United Nations Environment Programme
Terminal Evaluation of the UNEP GEF Medium-Size
Project GF/3010-05-09 "Fostering a Global Dialogue on
Oceans, Coasts, and SIDS, and on Freshwater-Coastal-
Marine Interlinkages"
Yves Henocque
Evaluation and Oversight Unit
November 2008
1
INDEX
Acronyms and abbreviations
3
I.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
4
II.
INTRODUCTION
Background
7
Objective and scope of the evaluation
7
Evaluation approach
8
Structure of this report
9
III.
SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF THE PROJECT
PROJECT PERFORMANCE
Attainment of objectives and planned results
10
Summary level attainment and general observations
22
Implementation approach
25
Achievement of outputs and activities
Output 1: Global Forum Conferences and related activities
27
Output 2: Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) 28
Output 3: GPA and freshwater-coastal-marine interlinkages
28
Output 4: Replication mechanism with IW:LEARN
29
Output 5: Project management and Global Forum sustainability
29
Assessment monitoring and evaluation systems
30
Preparation and readiness
31
Financial planning
31
UNEP supervision and backstopping
32
PROJECT IMPACTS
Country ownership / driveness
33
Stakeholder participation / public awareness
34
Sustainability and co-financing
34
Catalytic role
38
IV.
CONCLUSIONS
Main general conclusions
39
Ratings
43
V.
FOLLOW-UP
Lessons learned
44
Recommendations
45
Annex 1 Questionnaire addressed to the partners
47
Annex 2 List of questionnaire recipients and interviewees
55
Annex 3 Co-financing and leveraged resources
58
Annex 4 Evaluation Terms of Reference
61
2
Acronyms and abbreviations
AOSIS
Alliance of Small Island States
Canada DFO
Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans
CMP
Gerard J. Mangone Center for Marine Policy, University of Delaware
CPLP
Community of Portuguese-Speaking Nations
CSD
Commission on Sustainable Development
EBM
Ecosystem-Based Management
EEZ
Exclusive Economic Zone
EPOMEX
Centro de Ecologia, Pesquerias y Oceanograofia del Golfo de Mexico
GEF
Global Environment Facility
GPA
Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment
from Land-based Activities
GWP
Global Water Partnership
ICOM
Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management
ICO
International Coast and Ocean Organization
ICP
United Nations Open-ended Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the
Law of the Sea
IOCARIBE
IOC Sub-Commission for the Caribbean and Adjacent Regions
IOC-UNESCO
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization
ISA
International Seabed Authority
IUCN
International Union for the Conservation of Nature
IUU
Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing
IW:LEARN
UNDP/UNEP/WB-GEF International Waters Learning, Exchange, and
Resource Network Program
IWRM
Integrated Water Resource Management
JPOI
Johannesburg Plan of Implementation
LME
Large Marine Ecosystem
MDG
Millenium Development Goals
NEPAD/COSMAR
New Partnership for Africa's Development/Coastal and Marine Coordination
Unit
NOAA
U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
PEMSEA
Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia
SEMARNAT
Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, Mexico
SIDS
Small Island Developing States
SOPAC
Pacific Islands Applied Geoscience Commission
TNC
The Nature Conservancy
UCC-Water
UNEP Collaborating Centre on Water and Environment
UNCLOS
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
UNCSD
United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development
UNCTAD
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
UNDESA
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
UNDOALOS
United Nations Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea
UNDP
United Nations Development Programme
UNEP
United Nations Environment Programme
UNFCCC
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
UNGA
United Nations General Assembly
UNU
United Nations University
WHO
World Health Organization
WON
World Ocean Network
WMO
World Meteorological Organization
WSSD
World Summit on Sustainable Development
WWF
World Wildlife Fund
3
I.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The goal of the UNEP GEF medium-size project was to foster a global South-to-South and
South-to-North dialogue, through the Global Forum on Oceans, Coasts, and Islands, on the
implementation of the activities aimed towards the achievement of Johannesburg Plan Of
Implementation (JPOI) targets and timetables related to oceans, coastal areas and islands, with
a special focus on Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and the interlinkages between
freshwater and the coastal and marine environment.
The objective of its terminal evaluation is to examine the extent and magnitude of any project
impacts to date and determine the likelihood of future impacts. The evaluation also assesses
project performance and the implementation of planned project activities and planned outputs
against actual results.
An evaluation planning document has been drafted and submitted to UNEP and project
managers. It proposed two main prerequisites: (1) a re-organization of the 11 evaluation
criteria under project performance and project impacts categories as reflected in the overall
rating table, (2) and classification of project stakeholders under five different categories of
Global Forum partners and specific statement about their respective expected outcome related
to behavioural change.
The document then proposed a questionnaire covering the 11 evaluation criteria and a list of
addressees comprising the 13 project Steering Committee members, the 95 Global Forum
Steering Committee members, and a selection of 25 Global Forum Working Groups members
along the five partner categories as defined above. The latter were asked only about the
project impact-related criteria. Out of 128 addressees, there have been 38 respondents or a
return ratio of about 30%.
As a whole, this project:
-
has been a learning one, which has considerably evolved in three-year time (2005-2008)
to a rapidly changing international environment and the subsequent demands from its
constituencies. Unanimously, the steady improvement in the quality and effectiveness of
Global Conferences till the 4th Global Conference in Hanoi has been recognized. This
adaptive capacity could have been much more evidenced and utilized if it had been
supported by an efficient monitoring and evaluation system;
-
has provided a cross-sectoral platform and raised awareness among a broad set of
decision-makers on a comprehensive set of critical ocean management and governance
issues related to the JPOI and MDG targets;
-
has developed a strong relationship with AOSIS raising the profile of SIDS challenges and
opportunities not only in the achievement of JPOI targets, but also in putting focus on the
challenges faced by SIDS and their partners in implementing the Mauritius Strategy
including the steps taken to develop capacity-support to SIDS;
-
has made significant inputs into UN processes, such as the UN Commission on
Sustainable Development (Climate change) or the UN Open-ended Informal Consultative
Process on Oceans and the Law of the Sea (SIDS, Climate change, Governance of areas
beyond national jurisdiction, Maritime security and safety), and the UN Ad Hoc Open-
Ended Informal Working Group to study issues relating to the conservation and
sustainable use of marine biological diversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction.
4
Practically, the project has been targeting a wide range of stakeholders the main "targets"
being high level policy-makers and international/intergovernmental organizations, whilst
global NGOs and Foundations representatives as well as experts in a number of policy and
science areas were well represented. This made the Global Forum a unique and indispensable
platform for multi-stakeholder dialogues provided the stakeholder/partners' specific
consecutive long-term impacts are taken into consideration. Nevertheless, a stakeholder
analysis and involvement plan would have helped to come up with a clearer strategy map for
how the project expects these varied groups of partners to commit to and focus on achieving
the project and the Global Forum objectives in relation with their own agendas.
While the Global Forum is tackling new important international issues like governance of
areas beyond national jurisdictions, in the same time it will have to keep contact with the
coastal zone and its dwellers in raising awareness, building human capacity and fomenting
leadership, particularly to assist countries in reaching the Millennium Development Goals
targets.
In summary, given the short period of time, this GEF project has succeeded in establishing a
solid base for the structuring and further development of a unique, independent international
platform with efficient gains seen in (i) getting a host of different types of actors together to
discuss important policy issues; (ii) putting together expert groups and committees for
engaging in dialogue, debate and prescriptions on the way towards JPOI and MDG targets
attainment; (iii) promoting debate on implementation modalities for these prescriptions.
However, at the end of the day, implementation of agreements made in conferences does
depend on national and regional actors. Follow-up and provision of continued support in
varied forms is a challenge in this type of project.
While the overall rating of the project is `Satisfactory', it is recommended:
-
Thanks to the very proactive stance of the Global Forum Secretariat, a strong constituency
within the Global Forum steering committee and the building up of committed working
groups, there is a strong insurance that the good results of this GEF project will not be
wasted, at least in the short and mid-term period. But it will be important that first, the
project outputs are formally recognised by all partners from the Global Forum and in each
region so finally as many countries as possible are helped to build national strategies. To
achieve this, financial support is of course necessary provided the Global Forum fully
realizes it is entering a new phase for which it has to adapt its structure including the
Secretariat consolidation (in this regard, ICO like any other structure should charge
overheads), more extensive reporting to the partner organizations and steering committee
members hence promoting ownership and participation within its steering committee, and
thematic grouping of working groups to optimise their functioning whilst keeping the
Global Forum's aim to follow all the major WSSD ocean goals.
-
Another important point is the formalization of Global Forum regional leads within
existing regional entities. This should not be costly using opportunistically and as much as
possible the regional context and initiatives with the help of its steering committee
members. A very recent and good example is one of the steering committee members'
proposal to create a Regional Forum on Oceans, Coasts and Islands for the Channel and
the North Sea at a time where the European Union is setting up its marine eco-regions.
This could be a very inspiring first step, a kind of pilot, which could incite partners from
other regions to create other Global Forum regional affiliates adapted to their specific
5
-
Having done so and since the Global Forum is a unique independent global platform,
while there is a good probability to see more financial support coming from countries and
national organisations as shown by the leveraged resources, the support of international
financing institutions will remain crucial. As immediate steps, UNEP/DGEF should
continue working with the Global Forum to further support its development as suggested
above and find the way to further promote programmes and crossing of experiences like
the GEF/LME one. In this regard, it should be noted that, beyond the project leveraged
resources, the Global Forum has already attained $1.45 million of resources for its next
stage of work, 2008-2012.
-
To develop its strategy and rely on clear priorities, the Global Forum will need to further
revise and finalize the draft 10-year strategic plan considered as a "living" document
giving not only the future activities direction and content but also the "how" they
pragmatically will be implemented and deployed through the regions taking into account
their specific needs and priorities which are not necessarily the same as those at the global
level. The preparation of the 10-year strategic plan should be an opportunity to come up
with a coherent system of indicators for monitoring and evaluation for the sake of the
Global Forum good management and partners' systematic information including the
financial one, while it could be easily adapted for the purpose of projects like the
GEF/MSP one. Such a system could be developed in three phases in the next couple of
months: (1) hiring an M&E specialist to build up the system structure; (2) setting up an
ad'hoc small committee to work on the specialist's proposal; (3) submitting the drafted
system to the steering committee for finalization.
-
Building on the project momentum, the Global Forum has rightly addressed the issue of
governance of areas beyond national jurisdiction as one of the important global ocean
issues. In line with the fostering of a global South-to-South and South-to-North multi-
stakeholder dialogue, it is recommended the Global Forum not only tackle the issue as
such but in a continuum with ICM close in the coastal zone, EEZ management, regional
collaboration (regional seas and LMEs), and areas beyond national jurisdiction which are
sometimes not that far and may have biophysical links from the oceanographic point of
view. Such a "nested strategy" would also be a way to keep the rationale hence the
balance with addressing coastal issues within territorial waters, all countries' priority
target and developing countries' main concern.
6
II.
INTRODUCTION
Background
1.
The Global Forum on Oceans, Coasts, and Islands, organized informally in 2001 and
formalized at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), serves as a
multi-stakeholder stock-taking forum for cross-sectoral discussion, policy analyses,
and mobilization of knowledge and other resources to promote the implementation of
international agreements related to oceans, coasts, and SIDS. The Global Forum
brings together leading ocean experts from governments, intergovernmental and
international organizations (including all the relevant UN agencies), nongovernmental
organizations, private sector, academic and scientific institutions.
2.
The goal of the UNEP GEF medium size project was to foster a global South-to-South
and South-to-North dialogue, through the Global Forum on Oceans, Coasts, and
Islands, on the implementation of the activities aimed towards the achievement of
Johannesburg Plan Of Implementation (JPOI) targets and timetables related to oceans,
coastal areas and islands, with a special focus on Small Island Developing States
(SIDS) and the interlinkages between freshwater and the coastal and marine
environment.
3.
More specifically, the project aimed to assist the developing countries, SIDS, and
countries with economies in transition to:
a) Foster cross-sectoral, multi-stakeholder dialogues, policy analyses, and public
outreach on oceans, coasts and SIDS issues;
b) Promote the attainment of intergovernmental commitments and agreements, including
the JPOI and the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine
Environment from Land-based Activities (GPA);
c) Establish multi-sectoral dialogues, involving experts from developing countries,
countries with economies in transition, and GEF LME projects in the policy analyses,
public outreach and cross-learning between Large Marine Ecosystem (LME)
experiences and coastal and ocean management experiences;
d) Raise the awareness of and promote national ocean policies and ecosystem-based
approaches to large marine ecosystems as a vehicle for achieving sustainable
development of SIDS;
e) Improve interlinkages between freshwater, coastal and oceans issues by developing a
relationship between the Global Forum on Oceans, Coasts, and Islands and the World
Water Forum and associated institutions.
Objective and scope of the evaluation
4.
The objective of this terminal evaluation is to examine the extent and magnitude of any
project impacts to date and determine the likelihood of future impacts. The evaluation
will also assess project performance and the implementation of planned project
activities and planned outputs against actual results. The evaluation will focus on the
following main questions:
a) Did the project help to increase awareness at a high political level in the developing
countries, SIDS, and countries with economies in transition on major issues related to
oceans, especially the ecological and socioeconomic inter-linkages between the
management of freshwater and coastal, marine, and island areas.
7
b) Did the project promote the attainment of intergovernmental commitments and
agreements, including the JPOI and the Global Programme of Action for the
Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities (GPA).
c) Did the project increase the capacity of developing countries, SIDS, and countries
with economies in transition to, (1) implement the JPOI targets for oceans, coasts, and
islands and other relevant intergovernmental agreements, such as the GPA, (2) adopt
the use of ecosystem-based approaches including LME, (3) implement the oceans and
coasts aspects of the Barbados Programme of Action and the outcomes of the
Mauritius International Meeting.
d) To what extent did the project succeed in securing the sustainability of the Global
Forum on Oceans, Coasts, and Islands.
e) To what extent did the project succeed in increasing the replicability of lessons learned
in GEF LME projects through interactions with other major ocean programs and
efforts in the Global Forum.
Evaluation approach
5.
A first draft of an evaluation planning document was prepared and discussed with the
project Steering Committee members at their second meeting held within the
UNESCO premises in New York on 21 June 2008.
6.
The finalized draft of the document was then been submitted and discussed with
UNEP/EOU with a copy sent to UNEP/DGEF Task Manager.
7.
The approved evaluation approach follows the spirit of the "Outcome mapping"
(Outcome mapping Building Learning and Reflection into Development Programs,
S. Earl, F. Carden, T. Smutylo. 2001) where regular involvement of the primary user,
i.e. the project steering committee members, throughout the phases of data collection
and analysis test the validity of the findings and increase the likelihood of their
utilization, considered to be the ultimate purpose of evaluation.
8.
To this purpose, the evaluation planning document proposed two main prerequisites:
(1) a re-organization of the 11 evaluation criteria under project performance and
project impacts categories as reflected in the overall rating table, (2) and classification
of project stakeholders under five different categories of Global Forum partners and
specific statement about their respective expected outcome related to behavioural
change.
9.
The project performance category includes 7 evaluation criteria as follows: A.
Attainment of objectives and planned results; J. Implementation approach; C.
Achievements of outputs activities; D. Assessment monitoring and evaluation
systems; F. Preparation and readiness; I. Financial planning; K. UNEP supervision and
backstopping.
10.
The project impact category includes 4 evaluation criteria as follows: G. Country
ownership / driven ness; H. Stakeholders participation / public awareness; B.
Sustainability and co-financing; E. Catalytic role / Replicability.
11.
Five categories of partners were defined as reflected by the Global Forum steering
committee composition (see Annex 2): (1) Government officials and policy-makers,
(2) Intergovernmental and international organisations, (3) NGOs and Foundations, (4)
Private sector, (5) Education and research institutions. As a whole, this classification
received a very positive feedback from questionnaires and interviews although the
8
12.
The document then proposed a questionnaire covering the 11 evaluation criteria and a
list of addressees comprising the 13 project Steering Committee members, the 90
Global Forum Steering Committee members, and a selection of 25 Global Forum
Working Groups members along the five partner categories as defined above. The
latter were asked only about the project impact-related criteria as described at
Paragraph 10.
13.
The questionnaire had a simple rating system as follows: 3 (Strong), 2 (Good), 1
(Fair), 0 (Poor), NR (Not relevant or Don't know). The matching with the Terminal
Evaluation requested rating system comes as follows:
2.5 3
= Highly Satisfactory (HS)
2.0 2.4
= Satisfactory (S)
1.5 1.9
= Moderately Satisfactory (MS)
1.0 1.4
= Moderately Unsatisfactory (MU)
0.5 0.9
= Unsatisfactory (U)
0 0.4
= Highly Unsatisfactory (HS)
14.
Out of the 128 questionnaires sent, 38 responses were received back or a return ratio
of about 30% distributed amongst the different partner groups as follows: Partner 1
(6), Partner 2 (12), Partner 3 (8), Partner 4 (2), Partner 5 (10). The fact that the private
sector has only two respondents reflect this group under-representation in the Global
Forum steering committee (Annex 2).
15.
Exchanges and interviews were held with the Project Executing (IOC-UNESCO) and
Co-Executing (ICO) Managers and Assistants; members of the Project and the Global
Forum Steering Committees, upon specific visits (World Ocean Network, Ocean
Policy Research Foundation) or telephone interviews. Inputs were also received during
the Project second Steering Committee meeting, the Global Forum Steering
Committee meeting, and the 9th Meeting of UN Open-ended Informal Consultative
Process on Oceans and the Law of the Sea (ICP-9), all organized in New York from
21 to 23 June 2008.
16.
With considerable help from the UNEP/DGEF Task Manager and the Project
Managers, the Consultant reviewed all available documentation concerning the project
and the Global Forum, including the minutes of the Project 1st Steering Committee
meeting, the UNEP GEF PIR 2007, the Global Forum Report of Activities for 2005-
2008, the Reports from the two Global Conferences held during the period of the
project, the benchmark "How Well Are We Doing?" report, the 12 Policy Briefs as
well as the other listed publications and internet services.
Structure of this report
17.
Chapter III covers the specific aspects of the project including the 11 evaluation
criteria redistributed around the project performance and the project impacts. Chapter
IV covers the main general conclusions and the overall ratings of project objectives
and results. It gives the main substance to the Executive Summary first Chapter.
Finally, Chapter V lists the lessons learned and recommendations from the evaluation.
9
III.
SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF THE PROJECT
PROJECT PERFORMANCE
Attainment of objectives and planned results
18.
The following is an analysis of the attainment of the project objectives and planned
results stated in Section C (Project design) and the logical framework of the original
project document. For more clarity, the latter has been reviewed as regards the
numbering of Outputs and Activities though its content remains the same. It should be
noted however in the original project document that there is not always a clear-cut link
between the five project objectives and the three main Components and "Immediate
objectives" indicated in the original logical framework. After a thorough examination
and discussion with the project managers, it results the following:
a) Objective 1 / Component 1
b) Objective 2 / Components 1, 2 and 3
c) Objective 3 / Components 1 and 2
d) Objective 4 / Component 2
e) Objective 5 / Component 3
19.
We have therefore to deal with multi-folded objectives, which make the link between
activities and results or outputs (Efficiency), results and "immediate objectives" or
project purpose (Effectiveness), and objectives and outcomes or project overall
objectives (Impact to date) not always straightforward. This is particularly true in
regard to objective 2 (Attainment of intergovernmental commitments and agreements
including JPOI and GPA), and objective 3 (Multi-sectoral dialogues and cross-
learning between LME experiences and coastal/ocean management experiences).
These aspects will be further developed in the subsection on Achievements of outputs
and activities.
20.
The Relevance criteria would have been easier to assess if both a stakeholder analysis
and a stakeholder involvement plans would have been made, more particularly to
measure the ability of the project to keep its key stakeholders satisfied. In the frame of
this terminal evaluation, the proposed stakeholder classification in five categories of
partners have met a positive feedback as judged from the questionnaire and interview
analyses.
21.
Besides the many available documents including the three Progress Reports, there are
four main documents reflecting the project status and its evolution through time and
within the Global Forum on Oceans, Coasts, and Islands: the original project
documents (February 2005), the minutes of the project first steering committee
(January 2006), the project UNEP GEF PIR (July 2007), and the Global Forum Report
of Activities for the GEF/MSP period 2005-2008 (June 2008).
22.
As said before, it does not come as a surprise to observe that the elements of the
project have been evolving through time and that there is not always an obvious link
between them. Besides the fact that this evolution reflects the capacity of the project to
learn and to adapt, it should be noted that this is also a reflection of a supporting
10
Objective 1: Foster cross-sectoral, multi-stakeholder dialogues, policy analyses, and public
outreach on oceans, coasts, and SIDS issues.
23.
