DOCSLIB.ORG

Mid-Term Evaluation of the Integrated Management of the Ilha Grande Bay Ecosystem (BIG) Project Final Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mid-Term Evaluation of the Integrated Management of the Ilha Grande Bay Ecosystem (BIG) Project Final Report OFFICE OF EVALUATION Project evaluation series Mid-term evaluation of the Integrated Management of the Ilha Grande Bay Ecosystem (BIG) project Final Report May 2015 PROJECT EVALUATION SERIES Mid-term evaluation of the Integrated Management of the Ilha Grande Bay Ecosystem (BIG) project FINAL Report FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS OFFICE OF EVALUATION May 2015 i Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Office of Evaluation (OED) This report is available in electronic format at: http://www.fao.org/evaluation The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO. © FAO 2015 FAO encourages the use, reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product. Except where otherwise indicated, material may be copied, downloaded and printed for private study, research and teaching purposes, or for use in non-commercial products or services, provided that appropriate acknowledgement of FAO as the source and copyright holder is given and that FAO’s endorsement of users’ views, products or services is not implied in any way. All requests for translation and adaptation rights, and for resale and other commercial use rights should be made via www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request or addressed to [email protected]. For further information on this report, please contact: Director, Office of Evaluation (OED) Food and Agriculture Organization Viale delle Terme di Caracalla 1, 00153 Rome Italy Email: [email protected] GCP/BRA/078/GFF ii Mid-term evaluation of the Integrated Management of the Ilha Grande Bay Ecosystem (BIG) project Contents Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................................vi Acronyms and abbreviations ....................................................................................................................vii Executive summary ..................................................................................................................1 1. Introduction ..........................................................................................................................6 1.1 Project description .........................................................................................................6 1.1.1 Project objectives ..................................................................................................6 1.2 The Brazilian general context ......................................................................................7 1.3 Purpose of the mid-term evaluation and scope of evaluation...........................8 1.3.1 Purpose ....................................................................................................................8 1.3.2 Criteria for the evaluation and key issues to be analysed ........................9 1.4 Evaluation methodology ............................................................................................10 2. Analysis of the Project Concept and Design .............................................................11 2.1 Project design ................................................................................................................11 2.1.1 Project formulation ............................................................................................11 2.1.2 Logical frame analysis .......................................................................................12 2.1.3 Identification of the project partners and beneficiaries ..........................12 3. Project implementation analysis .................................................................................13 3.1 Project management ...................................................................................................14 3.1.1 Internal functioning ..........................................................................................14 3.1.2 Implementation arrangements ......................................................................16 3.1.3 Monitoring ............................................................................................................16 3.2 Financial resources management ............................................................................18 3.3 Institutional arrangements and partnerships ......................................................19 3.3.1 Institutional arrangements with co-management participation forums .....19 4. Analysis of the project products/results and contributions with the final objective .................................................................................................................. 22 4.1 Products/results in relation to the project components................................... 22 4.1.1 Component 1: planning, policy and institutional strengthening ........ 22 4.1.2 Component 2: Biodiversity and protected areas ......................................24 4.1.3 Component 3: Analysis of threats, mitigation and monitoring ............26 4.1.4 Component 4: Public awareness-raising and environmental education .....28 4.1.5 Component 5: Project management ........................................................... 