United Nations Development Programme Global Environment Facility Full Project – Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity on the South African Wild Coast



Download 1.07 Mb.
Page6/16
Date conversion15.05.2016
Size1.07 Mb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   16

PART IV. MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN AND BUDGET


  1. Project monitoring and evaluation will be conducted in accordance with established UNDP and GEF procedures and will be provided by the Project Implementation and the UNDP Country Office in Pretoria (UNDP-CO) with support from UNDP/GEF. The Logical Framework Matrix in Section II of the Project Document provides impact indicators for project implementation along with their corresponding means of verification. Section IV, Part VIII provides: (i) a detailed explanation of the monitoring and reporting system for the project; (ii) a presentation of the evaluation system; (iii) a matrix presenting the work plan and the budget for M&E section; (iv) the Result Measurement Table; and (v) METT tables.




  1. Briefly, the CASU will ensure the regular monitoring and feedback of activities under implementation to the Program Steering Committee. The Project Coordinator will be responsible for the preparation of reports on a regular basis. The following reports will be prepared by the CASU and submitted to PSC and UNDP Country Office: (i) Inception Report; (ii) Annual Project Report; (iii) Project Implementation Review; (iv) Quarterly Progress Reports; and (v) Project Terminal Report. The Quarterly progress reports will provide a basis for managing disbursements. These reports will include brief summary of the status of activities and output delivery, explaining variances from the work plan, and presenting work-plans for each successive quarter for review and endorsement




  1. The project will be subjected to at least two independent external evaluations:




    1. Mid-term Evaluation - will be undertaken at the end of the second year of implementation. The Mid-Term Evaluation will determine progress being made towards the achievement of outcomes and will identify course correction if needed;

    2. Final Evaluation - will take place three months prior to the terminal tripartite review meeting, and will focus on the same issues as the mid-term evaluation. The final evaluation will also look at impact and sustainability of results, including the contribution to capacity development and the achievement of global environmental goals.




  1. The Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) developed jointly by the WWF and the World Bank, was used in the preparation stage to establish baseline values for targeted provincial nature reserves, marine protected areas, state forests and Coastal Conservation Area. The METT will be conducted mid term and at the end of the project for the life of the project and compared with the stated indicators for mid term and end of the project. The project will also support the collection and processing of data for M&E and annual stakeholder meetings to share the information obtained from monitoring




  1. The total cost of the project is estimated to be US$ 30,830,900, with GEF co-funding to be US$ 6,512,900 (excluding preparatory assistance). Co-financing has been secured from the Government of South Africa - at the national (DEAT, MCM, DWAF, DA), provincial (Province, DEAET, ECPB, ECTB), local (district and local municipalities) and private sector – and DBSA. The Full GEF Project would run for 6 years. Substantial funding for the sustainable development component of the overall Wild Coast programme is already committed.




Project Outcomes and outputs

Amount (US$)

Total (US$)

GEF

Total co-financing

Outcome 1: Institutional framework and capacity to facilitate co-management systems for PAs is in place.

 

 

 

1.1. Strengthen ECPB to broker co-management agreements

1,580,200

210,000 (ECPB)

1,790,200

1.2. Strengthen ECPB to implement co-management agreements

44,000

330,000 (ECPB)

374,000

1.3. Improve capacity of key institutions

18,000

100,000 (ECPB)

30,000 (Munic.)



148,000

1.4. Knowledge management system

192,000

15,000 (ECPB)

207,000

1.5. Regulations for PA

46,000

20,000 (ECPB)

66,000

1.6. Financial mechanisms for PAs

36,000

50,000 (ECPB)

86,000

1.7. Sustainable resource use policy

36,000

8,000 (ECPB)

44,000

1.8. Public awareness

200,000

60,000 (ECPB)

260,000

1.9. Monitoring and Evaluation

290,000

80,000 (ECPB)

370,000

Total outcome 1

2,442,200

903,000

3,345,200

Outcome 2: Management effectiveness is enhanced within a rationalized and more representative system of protected areas (Type 1 PAs), operating under co-management agreements with local communities and the private sector.

 

 

 

2.1. Increase capacity of local communities

917,000

20,000 (ECPB)

937,000

2.2. Adaptive management

206,000

750,000 (MCM)

100,000 (Province)



1,056,000

2.3. Active management

307,000

100,000 (ECPB)

407,000

2.4. Priority PA extended

66,000

1,500,000 (ECPB)

1,566,000

Total Outcome 2

1,496,000

2,470,000

3,966,000

Outcome 3: A functioning network of managed resource use protected areas (Type 2 PAs – IUCN category VI) is in place, and is being effectively managed in active collaboration with local communities.

 

 

 

3.1. Rationalize authority

124,000

50,000 (ECPB)

174,000

3.2. Increase capacity of local communities

46,000

20,000 (ECPB)

66,000

3.3. Cooperative governance structure

80,000

25,000 (ECPB)

330,000 (DEAT)



435,000

3.4. Adaptive management

118,000

10,000(ECPB)

128,000

3.5. Active management interventions

1,790,800

5,000,000 (DEAT)

5,000,000 (DWAF)



11,790,800

3.6. Micro-enterprises

368,000

10,000,000 (DBSA)

10,368,000

3.7. Consolidating Pas

35,000

10,000(ECPB)

500,000 (DEAT)



545,000

Total outcome 3

2,561,800

20,945,000

23,506,800

Total full project

6,500,000

24,318,000

30,818,000

Project Preparation

GEF US$ 339,410

DEAET: US$ 276,500






GRAND TOTAL (FULL PROJECT + PREPARATION

6,839,410

24,594,500

31,433,910




  1. Cost effectiveness: The mean operational cost/hectare of PA management in South Africa is estimated at US$ 16, while the anticipated mean for the Wild Coast, using co-management is less than US$ 10 once the institutional arrangements and capacities have been installed. The cost of traditional PA management approaches, founded on command and control systems, is expected to be 50 – 60% higher than the mean in the Wild Coast. The cost of project investments per hectare conserved is US$ 14, which is modest in light of the derivative global and national benefits, and replication potential. Co-management systems are expected to be more cost effective in the long-term in comparison to command and control systems of management (once the high one-time costs of institution building, investments and learning have been met) because they share the burden of responsibility for PA management with local communities. The cost-effectiveness of the project is further enhanced through the systematic integration of conservation management into the regional development-planning framework, sector strategies and poverty alleviation interventions. This will ensure the simultaneous attainment of conservation objectives in the pursuit of economic development.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   16


The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page