Concerning the multi-stakeholder dialogue for promoting the Johannesburg Plan Of
Implementation (JPOI) targets on oceans, coasts, and SIDS:
a) the 3rd Global Conference on Oceans, Coasts and Islands, Moving the Global
Oceans Agenda Forward, was held in January 2006 at IOC-UNESCO, Paris. The
conference included over 400 participants from 78 countries, with 38 ministers and
high level government representatives in attendance;
b) a 75-page full-coloured publication presents highlights of the Global Conference
and summaries of discussions related to the attainment of major JPOI and
Millenium Development Goals (MDG) as regards coasts and oceans;
c) not long after (June 2006), a 65-page full-coloured "companion publication",
Meeting the Commitments on Oceans, Coasts, and Small Island Developing States
Made at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development: How Well Are We
Doing?, was presented at the UN Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the
Law of the Sea and then widely distributed and made available on the Global
Forum website;
d) the 4th Global Conference, on Oceans, Coasts and Islands, Advancing Ecosystem
Management and Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management in the Context of
Climate Change, was held in April 2008 in Hanoi, Vietnam. The conference was
attended by 439 participants from 62 countries including members of governments,
regional organizations, UN agencies, academia, NGOs, donor agencies, and
industry representatives;
e) 12 policy briefs were prepared by 12 multinational working groups involving 254
ocean experts from 68 countries. These working groups were created prior to the
conference and are meant to serve on the long-term ;
f) the outcomes of the 4th Global Conference on Oceans, Coasts and Islands have
been made available on the Global Forum website whilst a special Global Oceans
and Coasts (GOC) 2008 website and You'Tube channel have been created for
large dissemination around the world.
24.
Thus, the objective concerning the holding of two Global Ocean Conferences in a
developed and developing country including the preparation and worldwide
dissemination of their outcomes has been not only fully met but exceeded since the
Hanoi Conference holding was an additional activity to the original GEF MSP, which
required a major orchestration of people and resources among and outside the Global
Forum and the Government of Vietnam and was carried out in large part with
leveraged resources.
25.
Concerning policy analyses, rapid assessments for implementation of the Mauritius
Strategy (2005) including the capacity development needs have been produced in four
Small Island Developing States (SIDS) regions, Caribbean, Pacific Islands, Indian
Ocean, and Atlantic SIDS, through the hiring of independent consultants and the
engagement of regional organizations such as SOPAC and CPLP.
11
26.
Regional capacity assessments have been carried out in Africa, East Asia, and Latin
America. They have been made available on the Global Forum website.
27.
As an additional outcome, under the Government of Brazil's leadership, a South-to-
South cooperation on capacity development has been promoted and developed among
8 Portuguese speaking Nations. A Framework of Cooperation on the Environment has
been agreed among the 8 Member States.
28.
According to the progress reports and the PIR 2007, the process of preparation of the
capacity assessments required more time than originally assumed while the reports
still need to be disseminated widely. It appears that this component of the project
faced some difficulties because, besides regional organizations like PEMSEA,
NEPAD, CPLP and Mexico's SEMARNAT, it was partly entrusted to independent
consultants to palliate the fact that there was a low amount of money available for
these assessments. The lack of capacity was covered, in part, by a very active
involvement of the project manager. This is not an issue anymore when a national
government takes the leadership like Brazil in the case of the 8 Portuguese speaking
countries' Framework of Cooperation. As mentioned during the last Global Forum
Steering Committee meeting (June 2008), the issue of human capacities is also about
encouraging synergies between national and regional efforts.
29.
Moreover, in term of impact, it seems that the capacity building needs assessments
could have led to more specific capacity building actions through regional
organisations and regional leads using their own mechanism to let national
governments and technical agencies, including them in their respective strategy and
programming. In this regard, it seems that no immediate action has been taken up after
the completion of the capacity needs assessments but that, in the next phase of work
(2008-2012) funds would be made available to support capacity development efforts
in ocean training for senior government officials and support of the SIDS Consortium
of Universities.
30.
Considering that the process of preparing this output has been difficult and that the
results were not of the magnitude and significance foreseen in the project (Assessing
capacity building needs at the regional level for the development and implementation
of ecosystem-based national ocean policies among developing countries and countries
with economies in transition), particularly in regard to building up regional and
national ownership, this aspect of Objective 1 should be considered as partially met.
Moreover, as mentioned during the project second steering committee meeting (June
2008), there should have been more peer review of the literature produced and more
particularly of these reports which are still under different format presentation. It
should be noted that the project design was probably too ambitious in planning to
achieve such a difficult task in just two years.
31.
Concerning public outreach, a global directory on nongovernmental organization has
been completed and made available on the Global Forum website while two issues of
the Global Forum Newsletter (May 2005, April 2006) were published. It should be
noted that the discontinuity in issuing the Global Forum Newsletter has been largely
compensated by a large quantity of informative documents as mentioned above though
the purpose and nature of information are somewhat different from those of a
newsletter more based on practical day-to-day management information.
12
32.
The Global Forum has also collaborated in 2006 with the Stakeholder Forum, in the
production of 6 issues of the GPA Outreach, a newsletter that supported the
preparatory work for the Second Intergovernmental Review Meeting (IGR-2) of the
UNEP Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment
from Land-based Activities (GPA).
33.
Since January 2005 till the end of June 2008, in all nine Side Events were organized
by the Global Forum on Oceans, Coasts, and Islands during major ocean meetings
related to the UN Informal Consultative Process (ICP) on Oceans and the Law of the
Sea, the UN Commission on Sustainable Development, the World Water Week
(August 2006), the UNEP/GPA Intergovernmental Review, the Mauritius
International meeting on SIDS, and the 4th World Water Forum in Mexico.
34.
This considerable effort in promoting and producing information materials would not
have been enough without the recent support of a much improved website and
efficient collaboration with the World Ocean Network and the World Ocean
Observatory as well as the International Institute for Sustainable Development in
covering the 4th Global Conference proceedings and creating the GOC2008 website
and YouTube channel.
35.
More specifically, in collaboration with the World Ocean Network and Centre
National de la Mer NAUSICAA, a package of public information materials, the Ocean
Information Package, has been prepared and widely disseminated to museums and
aquaria staff as well as teachers and educators to communicate towards general public.
36.
The last aspect of this objective covers the organizational structure improvement and
the preparation of a 10-year strategic plan. The organizational improvement consisted
mainly in the design of the Global Forum Working Group Matrix and the setting up of
12 working groups who started working by the end of 2006. Their activity and outputs
have been varied and, as a first step, led to the publication of 12 policy briefs
presented during the 4th Global Conference in Hanoi. On the basis of their content as
well as the conference presentations and discussions, the Global Forum Secretariat
prepared a draft form of the 10-year strategic plan (2006-2016) presented as a set of
recommendations and submitted at the last Global Forum Steering Committee meeting
held in June 2008 in New York. The next steps will involve refinement of the
recommendations for action through discussions with the Global Forum Steering
Committee, Global Forum Working Groups, and other relevant parties.
37.
This set of recommendations is thus underpinning the 10-year strategic plan under
preparation. It generated a lot of discussions and comments at the last Global Forum
Steering Committee meeting (June 2008). The raised issues turned around the topic
selection (e.g. climate change and megacities, public awareness), the actual niches of
the Global Forum (e.g. facilitate linkage between efforts), the lack of specific
achievements with clear goals and indicators in regard to the different scales of
intervention, etc. This lack of consensus reflected a lack of preparation since most of
the steering committee members were discovering the document at the meeting. This
means that much further exchange and negotiation are needed among the Global
Forum Steering Committee members before coming up with a coherent strategic plan
and a set of realistic objectives and doable recommendations. This probably means
13
38.
This last aspect of Objective 1 should then be considered as partially met. This result
may also reflect a weak design of the project, since it was probably over-ambitious to
attempt to set up in just two years an organizational structure at the global level
capable of coming up with a negotiated hence robust 10-year strategic plan.
Nevertheless, the enabling conditions to make it happen have been considerably
enhanced, more particularly during the last year of the project.
14
Table 1 - Matching the Global Forum Report of Activities, 2005-2008, and the GEF/MSP specific documents
Global Forum Activities 2005-2008
GEF/MSP Outputs and Activities
GEF/MSP Objectives
(Main objective concerned in bold characters)
1. Advancing the Global Oceans Agenda
Output 1: At the national, regional and international
Objective 1 - Foster cross-sectoral, multi-stakeholder
3rd Global Conference on Oceans, Coasts, and Islands:
levels, increased awareness of, and dialogue on, the
dialogues, policy analyses, and public outreach on
Moving the Global Oceans Agenda Forward. 2006
activities, targets and timetables of the JPOI for oceans,
oceans, coasts and SIDS issues.
4th Global Conference on Oceans, Coasts, and Islands:
coasts, and islands.
Objective 2 Promote the attainment of
Advancing Ecosystem Management and Integrated
Logframe, Activity 1, Component 1
intergovernmental commitments and agreements,
Coastal and Ocean Management by 2010 in the Context
including the JPOI and the GPA.
of Climate Change. 2008
Output 4: Replication mechanism with IW:LEARN
Objective 3 Establish multi-sectoral dialogues, involving
established
experts from developing countries, countries in transition,
Logframe (from PIR 2007), Activity 13, Component 3
and GEF-LME projects in the policy analyses, public
outreach and cross-learning between LME experiences
and coastal and ocean management experiences.
2. Promoting Integrated Oceans Governance
Output 2: In SIDS, increased awareness of the role of
Objective 4 Raise the awareness of and promote
TOPS 2005: The Ocean Policy Summit, Lisbon
ocean policies, ecosystem-based approaches, and results national ocean policies and ecosystem-based approaches
Best practices ex: National Ocean Policy, Mexico
of LME projects can play for the sustainable
to large marine ecosystems as a vehicle for achieving
Japanese Basic Ocean Law
management of the resources of their ocean areas and
sustainable development of SIDS
Ocean Strategy Workshop (SIDS)
the implementation of the Barbados Programme of
Objective 2 As above
Action and the Mauritius International Meeting.
Objective 3 As above
Logframe, Activity 6, Component 2
3. Facilitating Consensus-building on
International Issues
Governance of marine areas beyond national jurisdiction
(1) Strategic Planning Workshop on Global Ocean Issues in
Marine Areas beyond National Jurisdiction in the Context of
Climate Change. Nice, January-2008
(2) 4th Global Conference in Hanoi, April 2008
(3) Workshop, Singapore, November 2008
4.
Work with Small Island Developing States (SIDS)
Objective 4 Raise the awareness of and promote
Policy analyses on ocean/coastal management issues
national ocean policies and ecosystem-based approaches
Working group on SIDS on Implementation of the
Output 2: As above
to large marine ecosystems as a vehicle for achieving
Mauritius International Strategy (TOPS 2005, Lisbon)
Logframe, Activity 5, Component 2
sustainable development of SIDS
(Policy Brief)
Regional assessments on capacity building in 4 SIDS
regions
SIDS Oceans Strategy Workshop (Hanoi, Vietnam)
Logframe, Activity 7, Component 2
15
5. Long-term Capacity Building in Ocean and
Objective 2 Promote the attainment of
Coastal Management
Output 1: As above
intergovernmental commitments and agreements,
Assessment of capacity-building needs
Logframe, Activity 2, Component 1
including the JPOI and the GPA.
8 regional capacity assessment
Objective 1 - Foster cross-sectoral, multi-stakeholder
Working group on capacity development (Policy Brief) Output 4: Replication mechanism with IW:LEARN
dialogues, policy analyses, and public outreach on
Oceans Strategy Workshop for SIDS
established
oceans, coasts and SIDS issues.
Collaborative activities with IW:LEARN in enhancing
Logframe, Activities 10, 11, 12 and 14, Component 3
Objective 5 Improve interlinkages between freshwater,
replication
coastal and ocean issues by developing a relationship
between the Global Forum and the World Water Forum
6. Linking the Management of Freshwater and
Output 3: Increased awareness and political recognition Objective 5 - Improve interlinkages between freshwater,
Oceans and Coasts
of the ecological and socio-economic interlinkages
coastal and ocean issues by developing a relationship
Work with UNEP/GPA (IGR-2 Partnerships)
between the management of freshwater and coastal,
between the Global Forum and the World Water Forum
Working group on Linking management of freshwater
marine, and island areas, through formalized
and oceans (Policy Brief)
collaboration between the Global Forum on Oceans,
Objective 2 - Promote the attainment of intergovernmental
(1) International Workshop on Freshwater-Coastal-Marine
Coasts, and Islands and the World Water Forum and
commitments and agreements, including the JPOI and the
Management Interlinkages (Mexico, 2006)
associated institutions.
GPA.
(2) Management Link for Freshwater and Coasts. Progress
Logframe, Activities 8 and 9, Components 3
in Local Actions (4th World Water Forum, Mexico, 2006)
Collaboration with Danish Hydraulic Institute and
UNEP/UCC-Water
7. Policy Analyses, Publications, and Information
Output 1: As above
Objective 6 (?) Global Forum sustainability
Services
Logframe, Activity 1, Component 1
Objective 1 - Foster cross-sectoral, multi-stakeholder
Publications and internet services
Output 5: Efficient management of project resources;
dialogues, policy analyses, and public outreach on
and Monitoring and Evaluation of project impact
oceans, coasts and SIDS issues.
Logframe, Activity 18, Component 4
8. Outreach to the Public
Objective 1 - Foster cross-sectoral, multi-stakeholder
Outreach to the public through museums and aquaria
Output 1: As above
dialogues, policy analyses, and public outreach on
Directory of NGOs involved in Oceans, Coasts, and
Logframe, Activity 3, Component 1
oceans, coasts and SIDS issues.
SIDS
III - Future Directions : Global Forum Strategic
Output 1: As above
Objective 6 (?) Global Forum sustainability
Planning to 2016
Logframe, Activity 4 (+ establishment of Working
Objective 1 - Foster cross-sectoral, multi-stakeholder
IV Global Forum Organization and Contact
Groups), Component 1
dialogues, policy analyses, and public outreach on
Information
Output 5: Efficient management of project resources;
oceans, coasts and SIDS issues.
and Monitoring and Evaluation of project impact
Logframe, Activity 15, Component 4
Note: Logframe activity 16 (Stakeholder analysis) and activity 17 (M&E Plan) are missing.
16
Objective 2: Promote the attainment of intergovernmental commitments and agreements,
including the JPOI and the GPA.
39.
As shown in Table 1, Objective 2 is a multi-folded objective as the first and next ones
except Objective 4 as assessed later.
40.
Besides the obvious improvements in the quality of the Global Conferences, up to the
4th one in Hanoi, and their efficient use as Global Oceans Agenda promoting
platforms, an important outcome was reached with the holding of The Ocean Policy
Summit in Lisbon (TOPS 2005). In synergy with other donors and more particularly
the Nippon Foundation, this event allowed the sharing of more than 20 National
Ocean Policies experiences as well as the work undertaken among others by the Asia-
Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), the UNEP Regional Seas Programme, and the
GEF-supported Large Marine Ecosystems.
41.
As a result of the work reported at TOPS 2005, a book on Integrated Regional and
National Ocean Policies: Comparative Practices and Future Prospects, has been
published by the UN University Press and officially presented at the 4th Global
Conference in Hanoi.
42.
Some declarations of people concerned and members of the Global Forum Steering
Committee underlined the importance of the lessons learned and their facilitating role,
more particularly in the case of the national ocean policy of Mexico, and the drafting
and enactment of the Japanese Basic Ocean Law.
43.
Thus, the objective concerning the JPOI is fully met.
44.
Concerning the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine
Environment from Land-based Activities (GPA), the Global Forum organized a
Freshwater to Oceans Working Group or Task Force, which has been particularly
active setting up specific workshops in Mexico City (2006), at the 3rd Global
Conference in Paris where it started preparing the second Intergovernmental Review
of the UNEP-GPA (IGR-2) held in Beijing (October 2006). It was also in Beijing that
a partnership was concluded with UNEP/GPA including the preparation of a global
report on Advancing the WSSD Targets on Ecosystem Management and on Integrated
Coastal Management through the GPA: Global Reporting and Case Studies. This
report, the components of which were presented at the 4th Global Oceans Conference,
is planned to be issued in final form in early 2010.
45.
Together with the GPA Stakeholder Forum, the Global Forum produced a set of
newsletters, GPA Outreach, related to UNEP/GPA and IGR-2 during the Stockholm
World Water Week (August 2006) and during IGR-2 (October 2006).
46.
The objective concerning the GPA is thus considered as fully met.
Objective 3: Establish multi-sectoral dialogues, involving experts from developing countries,
countries in transition, and GEF-LME projects in the policy analyses, public outreach and
cross-learning between LME experiences and coastal and ocean management experiences.
17
47.
The activities to address this objective are under components 1 and 2 including the
Small Island Developing States (SIDS), which are particularly concerned with the
development of GEF-supported Large Marine Ecosystems though there are not yet at
the forefront of it.
48.
As for the first aspect of Objective 3, Establish multi-sectoral dialogues, it is about the
same one as in Objective 1, i.e. Foster cross-sectoral, multi-stakeholder dialogues.
49.
The aspect on GEF Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) projects and cross-learning
between LME experiences should be strongly related to the Ecosystem-Based
Management (EBM) approach since they "represent a pragmatic way to assist
countries in getting started in operationalizing the ecosystem approach in an area
sufficiently large to include transboundary considerations" (Al Duda, 3rd Global
Conference on Oceans, Coasts, and Islands, 2006). Although rarely mentioned as
such, this makes the LMEs experiences implicitly included into Output 1 (awareness
of JPOI targets) and Output 2 (EBM approach and LME projects in SIDS).
50.
After a slow start, the collaboration developed with the Global Environment Facility's
International Waters: Learning Exchange and Resource Network (GEF IW:LEARN)
fostered knowledge-sharing on ecosystem-based ocean management in LMEs and
coastal areas at global and regional levels through the establishment of an online
resource centre and the holding of technical training workshops on Public
Participation and Payments for Ecosystem Services in conjunction with the 4th Global
Forum Conference in Hanoi. In this regard, it was certainly very beneficial to the
project to have representatives from IW:LEARN in the project steering committee as
highlighted by the discussion on the matter during the first Steering Committee
meeting (January 2006).
51.
Amongst the working groups, there is one specifically dealing with Large Marine
Ecosystems, which prepared and issued a policy brief on Large Marine Ecosystems at
the Global Conference in Hanoi. The latter gives a clear and rather comprehensive
picture of the LME concept, case studies and lessons learned but falls short of
practical recommendations that could help regions and countries in making synergies
with other frameworks and instruments like the UNEP Regional Seas Programme.
This is somewhat compensated by the other policy brief on EBM/ICM and Indicators
for Progress which does mention the role of LMEs in the implementation of EBM and
Integrated Coastal Management (ICM) at regional level and make the connections
with other instruments.
52.
The Global Forum active collaboration, including their co-financing, with regional
organisations like NEPAD and PEMSEA, themselves actively involved in LMEs
development, indicates a bigger investment in the South-West Indian Ocean/South
Eastern Africa region (Agulhas Current and Somali Current LMEs) and the East Asia
region (among others Yellow Sea, East China Sea, South China Sea, Indonesian Sea).
This is confirmed by the very positive perception of SIDS leader from these regions of
GEF/LME projects cross-regional learning benefits.
53.
Finally, a concurrent session was organized on Experiences in the Practical
Implementation of Country-Driven GEF LME Programs during the last Global
Conference in Hanoi. A session about which a global NGO representative commented:
18
54.
Thus, this aspect of the objective may be considered as almost fully met though
probably more pro-active cross-learning could have been done provided the project
Executing Agency (IOC-UNESCO) is among others hosting the annual LME
consultative meeting.
Objective 4: Raise the awareness of and promote national ocean policies and ecosystem-
based approaches to large marine ecosystems as a vehicle for achieving sustainable
development of SIDS.
55.
This objective is at the core of the project and has a straightforward connection with
Component 2, Output 2.
56.
The connection between the Global Forum and the Alliance of Small Island States
(AOSIS) is quite strong with many members participating to the Global Forum
Steering Committee.
57.
The Global Forum contribution to the 2005 Mauritius International Meeting was
substantial with the preparation and presentation of a series of policy analyses on
ocean and costal management issues in SIDS.
58.
A working group composed of SIDS ocean experts from the Pacific, Caribbean, and
AIMS (Atlantic, Indian Ocean, Mediterranean, South China Sea) was formed right
after the Mauritius meeting to work with AOSIS, UNDESA, and others on the rapid
implementation of the decisions made in Mauritius and to address issues related to
capacity development in SIDS. This working group contributed to the Ocean Strategy
Workshop for decision makers with a special emphasis on SIDS at the Ocean Policy
Summit in Lisbon (October 2005). Another SIDS Oceans Strategy Workshop was
convened during the 4th Global Conference in Hanoi (April 2008) with a high
participation of SIDS leaders including Ambassadors to the UN.