29 4.2. Results and their contribution to the final objectives ....................................... 30 4.3. Results of successful experiences, lessons learned, replication and dissemination of data ...........................................................................................................31 4.4. Results of the feedback on M&E activities – adaptive management: use of the METT Tool ............................................................................................................32 iii Mid-term evaluation of the Integrated Management of the Ilha Grande Bay Ecosystem (BIG) project 5. Analysis according to the evaluation criteria ......................................................... 34 5.1 Relevance ....................................................................................................................... 34 5.2 Efficiency ........................................................................................................................ 34 5.3 Effectiveness ...................................................................................................................35 5.4 Impact ..............................................................................................................................35 5.5 Sustainability ................................................................................................................. 36 5.5.1 Appropriation by the country and integration of agendas ................... 36 5.6 The GEF ranking table .................................................................................................37 6. Conclusions and recommendations .......................................................................... 38 6.1 Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 38 6.2 Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 40 Recommendation 1 to FAO and Government ..................................................... 40 Recommendation 2 to FAO ........................................................................................41 Recommendation 3 to FAO ........................................................................................41 Recommendation 4 to FAO and Government ......................................................42 iv Mid-term evaluation of the Integrated Management of the Ilha Grande Bay Ecosystem (BIG) project Tables and figures Table Table 1: Total score of the METT to each CU in 2010 and 2014 ................................32 Figures Figure 1. Density of industrial activities in the Ilha Grande Bay Region ..................8 Figure 2: Institutional arrangements to implement the project BIG .......................14 Figure 3: Percentage expenses by budget line ..............................................................18 v Mid-term evaluation of the Integrated Management of the Ilha Grande Bay Ecosystem (BIG) project Acknowledgements The evaluation team would like to thank all that collaborated with the elaboration of this Mid-Term Evaluation Report (MTE) with their knowledge and opinions. The findings and recommendations ensuing from the analysis of data collected during evaluation are expected to contribute to improve the project implementation and the fulfillment of its objectives. Evaluation team Mary Dayse Kinzo, Team Leader Marisete Catapan, Team Member Raquel Cabello, Evaluation Manager (OED) vi Mid-term evaluation of the Integrated Management of the Ilha Grande Bay Ecosystem (BIG) project Acronyms and abbreviations ABC Brazilian Cooperation Agency
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Integrated Management of the Ilha Grande Bay Ecosystem (BIG Project)
    Project evaluation series Final evaluation of the project “Integrated Management of the Ilha Grande Bay Ecosystem” (BIG Project) PROJECT EVALUATION SERIES Final evaluation of the project “Integrated Management of the Ilha Grande Bay Ecosystem” (BIG Project) GCP/BRA/078/GFF GEF ID: 3848 FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS Rome, 2019 Required citation: FAO. 2019. Final evaluation of the project “Integrated Management of the Ilha Grande Bay Ecosystem” (BIG Project). Rome. 66 pp. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO. © FAO, 2019 Some rights reserved. This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo/legalcode/legalcode). Under the terms of this licence, this work may be copied, redistributed and adapted for non-commercial purposes, provided that the work is appropriately cited.
    [Show full text]
  • Brazilian Biodiversity Fund Annual Report 2015 Annual Report 2015
