Final Evaluation

Evaluation report Final Evaluation Project title: Integration of Ecosystem Management Principles and Practices into Land and Water Management of Laborec-Uh Region (Eastern Slovakian Lowlands) Region: Europe and CIS/ Slovak Republic GEF Project ID: 2261 UNDP Project ID: 55927/46803 OP/SP: 12. Ecosystem Management National Executing Agency: Ministry of Environment National Implementing Agency: Slovak Water Management Enterprise Evaluation team: Daniel Svoboda, Dagmar Gombitová, Peter Straka 9 January 2013 Contract duration: 14 October 2013 – 1 February 2013 Evaluation report Acknowledgements The study team would like to thank all those individuals who have kindly contributed their time and ideas to the successful completion of this evaluation report. Evaluation report CONTENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LIST OF ACRONYMS 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION ................................................................................................. 1 SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................... 1 STRUCTURE OF THE EVALUATION REPORT ............................................................................. 2 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT ................................... 2 PROJECT START AND DURATION .............................................................................................. 2 PROBLEMS THAT THE PROJECT SOUGHT TO ADDRESS......................................................... 4 IMMEDIATE AND DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT ....................................... 5 BASELINE INDICATORS ESTABLISHED ..................................................................................... 5 MAIN STAKEHOLDERS................................................................................................................. 5 EXPECTED RESULTS..................................................................................................................... 7 3. FINDINGS .......................................................................................................................... 8 3.1 PROJECT DESIGN / FORMULATION ......................................................................................... 8 3.2 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................................... 12 3.3 PROJECT RESULTS ...................................................................................................................... 16 RELEVANCE ................................................................................................................................. 16 OVERALL RESULTS (ATTAINMENT OF OBJECTIVES) ........................................................... 19 EFFECTIVENESS & EFFICIENCY ............................................................................................... 21 COUNTRY OWNERSHIP .............................................................................................................. 26 MAINSTREAMING ....................................................................................................................... 27 SUSTAINABILITY ........................................................................................................................ 28 IMPACT ......................................................................................................................................... 30 3.4 CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS & LESSONS .............................................................. 31 ANNEX 1 TERMS OF REFERENCE .............................................................................................. 37 ANNEX 2 ITINERARY .................................................................................................................. 60 ANNEX 3 LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED ............................................................................. 61 ANNEX 4 SUMMARY OF FIELD VISITS ..................................................................................... 62 ANNEX 5 LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED ............................................................................ 64 ANNEX 6 LOGICAL FRAMEWORK MATRIX ............................................................................. 65 ANNEX 7 EVALUATION QUESTION MATRIX ........................................................................... 71 ANNEX 8 QUESTIONNAIRE USED AND SUMMARY OF RESULTS ......................................... 75 ANNEX 9 EVALUATION CONSULTANT AGREEMENT ............................................................ 77 ANNEX 10 PLANNED AND ACHIEVED OUTPUTS .................................................................... 81 ANNEX 11 COMMENTS TO INDICATORS .................................................................................. 85 ANNEX 12 SUMMARY OF TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS ............................................................. 88 Evaluation report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROJECT SUMMARY TABLE Project title: Integration of Ecosystem Management Principles and Practices into Land and Water Management of Laborec-Uh Region (Eastern Slovakian Lowlands) GEF Project ID: at endorsement at completion 2261 (million USD) (million USD) UNDP Project GEF financing: ID: 55927 /46803 0,97 0,97 Country: IA/EA own: Slovakia 0 0 Region: Government: Europe and CIS 3,27 3,45 Focal Area: Integrated Ecosystem Other: 0,073 0,35 Management FA Objectives, 12. Ecosystem Total co-financing 3,35 3,80* (OP/SP): management Executing Total Project UNDP 4,32 4,67 Agency: Cost: Other Partners ProDoc Signature (date project 2 May 2007 involved: began): n/a (Operational) Proposed: 31 Actual: 31 Closing Date: December 2012 December 2012 *Unable to assess - there is not enough evidence on concrete co-financing allocations in the financial records provided. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project was selected for support by the Global Environment Facility as a pilot for the implementation of integrated ecosystem management through water planning, based on integrated water management, biodiversity protection and socioeconomic development of the area. The project started in 2007 and concluded in 2012 with a planned combined budget of 4,32 mil. USD. The project area is a lowland area of 29 539 ha currently focused on intensive agricultural farming within the Michalovce and Sobrance districts of the Košice administrative region. The project site was dominated by various types of forest while the rivers and ponds held rich communities of aquatic plants. However, as a result of two centuries of land drainage and flood protection works the area was given to farming and only remnants of the natural habitat survive. However, these flood meadows still serve as valuable seed banks for restoring further areas to wet grasslands. The Senné depression within the project area is the most important site for nesting and migrating birds in Slovakia. Maintaining conditions for intensive agriculture is difficult and expensive but a change to soundly managed wetlands would bring environmental benefits. Because of difficult soil fertility and soil moisture conditions in this area (clay soils), agricultural productivity is significantly below average. There are no production industries or food processing industries located in the area, which results in a low number of employment opportunities and poor socio-economic situation. The main goal of the project was to mainstream integrated ecosystem management principles and practices into the land and water management and agricultural sectors within the context of i Evaluation report the EU Rural Development Programme 2007 – 2013 and implementation of the Danube River Protection Convention (including the Danube Basin Nutrient Reduction Programme). The project was implemented under UNDP national execution project requirements, with a flat and all-inclusive structure reflecting the multidisciplinary focus and a participatory approach. Implementation was heavily supported by UNDP external consultant. The most complex problems included land ownership issues, difficulties with co-financing and incentives, and the slow perception of economic benefit from the local population. It should be noted that the project was rather specific due to its complexity, interlinking the human resource development, environmental and economic aspects in the region. It was provided to an area which was not ready (and without this support would hardly ever be) for any assistance. The communication among local municipalities was absent, population growth in the region is secured due to Roma minority, the economic growth was minimal and local development capacities were completely missing. The project purpose was defined as follows: at the end of the project, an innovative stakeholder partnership [originally the LEADER Local Action Group was planned] shall be in place in the project area that can continue to implement a self-sustaining water and land management programme resulting in environmentally sound agricultural practices, alternative non-farm livelihoods, and further expanding the extent of (semi-) natural floodplain habitats that support a representative range of species. EVALUATION RATING TABLE Evaluation Ratings: 1. Monitoring and Evaluation Rating 2. IA& EA Execution Rating M&E design at entry MU Quality of UNDP Implementation S M&E Plan Implementation MS Quality of Execution - Executing Agency MS Overall quality of M&E MU Overall

Load more