59.
Four regional capacity assessments on the specific steps that can be taken to rapidly
implement the Mauritius Strategy in the Caribbean, Pacific Islands, Indian Ocean, and
Atlantic SIDS, were prepared under the leadership of regional SIDS experts.
60.
As mentioned by the SIDS working group leader, "the Global Island Partnership was
influenced by the discussions of the Global Forum, and its success is based upon some
of the lessons learned through the Global Forum. The Global Island Partnership is now
a recognized programme of the CBD Island Biodiversity Work Programme".
61.
As a result, the policy brief on SIDS and Implementation of the Mauritius Strategy
looks quite operational in its selection of priority issues, objectives to address them,
and recommendations to achieve them.
62.
This central objective on SIDS awareness and capacity building has thus been fully
met.
19
Objective 5: Improve interlinkages between freshwater, coastal and ocean issues by
developing a relationship between the Global Forum on Oceans, Coasts, and Islands and the
World Water Forum and associated institutions.
63.
This objective is also clearly linked with Component 3, Output 3. The aspect
regarding the work with UNEP/GPA is already covered under Objective 2.
64.
Although the objective tackles a difficult and long-term issue, it has been particularly
well served by a dedicated Freshwater to Oceans Working Group. The latter organized
among others a panel session and stakeholder dialogue session on linking freshwater-
to-oceans initiatives at the 3rd Global Conference (January 2006), and another one on
Management Link for Freshwater and Coasts Progress in Local Actions, at the 4th
World Water Forum in Mexico City (March 2006).
65.
Following the 11th Global Water Partnership Consulting Partners Meeting and the
World Water Week held in Sweden (August 2006), a collaboration has been
established with the Danish Hydraulic Institute Water and Environment Group, and
the UNEP Collaborating Centre on Water and Environment (UCC-Water).
66.
More recently (June 2008), an important meeting was organized to renew cooperation
between the Global Forum on Oceans, Coasts, and Islands and the Global Water
Partnership. They agreed on a joint working group working in priority in two pilot
regions, the Mediterranean and Caribbean regions, and preparing possible specific
sessions under Topics 3.3 (Preserving Natural Ecosystems) and 1.1 (Adapting to
climate change) of the 5th World Water Forum to be held in Istanbul in 2009. It is not
known yet if these proposals have been accepted and endorsed by the Forum.
67.
An important move that was made during this meeting is the joint decision to
approach the Global Water Partnership network in SE Asia to explore collaboration
and involvement of this network in the planning of the May 2009 World Ocean
Conference to be held in Mindanao, Indonesia.
68.
The policy brief on Freshwater and Oceans was produced by the working group and
used as a basis for discussion during the 4th Global Conference in Hanoi (2008). While
the working link with GPA is consolidated, five practical goals were selected by the
working group including the identification of successful cases and their use for
building public awareness.
69.
Although no Memorandum of Understanding could be concluded between the Global
Forum on Oceans, Coasts, and Islands and the World Water Forum, this objective is
considered as almost fully met. Here, the non conclusion of an MoU is not necessarily
an impediment to the progress of common activities with the World Water Forum and
associated institutions.
Objective 6:
Establish a coordination mechanism for successful implementation of the
project (and Global Forum sustainability).
70.
There are only five objectives corresponding to three components in the text of the
original project document whilst there are four components with four "immediate
objectives" and five outputs in the logical framework.
20
71.
In order to correctly cover this sub-section of the Terminal Evaluation, it is thus
proposed to logically align the component 4 objective with the five previous
objectives and make it a sixth one.
72.
It becomes immediately obvious that this 6th objective could have included the logical
framework Activity 4 (Component 1, Objective 1), Enhance organizational structure
and conduct strategic planning for the Global Forum on Oceans, Coasts, and Islands,
in order not to dissociate the project coordination mechanism and the Global Forum
functioning which are actually and fundamentally not dissociable from both financial
and operational points of view.
73.
Thus, Objective 6 would become: Establish a coordination mechanism for successful
implementation of the project (and Global Forum sustainability).
74.
A project steering committee has been set up and met two times: the first meeting was
held in Paris, at IOC-UNESCO Headquarters, in January 2006, and the second
meeting was held in New York, at IOC-UNESCO premises, in June 2008. Thus, the
two expected project steering committees did take place though the timing of the
second one, i.e. at the very end of the project, is questionable since there was not much
to negotiate or decide anymore. The fact is that there were 6 members attending
compared to 13 members at the first steering committee meeting.
75.
Thanks to the Global Forum website steady improvements and interactions through
the internet, it looks like the information exchange mechanism at least between the
project steering committee members was effective enough.
76.
The aspect on project management resources as well as the sharing of disbursement
between the Executing and Co-executing Agencies has been well covered (Annex 3).
Contrary to what is indicated in the Global Forum Report of Activities, there is no
apparent financial coverage of the activity on Governance of marine areas beyond
national jurisdiction, which makes sense since this objective and activity were not
included neither in the original project document nor in the PIR 2007. Actually, this
work was carried out with leveraged resources, especially the Nippon Foundation and
the Government of Singapore, and may be viewed as partly generated by the project
dynamic.
77.
Concerning the efficiency of the project, the amount of outputs, the quality of most of
them, and the number of institutions and individuals involved, indicate that the project
has been very cost effective. More specifically, it should be noted that many activities
were carried out at low managerial cost through a part-time Secretariat and involving
many volunteer experts.
78.
The level of co-funding (Annex 3), with necessary adjustments in sources, has been
not only respected but exceeded as a result of the Global Forum growing
constituencies, with some governments beginning to commit, but also thanks to the
project and Global Forum manager's skill and strong dedication. Besides, the
significant contributions in kind from partner organizations, volunteers, Steering
Committee members in terms of their time should also be noted.
21
79.
In spite of the observation made during the first project steering committee meeting
(January 2006), no funds have been made available for the development of monitoring
and evaluation plan. Therefore, there was no specific monitoring and evaluation plan
resulting in a poor monitoring and evaluation of project impact within and outside the
Global Forum. The unevenly-issued progress reports and the PIR 2007 are the only
existing project impact monitoring and evaluation documents based on the initial
logical framework, whilst no progress report was produced after June 2007. These
aspects will be dealt in more details under the sub-section Achievement of outputs and
activities.
80.
Three Roundtables were established and met at least twice during the 3rd and 4th
Global
Conferences:
Ministerial
Roundtable,
Donor
Roundtable,
and
Industry/Business Roundtable. Besides these roundtables, the setting up of the 12
working groups has been a crucial step in the Global Forum organizational
enhancement though their functioning has still to be enhanced for a number of them.
81.
The appointment of Regional leads is not clear yet maybe excepted SIDS though it is
more a de facto functioning than a formalized one within the Global Forum structure.
Summary level of attainment of the objectives and general observations
82.
Table 2 below summarises the level of attainment, in the view of this Terminal
evaluation, of the project objectives.
Table 2 Level of attainment of project objectives
Objectives
Level of
Observations
attainment
Objective 1
a) To foster cross-sectoral, multi-stakeholder
Fully met
dialogues on oceans, coasts and SIDS issues
b) To foster policy analyses and capacity
Partially met More accomplished for SIDS and East
needs assessments
Asia than for Africa and Latin
America. Peer review needed.
c) To foster public outreach
Fully met
Efficient collaborations with World
Ocean Network and World Ocean
Observatory and use of rich media
d) To enhance the organizational structure
Partially met The project seems to have been ill-
and prepare a 10-year strategic plan
designed to meet such an ambitious
objective (10-year strategic plan).
Objective 2
a) Promote the attainment of
Fully met
intergovernmental commitments and
agreements including the JPOI
b) .... including the GPA
Fully met
Objective 3
a) Establish multi-sectoral dialogues
Fully met
Overlapping with Objective 1, a)
b) Cross-learning between LME experiences
Almost fully
It seems there is a better impact on
met
SIDS regions
Objective 4
Raise the awareness of and promote national
Fully met
This objective is central to the project
22
ocean policies and ecosystem-based
with convergence from most of the
approaches to LMEs as a vehicle for
other objectives
achieving sustainable development of SIDS
Objective 5
Improve interlinkages by developing a
Almost fully
It is probably too early for an MoU,
relationship between the Global Forum and
met
which is not an obstacle to the
the World Water Forum and associated
development of further collaboration
institutions
Objective 6 (including enhancement of organizational structure)
a) Set up the project steering committee
Fully met
Second meeting should have been
organized earlier
b) Set up information exchange mechanism
Fully met
c) Management of project resources and co-
Fully met
Steady flow of exchange with planned
funding
sharing of disbursement between
Executing and Co-executing agencies.
Co-funding previsions exceeded.
d) M&E plan and M&E of project impact
Poorly met
From beginning till the end of project,
use of the same logframe in original
project document
e) Roundtables and working groups
Partially met On-going
f) Appointment of Regional leads
Poorly met
No formalized mechanism. Only
apparent for SIDS through AOSIS
Summary concerning the level of achievement of the objectives:
9 objectives Fully met (100%)
2 objectives Almost fully met (90%)
3 objectives Partially met (66%)
2 objectives Poorly met (33%)
Using these percentages, the project would have a level of achievement of objectives of 90%.
It has to be noted though, that this percentage has more relevance when looking at the
achievement of each of the four main objectives:
Objective 1: Almost fully met (95%)
Objective 2: Fully met (100%)
Objective 3: Almost fully met (95%)
Objective 4: Fully met (100%)
Objective 5: Almost fully met (90%)
Objective 6: Partially met (72%)
Besides the fact that the hosting of the 4th Global Oceans Conference may be considered as an
additional output in regard to the project original document, Objective 1 is almost fully met
because of the rather low level of achievement of the 10-year strategic plan at the time of this
Terminal Evaluation. With a better original design of the project, i.e. with an Objective 6
dealing both with the project coordination mechanism and the Global Forum sustainability,
Objective 1 would have been fully met.
83.
There remains no doubt that the project:
a) has been a learning one, which has considerably evolved in three-year time (2005-
2008) to a rapidly changing international environment and the subsequent
demands from its constituencies. Unanimously, the steady improvement in the
23
b) has provided a cross-sectoral platform and raised awareness among a broad set of
decision-makers on a comprehensive set of critical ocean management and
governance issues related to the JPOI and MDG targets;
c) has developed a strong relationship with AOSIS raising the profile of SIDS
challenges and opportunities not only in the achievement of JPOI targets, but also
in putting focus on the challenges faced by SIDS and their partners in
implementing the Mauritius Strategy including the steps taken to develop capacity-
support to SIDS;
d) has made significant inputs into UN processes, such as the UN Commission on
Sustainable Development (Climate change) or the UN Open-ended Informal
Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law of the Sea (SIDS, Climate change,
Governance of areas beyond national jurisdiction, Maritime security and safety)
and the UN Ad Hoc Open-Ended Informal Working Group to study issues relating
to the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity beyond areas
of national jurisdiction, and the Convention on Biological Diversity.
84.
Practically, the project has been targeting a wide range of stakeholders including very
high level policy-makers, international/intergovernmental organizations, NGOs and
Foundations representatives as well as experts in a number of policy and science areas.
This made the Global Forum a unique and indispensable platform for multi-
stakeholder dialogues provided the stakeholder/partners' specific consecutive long-
term impacts are taken into consideration. More particularly:
a) national leaders' awareness about JPOI and GPA targets has greatly improved but
it did not necessarily and directly lead to the building up of national strategies ;
b) while the project has contributed to the mainstreaming approach of GPA, there
remains much to be done to fully integrate GPA into national integrated water
resources management planning and coherent transboundary collaboration;
c) through global NGOs and Foundations, there is a need to engage a wider network
of local and in-region non governmental and civil society organizations;
d) the engagement of the private sector has still to take place to a significant extent
and the concept of public private partnership remained elusive to the majority of
project partners. Things are beginning to change with the establishment of some of
the working groups (maritime transport, areas beyond national jurisdictions) and
the institutionalisation of the Industry/business Roundtable. It has to be underlined
that compare to the majority of GEF projects, this move may be considered as
quite significant;
e) besides research and educational institutions deeply involved in the Global Forum,
and most notably the University of Delaware G.J. Mangone Center associated with
Nausicaa/World Ocean Network and World Ocean Observatory, which have
provided crucial support and value-added contributions to the Global Forum
project, educational and scientific institutions as an average have not gone beyond
contractual expectations, nor have they succeeded in leveraging significant steps
forward in overcoming fundamentally crippling obstacles which are data collection
and management and access to capacity-building in practically advancing in the
global commitments (JPOI, GPA, etc.) not only at regional but also and above all
24
In spite of the priority that was given to Partners 1 and 2 by the Global Forum, a stakeholder
analysis and involvement plan would have helped to come up with a clearer strategy map for
how the project expects each group of partners to commit to and focus on achieving the
project and the Global Forum objectives in relation with their own agendas.
85.
Referring to the latest point, there were many comments connected to the question of
the linkage with what is actually happening and needed on the ground, i.e. the links
between global policy and local action and it goes both ways: how, for example, a
regional policy analyses and capacity assessment can then be translated into national
policies and practical and focused local training and, the other way around, how to lay
the common ground for partners working in the field in order they acquire the ease of
relating to global policy action while serving individual clients and constituents.
86.
While the Global Forum is tackling new important international issues like
governance of areas beyond national jurisdictions, it will have to keep in touch with
the coast in raising awareness, building human capacity and fomenting leadership,
particularly to assist countries in reaching the Millennium Development Goals targets.
87.
In summary, given the short period of time, this GEF project has succeeded in
establishing a solid base for the structuring and further development of a unique,
independent international platform with efficient gains seen in (i) getting a host of
different types of actors together to discuss important policy issues; (ii) putting
together expert groups and committees for engaging in dialogue, debate and
prescriptions on the way towards JPOI and MDG targets attainment; (iii) promoting
debate on implementation modalities for these prescriptions. However, at the end of
the day, implementation of agreements made in conferences do depend on national
and regional actors. Follow-up and provision of continued support in varied forms is a
challenge in this type of project.
88.
Besides the observed weaknesses, it is fair to say also that one "positive weakness" of
the project design was revealed by the fact that the project was able to generate, with a
significant leverage of additional resources, a number of outputs that were not
originally envisioned (working groups, policy briefs, new international issues). In this
sense, the project manager and the leaders of the working groups deserve
commendation.
89.
The questionnaire feedback for this critical criteria is the following:
Partner 1
Partner 2
Partner 3
Partner 4
Partner 5
Effectiveness
Highly satisfactory
Highly Satisfactory
Moderately Satisfactory
Highly satisfactory
Relevance
Highly Satisfactory
Highly satisfactory
Satisfactory
Highly satisfactory
Efficiency
Highly Satisfactory
Highly satisfactory
Moderately satisfactory
Highly satisfactory
Implementation approach
90.
The project implementation involved one executing agency, the Intergovernmental
Oceanographic Commission, UNESCO (IOC), which received the total GEF financing
25
91.
The co-financing was supported by the UNEP-GPA, IOC-UNESCO, Governments
(NOAA, DFO Canada, Portugal), NGOs (ICO, Nippon Foundation, World Ocean
Network, The Nature Conservancy), and regional organisations (IOCARIBE,
PEMSEA, NEPAD/COSMAR, EPOMEX/SEMARNAT/CCA) covering about 53% of
the total budget.
92.
Beyond the amount committed to the project at the time of approval, financial and in-
kind support was provided by 28 international/multi-lateral, government and non-
government organizations for three activities carried out under the MSP: 1) TOPS
2005 The Ocean Policy Summit held in Lisbon in October 2005; the 3rd Global
Oceans Conference held in UNESCO, Paris, in January 2006; and 3) strategic
planning on the global oceans agenda and the 4th Global Oceans Conference held in
Hanoi, in April 2008, in order to fully accomplish the project's objectives and to
extend the reach of the project's impacts to a wider constituency. The Project
Management was assisted by a Project Steering Committee which met twice, the
second meeting being organised at the very end of the project (June 2008).
93.
Except apparent delays of disbursement from the implementing agency, as mentioned
in the PIR 2007, there were no particular cases of serious conflict, and deadlines were
in general met though extension of the project was requested twice by the Executing
Agency, the first time being agreed by UNEP (December 2007) till April 2008 whilst
the second request made in May 2008 to extend the project till 15 July 2008, is still
pending. All indications are that the project team was able to maintain very
constructive working relations. As highlighted by the minutes of the project first
steering committee, it looks like there were some misunderstandings between the
executing organisations and UNEP/DGEF as per the monitoring and evaluation and
capacity needs assessment respective approach. A good deal of those have then been
settled but not exactly all of them, in particular as regards the stakeholder
analysis/involvement plan and the monitoring and evaluation plan.
94.
Both Project co-Managers play a key role in the smooth running of the project, more
particularly on the ICO co-Manager's side, herself co-chairing the Global Forum on
Oceans, Coasts, and Islands to which this project was directly contributing. For this
reason and since the Global Forum has been organizing or contributing to a number of
conferences during the project period, there were many opportunities to gather the
project steering committee members with full or partial attendance, resulting in
minutes and drafted resolutions that could have been passed to other members from
the Global Forum steering committee as well. Because of the project steering
committee members' occupation responsibilities and the distance separating them, it
26
95.
It looks like the capacity of some regional organisations to deliver capacity needs
assessment, appropriate recommendations and an operational strategy somewhat
represented a problem. As a consequence, there has been some delay in their
finalization though they have been recently made available on the Global Forum
website.
96.
To deal with this reality in a more efficient manner, the project contracted regional
consultants, but ideally the project should have contemplated in its design a more
specific region- and type of country-tailored approach, instead of assuming that the
same process could be applied whatever the region and the status of the countries at
stake. Except in the case of several SIDS region (North-western Indian Ocean, South
Pacific), regional leads have still to be specified and formalized in regard to the Global
Forum by sharing, for example, a common charter.
97.
While there should have been four of them, only three half-year progress reports have
been delivered to the implementing agency, the period of the last one ending up in
June 2007 whilst the project was extended, at least formally, till April 2008.
98.
The questionnaire used for the preparation of this Terminal Evaluation included one
question about the quality of day to day project management. The project steering
committee members' feedback was very positive mentioning a "highly effective
Executing agency and Secretariat in organizing the policy decisions and decision-
making" with a "well-managed Secretariat producing a significant number of draft
documents and background papers for the use of the Steering Committee and
management". Overall and for each category of partner, the questionnaire feedback
on the Implementation approach criteria is the following:
Partner 1
Partner 2
Partner 3
Partner 4
Partner 5
Highly satisfactory
Highly satisfactory
Satisfactory
-
Highly satisfactory
Partner 3 (NGOs and Foundations) "satisfactory" opinion is mainly attributable to the
questions concerning the project management and adaptation to changes during the
life of the project.
Achievement of outputs and activities
99.
This section of the Terminal Evaluation assesses the project's success in producing
each of the programmed outputs, both in quantity and quality as well as usefulness and
timeliness. The following ratings are used: highly satisfactory (HS), satisfactory (S),
moderately satisfactory (MS), moderately unsatisfactory (MU), Unsatisfactory (U),
and highly unsatisfactory (HU).
27
Output 1: Global Forum conferences and related activities
100.
Activity 1: Convene the 3rd and 4th Global Conferences + Side Events - The
effectiveness of Output 1, Activity 1, has been dealt with in paragraphs 23-24 above
provided it includes the 4th Global Conferences in Hanoi, which were surprisingly
counted under Output 4, an output that was added up after the holding of the project
first steering committee meeting. In all, in relation with these conferences and others,
nine side events were organized from January 2005 to June 2008. This first activity of
Output 1 is rated as highly satisfactory.
101.
Activity 2: Assess the capacity building needs in the three regions of Africa, Latin
America and the Caribbean, and East Asia The effectiveness of Output 1, Activity 2
has been dealt with in paragraphs 26-30 above. As said before, although the
assessments have been performed, there is a lack of formality and visibility of their
findings and recommendations to allow an efficient contribution to national policies.
The available reports (website) are in different format and unequal in content. As it
was said at the first project steering committee meeting, these reports are not an end in
themselves and will get some added-value only if there is an underpinning mechanism
"leading to specific capacity building actions and planning" at regional and country
level. It is fair to add that such a move has been initiated through the specific working
group recommendations about mobilization of further support for implementing the
key recommendations and policy prescriptions targeting key areas such as the Coral
Triangle Initiative, SIDS, and East Africa. As an activity, it is rated as moderately
satisfactory.
102.
Activity 3: Public awareness and outreach - The effectiveness of this specific activity
has been dealt with in paragraphs 30-34 above. It is rated as highly satisfactory.
103.
Activity 4: Enhance organizational structure and conduct strategic planning The
effectiveness of this specific activity has been dealt with in paragraphs 36-38. As
already mentioned, this activity should have been better placed under Output 5 in the
project design. It is rated as moderately satisfactory.