    1 1 BRAZILIAN BIODIVERSITY FUND ANNUAL REPORT 2015 ANNUAL REPORT 2015 4 Letter from the President 54 Legal Obligations Unit 6 Perspectives 56 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION MECHANISMO FOR THE 9 Mission and Vision STATE OF RIO DE JANEIRO – FMA/RJ 10 Timeline 59 PROJECT TO SUPPORT MARINE AND FISHERIES RESEARCH 16 In Numbers IN RIO DE JANEIRO 19 Funbio, GEF Agency 60 LA PLATA DOLPHIN CONSERVATION IN MANAGEMENT AREA I – FMA I 62 FAUNA BRAZIL PORTFOLIO 21 Funbio 22 GOVERNANCE 64 Special Projects Unit 24 ORGANOGRAM 26 WHO WE ARE 66 A COMMITMENT TO THE AMAZON – ARPA FOR LIFE 28 TRANSPARENCY 70 KNOWLEDGE FOR ACTION – PROJECT K 29 SAFEGUARDS 74 GOVERNANCE AND FINANCIAL STABILITY STUDY FOR THE 30 WHERE WE WORK LOWER NEGRO RIVER PROTECTED AREAS MOSAIC 31 HOW WE WORK 75 EFFECTIVE CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF MANGROVE ECOSYSTEMS IN BRAZIL – GEF MANGROVE 76 HOW MUCH DOES IT COST TO CONSOLIDATE AND MAINTAIN 32 National and International Donations Unit THE PROTECTED AREAS IN ACRE? 77 FINANCIAL MECHANISM FOR FEDERAL PROTECTED AREAS 34 AMAZON REGION PROTECTED AREAS PROGRAM – ARPA IN BAHIA AND ESPÍRITO SANTO 38 PROJECT FOR THE CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF 78 CONSERVATION FINANCE ALLIANCE – CFA POLLINATORS FOR SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE THROUGH 79 THE SUSTAINABLE JURUTI FUND – FUNJUS AN ECOSYSTEMIC APPROACH – BRAZILIAN POLLINATORS 80 PROMOTION OF SUSTAINABLE TERRITORIAL DEVELOPMENT 42 NATIONAL PROJECT FOR INTEGRATED PUBLIC-PRIVATE IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF JURUTI AND ENVIRONS PARTNERSHIPS FOR BIODIVERSITY – PROBIO II 82 CONSERVATION, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES,
    [Show full text]
  • We Are the Exotic Species: an Inquiry Into Ecotourism on Ilha Grande
    Horiz.antropol. vol.1 no.se Porto Alegre 2006 We are the exotic species: an inquiry into ecotourism on Ilha Grande Rosane Manhães Prado Rio de Janeiro State University – Brazil ABSTRACT This article analyzes the impact of the recent arrival of tourism on Ilha Grande (an island close to Angra dos Reis, Rio de Janeiro), especially for the community of Abraão village after the location was suddenly transformed into a tourist hot spot. Studies of similar cases provide a model of the consequences of introducing tourist activities in previously untouched places like Abraão village. The antagonism between ‘natives’ and ‘non-natives’ in this village has become a polarized issue following the growth in tourism, preventing widespread acceptance of a green agenda or more generic proposals for ‘an ideal form of tourist development.’ Keywords: ecology, environment, Ilha Grande, tourism. Introduction Anyone consulting the literature on what has now become the disciplinary field of ‘tourism studies’ is immediately struck by the contrast between a body of theory filled with generalizations and propositions, and the actual contents of the studied cases, revealing the many incongruences involved in real-life situations. For example, at a theoretical level we find declarations such as: ‘Eco-friendly’ and ‘nature-friendly’ tourism, personalized and pursued in small groups of people, will tend to define the tourist flows of the future. Selected activities undertaken in qualitatively structured facilities – both in terms of the services provided and their architecture and size – are the likely future of tourist movements in the next millennium. (Ruschmann 2001:17). Viewed from this broad perspective, ‘tourism’ amounts to an entity with its own forms and patterns.
    [Show full text]
  • Ilha Grande, One of the Locations with the Most Records of Bat Species (Mammalia, Chiroptera) in Rio De Janeiro State: Results of a Long-Term Ecological Study
    ARTICLE Ilha Grande, one of the locations with the most records of bat species (Mammalia, Chiroptera) in Rio de Janeiro state: results of a long-term ecological study Luciana Moraes Costa¹⁵; Elizabete Captivo Lourenço¹⁶; Daniel de Abreu Damasceno Júnior¹⁷; Daniela Dias²; Carlos Eduardo Lustosa Esbérard³; Tássia Jordão-Nogueira¹⁸; Glauce Melo¹⁴⁹ & Helena Godoy Bergallo¹¹⁰ ¹ Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ), Instituto de Biologia Roberto Alcântara Gomes (IBRAG), Departamento de Ecologia (DECOL), Laboratório de Ecologia de Mamíferos. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil. ² Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ), Instituto Oswaldo Cruz (IOC), Laboratório de Biologia e Parasitologia de Mamíferos Silvestres Reservatórios. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil. ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5921-4909. E-mail: [email protected] ³ Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro (UFRRJ), Instituto de Ciências Biológicas e da Saúde (ICBS), Departamento de Biologia Animal, Laboratório de Diversidade de Morcegos. Seropédica, RJ, Brasil. ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6389-190X. E-mail: [email protected] ⁴ Hospital Universitário Antônio Pedro. Niterói, RJ, Brasil. ⁵ ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8080-4954. E-mail: [email protected] ⁶ ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6136-708X. E-mail: [email protected] (corresponding author) ⁷ ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5230-8918. E-mail: [email protected] ⁸ ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0448-4615. E-mail: [email protected] ⁹ ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6001-0866. E-mail: [email protected] ¹⁰ ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9771-965X. E-mail: [email protected] Abstract. Faunal inventories provide quantitative and qualitative data for different sites and are relevant sources of information for identifying areas of high species richness and endemism.
