In light of these problems, and the coordination problems caused by having 2 EA, it would be desirable to remove CICETE from the project. This recommendation is based on effectiveness and management reasons. The MTR is well aware of CICETEs political connections and cannot assess the merits of these to the project – that assessment is best made by the TPR.

Table 4.2: Implementation Improvements Needed

Big problems



  • Focus on results vs. inputs

  • Understanding of project purpose among partners – better understanding of the project and what GEF means by incrementally and will/will not support is needed.

  • Technical understanding and a vision of what the project is about is needed by all the senior partners (UNDP, SFA, CPMU, UNOPS, CICETE)

  • Goodwill/trust among the project partners – better communication and trust among partners is needed

Performance of Key Partners

  • UNDP Performance – UNDP needs to provide the project with stronger supervision, strategic direction, overall progress monitoring and financial control

  • CPMU Performance – improvements are needed in quality control, strategic direction, links between administration and technical work, office systems and procedures, linkages with SFA policy development and collaboration with provinces and NRs

  • CICETE and SFA/CPMU – value added of EA for sub-contract 4 must be improved –unless this is done CICETE should be removed as EA. For managing sub-contracts, both EAs (if CICETE stays) should follow with UNDP sub-contracting rules more closely

  • Stronger and more representative Tripartite Review – include provinces

Decentralization of project implementation and benefits

  • Nature reserves – money for NR work planning and implementation should go direct to NRs (or County offices)

  • Provinces – money for provincial work planning and implementation should go direct to provinces

Project Planning, Implementation and Monitoring

  • Need to develop a framework and strategy for remainder of project – that allows flexibility and is not a detailed prescription of activities.

  • Annual work planning of activities – to be done by all groups

  • Monitoring and evaluation – annual and semi-annual reviews need to be done and to feed into project work planning

Involvement of Other Stakeholders

  • Need to create partnerships beyond SFA (other sectors, NGOs, research institutes, etc)

  • Awareness raising needs to cover decision-makers as well as public

  • Need to work more closely and strengthen units in SFA and provincial forestry bureaus (Wildlife, Wetlands, GIS/Mapping and Monitoring Units).

Recruitment/Role of Experts

  • International – international experts still are needed to provide ecological thinking and western approaches, ideas and technologies. They should provide guidance and advice but Chinese should do the actual management and research work.

  • National – high quality and experienced experts that understand multidisciplinary ways of working must be recruited for the project to succeed.

  • Fees – competitive rates must be paid for international and national experts to get the caliber of expertise needed for the project. UNDP’s/UNOPS rates for international consultants and NEX rates for national consultants should be reviewed and made competitive

Practical Issues

  • Integration of work components and activities – activities and work components need to be linked rather than implemented in isolation. Also, one activity should build on another; so careful sequencing of activities is needed.

  • Improve collaboration and sharing of lessons between NRs and provinces.



  1. UNDP performance must improve – UNDP’s management of the wetlands project has been unsatisfactory. Unless it commits to providing adequate supervision and technical resources, the MTR team is concerned that project performance will not improve. By allowing the MTR team to be contracted through 3 different agencies and not coordinating their TORs, (despite its agreement to do otherwise) the MTR was treated first hand to the difficulties that UNDP’s lack of resources and management capacity is causing the project. It was only by working very hard, donating excessive amounts of unpaid time and because of the professionalism of the team that the MTR was able to keep somewhat focused – and we had a clear vision of what we had to do. This in our view is no way to run the Wetlands project – it is too hard on both UNDP and project staff and is also leads to unproductive activities.




  1. CPMU performance must improve – the CPMU also must improve its performance. Project staff needs to understand the project much better and to design and sequence activities to be productive. Simply following the project document and work plan without thinking is not acceptable. Also staff needs to understand the value and role of national and international consultants and to recruit them accordingly. CPMU needs to develop better TORs for consultants it hires, and to support them properly when they are doing their work (translation, background materials, etc.). Consultants who are not supported properly will not perform well, which wastes project money. CPMU staff also must focus more on the big picture and not concern themselves with minor cost-cutting and micro-management issues. Also, it is important that CPMU keeps the project focused – and micro-management has the opposite effect.




  1. Provide more benefits to provinces and nature reserves – this issue was brought to the MTR’s attention repeatedly. The NPD confirmed that it would be possible to send money directly to the provinces and nature reserves. We recommend this be done. Also, provincial representatives should participate in the TRP. Finally, NR and provincial officials should do their own work planning as much as possible – with support from CPMU as needed.




  1. Prevent scope creep – the number of nature reserves under the project has grown from 6 to 11. This dilutes the resources and results in no reserves getting enough equipment or training. The focus should be on results rather than equal distribution of project inputs.


1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   ...   33


Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©atelim.com 2016
rəhbərliyinə müraciət