104.
On average, Output 1 is therefore rated as satisfactory.
Output 2: SIDS awareness and implementation of the Mauritius Strategy
105.
This output is considered to be at the core of the project. Its effectiveness has been
more specifically dealt with in paragraphs 55-62, under Objective 4. It is rated as
highly satisfactory.
106.
It is worth quoting one SIDS policy-maker's comment as follows: "The Global Forum
on Oceans, Coasts, and Islands has become an indispensable voice and platform for
SIDS, not only in the achievement of JPOI targets, but more especially in putting
focus on the challenges faced by SIDS and their partners/partnerships in implementing
the Mauritius Strategy. With its wide-ranging connections the Global Forum is able to
highlight and draw attention to areas of concern and to call on a pool of global
expertise and informed policy-making for the benefit of SIDS. These activities of the
Global Forum have ensured a proper viewing of a major global problem area in all its
28
Output 3: Awareness and political recognition of interlinkages between the
management of freshwater and coastal, marine, and island areas through
formalized collaboration between the Global Forum and the World Water Forum
and associated institutions
107.
This output and its activities are essentially covered under Objective 5 in paragraphs
63-69. In spite of the difficulties, a recent agreement was made with the Global Water
Partnership in developing a number of common activities. Among others, this was
made possible thanks to the Freshwater to Oceans Working Group, which produced
one of the more substantial policy briefs. This output is rated as satisfactory.
Output 4: Replication mechanism with IW:LEARN established
108.
This output was not in the original project document log frame but was added later as
one of the decisions made during the project first steering committee meeting (January
2006). It is evidenced in the third progress report (July 2006-June 2007) and in the
PIR 2007 though its insertion under the component "Monitoring and Evaluation" is
questionable. In addition, the activity related to the planning of the 4th Global
Conference clearly should have been put instead under Output 1, Activity 1.
109.
The effectiveness of this long-term capacity building-related output has been dealt
with in paragraph 50. It is rated as satisfactory.
Output 5: Efficient management of project resources, and Monitoring and
Evaluation of project impact
110.
The Output 5 certainly represents the main weakness of the project design hence
implementation. As developed in paragraphs 70-80 above there should have been in
the original project document a sixth objective related to this output that could have
been enlarged to the Global Forum sustainability since the project was organically part
of it.
111.
Nevertheless, there are nuances in the output overall weakness since there are also
some strong points like the Global Forum website steady improvement, the use of rich
media particularly in relation with the 4th Global Conference, and the management of
financial resources including the important level (in cash and in kind) of leveraged
resources the project was capable to generate, particularly thanks to the ICO project
Manager's and Global Forum Secretariat's skill and dedication.
112.
In all, and because of the lack of M&E plan and its beneficial use not only for the
project but also for the Global Forum development, this output is rated as moderately
unsatisfactory.
29
113.
Overall and for each category of partner, the subsequent rating of the questionnaire
feedback on the Achievement of outputs and activities criteria is the following:
Partner 1
Partner 2
Partner 3
Partner 4
Partner 5
Highly satisfactory
Satisfactory
Moderately satisfactory
-
Satisfactory
114.
Almost unanimously, the SIDS related outputs are regarded as highly successful.
115.
Among the four components and their outputs, the most mentioned relative
weaknesses were the capacity building needs (Component 1), the Capacity building
workshop for SIDS (Component 2), the Policy analyses (Component 3), and an
Effective monitoring and evaluation mechanism (Component 4).
116.
As regards Partner 3 (global NGOs), to the question on the major problems/challenges
besetting the work of the Global Forum, one of the comment said that "The main
challenge is to get the relevant top-level people to attend and participate in moving a
particular agenda forward. Taking the example of Hanoi, there was good debate and
progress on island issues due to the quality and quantity of participants in attendance
to that issue, whereas for Marine Protected Areas, most key players were missing
therefore little substance came out of it", a point that is related to the working groups
about which "some variability on product" was observed and "where the Global
Forum Secretariat had to assist more than they would have desired." One way out of
this, and very often mentioned, is less and more focused working groups whilst it is
acknowledged that they should be geared to the tracking of WSSD goals on oceans,
coasts and SIDS.
Assessment monitoring and evaluation systems
117.
The project monitoring and evaluation (M&E) effectiveness has been dealt with under
Objective 6 and Output 5 above. In absence of an M&E plan, the project monitoring
and evaluation was more specifically done through the two project steering committee
meetings and more elusively during the two Global Forum steering committee
meetings, the three progress reports (September 2005 June 2007), the PIR 2007 and
the Global Forum Report of Activities for the period 2005-2008. The records of the
second project steering committee meeting (June 2008) were not available at the time
of drafting this evaluation report. Besides the project steering committee members
themselves, most of the Global Forum steering committee members declared that they
were not aware of the project monitoring and evaluation system.
118.
Because of the short duration of the project, it was crucial "to undertake the
monitoring and evaluation very early in the project's lifespan" though, when the issue
of professional help was raised at the first steering committee meeting, it was
remarked that there were no funds available for the development of monitoring and
evaluation plan.
119.
In the PIR 2007, the project management said that "given the broad nature of this
project raising awareness, producing analyses on the extent of implementation of
international agreements, carrying out multi-stakeholder policy dialogues, qualitative
as well as quantitative measures should be used". Consequently, in addition to the
logframe numerical indicators, the use of qualitative indicators was proposed like
30
120.
The questionnaire feedback and subsequent rating covering this criteria are as follows:
Partner 1
Partner 2
Partner 3
Partner 4
Partner 5
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Moderately Unsatisfactory
-
Moderately Satisfactory
In addition to these ratings, it should be noted that a good deal of responses indicated
the "Don't know" column, in particular for partners 3 (NGOs and Foundations).
Preparation and readiness
121.
The Table 1 shows that there are not always clear-cut links between project objectives,
components and Global Forum activities whilst objectives are largely overlapping
between each other. Once this being said, and putting aside the poor project design
regarding its management and Global Forum organizational enhancement (Objective
6, Output 5), it should be noted that for this kind of project it was important to keep
some degree of open-endedness in process-related objectives, the project keeping
finally a rather good balance between specificity in milestones and targets without
imposing unintended constraints to catalytic impacts.
122.
Among others, the maintaining of this delicate balance enabled the Global Forum to
take on board lessons from GEF-IW:LEARN and other partner agencies and
programmes throughout implementation and this adaptive capacity could have been
much better evidenced with a proper monitoring system.
123.
In all and in spite of the already mentioned weaknesses in the project design, the
Global Forum Secretariat supported by the Executing Agency has demonstrated its
capacity to effectively manage the project and to bring in new partners during
implementation as well.
124.
The questionnaire respondents gave the following rating to this criteria:
Partner 1
Partner 2
Partner 3
Partner 4
Partner 5
Highly Satisfactory
Highly Satisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory
-
Highly Satisfactory
Two main comments are worth to be mentioned: from Partner 2, the fact that the
project "could have been better supported administratively by UNEP, and might have
benefited from greater clarity as to the GEF agency role in supporting the project
fiscally and substantively"; from Partner 3, the fact that "probably more dissemination
and clarity was needed from the Secretariat to steering committee members" and that
31
partnership arrangements "is something that might have worked through the steering
committee more".
Financial planning
125.
Financial controls, including contracts and reporting between the Executing agency
(IOC-UNESCO) and the Global Forum Secretariat (ICO), were effective and globally
allowed the project management to make informed decisions regarding the budget and
ensured a proper and timely flow of funds for the payment of project deliverables
though delays in UNEP/GEF and/or co-funding payments have been sometimes a
problem.
126.
The Executing agency as the Global Forum Secretariat made a sound management of
funds. The fact that the project administration was located in a UN office facilitated
the use of UN rules and regulations.
127.
The originally planned co-funding has been somewhat respected though with some
figure changes depending on the donor and a slightly smaller overall amount. This has
been largely compensated through leverage of additional resources of an amount
almost equivalent to the co-funding planned in the first place. In this regard, the
Global Forum Secretariat is to be commended for its commitment and dedication to
ensure the best possible results. The tables in Annex 5 show the co-financing and
leveraged additional resources in cash and in kind.
128.
The original project time schedule of two years had to be extended to about two years
and a half but this delay was not related to poor management. It has to do with: a) the
fact that the GEF first disbursement was made six months after the GEF approval date;
b) sometimes a weak original design of the project, which for some outputs meant a
lack of good step by step planning and realistic time schedules; and c) the fact that
unexpected bottlenecks were found, in particular in relation to regional capacities to
generate some project outputs like the capacity assessments one.
129.
The questionnaire respondents gave the following rating to this criteria:
Partner 1
Partner 2
Partner 3
Partner 4
Partner 5
Satisfactory
Moderately Unsatisfactory Moderately Satisfactory
-
Moderately Satisfactory
It should be noted that a good number of respondents declared they did not know
about this question showing that the issue is more about a lack of financial information
than about the actual effectiveness of the project financial planning and management.
UNEP supervision and backstopping
130.
As observed by one member of the project steering committee, "maintaining the
independent status of the Global Forum while answerable as a project to the GEF and
UNEP has been a challenge which the Global Forum leadership has successfully
navigated, although a somewhat unclear relationship with the project implementing
agency seems to have posed some difficulties which may have been constraints to
efficiency". And from a Global Forum steering committee member: "Unfortunately,
there seems to be a misevaluation in the GEF Secretariat of the importance of this
32
131.
Another comment said that although UNEP/DGEF "participation in project steering
group was on a par with other members, there have been some minor difficulties in
maintaining prompt and responsive communication, something that could be
improved".
132.
Since, in spite of the Forum Secretariat's endeavour, the private sector engagement
remained poor within the project and the Global Forum while the much-touted concept
of public-private partnership still remains difficult to apply in most of the GEF
projects, the traditional focus of UNEP on States and intergovernmental organizations
could shift to collaboration with organizations outside the United Nations, especially
with the private sector and civil society organizations. The LME Strategic Partnership
is definitely going into that direction and should be one of the elements articulating the
Global Forum 10-year strategic plan.
133.
The questionnaire respondents gave the following rating to this criteria:
Partner 1
Partner 2
Partner 3
Partner 4
Partner 5
Highly Satisfactory
Moderately Satisfactory
Satisfactory
-
-
It should be noted that Partner 5 representatives unanimously declared they `did not
know'.
PROJECT IMPACT
Country ownership / driven-ness
134.
Given the wide scope of issues and variety of project and Global Forum partners, it is
not easy to determine the degree of country ownership of the project. However, all
indications are that the project engaged many of the right people to do this,
particularly in the case of SIDS. Overall, and more particularly through the global
conferences, the project outputs raised strong awareness about the need of national
strategies in a number of countries which are named below (paragraph 136) as
collected from the questionnaire feedbacks.
135.
To the first question of the questionnaire: "What is the project impact on raising
awareness at high political levels in developing and in transition countries, SIDS, on
major ocean-related issues?", it is recognized that there is now a broad spectrum of
actors who may be qualified as policy-makers like government officials, Ministers,
international organisations, the private sector, and civil society organisations. On
government officials side, respondents emphasized that they get involved in the
Global Forum because it also represents a useful way of developing policy dialogue
and thus influencing their own stakeholders not only from the financing point of view
but resources in overall sense. They "see the Global Forum as a place for oceans
people to go to develop partnerships".
136.
To the question: "What are the countries most involved in the Global Forum?", there
is a wide array of answers though there is finally a good convergence about countries
33
137.
There is also mentioning of the missing regions and countries like Latin America,
Western Africa, and India. Regarding international organisations, Partner 1 (National
leaders and policy-makers) are asking for more inclusiveness with the World Water
Forum.
138.
The questionnaire respondents gave the following rating to this criteria:
Partner 1
Partner 2
Partner 3
Partner 4
Partner 5
Highly Satisfactory
Highly Satisfactory
Moderately Satisfactory
-
Highly Satisfactory
Stakeholders participation / public awareness
139.
Most of the respondents recognized themselves as belonging to one or two partner
categories whilst the private sector one (Partner 4) is almost non represented.
140.
The rate of questionnaire feedbacks is an indicator per se: except Partner 4, it is about
the same for each category of partner, i.e. around 30% which may be considered a
good participation. The last two Global Forum steering committee meetings were
attended by about 75% of the members, which is considered a good participation
provided some of them have to come from quite far away, without any financial
incentive. In this regard, it should be noted that many partners have contributed time,
energy and expertise far beyond that they are paid to do or expected to contribute,
especially since the working groups were set up.
141.
Some of the working group leadership has been successfully cultivated to assist in
bringing new partners (and as a matter of fact, many of the working group contributors
are not members of the Global Forum steering committee) but more human and fiscal
resources is needed to continue this process to bring all the working groups to
sufficiently high level functioning to assist with expansion of inclusivity and
participatory representation of new partners and to increase capacity of more or all of
the working groups to carry out sustainable support reform processes in their
respective sphere of influence. Although a number of working groups seem to remain
committed to their effort, further development of cross-communication between them
would probably yield bigger results.
142.
Many comments converged to say that the working group arrangements were effective
though they were too many and would gain in being more focused.
143.
Concerning public awareness, as stated by responses to the questionnaire, it is usually
considered as good though this is a "life-long" process that never ends. In this regard,
34
144.
The questionnaire respondents gave the following rating to this criteria:
Partner 1
Partner 2
Partner 3
Partner 4
Partner 5
Satisfactory
Highly Satisfactory
Moderately Satisfactory
-
Moderately Satisfactory
Sustainability and co-financing
145.
The planned co-financing has been reached at 94% (Annex 3). The leveraged
additional resources have actually doubled the project and Global Forum financing
capacity. Financial and in kind support were provided by 28 international, government
and non-government organisations for three activities carried out under the GEF/MSP:
1) TOPS 2005 The Ocean Policy Summit held in Lisbon in October 2005; the 3rd
Global Oceans Conference held in UNESCO, Paris, January 2006; and 3) strategic
planning on the global oceans agenda and the 4th Global Oceans Conference in Hanoi,
in April 2008, in order to extend the reach of the project's impacts to a wider
constituency. The GEF/MSP generated $742,436 in cash support and an estimated
$288,500 in-kind support including conference facilities, staff time and travel for a
total of $1,030,936 beyond those committed to the project at the time of approval.
146.
The questionnaire used for the preparation of this Terminal evaluation included nine
questions regarding sustainability and co-financing.
147.
Questions 1 and 2. Financial sustainability: Do you think financial resources are
secured enough for letting the Global Forum running in the next few years?, and: To
what extent are the outcomes of the project dependent on continued financial support?
148.
The comments made in relation to these questions included:
a) Governments are beginning to commit, a good sign, but more work needs to be
done on multiple fronts to keep things going at least through 2016.
b) It was clear from the Hanoi meeting that the level of effort must quadruple... its
not enough to have breakthrough impact.
c) I believe financial resources have been secured for the next couple of years.
However, eventually, the interventions need to be incorporated into regional
programmes which will have more opportunity to work in a more hands-on
manner to implement key initiatives and to monitor them.
d) GEF should act responsibly and ensure the project's sustainability. Consistently
with its rules, it should ensure that adequate funding is secured on a permanent
basis, as the Forum is the only venue for informal consultations among
stakeholders involved in ocean related issues.
e) The rate of progress is likely to be more affected than the ultimate outcomes,
although missed opportunities can negate gains made, especially in the context of
climate change impacts.
149.
Questions 3-5. What is the risk that the level of partners ownership will be insufficient
to allow for the project outcomes to be sustained?; As one of the partners, is it in your
35
150.
The comments made in relation to the two other questions included:
a) This is always a significant risk, and it is thus far one of the Global Forum best
successes that at present the partner ownership curve seems to be in a steady up-
trend.
b) The partners need to eventually take over the initiatives and provide leadership to
implementing them. At that stage, the global forum will be able to play a smaller,
coordinating or monitoring role.
c) Public awareness is a very broad term. There is very significant awareness within
national, regional and global stakeholders of the Global Forum. There is however
little awareness at the local level. To reach this level would obviously be a
challenge.
d) Awareness is a long haul issue and the question really needs to be about awareness
of ocean issues, and then the Global Forum role in that.
e) In order to ensure sustainability a longer time period is required and possibly more
proactive public outreach, reaching not only experts and officials but also
practitioners and the public. Asking them what they need. The linkage to other
sectors in particular the economic needs also to be strengthened.
151.
Questions 6-7. To what extent is the sustenance of the outcomes of the project
dependent on issues relating to institutional frameworks and governance?, and "How
would you rate the likelihood that institutional, legal frameworks, policies and
governance structures will allow for the project/Global Forum outcomes/benefits to be
sustained?
152.
The comments made in relation to these questions included:
a) These (issues relating to institutional frameworks and governance) are critical as
there is much evidence of policy implementation deficits. It took IPCC many years
to be fully accepted and much evidence was needed before decision-makers gave
serious recognition to climate change issues. Furthermore, this was only after in-
tandem education of the general public. There are many examples in developed
countries which highlight these issues including: MPA implementation in Canada
(agreed progress not being made) and developing the Marine Bill in the UK
(Scotland taking different direction after election of new Assembly).
b) Much of the sustainability of outcomes is dependent upon sustained progress in
both formal and informal dialogue processes, attention to enabling environments
must be kept on issue, this may be best achieved through "projectizing".
c) For the achievement of the JPOI and the Mauritius Strategy the ultimate test would
be practical implementation and effective mechanisms (institutional framework
and governance) for doing so.
d) Certainly the timing of the fora in relation to other policy events is important in
determining whether there is likely to be progress on any specific thematic agenda.
e) Of course governance is of importance, but this kind of effort can do more in
raising awareness, building human capacity, fomenting leadership.
36
f) Government participation in on-going Global Forum processes can be expected to
increase both in degrees of commitment to reform processes as well as in the
number of governments participating; both trends indicative of very good
prospects for sustaining benefits and outcomes achieved through Global Forum
effort to date. There is always a risk of catastrophic events diverting attention, but
for the long term the Global Forum could become a beacon of guidance in times of
crisis as well as a steady source of support and facilitation in Ecosystem-based
management reforms.
g) I believe the mechanisms are there, but efforts are very much dependent on
funding by individual countries.
h) This depends on whether the Forum continues. Maintaining a high profile and
decision-maker involvement is paramount for sustainability in this context. It is
easy for issues to `slide' when there is no-one driving progress. The Forum has
brought issues to the forefront and has driven progress.
153.
Questions 8-9. Generally speaking how would you rate the probability of continued
long-term project-derived outcomes and impacts after the project ending?, and: To
what extent did the project succeed in securing the sustainability of the Global Forum?
154.
The comments made in relation to these questions included:
a) If the Global Forum and its growing membership doesn't drive these processes,
who will? There is every probability of steady progress due to the dedication and
commitment modelled by leadership and contributed by many more.
b) It is likely that many items will continue after the project ending. It is hard to know
which, in what capacity, and to what extent; but knowing the principals, it is
highly likely that this will continue.
c) Needs sustained effort, a major element is the network of people who get benefits
from opportunities to interact...
d) Its (Global Forum) work has already been helpful, but success overall is a medium
to long term consideration, given the nature of the issues being addressed.
e) Many of the interventions are embedded with other programmes and are likely to
continue to be implemented. Examples are the Coral Triangle Initiative, Access
Agreements in East Africa, SIDS initiatives, capacity building in East Asia,
Eastern Africa and SIDS.
f) The project succeeded in securing the sustainability of the Global Forum in terms
of reputation and collegiality.
g) New GEF project with some new partners will ensure at least another couple
milestones can be met.
155.
Because of "reputation and collegiality", because of a strong constituency within the
Global Forum steering committee and some of the working groups, because of the
Global Forum Secretariat skills and dedication, the continued long-term project-
derived outcomes and impacts after the GEF project funding ends looks assured. The
key factor that is likely to contribute to the persistence of benefits after the end of the
project will be the ability of the Global Forum to:
a) maintain its independent status while receiving catalytic and incremental support
from GEF and other co-funding donors, in particular national donors, to advance a
set of specific goals and objectives, in which the substantive and fiscal support of
37
b) diversify the target audience away from just conservation and development
professionals with a more concerted effort to reach out to the private sector, civil
society, and government representatives (one project steering committee member
mentioned that the greatest long-term impacts will probably come from
Government officials and policy-makers (Partner 1) and the Private sector (Partner
4); and
c) come up with a clearer strategy map for how this initiative actually expects the 5
groups of partners to commit and focus on achieving specific objectives that
should all contribute to linking global policy and local action
156.
The project has set up two Roundtables, the Ocean Donors and Industry/business
Roundtables, who met twice during the period of the project. Both circles confirmed
that "a strategy is needed to engage the media, public, and think tanks, and
underscored the need to link funding with other initiatives addressing poverty,
economic growth, and business promotion". While a possible on-going role for such
groups and their possible comparative advantage with other similar groups from both
the public and private sector were discussed, they "emphasized the need for long-term
capacity development as the basis for forward movement in specific areas". The
outcomes of these meetings could become much more operational if there were better
articulated with each other, between both Roundtables, in order to feed the decision-
making level through another Global Forum instrument which is the Ministerial
Roundtable. All these instruments need to be strategically articulated with each other
through a hierarchy of interventions, from the global to the local level.
157.
Stakeholder ownership of the outcomes of the project has still to be strengthened for a
number of steering committee members, more particularly Global NGOs and
Foundations (Partner 3), and does not seem to be widespread beyond the international
or inter-governmental agencies excepted in the case of SIDS. This sense of ownership
has to be maintained if not developed in these agencies and beyond by starting to
generate concrete results on the ground through a collaborative network including
government officials, the private sector and the civil society.
Catalytic role / Replicability
158.
The last two questions of the questionnaire related to the catalytic role and
replicability of the project were as follows: Any example of replication and catalytic
outcomes? Did the project succeed in increasing the replicability of lessons learned in
GEF LME projects through interactions with other major ocean programmes and
efforts in the Global Forum?
159.
The comments made in relation to these questions included:
a) The Global Island Partnership was influenced by the discussions of the Global
Forum, and its success is based upon some of the lessons learned through the
38
b) The policy brief on marine biodiversity is playing catalytic role to CBD process of
measuring the progress in the implementation of programme of work on the
marine and coastal biodiversity.
c) The Global Forum brought together many organizations in meaningful dialogue.
Lessons learned and policy change has been duplicated across many spheres, for
example, OSPAR initiatives with seamounts and the Coral Triangle Initiative.
d) Regional replication in cooperation with Coral Triangle Initiative. Significant
momentum in convening process to address high seas governance.
e) The recent UN Ad Hoc Open-ended Informal Working Group on issues relating to
the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity beyond areas of
national jurisdiction directly utilized the outcomes and policy papers of the Global
Conference.
f) Working groups established provides existing and new GEF LME projects global
thematic communities of practice in which to effectively contribute and benefit
from exchange of scientific and technical innovation and practical experience.
g) I think the question should be phrased the other way around since its is GEF LME
projects that have learned from the Forum, as well (if not mostly) in ensuring the
replicability of their best practices.
h) Very low from the perspective of the Mediterranean.
160.
It should be noted that, though globally positive, these statements are somewhat piece-
meal and they could have been much better articulated if a monitoring and evaluation
system hence indicators had been available to all the partners.
161.
It is clear that the project needs a quick follow-up and further strengthening of its
leverage of additional resources to ensure that the momentum now created is not lost,
building on what has been achieved and lessons learned disseminated across regions
and varied categories of partners, from global to local.
162.
Since, at the end of the day, it is through regions and nations that the difference will be
made, it is of the utmost importance for the Global Forum to come up with a robust
mechanism to spread the word and facilitate the translation/adaptation of JPOI and
MDG targets into practical implementation on the ground.
IV.
CONCLUSIONS
Main general conclusions
163.
The main general conclusions derived from the responses provided by the project and
Global Forum partners to the evaluation questionnaire are summarized here. Although
respondents represent about 30% of the people contacted, they may be considered as
representatives of the most motivated partners hence those forming the core of the
Global Forum engine. This partner's rating has therefore no other ambition than
indicating trends. Table 3 below summarized the partner's rating for each of the
scrutinized criteria.
39
Table 3 Summary of project / Global Forum partner's rating
Partner 1
Partner 2
Partner 3
Partner 4
Partner 5
PROJECT PERFORMANCE
Attainment of objectives and results
Effectiveness
HS
HS
MS
HS
Relevance
HS
HS
S
HS
Efficiency
HS
HS
MS
HS
Implementation approach
HS
HS
S
HS
Achievement of outputs and activities
HS
S
MS
S
Assessment M&E systems
S
S
MU
MS
Preparation and readiness
HS
HS
MU
HS
Financial planning
S
MU
MS
MS
UNEP supervision and backstopping
HS
MS
S
-
PROJECT IMPACTS
Country ownership/drivenness
HS
HS
MS
HS
Stakeholders participation / public awareness
S
HS
MS
MS
Sustainability and co-financing
Financial
HS
HS
MS
S
Socio-political
HS
S
S
S
Institutions/Govern.
S
S
S
S
Partner's commitmnt.
HS
S
MS
MS
Catalytic Role / Replicability
S
HS
MS
S
164.
At a glance, the table above shows that:
V.
there is an overall very good rating from Government
representatives and policy-makers (Partner 1), indicating their satisfaction and
the high value they give to the unique role of the Global Forum;
VI.
intergovernmental and international organisations representatives
(Partners 2) indicate an overall good rating as well though there are more
reserved when coming to the topics of financial planning (mostly related to
information not made available enough regularly to the Steering Committee
members), UNEP supervision, and institutions and partner's commitment;
VII.
global NGOs and Foundations are conspicuously more critical of
the project and the Global Forum performance and impacts. As it will be
mentioned later, it is not that they are questioning the usefulness and uniqueness
of the role of the Global Forum they highly value, but they are generally asking
for more transparency, more focus, and better implementation mechanism;
VIII.
research and education organizations representatives (Partner 5)
have an overall good opinion, close to Partner 2's though more reserved about
the M&E system, financial planning, stakeholders participation/public
awareness, and partners' commitment;
40
IX.
the private sector representatives (Partner 4) are almost not there
and since just two representatives responded, the corresponding rating could not
have the same meaning as an average of ten respondents;
X.
the fact that the Global Forum considers the first two Partners as
its primary targets should not lead to disregarding at least the two other groups'
rating (Partners 3 and 5) since a number of their representatives are also
members of the Global Forum steering committee.
165.
When asked about suggestions for future projects of this kind, comments included:
a) Partner 1: (i) I think a focus on increasing the involvement of the private sector is
essential, (ii) Limit the number of working groups and focus on issues where the
Forum's ability to recruit the best international expertise is the highest;
b) Partner 2: (i) Addressing more practical issues, (ii) Clarity as to the status of the
Global Forum as an independent entity which receives catalytic and incremental
support from GEF in order to advance a set of specific goals and objectives, (iii)
Should build on the Forum's unique experience and aim at institutionalising its
format, (iv) One or two easily discernable goals which would be easily understood
by everybody and then carried through the entire project, (v) Need to find ways to
formalize partnership mechanism with various partners, so that necessary
resources can be internally allocated by partner organization for their participation
to the Global Forum activities, (vi) Stronger sub-regional involvement early on,
such as Carribean;
c) Partner 3: (i) Focus on Global Forum's function as meeting place across sectorial
interests and make this meeting place more attractive and accessible for the private
sector and civil society, (ii) Need to tackle the relation to individuals'
corresponding institutions and the institutional embedding and de facto mandate of
the individuals, (iii) Diversify the target audience away from just conservation and
development professionals and a more concerted effort to reach out to industry,
fishery and government representatives, (iv) Set reachable, realistic and
measurable objectives with a greater degree of focus on fewer key issues;
d) Partner 5: (i) Translation to other languages besides English, (ii) Focus on fewer
priority issues at each Global Conference, (iii) Give more prominence to tourism
as impacting on resources, climate change response, and most importantly,
resilience of coastal communities, (iv) Come up with a clearer strategy map for
how this initiative actually expects the 5 groups of partners to commit to and focus
on achieving objectives especially in light of a very decentralized, organic
approach, combined with funding mechanisms such as GEF, international banks
and aid agencies, all of whom have their own agendas to pursue and would
probably only sign on to this effort if its convenient at the moment.
166.
Other important conclusions of this Terminal evaluation are as follows:
a) some parts of the project design were weak especially in regard to the link between
objectives and components, components and outputs, and putting in synergy the
project management and the Global Forum organization enhancement activities;
b) another important weakness was the monitoring and evaluation system, which
made difficult the project follow-up and sharing of information within the Global
Forum steering committee;
41
c) the regional capacity assessments are unequal in quality and ownership level
especially in the case of Africa and Latin America. It is not the case for SIDS
where ownership is stronger thanks to the AOSIS mechanism linking regional and
national efforts;
d) in connection with the above, regional representation mechanism and appointment
of regional leads are still unclear except in the case of some SIDS regions;
e) the 10-year strategic plan will still need time to be negotiated between partners in
order to set up "reachable, realistic and measurable objectives with a greater
degree of focus on fewer key issues";
f) the number of working groups should be limited focussing on issues where the
Forum's ability to recruit the best international expertise is the highest whilst
paying attention to the coverage of the WSSD targets on coasts, oceans and
islands;
g) the main successes of the project were: (i) the holding of the two Global
Conferences in Paris (2006) and Hanoi (2008) and associated outputs; (ii) the
South-to-South cooperation on capacity development between 8 Portuguese
speaking Nations; (iii) the production and promotion of information materials
supported by an improved Global Forum website, rich media, and the Ocean
Information Package for large public outreach; (iv) the Ocean Policy Summit in
Lisbon leading to the publication of a book on Integrated Regional and National
Ocean Policies; (v) the collaboration with the Alliance of Small Island States
(AOSIS) which lead to well-focused and very significant outputs;
h) the Freshwater to Oceans Working group and its related activities provide a solid
basis for further partnership with the GPA including the preparation of a global
report on advancing the WSSD targets on ecosystem management and on
integrated coastal management in early 2010;
i) the collaboration developed with the GEF IW:LEARN has led to the fostering of
inter-agency and multistakeholder dialogue including an online resource center
and training services;
j) judging from interviews and questionnaire feedbacks, the Global Forum is
supported by a core of highly positioned and quite committed partners from all
horizons though the private sector remains poorly represented;
k) more particularly, global NGOs and a number of practitioners from academic and
research institutions are asking for a clearer strategy map in order to find more
common ground than they currently do to better relate to global policy action
while serving local stakeholders;
l) opposed to the strong SIDS constituency, there are some signs indicating that some
countries in transition feel they have been somewhat put aside while they should
be considered as important regional constituents;
m) the overall conclusion is that the project has succeeded in creating an independent
and unique platform and network forging a learning culture among a diverse and
representatively global body of decision-making and expert leadership which has
begun to demonstrate unity of purpose to cooperate in active consultation on
global, regional and critical issues. Doing this, it has established a framework for
participation of all GEF marine projects (and some freshwater projects) in dialogue
and collaboration processes which can effectively compound benefits to GEF
project countries, and enable acceleration of collective contributions to GEF
objectives and strategic priorities.
42
167.
Concerning the administrative and managerial aspects of the project, the main
conclusions are as follows:
a) although there was a 6-month delay in the first disbursement of the implementing
agency, the project benefited from the fact there was already a structure in place
(the Global Forum Secretariat) with running activities, sparing the project from a
slow start, which was particularly crucial provided the shortness of the project
duration;
b) partly as a consequence but also partly reflecting some weakness in the Global
Forum organisation, termination was delayed eight months provided June 2008 is
considered as the date of closure as requested by the project management but
without getting any formal approval so far (formal approval has been formally
granted till April 2008);
c) the Executing agency and more particularly the Global Forum Secretariat played a
crucial and very positive role in helping the project to succeed though they suffer
from weaknesses in the project design, especially in regard to the monitoring and
evaluation (M&E) system and operational linkage between project organizational
improvement and the building of the Global Forum sustainability;
d) in spite of the lack of a robust M&E system, the proactive stance of the project
management allowed an effective adaptive management approach to take place,
which helped to address some of those weaknesses;
e) nevertheless, the project would have benefited from a more regionalized approach
with well-identified regional leaders and an effective mechanism which would
have brought in more proactive collaborators from these regions and countries as it
has been so well demonstrated with some of the SIDS regions and countries;
f) there was a good management of funds with a quite substantial amount of
leveraged resources with progress made towards national level commitment. The
contracts arrangement and internal reports were dealt with smoothly between the
Executing Agency and the ICO as co-executing organisation;
g) unfortunately, progress reports to the Implementing Agency did not always respect
the 6-month requested periodicity and moreover did not cover the last year of the
project including its extension period (July 2007 June 2008) whilst the PIR 2008
was not available at the time of this terminal evaluation.
Ratings
168.
Section III of this Terminal evaluation analyses the level of achievement of each of the
objectives stated in the project document and the delivery of each of the expected
outputs. Table 4 below provides the summary of the ratings attributed, as a result of
that analysis, to different categories of the project. The overall rating for the project is
`Satisfactory'.
Table 4 - Overall ratings
Criterion
Summary Comments
Ratings
PROJECT PERFORMANCE
A. Attainment of objectives and
Most of the objectives were attained. Two of them
Satisfactory
planned results (overall rating)
could not be completed due to weaknesses in the
Sub criteria (below)
project design
A. 1. Effectiveness
Overall good achievement of project purpose
Satisfactory
43
Criterion
Summary Comments
Ratings
A. 2. Relevance
Learning project with overall satisfaction of partners
Highly
and good consistency with GEF areas/operational
Satisfactory
strategies
A. 3. Efficiency
High cost-effectiveness and leverage of additional
Highly
resources allowing further activities
Satisfactory
J. Implementation approach
Effective executing agency and well-managed and
Satisfactory
very proactive Secretariat producing a number of
highly significant background papers/documents
though the dynamic that could have been generated
by the project steering committee was not fully used
C. Achievement of outputs and
Most of the outputs were of high quality and should
Satisfactory
activities
serve as a strong basis for the Global Forum
strengthening in the short and medium term future
D. Assessment monitoring and
In spite of significant reporting, overall poor
Moderately
evaluation systems
monitoring and evaluation of project impact within
Unsatisfactory
(overall rating)
and outside the Global Forum
Sub criteria (below)
D.1. M&E Design
The logical framework from the original project
Moderately
document did not make a clear link with the project 5
Unsatisfactory
objectives and was not updated as such
D. 2. M&E Plan Implementation (use for
In spite of an effective adaptive capacity, the project
Moderately
adaptive management)
did not have a specific M&E plan
Unsatisfactory
D. 3. Budgeting and Funding for M&E
No funding for building up an M&E system with
Unsatisfactory
activities
proper indicators
F. Preparation and readiness
The project kept a good balance between specificity
Satisfactory
in milestones and targets taking on board lessons
from GEF-IW:LEARN and bringing in new partners
I. Financial planning
Project funds used and administered in efficient
Satisfactory
manner but lack of financial information to partners
K. UNEP Supervision and
Effective participation to both steering committees
Moderately
backstopping
and follow-up but some steering committee members
Satisfactory
(Partner 2) complaining about "unclear relationship"
PROJECT IMPACTS
G. Country ownership / drivenness
The project raised strong awareness in a number of
Satisfactory
countries especially SIDS whilst entire regions and
important countries are missing
H. Stakeholders participation / public
Excellent participation within Global Forum steering
Satisfactory
awareness
committee and at Global Conferences; working
groups arrangement effective but number should be
reduced with more focus target
B. Sustainability and co-financing
GF Secretariat high skills and dedication; strong
Satisfactory
(overall rating)
constituency within GF steering committee and some
Sub criteria (below)
working groups though NGO and private sector need
strengthening
B. 1. Financial
Significant leverage of additional resources with more
Satisfactory
countries or national organizations contributing
B. 2. Socio Political
Very strong partners' interest but public awareness
Satisfactory
need to be strengthened through countries
commitment
B. 3. Institutional framework and
Overall, the GF has brought issues to the forefront
Satisfactory
governance
and started to drive progress in SIDS and some other
countries but future efforts are very much dependent
on individual countries funding
B. 4. Partners' commitment
Strong partners' interest but more commitment can
Moderately
only be generated through better ownership of project
Satisfactory
and GF outcomes in particular with NGO and private
sector partners
E. Catalytic Role / Replicability
There are some good examples especially with SIDS
Moderately
but further progress is linked to the GF capacity to set
Satisfactory
up a proper mechanism to transfer experiences to
regions and countries
PROJECT OVERALL RATING
Satisfactory
44
V.
FOLLOW-UP
Lessons learned
169.
More care should be taken with the project design. This does not mean that everything
should be set once for all right from the beginning, but rather the design of this kind of
process-oriented project should:
i.
make a clear linkage between objectives, components, and activities and
resulting outputs/outcomes clearly reflected in the logical framework;
ii.
as much as possible, try to avoid too much multi-folded objectives that put
then confusion on resulting outputs identification;
iii.
identify a specific objective for project management that in this case should
have been strongly linked to the Global Forum further strengthening and
organization;
iv.
identify clearly the stakeholder analysis and involvement plan as an
activity since the different partner groups do not necessarily have the same
motivation and expectations;
v.
be more attentive to region specificities through carrying out a more
rigorous assessment of the political, institutional and technical capacity to
contribute and benefit from the project. The findings of this assessment (itself
based on existing literature) should be incorporated in the project design
concerning the kind of outputs, the activities that should lead to generate them,
and the implementation approach that may vary depending on the region (in this
regard, the GF steering committee members could be usefully more actively
involved in the project design);
vi.
foresee appropriate funding for not only allowing the project to come up
with a monitoring and evaluation system right from its inception but also to
maintain and adjust it all along the project implementation period.
170.
In the case of a global and trans-national project like this one, it is very important:
a) to develop a strategy map including all regions and taking into account on one
hand their specificities and on the other hand the SIDS, developing countries,
countries in transition, and developed countries groups they share in common in
the design and implementation of the project;
b) to ensure that there is a meaningful and effective operational mechanism foreseen
in the project design and developed through the project implementation to allow
global-local streamlining through regions as well as sharing of experiences
between regions and countries.
171.
The duration of the project should be such as to ensure that the necessary key results
are achieved as indicated in the project original document. In the case of the project
under review, the project duration did not allow enough time for carrying out required
processes to set up an effective regional mechanism, putting unnecessary pressure on
the Executing Agency and Global Forum Secretariat.
Recommendations
45
172.
Thanks to the very proactive stance of the Global Forum Secretariat, a strong
constituency within the Global Forum steering committee and the building up of
committed working groups, there is a strong insurance that the good results of this
GEF project will not be wasted, at least in the short and mid-term period. But it will be
important that first, the project outputs are formally recognised by all partners from
the Global Forum and in each region so finally as many countries as possible are
helped to build national strategies. To achieve this, financial support is of course
necessary provided the Global Forum fully realizes it is entering a new phase for
which it has to adapt its structure including the Secretariat consolidation (in this
regard, ICO like any other structure should charge overheads), more extensive
reporting to the partner organizations and steering committee members hence
promoting ownership and participation within its steering committee, and thematic
grouping of working groups to optimise their functioning whilst keeping the Global
Forum's aim to follow all the major WSSD ocean goals.
173.
Another important point is the formalization of Global Forum regional leads within
existing regional entities. This should not be costly using opportunistically and as
much as possible the regional context and initiatives with the help of its steering
committee members. A very recent and good example is one of the steering committee
members' proposal to create a Regional Forum on Oceans, Coasts and Islands for the
Channel and the North Sea at a time where the European Union is setting up its marine
eco-regions. This could be a very inspiring first step, a kind of pilot, which could
incite partners from other regions to create other Global Forum regional affiliates
adapted to their specific context. Such a strategy would considerably help making
outputs like capacity needs assessment operational in the next stage of work. This
being said and in order to remain globally independent, the Global Forum will always
have to find the way for keeping its independence at the regional level as well.
174.
Having done so and since the Global Forum is a unique independent global platform,
while there is a good probability to see more financial support coming from countries
and national organisations as shown by the leveraged resources, the support of
international financing institutions will remain crucial. As immediate steps,
UNEP/DGEF should continue working with the Global Forum to further support its
development as suggested above and find the way to further promote programmes and
crossing of experiences like the GEF/LME one. In this regard, it should be noted that,
beyond the project leveraged resources, the Global Forum has already attained $1.45
million of resources for its next stage of work, 2008-2012.
175.
To develop its strategy and rely on clear priorities, the Global Forum will need to
further revise and finalize the draft 10-year strategic plan considered as a "living"
document giving not only the future activities direction and content but also the "how"
they pragmatically will be implemented and deployed through the regions taking into
account their specific needs and priorities which are not necessarily the same as those
at the global level. The preparation of the 10-year strategic plan should be an
opportunity to come up with a coherent system of indicators for monitoring and
evaluation for the sake of the Global Forum good management and partners'
systematic information including the financial one, while it could be easily adapted for
the purpose of projects like the GEF/MSP one. Such a system could be developed in
three phases in the next couple of months: (1) hiring an M&E specialist to build up the
46
176.
Building on the project momentum, the Global Forum has rightly addressed the issue
of governance of areas beyond national jurisdiction as one of the important global
ocean issues. In line with the fostering of a global South-to-South and South-to-North
multi-stakeholder dialogue, it is recommended the Global Forum not only tackle the
issue as such but in a continuum with ICM close in the coastal zone, EEZ
management, regional collaboration (regional seas and LMEs), and areas beyond
national jurisdiction which are sometimes not that far and may have biophysical links
from the oceanographic point of view. Such a "nested strategy" would also be a way
to keep the rationale hence the balance with addressing coastal issues within territorial
waters, all countries' priority target and developing countries' main concern.
47
Annex 1 Questionnaire addressed to the partners
UNEP/GEF Midsize Project Terminal Evaluation
Fostering a Global Dialogue on Oceans, Coasts and SIDS, and on
Freshwater-coastal-marine interlinkages
Background
Project goal
The project goal was to foster a global South-to-South and South-to-North dialogue, through
the Global Forum on Oceans, Coasts, and Islands, on the implementation of the activities
aimed towards the achievement of Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI) targets and
timetables related to oceans, coastal areas and islands, with a special focus on Small Island
Developing States (SIDS) and the interlinkages between freshwater and the coastal and
marine environment.
Project objectives and related components
1. Foster cross-sectoral, multi-stakeholder dialogues, policy analyses, and public outreach on
oceans, coasts and SIDS issues (Components 1, 2, 3*)
2. Promote the attainment of intergovernmental commitments and agreements, including the
JPOI and the GPA (Components 1, 3)
3. Establish multi-sectoral dialogues, involving experts from developing and in transition
countries, and GEF LME project and coastal/ocean management experiences in policy
analyses, public outreach and cross-learning (Components 2,3)
4. Raise the awareness of and promote national ocean policies and ecosystem-based
approaches to large marine ecosystems as a vehicle for achieving sustainable development
of SIDS (Components 1,2)
5. Improve interlinkages between freshwater, coastal and oceans issues by developing a
relationship between the Global (Marine) Forum and the World Water Forum and
associated institutions (Component 3).
* Component 1: Global Forum Conference and Related Activities
Component 2: SIDS
Component 3: GPA and Interlinkages to Water
Component 4: Monitoring and Evaluation
Project partners
Project partners are defined as those individuals, groups, and organizations with whom the
project interacts directly and with whom the project can anticipate some opportunities for
influence.
A stakeholder analysis followed by a stakeholder involvement plan were foreseen in the
project proposal. Here, stakeholders are the actors primarily considered as partners within
the Ocean Global Forum. They are individual representatives which nevertheless belong to
well distinctive groups from which specific outcomes should be expected.
From there, outcome challenges may be stated for each of them in a way that emphasises
behavioural change. They are phrased so that they capture how the actor would be behaving
and relating to others if the project had achieved its full potential as a facilitator of change.
The challenge is for the project to help bring about these changes.
From the project documents, the following project partners and respective outcome challenges
may be identified:
48
Partner 1:
Outcome challenge 1: The project intends to see government
Government officials and
officials and policymakers who are committed to the global
policymakers
oceans agenda and the implementation of major international
agreements and programs according to the targets and timetables
agreed upon at the World Summit on Sustainable Development.
For doing so, they are actively involved in intergovernmental
and regional partnerships and draw lessons from the experience
that are relevant and can be used to inform national policy
debates and policy formulation. They champion the JPOI targets
and timetables related to oceans, coastal areas and islands and
seek funding from national and international sources to ensure
the continuation and success of the JPOI in their country/region.
Partner 2:
Outcome Challenge 2: The project intends to see
Intergovernmental and international intergovernmental and international organisations that are
organisations
active promoters of the JPOI including SIDS as a sustainable
development tool. They turn their effort towards strengthening
mechanisms such as the Global Programme of Action for the
Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based
Activities (GPA) and launch new processes to foster inter-
agencies and multistakeholder dialogues at he highest political
levels on these issues. They integrate this approach in their
planning and programming and advocate the concept to other
international donors and international freshwater, coast and
ocean-related bodies, more particularly the World Water Forum
and related institutions.
Partner 3:
Outcome Challenge 3: The project intends to see global NGOs
Global NGOs and Foundations
and Foundations that recognize the importance of, and are
engaged in, the promotion of the JPOI main targets in
partnership with other resource users at regional, national and
local level. They have gained the trust of the other member of the
partnership and the recognition of government officials so that
they can contribute constructively to debates and decision-
making processes. They are able to assist governmental officials
and policymakers in planning and articulating a vision of the
JPOI goals and activities that is relative to their national context
and needs. They act as champions for the promotion of the JPOI
effective vision in developing and in transition countries.
Partner 4:
Outcome Challenge 4: The project intends to see private sector
Private sector (maritime transport,
actors who are active participants in the JPOI and no longer
fisheries and aquaculture, offshore
view their goals and sectoral practices in isolation from other
industry)
resource users. They recognize that ecosystems and their
resources have legitimate multiple resource users and negotiate
costs and trade-offs with other, sometimes non-traditional,
partners. They encourage economic development while
employing sustainable sectoral practices.
Partner 5:
Outcome Challenge 5: The project intends to see education
Education and research institutions and research institutions that are active participants in the
JPOI, work in partnership and openly share data and tools to
assist in decision-making, assessing trade-offs, understanding
environmental impacts at the local level, and promoting public
awareness. They contribute to putting the JPOI targets and
timetables related to oceans, coastal areas and islands on a
practical level and are committed to the participatory process for
finding local solutions to the coast and ocean sustainable
development.
49
QUESTIONS
With this background in mind, we kindly ask you to first reflect, in your own words, on the
following open-ended questions:
-
Do you recognize yourself in one of the five partner types and would you agree with
the corresponding outcome challenge ? (any rephrasing is welcome)
-
What have been the major accomplishments of the Global Forum on Oceans, Coasts,
and Islands in the period 2006-2008 ?
-
What have been the major problems/challenges besetting the work of the Global
Forum on Oceans, Coasts, and Islands in the period 2006-2008 ?
-
Was the general format for the UNEP/GEF project productive, both in terms of the
range of participants and the subjects covered ?
-
What suggestions would you have for future projects of this kind ?
In the following questionnaire, you are then invited to put a cross in the column of your
choice and add any comment you think appropriate.
Rating system:
3 = Strong
2 = Good
1 = Fair
0 = Poor
NR = Not Relevant or Don't Know
PROJECT PERFORMANCE
Attainment of objectives and planned results
Effectiveness:
Results / Purpose
Extent to which the project is able to fulfill its purpose with consideration of main
stakeholders' understanding of project function and dimensions.
Questions
Rating
Comments
3
2
1
0
NR
What is the project impact on raising
awareness at high political levels in
developing and in transition countries,
SIDS, on major ocean-related issues ?
Do you foresee any consecutive long-term
impacts in line with your or/and any other
partner outcome challenges :
-
Partner 1:
-
Partner 2:
-
Partner 3:
-
Partner 4:
-
Partner 5 :
50
Relevance:
Objectives / Changes
Ability of the project to keep its key stakeholders satisfied
Ability to be a "learning project" by innovating and creating new and more effective
situations as a result of insight into the changing environment and new knowledge
integration
Questions
Rating
Comments
3
2
1
0
NR
Were the project's outcomes consistent with
the areas/operational strategies and wider
portfolio of the GEF ?
To what extent the project implementation
mechanisms outline in the project document
have been closely followed ?
Was the role of the various committees
established clear enough and their
functioning good enough to enable effective
and efficient implementation ?
How well the management was able to adapt
to changes during the life of the project to
enable its implementation ?
How would you rate the efficiency and
adaptability of project management at the
following levels:
-
policy decisions: Steering Group
-
day to day project management:
Executing agency and Forum
secretariat
Efficiency:
Activities / Results (Outputs)
A ratio that reflects a comparison of results (outputs) accomplished to the nature and costs of
activities (inputs) incurred for accomplishing the objectives of the project.
Questions
Rating
Comments
3
2
1
0
NR
Was the project cost-effective ?
Was the contribution of cash and in-kind co-
financing efficient in regard to project
implementation ?
Was the cost per component and activity
made clear enough ?
Has the leverage of additional resources
been effective for further activities ?
Did the project make effective use of
available scientific and/or technical
information ?
In comparison with other similar projects
you know, how would you rate this project
efficiency ?
51
Achievement of outputs and activities
Questions
Rating
Comments
3
2
1
0
NR
Generally speaking, do you think the project
outputs have been produced both in
quantity and quality as well as usefulness
and timeliness?
How would you rate the achievement of the
following project outputs :
Component 1
-
Global Conference and other meetings
-
Capacity building needs
-
Public awareness
-
Organizational enhancement
Component 2
-
Policy analyses on SIDS and post-
Mauritius implementation
-
SIDS panels at Ocean Policies
Conference
-
Capacity building workshop for SIDS
Component 3
-
Policy analyses on GPA and
interlinkages to freshwater
-
Ocean Panels at 4th World Water
Forum in Mexico
Component 4
-
Overall coordination of the project
-
Effective monitoring and evaluation
mechanism
-
Effective project information and
lessons learned dissemination
-
Enhanced replication of project
outcomes through the GEF IW projects
In your opinion, what are the best results
that can be related to the GEF MSP
contribution ?
How would you rate the project Monitoring
and Evaluation (M&E) design and plan
application ?
Were the project Steering Committee
members involved in setting up and
following up the M&E system ?
Were the indicators appropriate and
informed?
Was the project baseline informed enough ?
Was the project adaptive enough using its
Monitoring and Evaluation system ?
Preparation and readiness
Questions
Rating
Comments
3
2
1
0
NR
Were the project's objectives and
components clear, practicable and feasible
within its timeframe ?
52
Were the capacities of executing institution
and counterparts properly considered when
the project was designed ?
Were lessons from other relevant projects
properly incorporated in the project design?
Were the partnership arrangements
properly identified and the roles and
responsibilities negotiated prior to project
implementation ?
Were counterpart resources (funding, staff,
and facilities), enabling legislation, and
adequate project management
arrangements in place ?
Financial planning
Questions
Rating
Comments
3
2
1
0
NR
Was the initial budget plan and its budget
lines actually implemented as such ?
Was the co-financing initial plan achieved as
such ?
Was the financial information made
available to the Steering Committee
members ?
UNEP supervision and backstopping
Questions
Rating
Comments
3
2
1
0
NR
Was the UNEP/DGEF supervision and
administrative and financial support
effective ?
How would you rate the communication
level between UNEP/DGEF and the project
management ?
53
PROJECT IMPACT
Because of the nature of the project, its impact should also be looked at following the incurred
processes. The project strategy may be seen as founded on persuasion and building supportive
networks where the project seeks to facilitate change whilst the ultimate responsibility rests
with the partners composing the Global Forum.
Therefore you are invited to look at the following questions trying to consider both the above
project strategy and your own partner's outcome challenge:
Country ownership / driveness
Questions
Rating
Comments
3
2
1
0
NR
Do you think the project was effective
enough in involving SIDS experts in the
further development in EBM and ICM
national strategies ?
Idem for policy-makers in building up
national strategies ?
In your opinion, what are the countries most
involved in the Global Forum on Oceans
and the World Water Forum?
Boundary partner participation / public awareness
Questions
Rating
Comments
3
2
1
0
NR
Following the earlier definition of
"partner", do you identify yourself in one of
the outcome challenges as presented above ?
Do you think the mechanism that has been
put in place efficient enough for
identification and engagement of new
partners ?
Please, identify strengths and weaknesses.
How would you rate the degree and
effectiveness of collaboration/interactions
between the various project partners during
the course of implementation of the project
?
How would you rate the degree and
effectiveness of public awareness activities
during the course of implementation of the
project ?
Do you think the setting up and running of
the Working Groups have been efficient
enough to contribute to the 2006-2016
strategic planning?
If member of one of the Working Groups,
how would you rate your involvement ?
54
Sustainability and co-financing
Questions
Rating
Comments
3
2
1
0
NR
Generally speaking, how would you rate the
probability of continued long-term project-
derived outcomes and impacts after the
project ending ?
To what extent did the project succeed in
securing the sustainability of the Global
Forum on Oceans, Coasts and Islands ?
Do you think financial resources are secured
enough for letting the Global Forum
running in the next few years ?
To what extent are the outcomes of the
project dependent on continued financial
support ?
What is the risk that the level of partners
ownership will be insufficient to allow for
the project outcomes to be sustained ?
As one of the project partners, is it in your
interest to see the project benefits continue
to flow ?
How would you rate the public awareness in
support of the long term objectives of the
project, i.e. the Global Forum on Oceans,
Coasts, and Islands ?
To what extent is the sustenance of the
outcomes and the dialogue for the project
dependent on issues relating to institutional
frameworks and governance ?
Do you think that institutional, legal
frameworks, policies and governance
structures are essential for the
project/global forum outcomes/benefits to be
sustained ?
Catalytic role (Replicability)
Questions
Rating
Comments
3
2
1
0
NR
Any example of replication and catalytic
outcomes ?
Did the project succeed in increasing the
replicability of lessons learned in GEF LME
projects through interactions with other
major ocean programs and efforts in the
Global Forum ?
MANY THANKS FOR YOUR TIME !
55
Annex 2 List of questionnaire recipients and interviewees
Project Steering Committee members
Executing Agencies Representatives:
Biliana Cicin-Sain, Secretariat, ICO, Global Forum on Oceans
Miriam Balgos, Secretariat, ICO, Global Forum on Oceans
LaVerne Walker, Secretariat, Global Forum on Oceans
Julian Barbiere, IOC-UNESCO
Donor Representatives:
Ralph Cantral, Coastal and Ocean Resource Management, NOAA
Lori Ridgeway, Director General Policy, DFO Canada
Renщe Sauvщ, International Oceans Advisor, DFO Canada
GEF implementing agencies:
Takehiro Nakamura, UNEP/DGEF
Andrew Hudson, UNDP/GEF
David Freestone, Office of General Counsel, World Bank
Dann Sklarew, IW:LEARN
Janot Mendler, IW: LEARN
Cees van de Guchte, UNEP-GPA
Global Forum Steering Committee members
Partner 1: Government officials and policymakers (24 members)
-
David Balton, Bureau of Oceans, US Department of State
-
Margaret Davidson, Coastal Services Center, NOAA, USA
-
Gerhard Kuska, Ocean and Coastal Policy, White House Council on Environmental Quality, USA
-
Tom Laughlin, International Affairs Office, NOAA, USA
-
Lori Ridgeway, International Coordination and Policy Analysis, DFO, Canada
-
Camille Mageau, Marine Ecosystems Conservation Branch, DFO, Canada
-
Antonio Diaz de Leon, Environmental, Regional Integration and Sectoral Policy, SEMARNAT,
Mexico
-
Phil Burgess, Department of the Environment and Water Resources, Australia
-
Haiqing Li, State Oceanic Administration, China
-
Gi-Jun Han, Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Republic of Korea
-
Indroyono Soesilo, Agency for Marine and Fisheries Research, DMAF, Indonesia
-
Nguyen Chu Hoi, Institute of Fisheries Economics and Planning, MARD, Vietnam
-
Aldo Cosentino, Directorate for Nature Protection, Sea Protection, MEPT, Italy
-
Mario Ruivo, Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education, Portugal
-
Magnus Johannesson, Ministry for the Environment, Iceland
-
Rejoice Mabudafhasi, Environmental Affairs and Tourism, South Africa
-
Magnus Ngoile, Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Kenya
-
Ali Mohamed, Coastal and Marine Secretariat, New Partnership for Africa's Development
(NEPAD), Kenya
-
Ambassador Angus Friday, Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), PR of Grenada to the UN
-
Ambassador Jagdish Koonjul, Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), Mauritius
-
Ambassador Enele S. Sopoaga, Alliance of Small Island Developing States (AOSIS), Tuvalu
-
John Low, Ministry of Marine Resources, Cook Islands
-
Rolph Payet, President Office, Seychelles
Partner 2: Intergovernmental and international organisations (32 members)
56
-
Salvatore Arico, Ecological Sciences, UNESCO
-
Patricio A. Bernal, IOC-UNESCO (Global Forum SC Co-Chair)
-
Julian Barbiere, IOC-UNESCO
-
Stefano Belfiore, IOC-UNESCO
-
Veerle Vandeweerd, Environment and Energy Group, UNDP (Global Forum SC Co-Chair)
-
Chika Ukwe, International Waters, UNIDO
-
Torkil J. Clausen, DHI Water Policy, Global Water Partnership
-
Anjan Datta, GPA
-
Ahmed Djoghlaf, Executive Secretary, Convention on Biological Diversity
-
Al Duda, International Waters, GEF
-
Andrew Hudson, International Waters, UNDP/GEF
-
Vladimir Mamaev, UNDP/GEF
-
Dann Sklarew, GEF, IW:LEARN
-
Marea E. Hatziolos, Environment Department, The World Bank
-
Indumathie Hewawasam, The World Bank
-
Mary Power, Resource Mobilization Office, WMO
-
Eduard Sarukhanian, World-Weather-Watch Applications, WMO
-
Diane Quarless, Small Island Developing States Unit, UNDESA
-
Anne Rogers, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA)
-
David Johnson, OSPAR Convention
-
Vaclav Mikulka, UN Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea (UNDOALOS)
-
Annick de Marffy, UNDOALOS
-
Satya Nandan, International Seabed Authority
-
Eugenio Yunis, Sustainable Development of Tourism, World Tourism Organisation
-
Franklin McDonald, UNEP Carribean Environment Programme
-
Grant Trebble, African Marine and Coastal Resource Over-Exploitation Prevention Strategy
(AMCROPS), South Africa
-
Chua Thia-Eng, PEMSEA, IMO/UNDP/GEF
-
Tiago Pitta e Cunha, Cabinet of Fisheries and Maritime Commissioner, EC
-
John Richardson, Maritime Policy Task Force, EC
-
Cristelle Pratt, South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC)
-
Asterio Takesy, Secretariat, Pacific Regional Environment Programme
-
Khulood Tubaishat, The Regional Organisation for the Conservation of the Environment of the
Red Sea and Gulf of Aden (PERSGA)
Partner 3: Global NGOs and Foundations (23 members)
-
Milton Asmus, Brazilian Agency for Coastal Management
-
Awni Behnam, International Ocean Institute, Malta
-
Charles A. Buchanan, Luso-American Development Foundation, Portugal
-
Simon Cripps, Global Marine Programme, WWF
-
Dawn Martin, Sea Web, USA
-
Tony Ribbink, Sustainable Seas Trust, South Africa
-
Julius Francis, WIOMSA, Tanzania
-
Matthew Gianni, Deep Sea Conservation Coalition, Netherlands
-
Lynne Hale, Marine Strategy, The Nature Conservancy
-
Gerald Miles, Pacific Region, The Nature Conservancy
-
Art Hanson, Canadian Foundation for Innovation (CFI)
-
Dan Laffoley, World Commission on Protected Areas Marine, IUCN
-
Carl Lundin, Marine Programme, IUCN
-
David VanderZwaag, Ocean Law and Governance Trust, IUCN
-
Iouri Oliounine, International Ocean Institute, Malta
-
Hiroshi Terashima, Institute for Ocean Policy, Ocean Policy Research Foundation, Japan
-
Jens Ambsdorf, Lighthouse Foundation, Germany
-
Charles Ehler, Consultant to UNESCO
-
Serge Garcia, International Consultant
57
-
Gunnar Kullenberg, International Consultant, Norway
-
Sian Pullen, International Consultant, New Zealand
-
Nirmal Jivan Shah, Nature, Seychelles
-
Alan Simcock, International Consultant
-
Chris Tompkins, International Consultant
Partner 4: Private sector (maritime transport, fisheries and aquaculture, offshore industry)
-
Pietro Parravano, Institute of Fisheries Resources, World Fisheries Forum
Partner 5: Education and research institutions (15 members)
-
Biliana Cicin-Sain, Marine Policy, University of Delaware, USA (Global Forum SC Co-Chair)
-
Jan Mees, Flanders Marine Institute, Belgium
-
Guillermo Garcia Montero, National Aquarium, Havana, Cuba
-
Marjo Vierros, Institute of Advanced Studies, United Nations University, Vancouver
-
A.H. Zakri, Institute of Advanced Studies, United Nations University, Yokohama
-
Richard Delaney, Center for Coastal Studies, Provincetown, MSS, USA
-
Sylvia Earle, Deep Ocean Exploration and Research, National Geographic Society
-
Vladimir Golitsyn, Moscow State University of International Relations
-
Gregor Hodgson, Reef Check
-
Kristian Teleki, International Coral Reef Action Network, Switzerland
-
Victoria Radchenko, International Ocean Institute, Ukraine
-
Evelia Rivera-Arriaga, Centro de Ecologia, Pesquerias y Oceanographia del Golfo de Mexico
(EPOMEX), Mexico
-
Nancy Targett, University of Delaware, College of Marine and Earth Studies
-
Philippe Vallette, NAUSICAA and the World Ocean Network, France
-
Manuel Cira, NAUSICAA and the World Ocean Network, France
Working Group members (not members of the Global Forum Steering Committee)
Partner 1
Partner 2
Partner 3
Partner 4
Partner 5
Government Officials
International Org.
NGOs / Foundations
Private sector
Education/Research
Tuiloma Neroni Slade
Yihang Jiang
Carl Bruch
Patrick Anvroin
Clive Wilkinson
Maria Candela-Castillo
Jihyun Lee
Margarita Astralaga
Thierry Desmaret
Donald Robadue
Jake Rice
Nicole Glineur
Monica Verbeek
Jim Greenwood
Mike Phillips
Steven Murawski
Ivica Trumbic
Bill Eichbaum
Ampai Harakunarak
Qinhua Fang
Fatima Dia Toure
Ellik Adler
Denny Kelso
Peter Neill
Daniel Pauly
58
Annex 3 Co-financing and Leveraged Resources
Title of Project:
Fostering a Global Dialogue on Oceans, Coasts, and SIDS, and on Freshwater-Coastal-Marine Interlinkages
Project Number:
PMS: GF/3010-05-09
IMIS:GFL-2328-2732-4854
Name of Executing Agency:
Intergovernemental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of UNESCO
Project Duration:
From: 1 October 2005
To: 30 June 2008
Reporting Period:
1 October 2005 30 June 2008
Source of Cofinance
Cash Contributions
In-kind Contributions
Comments
Budget
Budget
Received/
Budget
Budget
Received/
Received to date
original
latest
spent to
original
latest
spent to date
revision
date
revision
UNEP/GPA
60,000
60,000
110,000
110,000 Support Freshwater-Marine Task Force/activities
UNESCO/IOC
70,000
35,000
140,000
140,000
Professional and Admin Support staff
NOAA (CSC)
50,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
TOPS Conference (25K) and Working Groups
DFO Canada
41,125
37,000
Received in April 2005-SIDS Rapid assessment
ICO/University Delaware
150,000
150,000
Facilities and Secretariat Support
Portugal
65,000
65,000
65,000
65,000
Local costs for TOPS 2005 Conference
Nippon Foundation
135,000
135,000
Task Force on National Ocean Policies
World Ocean Network
50,000
50,000
SOPAC
50,000
50,000
The Nature Conservancy
80,000
80,000
SIDS Mauritius International Meeting
IOCARIBE
5,000
5,000
Latin America Regional capacity assessment
NEPAD
5,000
5,000
Africa Regional capacity assessment
PEMSEA
5,000
5,000
East Asia Regional capacity assessment
EPOMEX,SEMARNAT,CCA
15,000
15,000 Mexico meeting Workshop freshwater-coastal-
marine interlinkages
Total
501,125
437,000
620,000
620,000
All amounts in US dollars
Certified by Executing and Implementing partners
59
Leveraged Resources
Financial and in-kind support was provided by 28 international (including multi-lateral), government and non-government organizations for three activities
carried out under the MSP: 1) TOPS 2005 The Ocean Policy Summit held in Lisbon in October 2005; the 3rd Global Oceans Conference held in UNESCO,
Paris, in January 2006; and 3) strategic planning on the global oceans agenda and the 4th Global Oceans Conference held in Hanoi, in April 2008, in order to
fully accomplish the project's objectives and to extend the reach of the project's impacts to a wider constituency. The MSP generated $742,436 in cash
support and an estimated $288,500 in-kind support including conference facilities, staff time and travel for a total of $1,030,936 beyond those committed to
the project at the time of approval. Please see the attached list of leveraged resources per activity.
Cash (US$)
In-kind (US$) (all in-kind costs are estimated)
Support for the TOPS 2005 the Ocean Policy Summit, October 2005
1. Associaчуo Industrial Portuguesa
7 000 In-kind support for TOPS 2005
2.
Banco Espiritu Santo
7 000 In-kind support for TOPS 2005
3.
Fundaчуo Calouste Gulbenkian
7 000 In-kind support for TOPS 2005
4. Fundaчуo Oriente
7 000 In-kind support for TOPS 2005
5. Luso-American Development Foundation (FLAD)
18 000
2 500 Hosting of meetings
7. Oceanсrio de Lisboa
7500,00
8. Port Authority of Lisbon
12 500
1 000 Time
9.
Coastal Services Center (NOAA CSC)
25 000
Support for the 3rd Global Oceans Conference, January 2006
1.
General Directorate for Nature Protection,
12 000
Ministry for the Environment and Territory, Italy
Support for the Strategic Planning on the Global Oceans Agenda and for the 4th Global Oceans Conference
1. The Nippon Foundation, Japan
200 000
2. Le Centre de Decouverte du Monde Marin, Nice, France
20 000
7 000 Time (Workshop arrangements)
3. Lighthouse Foundation
39 436,00
4.
Coastal Services Center (NOAA CSC)
10 000 Time (Preparation of Working Group report)
60
5.
Flemish Minister for Economy, Enterprise, Science,
30 000
Innovation and Foreign Trade, Belgium
6.
International Ocean Institute
50 000 Travel
7.
International Union for the Conservation of Nature
10 000 Pre-conference Meeting costs
8. Ministry of Foreign Affairs and National Parks Board, Singapore
5 000 Time (Working Group on High Seas)
9. Ministry of Land, Transportation and Maritime Affairs, Korea
50 000
and Pusan National University
10. Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, Indonesia
50 000
5 000 Time (Working Group on Fisheries and
11. NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service
68 000
20 000 Time (Working Group on Fisheries and
Aquaculture; Working Group on EBM/ICM
12. Ocean Policy Research Foundation, Japan
10 000
13. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Vietnam
125 000
50 000 Time (includes involvement of 30 staff members)
14. World Bank
Time and travel
15. World Ocean Network
35 000 Time and travel (Nice and Hanoi)
16. USAID (pre-conference workshop)
50 000
17. Department of Fisheries, Canada
25 000
15 000 Time and travel
18. University of Delaware Gerard J. Mangone Center for Marine Policy
50 000 Facilities and staff support
TOTAL
742 436
288 500
GRAND TOTAL
1 030 936
61
Annex 4 Evaluation Terms of Reference
Terminal Evaluation of the UNEP GEF project
"Fostering a Global Dialogue on Oceans, Coasts, and SIDS, and on Freshwater-Coastal-
Marine Interlinkages"
1. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
The World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in 2002 catalyzed the international
community around the challenge of protecting and managing the natural resource base of economic
and social development through the endorsement of the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI)
detailing goals, activities, targets and timetables up to 2015, including for oceans, coastal areas,
fisheries, small island developing States (SIDS), and freshwater. The global process to promote and
sustain the achievement of these objectives, targets and timetables will require significant and
continuing efforts on the part of the international community: the exploitation and degradation of
coastal, marine, and island resources is serious and not coming to a halt, to the point that it may
become irreversible in places. Yet, while the WSSD provided a key occasion to create a momentum
around these issues, an overall assessment of the global progress will only be carried out by the UN
Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) in 2014-2015. Moreover, interlinkages between
freshwater management and coastal and marine management are not sufficiently addressed by existing
fora and mechanisms. Efforts were required both to strengthen existing mechanisms (such as the
Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based
Activities (GPA)) and to launch new processes to foster a multistakeholder dialogue at the highest
political levels on these issues.
The goal of the project was to foster a global South-to-South and South-to-North dialogue, through the
Global Forum on Oceans, Coasts, and Islands, on the implementation of the activities aimed towards
the achievement of JPOI targets and timetables related to oceans, coastal areas and islands, with a
special focus on SIDS and the interlinkages between freshwater and the coastal and marine
environment.
This GEF Project aimed to assist the developing countries and countries with economies in transition
to put the Oceans, Coasts, and Islands issues on the high political agenda of their governmental
policies and strategies. By involving developing country and countries with economies in transition
officials and GEF Large Marine Ecosystems (LME) projects in this global dialogue, the project helped
build their capacity in addressing those issues. The project aimed to foster learning of experiences and
lessons drawn from the GEF projects on LMEs, and integrated coastal management conducted in the
past 12 years in 118 developing countries and countries with economies in transition. The project
attempted to assist the countries in the development of policy analyses on critical issues, especially
cross-sectoral issues not typically addressed by other entities. The project assisted the developing
countries and countries with economies in transition achieve the JPOI targets for oceans, coasts, and
islands as well as promote the adoption of ecosystem-based approaches including large marine
ecosystems.
The Global Forum on Oceans, Coasts, and Islands, organized informally in 2001 and formalized at the
WSSD, serves as a multi-stakeholder stock-taking forum for cross-sectoral discussion, policy analyses,
and mobilization of knowledge and other resources to promote the implementation of international
agreements related to oceans, coasts, and SIDS. The Global Forum brings together leading ocean
experts from governments, intergovernmental and international organizations (including all the
relevant UN agencies), nongovernmental organizations, private sector, academic and scientific
institutions. The original focus of the Global Forum was multifold and included the following
components:
62
assessment of progress achieved (or lack thereof) of the protection and management of oceans,
coasts, and SIDS since the 1992 Earth Summit;
participation and influence of the oceans agenda at the WSSD;
mobilization of resources to implement the oceans, coasts, and SIDS targets agreed to at the
WSSD;
preparations for the 10 year review of progress achieved in SIDS since the 1994 Barbados
Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States
organized at the International Meeting in Mauritius in January 2005.
Since 2003, there was a growing necessity to address the gaps and needs identified by the Global
Forum. This was made even more urgent in January 2005 with the outcomes of the Mauritius SIDS
review meeting. The project had the intention to address the following needs:
The need for cross-sectoral dialogue on freshwater-coastal-marine interlinkages: There is a need
for addressing oceans, coasts, and islands issues in a cross-sectoral and comprehensive manner, as
emphasized in the 1992 Earth Summit which underscored that given the interrelationship among
uses and processes in the coast and ocean, ocean and coastal governance must be "integrated in
content and precautionary and anticipatory in ambit."
Existing fora related to oceans, however, are largely sectoral--that is, they tend to treat different
aspects of sustainable development of the oceans separately. For example, there are different fora on
fisheries issues, marine science issues, marine navigation and safety issues, and marine pollution
control issues, among others. This sectoral approach is mirrored in the United Nations agencies which
address ocean issues, whereby there is no United Nations agency which is tasked with addressing
oceans, coasts, and islands issues (including connections to freshwater) in a comprehensive way.
Among the nongovernmental organizations, too, there is no global organization devoted to the
sustainable development of oceans, coasts, and islands (while there are many large environmental
groups with substantial ocean programs, they tend to emphasize mainly the environmental aspects of
the sustainable development equation).
There was also a need to apply the experiences learned through GEF projects to the global dialogue on
freshwater-coastal-marine interlinkages. The GEF has typically used ecosystem-based approaches to
improve management of Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) and these experiences should be shared
with the global water community.
The need for dialogue among governments, NGOs, international organizations, and the private
sector:
There was also a need for a forum where participants from nongovernmental
organizations, governments, especially from developing countries, intergovernmental and
international organizations, and the private sector can interact together, share information, draw
lessons from existing practice, consider emerging issues, and engage in a fruitful dialogue.
The project aimed to bring the GEF LME experience in these dialogues, particularly the lessons
learned in the application of the GEF processes known as the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis and
Strategic Action Programme.
The need for oceans awareness at the highest political levels, especially in developing countries and
countries with economies in transition: Notwithstanding the economic, social, and environmental
importance of oceans, coasts, and islands, because of their complexity and diversity, sometimes these
issues are not adequately addressed in developing countries and in countries with economies in
transition, and there are gaps in addressing these issues in international fora. A case in point is the
World Summit on Sustainable Development which initially, during the Summit preparatory process,
did not address oceans, coasts, and SIDS issues. Enhanced awareness of ocean issues is needed to
help insure the appropriate inclusion of oceans, coasts, and islands concerns in the policies and
63
strategies of developing countries and in countries with economies in transition, as well as in
important global and regional discussions on sustainable development.
The need for linking oceans and coasts to freshwater basins: Because of interrelated natural processes,
what happens upstream affects the downstream environment and vice versa. In order to preserve
overall system integrity, it is imperative to link management measures regarding oceans and coasts to
the improved management of river basins and watersheds. And yet, discussions of freshwater
management and oceans management typically take place separately in different fora. The GEF,
through the GPA, has provided assistance to countries in improving management of river basins
draining to coasts in order to improve water flow regimes and reduce pollution loads. There is a need
to replicate the models initiated by GEF- assisted projects such as the Danube/Black Sea Basin
Strategic Partnership with the World Bank and the Mekong River Basin Water Utilization Project,
which have started to produce results from on-the-ground pollution reduction mechanisms and
adoption of policies and national and regional institutional reforms.
Project Objectives:
In response to these needs, the project aimed to assist the developing countries, SIDS, and countries
with economies in transition to:
1. Foster cross-sectoral, multi-stakeholder dialogues, policy analyses, and public outreach on oceans,
coasts and SIDS issues;
2. Promote the attainment of intergovernmental commitments and agreements, including the JPOI
and the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-
based Activities (GPA);
3. Establish multi-sectoral dialogues, involving experts from developing countries, countries with
economies in transition, and GEF LME projects in the policy analyses, public outreach and cross-
learning between LME experiences and coastal and ocean management experiences;
4. Raise the awareness of and promote national ocean policies and ecosystem-based approaches to
large marine ecosystems as a vehicle for achieving sustainable development of SIDS;
5. Improve interlinkages between freshwater, coastal and oceans issues by developing a relationship
between the Global Forum on Oceans, Coasts, and Islands and the World Water Forum and
associated institutions.
The project aimed to promote cross-learning among existing national and regional activities related to
ocean and coastal management and share significant experience in ecosystem-based management of
large marine ecosystems gained through the GEF LME projects to achieve maximum synergy among
related efforts.
Relevance to GEF Programmes
As stated above, the goal of the project is to foster a global South-South and South-to-North dialogue,
through the Global Forum on Oceans, Coasts, and Islands, on the implementation of the activities
aimed towards the achievement of JPOI targets and timetables related to oceans, coastal areas and
islands, with a special focus on SIDS and the interlinkages between freshwater and the coastal and
marine environment. This GEF Project will assist the developing countries and countries with
economies in transition to put the Oceans, Coasts, and Islands issues on the high political agenda of
their governmental policies and strategies. The project proposal is consistent with the Operational
Program #10: Global Technical Support component, "Targeted technical demonstration and capacity
building projects can help build awareness in countries that are participating in International Waters
projects and serve as a means to encourage best practices, develop tools for finding solutions, and
formulate policies for innovative institutional approaches." The project proposal is also consistent with
new GEF IW Strategic Priority 2: Expand global coverage of foundational capacity building
addressing the two key program gaps with a focus on cross-cutting aspects of African transboundary
waters and support for targeted learning. South-to-South "structured learning" contributes significantly
to the success of GEF's foundational/capacity building work in IW."
64
Executing Arrangements
UNEP is the implementing agency for this project. The executing agency is the Intergovernmental
Oceanographic Commission, UNESCO (IOC), which received the total GEF financing and contracted
the International Coast and Ocean Organization (ICO), the Secretariat of the Global Forum on Oceans,
Coasts, and Islands, for the implementation of specific activities under all four project components
(ICO is an international NGO accredited to UN ECOSOC).
Other collaborating executing agencies which carried out specific project activities included:
NEPAD/COSMAR (New Partnership for Africa's Development, Coastal and Marine Coordination
Unit); IOCARIBE (IOC Sub-Commission for the Caribbean and Adjacent Regions); PEMSEA
(Partnerships for Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia); SOPAC (South Pacific
Applied Geoscience Commission); EPOMEX (Centro de Ecologia, Pesquerias y Oceanografia del
Golfo de Mexico); SEMARNAT (Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y de Recursos Naturales); CCA
(Consejo Consultivo del Agua); and the World Ocean Network.
The project was guided by a Steering Committee (SC) that comprised members from the GEF
implementing agencies, project executing agencies, and donor representatives. The SC
provided policy guidance; approved work plans, budget, and audit reports; and provided
general oversight of implementation. The Steering Committee also reviewed and approved
project monitoring and evaluation reports.
Project Activities anticipated at the time of the project inception
Component 1 Foster cross-sectoral, multi-stakeholder dialogues and raise awareness of oceans,
coasts and SIDS to promote the attainment of the commitments agreed upon at the WSSD and
in other relevant fora.
Activity 1a--Convening the Third Global Conference on Oceans, Coasts, and Islands,
including a Ministerial segment, in January 2006:
Activity 1b-- Assessing capacity building needs at the regional level for the development and
implementation of ecosystem-based national ocean policies among developing countries and
countries with economies in transition.
Activity 1c--Increasing public awareness of the global agenda on oceans, coasts, and island.
Activity 1d--Organizational enhancement and strategic planning for the Global Forum on
Oceans, Coasts, and Islands:
Component 2 Increase awareness within SIDS nations in the development and implementation
of national and regional oceans policies and the implementation of the ecosystem approach
through LME projects and SIDS projects, and carry out associated capacity building efforts.
Activities in Component 2
Involve SIDS experts and policy makers in the further development of ecosystem-based
national
and
regional
ocean
policies
through
participation
in
policy
analyses,
workshop/conferences, and capacity building efforts.
Build the capacity of SIDS experts and policy makers through participation in scientific
meetings and in analytical activities on ocean policies, ecosystem-based management, and
large marine ecosystems as a means to advance the Barbados Programme of Action and the
outcomes of the Mauritius International Meeting.
65
Component 3 Foster improved understanding of the interlinkages between freshwater and
coastal and oceans issues, support the 2006 Intergovernmental Review of the GPA, and develop
formal collaboration between the Global Forum on Oceans, Coasts, and Islands and the World
Water Forum.
Contributing to preparations for the GPA IGR-2, particularly in relation to fostering
freshwater-coastal/marine interlinkages through integrated coastal area and river basin
management.
Preparation of a policy analysis on freshwater/coastal/marine interlinkages,
including GPA implementation, and holding of an associated workshop in Mexico.
Organizing oceans panels at the 4th World Water Forum in Mexico in 2006 for the
formulation of a cooperation agenda, and concluding a Memorandum of Understanding
between the Global Forum and the World Water Forum.
Budget
The total project cost was US$ 2,115,725 with contributions from GEF US$994,600 and US$
1,121,125 from co-financing. The details are in annex 6:
TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE EVALUATION
1. Objective and Scope of the Evaluation
The objective of this terminal evaluation is to examine the extent and magnitude of any project
impacts to date and determine the likelihood of future impacts. The evaluation will also assess project
performance and the implementation of planned project activities and planned outputs against actual
results. The evaluation will focus on the following main questions:
1. Did the project help to increase awareness at a high political level in the developing
countries, SIDS, and countries with economies in transition on major issues related to
oceans, especially the ecological and socioeconomic inter-linkages between the
management of freshwater and coastal, marine, and island areas?
2. Did the project promote the attainment of intergovernmental commitments and
agreements, including the JPOI and the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of
the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities (GPA)
3. Did the project increase the capacity of developing countries, SIDS, and countries with
economies in transition to:
a. implement the JPOI targets for oceans, coasts, and islands and other relevant
intergovernmental agreements, such as the GPA?
b. adopt the use of ecosystem-based approaches including large marine ecosystems?
c. implement the oceans and coasts aspects of the Barbados Programme of Action
and the outcomes of the Mauritius International Meeting
4. To what extent did the project succeed in securing the sustainability of the Global Forum
on Oceans, Coasts, and Islands?
5. To what extent did the project succeed in increasing the replicability of lessons learned in
GEF LME projects through interactions with other major ocean programs and efforts in
the Global Forum?
66
2. Methods
This terminal evaluation will be conducted as an in-depth evaluation using a participatory approach
whereby the UNEP/DGEF Task Manager, key representatives of the executing agencies and other
relevant staff are kept informed and consulted throughout the evaluation. The consultant will liaise
with the UNEP/EOU and the UNEP/DGEF Task Manager on any logistic and/or methodological
issues to properly conduct the review in as independent a way as possible, given the circumstances and
resources offered. The draft report will be delivered to UNEP EOU and then circulated to
UNEP/DGEF Task Manager and key representatives of the executing agencies. Any comments or
responses to the draft report will be sent to UNEP EOU for collation and the consultant will be advised
of any necessary or suggested revisions.
The findings of the evaluation will be based on the following:
1. A desk review of project documents including, but not limited to:
(a) The project documents, outputs, monitoring reports (such as progress and financial
reports to UNEP and GEF annual Project Implementation Review reports) and
relevant correspondence.
(b) Notes from the Steering Group meetings.
(c) Other project-related material produced by the project staff or partners.
(d) Relevant material published on the project web-site.
2. Interviews with project management and technical support including the staff from the
UNESCO/IOC, the secretariat from the Global Forum on Oceans, Coasts and Islands. Selected
members of the Forum steering committee members;
3. Interviews and Telephone interviews with intended users for the project outputs and other
stakeholders involved with this project, including the participants in the project activities and
international bodies, such as FAO, UNDP and UNEP GPA. The Consultant shall determine
whether to seek additional information and opinions from representatives of donor agencies
and other organisations. As appropriate, these interviews could be combined with an email
questionnaire.
4. Interviews with the UNEP/DGEF project task manager and Fund Management Officer, and
other relevant staff in UNEP dealing with International Waters-related activities as necessary.
The Consultant shall also gain broader perspectives from discussions with relevant GEF
Secretariat staff.
5. Participate in project steering committee to have interviews with participants 22 June 2008.
Key Evaluation principles.
In attempting to evaluate any outcomes and impacts that the project may have achieved, evaluators
should remember that the project's performance should be assessed by considering the difference
between the answers to two simple questions "what happened?" and "what would have happened
anyway?".
These questions imply that there should be consideration of the baseline conditions and
trends in relation to the intended project outcomes and impacts. In addition it implies that there should
be plausible evidence to attribute such outcomes and impacts to the actions of the project.
Sometimes, adequate information on baseline conditions and trends is lacking. In such cases this
should be clearly highlighted by the evaluator, along with any simplifying assumptions that were taken
to enable the evaluator to make informed judgements about project performance.
67
3. Project Ratings
The success of project implementation will be rated on a scale from `highly unsatisfactory' to `highly
satisfactory'. In particular the evaluation shall assess and rate the project with respect to the eleven
categories defined below:1
A.
Attainment of objectives and planned results:
The evaluation should assess the extent to which the project's major relevant objectives were
effectively and efficiently achieved or are expected to be achieved and their relevance.
Effectiveness: Evaluate how, and to what extent, the stated project objectives have been met,
taking into account the "achievement indicators". The analysis of outcomes achieved should
include, inter alia, an assessment of the extent to which the project has directly or indirectly
assisted policy- and decision-makers to apply information supplied by. In particular:
Evaluate the immediate impact of the project on raising awareness at a high political levels in
the developing countries, SIDS, and countries with economies in transition on major issues
related to oceans
As far as possible, also assess the potential longer-term impacts considering that the evaluation
is taking place upon completion of the project and that longer term impact is expected to be seen
in a few years time.
Relevance: In retrospect, were the project's outcomes consistent with the focal areas/operational
program strategies and the wider portfolio of the GEF?
Efficiency: Was the project cost effective? Was the project the least cost option? Was the project
implementation delayed and if it was, then did that affect cost-effectiveness? Assess the
contribution of cash and in-kind co-financing to project implementation and to what extent the
project leveraged additional resources. Did the project build on earlier initiatives, did it make
effective use of available scientific and / or technical information. Wherever possible, the
evaluator should also compare the cost-time vs. outcomes relationship of the project with that of
other similar projects.
B.
Sustainability:
Sustainability is understood as the probability of continued long-term project-derived outcomes
and impacts after the GEF project funding ends. The evaluation will identify and assess the key
conditions or factors that are likely to contribute or undermine the persistence of benefits after
the project ends. Some of these factors might be outcomes of the project, e.g. stronger
institutional capacities or better informed decision-making. Other factors will include contextual
circumstances or developments that are not outcomes of the project but that are relevant to the
sustainability of outcomes. The evaluation should ascertain to what extent follow-up work has
been initiated and how project outcomes will be sustained and enhanced over time. In particular
the evaluation should determine to what extent did the project succeed in securing the
sustainability of the Global Forum on Oceans, Coasts, and Islands?
Five aspects of sustainability should be addressed: financial, socio-political, institutional
frameworks and governance, environmental (if applicable). The following questions provide
guidance on the assessment of these aspects:
Financial resources. Are there any financial risks that may jeopardize sustenance of project
outcomes? What is the likelihood that financial and economic resources will not be available
once the GEF assistance ends (resources can be from multiple sources, such as the public and
private sectors, income generating activities, and trends that may indicate that it is likely that in
future there will be adequate financial resources for sustaining project's outcomes)? To what
extent are the outcomes of the project dependent on continued financial support?
1 However, the views and comments expressed by the evaluator need not be restricted to these items.
68
Socio-political: Are there any social or political risks that may jeopardize sustenance of project
outcomes? What is the risk that the level of stakeholder ownership will be insufficient to allow
for the project outcomes to be sustained? Do the various key stakeholders see that it is in their
interest that the project benefits continue to flow? Is there sufficient public / stakeholder
awareness in support of the long term objectives of the project?
Institutional framework and governance. To what extent is the sustenance of the outcomes of
the project dependent on issues relating to institutional frameworks and governance? What is the
likelihood that institutional and technical achievements, legal frameworks, policies and
governance structures and processes will allow for, the project outcomes/benefits to be
sustained? While responding to these questions consider if the required systems for
accountability and transparency and the required technical know-how are in place.
Environmental. Are there any environmental risks that can undermine the future flow of project
environmental benefits? The TE should assess whether certain activities in the project area will
pose a threat to the sustainability of the project outcomes. For example; construction of dam in a
protected area could inundate a sizable area and thereby neutralize the biodiversity-related gains
made by the project; or, a newly established pulp mill might jeopardise the viability of nearby
protected forest areas by increasing logging pressures; or a vector control intervention may be
made less effective by changes in climate and consequent alterations to the incidence and
distribution of malarial mosquitoes.
C.
Achievement of outputs and activities:
Delivered outputs: Assessment of the project's success in producing each of the
programmed outputs, both in quantity and quality as well as usefulness and timeliness.
Assess the soundness and effectiveness of approaches used to build the capacity
of SIDS experts and policy makers through participation in scientific meetings and in
analytical activities on ocean policies, ecosystem-based management, and large marine
ecosystems as a means to advance the Barbados Programme of Action and the outcomes of the
Mauritius International Meeting
Assess to what extent the policy analyses produced on freshwater/coastal/marine
inter-linkages, including GPA implementation have the weight of scientific authority /
credibility necessary to assist the developing countries to implement JPOI targets.
D.
Catalytic Role
Replication and catalysis. What examples are there of replication and catalytic outcomes?
Replication approach, in the context of GEF projects, is defined as lessons and experiences
coming out of the project that are replicated or scaled up in the design and implementation of
other projects. Replication can have two aspects, replication proper (lessons and experiences
are replicated in different geographic area) or scaling up (lessons and experiences are
replicated within the same geographic area but funded by other sources). Specifically:
Did the project succeed in increasing the replicability of lessons learned in GEF LME projects
through interactions with other major ocean programs and efforts in the Global Forum?
If no effects are identified, the evaluation will describe the catalytic or replication actions that
the project carried out.
E.
Assessment monitoring and evaluation systems.
The evaluation shall include an assessment of the quality, application and effectiveness of
project monitoring and evaluation plans and tools, including an assessment of risk
management based on the assumptions and risks identified in the project document. The
Terminal Evaluation will assess whether the project met the minimum requirements for
`project design of M&E' and `the application of the Project M&E plan' (see minimum
requirements 1&2 in Annex 4). GEF projects must budget adequately for execution of the
M&E plan, and provide adequate resources during implementation of the M&E plan. Project
69
managers are also expected to use the information generated by the M&E system during
project implementation to adapt and improve the project.
M&E during project implementation
M&E design. Projects should have sound M&E plans to monitor results and track
progress towards achieving project objectives. An M&E plan should include a baseline
(including data, methodology, etc.), SMART indicators (see Annex 4) and data analysis
systems, and evaluation studies at specific times to assess results. The time frame for various
M&E activities and standards for outputs should have been specified.
M&E plan implementation. A Terminal Evaluation should verify that: an M&E
system was in place and facilitated timely tracking of results and progress towards projects
objectives throughout the project implementation period (perhaps through use of a logframe or
similar); annual project reports and Progress Implementation Review (PIR) reports were
complete, accurate and with well justified ratings; that the information provided by the M&E
system was used during the project to improve project performance and to adapt to changing
needs; and that projects had an M&E system in place with proper training for parties
responsible for M&E activities.
Budgeting and Funding for M&E activities. The terminal evaluation should
determine whether support for M&E was budgeted adequately and was funded in a timely
fashion during implementation.
F.
Preparation and Readiness
Were the project's objectives and components clear, practicable and feasible within its
timeframe? Were the capacities of executing institution and counterparts properly considered
when the project was designed?
Were lessons from other relevant projects properly
incorporated in the project design? Were the partnership arrangements properly identified and
the roles and responsibilities negotiated prior to project implementation? Were counterpart
resources (funding, staff, and facilities), enabling legislation, and adequate project
management arrangements in place?
G.
Country ownership / driveness:
This is the relevance of the project to national development and environmental agendas,
recipient country commitment, and regional and international agreements. The evaluation will:
Assess the level of country ownership. Specifically, the evaluator should assess
whether the project was effective in involving SIDS experts and policy makers in the further
development of ecosystem-based national and regional ocean policies through participation in
policy analyses, workshop/conferences, and capacity building efforts.
Assess the level of country commitment to Global Forum on Oceans, Coasts, and
Islands and the World Water Forum.
H.
Stakeholder participation / public awareness:
This consists of three related and often overlapping processes: information dissemination,
consultation, and "stakeholder" participation. Stakeholders are the individuals, groups,
institutions, or other bodies that have an interest or stake in the outcome of the GEF- financed
project. The term also applies to those potentially adversely affected by a project. The
evaluation will specifically:
Assess the mechanisms put in place by the project for identification and
engagement of stakeholders in each participating country and establish, in consultation with
the stakeholders, whether this mechanism was successful, and identify its strengths and
weaknesses.
70
Assess the degree and effectiveness of collaboration/interactions between the
various project partners and institutions during the course of implementation of the project.
Assess the degree and effectiveness of any various public awareness activities that
were undertaken during the course of implementation of the project.
I.
Financial Planning
Evaluation of financial planning requires assessment of the quality and effectiveness of
financial planning and control of financial resources throughout the project's lifetime.
Evaluation includes actual project costs by activities compared to budget (variances), financial
management (including disbursement issues), and co- financing. The evaluation should:
Assess the strength and utility of financial controls, including reporting, and
planning to allow the project management to make informed decisions regarding the budget
and allow for a proper and timely flow of funds for the payment of satisfactory project
deliverables.
Present the major findings from the financial audit if one has been conducted.
Identify and verify the sources of co- financing as well as leveraged and
associated financing (in co-operation with the IA and EA).
Assess whether the project has applied appropriate standards of due diligence in
the management of funds and financial audits.
The evaluation should also include a breakdown of final actual costs and co-
financing for the project prepared in consultation with the relevant UNON/DGEF Fund
Management Officer of the project (table attached in Annex 1 Co-financing and leveraged
resources).
J.
Implementation approach:
This includes an analysis of the project's management framework, adaptation to changing
conditions (adaptive management), partnerships in implementation arrangements, changes in
project design, and overall project management. The evaluation will:
Ascertain to what extent the project implementation mechanisms outlined in the
project document have been closely followed. In particular, assess the role of the various
committees established and whether the project document was clear and realistic to enable
effective and efficient implementation, whether the project was executed according to the plan
and how well the management was able to adapt to changes during the life of the project to
enable the implementation of the project.
Evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency and adaptability of project management
and the supervision of project activities / project execution arrangements at all levels (1)
policy decisions: Steering Group; (2) day to day project management by the IOC/UNESCO
and the Forum secretariat.
K.
UNEP Supervision and Backstopping
Assess the effectiveness of supervision and administrative and financial support
provided by UNEP/DGEF.
Identify administrative, operational and/or technical problems and constraints that
influenced the effective implementation of the project.
The ratings will be presented in the form of a table. Each of the eleven categories should be rated
separately with brief justifications based on the findings of the main analysis. An overall rating for
the project should also be given. The following rating system is to be applied:
HS
= Highly Satisfactory
S
= Satisfactory
MS
= Moderately Satisfactory
71
MU
= Moderately Unsatisfactory
U
= Unsatisfactory
HU
= Highly Unsatisfactory
4. Evaluation report format and review procedures
The report should be brief, to the point and easy to understand. It must explain; the purpose of the
evaluation, exactly what was evaluated and the methods used. The report must highlight any
methodological limitations, identify key concerns and present evidence-based findings, consequent
conclusions, recommendations and lessons. The report should be presented in a way that makes the
information accessible and comprehensible and include an executive summary that encapsulates the
essence of the information contained in the report to facilitate dissemination and distillation of lessons.
The evaluation will rate the overall implementation success of the project and provide individual
ratings of the eleven implementation aspects as described in Section 1 of this TOR. The ratings will
be presented in the format of a table with brief justifications based on the findings of the main
analysis.
Evidence, findings, conclusions and recommendations should be presented in a complete and balanced
manner. Any dissident views in response to evaluation findings will be appended in an annex. The
evaluation report shall be written in English, be of no more than 50 pages (excluding annexes), use
numbered paragraphs and include:
i)
An executive summary (no more than 3 pages) providing a brief overview of the
main conclusions and recommendations of the evaluation;
ii)
Introduction and background giving a brief overview of the evaluated project, for
example, the objective and status of activities; The GEF Monitoring and Evaluation
Policy, 2006, requires that a TE report will provide summary information on when the
evaluation took place; places visited; who was involved; the key questions; and, the
methodology.
iii)
Scope, objective and methods presenting the evaluation's purpose, the evaluation
criteria used and questions to be addressed;
iv)
Project Performance and Impact providing factual evidence relevant to the
questions asked by the evaluator and interpretations of such evidence. This is the main
substantive section of the report. The evaluator should provide a commentary and
anlaysis on all eleven evaluation aspects (A - K above).
v)
Conclusions and rating of project implementation success giving the evaluator's
concluding assessments and ratings of the project against given evaluation criteria and
standards of performance. The conclusions should provide answers to questions about
whether the project is considered good or bad, and whether the results are considered
positive or negative. The ratings should be provided with a brief narrative comment in
a table (see Annex 1);
vi)
Lessons (to be) learned presenting general conclusions from the standpoint of the
design and implementation of the project, based on good practices and successes or
problems and mistakes. Lessons should have the potential for wider application and
use. All lessons should `stand alone' and should:
Briefly describe the context from which they are derived
State or imply some prescriptive action;
Specify the contexts in which they may be applied (if possible, who when
and where)
vii)
Recommendations suggesting actionable proposals for improvement of the current
project. In general, Terminal Evaluations are likely to have very few (perhaps two or
three) actionable recommendations.
72
Prior to each recommendation, the issue(s) or problem(s) to be addressed by the
recommendation should be clearly stated.
A high quality recommendation is an actionable proposal that is:
1. Feasible to implement within the timeframe and resources available
2. Commensurate with the available capacities of project team and partners
3. Specific in terms of who would do what and when
4. Contains results-based language (i.e. a measurable performance target)
5. Includes a trade-off analysis, when its implementation may require utilizing
significant resources that would otherwise be used for other project purposes.
viii)
Annexes may include additional material deemed relevant by the evaluator but must
include:
1. The Evaluation Terms of Reference,
2. A list of interviewees, and evaluation timeline
3. A list of documents reviewed / consulted
4. Summary co-finance information and a statement of project expenditure by
activity
5. The expertise of the evaluation team. (brief CV).
TE reports will also include any response / comments from the project management
team and/or the country focal point regarding the evaluation findings or conclusions
as an annex to the report, however, such will be appended to the report by UNEP
EOU.
Examples of UNEP GEF Terminal Evaluation Reports are available at www.unep.org/eou
Review of the Draft Evaluation Report
Draft reports submitted to UNEP EOU are shared with the corresponding Programme or Project
Officer and his or her supervisor for initial review and consultation. The DGEF staff and senior
Executing Agency staff are allowed to comment on the draft evaluation report. They may provide
feedback on any errors of fact and may highlight the significance of such errors in any conclusions.
The consultation also seeks feedback on the proposed recommendations and the preparation of a draft
management response to them. UNEP EOU collates all review comments and provides them to the
evaluator(s) for their consideration in preparing the final version of the report.
5. Submission of Final Terminal Evaluation Reports.
The final report shall be submitted in electronic form in MS Word format and should be sent to:
Segbedzi Norgbey, Chief,
UNEP Evaluation and Oversight Unit
P.O. Box 30552-00100
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel.: (254-20) 7624181
Fax: (254-20) 7623158
Email: segbedzi.norgbey@unep.org
UNEP EOU will then provide copies to:
Maryam Niamir-Fuller
Director
UNEP/Division of GEF Coordination
P.O. Box 30552-00100
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: + 254-20-7624686
73
Fax: + 254-20-623158/4042
Email: maryam.niamir-fuller@unep.org
Takehiro Nakamura
UNEP/GEF International Waters SPO
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
Division of GEF Coordination (DGEF)
PO Box 30552-00100
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: 254 20 7625077
Fax: 254 20 7624041/2
Email: takehiro.nakamura@unep.org
The final evaluation report will be published on the Evaluation and Oversight Unit's web-site
www.unep.org/eou and may be printed in hard copy. Subsequently, the report will be sent to the GEF
Office of Evaluation for their review, appraisal and inclusion on the GEF website.
6. Resources and schedule of the evaluation
This final evaluation will be undertaken by an international evaluator contracted by the Evaluation and
Oversight Unit, UNEP. The contract for the evaluator will begin on 22 June 2008 and end on 5
September 2008 (22 days) spread over 12 weeks (3 days of travel to New York). The evaluator will
submit a draft report on 14 August 2008 to UNEP/EOU, the UNEP/DGEF Task Manager, and key
representatives of the executing agencies. Any comments or responses to the draft report will be sent
to UNEP / EOU for collation and the consultant will be advised of any necessary revisions. Comments
to the final draft report will be sent to the consultant by 30 August 2008 after which, the consultant
will submit the final report no later than 5 September 2008.
The evaluator will after an initial telephone briefing with EOU and UNEP/GEF. If possible he will
travel to New York to attend a steering Committee meeting on 22 June 2008 to meet with
representatives of the project executing agencies and the intended users of project's outputs.
In accordance with UNEP/GEF policy, all GEF projects are evaluated by independent evaluators
contracted as consultants by the EOU. The evaluator should have the following qualifications:
The evaluator should not have been associated with the design and implementation of the project in a
paid capacity. The evaluator will work under the overall supervision of the Chief, Evaluation and
Oversight Unit, UNEP. The evaluator should be an international expert in coastal zone management,
ocean laws and capacity building for coastal and ocean management, marine resources management.
The consultant should have the following minimum qualifications: (i) experience in marine and
coastal issues; (ii) experience with management and implementation of a project related to fostering
policy dialogues; (iii) experience with project evaluation. Knowledge of UNEP programmes and GEF
activities is desirable. Knowledge of Indonesian, Chinese and / or Russian is an advantage. Fluency in
oral and written English is a must.
7. Schedule Of Payment
The consultant shall select one of the following two contract options:
Lump-Sum Option
The evaluator will receive an initial payment of 30% of the total amount due upon signature of the
contract. A further 30% will be paid upon submission of the draft report. A final payment of 40% will
be made upon satisfactory completion of work. The fee is payable under the individual Special Service
74
Agreement (SSA) of the evaluator and is inclusive of all expenses such as travel, accommodation and
incidental expenses.
Fee-only Option
The evaluator will receive an initial payment of 40% of the total amount due upon signature of the
contract. Final payment of 60% will be made upon satisfactory completion of work. The fee is payable
under the individual SSAs of the evaluator and is NOT inclusive of all expenses such as travel,
accommodation and incidental expenses. Ticket and DSA will be paid separately.
In case, the evaluator cannot provide the products in accordance with the TORs, the timeframe agreed,
or his products are substandard, the payment to the evaluator could be withheld, until such a time the
products are modified to meet UNEP's standard. In case the evaluator fails to submit a satisfactory
final product to UNEP, the product prepared by the evaluator may not constitute the evaluation report.
When submitting the Travel Claim upon completion of travel, kindly note some of the following points:
that UNON's primary operating currency is the US Dollar and reimbursements are made at the USD
equivalent at the ruling UN exchange rate and not necessarily the currency of expenditure. If the
consultant wishes to be paid in any other currency other than USD the consultant should indicate on
the Travel Claim and special arrangements can be made with UNON's bank. The UN has standard
rules for reimbursement of travel expenses and UNON enforces compliace on behalf of UNEP. Taxis
to and from Hotel to Airport/Train/Bus station are covered by terminal allowances and the maximum
reimburseable is USD 38.00. Taxis from Hotel to meeting venues
75
Document Outline
- ўџ
- ўџ
- ўџ
- ўџ
- ўџ
- ўџ
- ўџ
- ўџ
- ўџ
- ўџ
- ўџ
- ўџ
- ўџ
- ўџ
- ўџ
- ўџ
- ўџ
- ўџ
- ўџ
- ўџ
- ўџ
- ўџ
- ўџ
- ўџ
- ўџ
- ўџ
- ўџ
- ўџ
- ўџ
- ўџ
- ўџ
- ўџ
- ўџ
- ўџ
- ўџ
- ўџ
- ўџ
- ўџ