    [Show full text]
  • Paraty (Brazil)
    landscape and the profound impact this route had on the culture, economics and politics of South America and Paraty Europe. (Brazil) The World Heritage Committee adopted the following No 1308rev decision (33 COM 8B.37): The World Heritage Committee, 1. Having examined Documents WHC-09/33.COM/8B and Official name as proposed by the State Party WHC-09/33.COM/INF.8B1, Paraty – Culture and Biodiversity 2. Defers the examination of the nomination of the Gold Route Location in Paraty and its landscape, Brazil, to the World Heritage List States of Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo in order to allow the State Party to revise its dimension and denomination as a mixed property, highlighting its exceptional Brazil natural and cultural values; Brief description 3. Considers that any revised nomination with revised The Paraty – Culture and Biodiversity mixed serial boundaries would need to be considered by a mission to the nomination consists of five components, located in the site. states of Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo and between the Serra da Bocaina mountain range and the Atlantic Ocean. Consultations and Technical Evaluation Mission Four components are protected natural areas, Desk reviews have been provided by ICOMOS representing the biodiversity of this particular region and International Scientific Committees, members and containing cultural assets that testify to the occupation of independent experts. the area by indigenous inhabitants and, from the 16th century onwards, by European settlers and enslaved An ICOMOS technical evaluation mission visited the Africans. The fifth component includes the historic centre property from 9 to16 September 2018. This mission was of Paraty, one of the best preserved colonial coastal conducted jointly with IUCN.
    [Show full text]
  • IUCN Evaluations of Nominations of Natural and Mixed Properties to the World Heritage List
    WHC/19/43.COM/INF.8B2 IUCN World Heritage Evaluations 2019 IUCN Evaluations of nominations of natural and mixed properties to the World Heritage List IUCN REPORT FOR THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE, 43RD SESSION, BAKU, AZERBAIJAN, 30 JUNE-10 JULY 2019 Cover photo: Vatnajökull National Park - dynamic nature of fire and ice, Iceland © IUCN / Bastian Bertzky IUCN Evaluations of Nominations of Natural and Mixed Properties to the World Heritage List Table of Contents Executive summary table Alphabetical index, IUCN field evaluators, IUCN Red List of threatened species Introduction A. Natural Properties Page n° A1. New Nominations of Natural Properties Asia / Pacific China – Migratory Bird Sanctuaries along the Coast of Yellow Sea – Bohai-Gulf of China (Phase I) 3 Iran (Islamic Republic of) – Hyrcanian Forests 17 Europe / North America France – French Austral Lands and Seas 29 Iceland – Vatnajökull National Park - dynamic nature of fire and ice 41 Monaco / Italy / France – Alpi del Mediterraneo – Alpes de la Méditerranée 53 Turkey – Kızılırmak Delta Wetland and Bird Sanctuary 65 A2. Referred Nominations of Natural Properties Asia / Pacific Thailand – Kaeng Krachan Forest Complex See document WHC/19/43.COM/INF.8B2.ADD A3. Minor Boundary Modifications of Natural Properties Europe / North America Denmark – Ilulissat Icefjord See document WHC/19/43.COM/INF.8B2.ADD Latin America / Caribbean Brazil – Cerrado Protected Areas: Chapada dos Veadeiros and Emas National Parks See document WHC/19/43.COM/INF.8B2.ADD B. Mixed Properties Page n° B1. New Nominations of Mixed Properties Europe / North America Albania – Natural and Cultural Heritage of the Ohrid region (extension of “Natural and Cultural Heritage of the Ohrid region”, the Republic of North Macedonia) 77 Latin America / Caribbean Brazil – Paraty Culture and Biodiversity 87 C.
    [Show full text]
  • Paraty Culture & Biodiversity
    PARATY CULTURE & BIODIVERSITY I S BR A Z I L’ S PROPOSAL FOR A MIXED SITE FOR INSCRIPTION ON THE UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE LIST. The mixed site is the preserved tropical forest surrounding the calm waters of Ilha Grande Bay. It is the indigenous, Quilombola, and Caiçara communities living in harmony with the area’s rich biological diversity. It is the archaeological record of millennia-old human occupation of this territory. It is the colonial town that preserves its historic re- lations and urban dynamics in the centre of Paraty, in the state of Rio de Janeiro. PARATY CULTURE & BIODIVERSITY IS THE COEXISTENCE OF LIVING AND ANCESTRAL CULTURE IN THIS EXUBERANT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT. The nominated property’s area consists of five components, four of which are con- servation units: Serra da Bocaina National Park, Environmental Protection Area of Cairuçu, Ilha Grande State Park, and Praia do Sul Biological Reserve. The Historic Centre of Paraty and Morro da Vila Velha form the fifth component. Together, the conservation units form a huge belt of na- tive forest covering almost 150,000 hec- tares, permeated by historic records of dif- ferent ages, including the urban area and marine environment on Ilha Grande Bay. The Serra da Bocaina mountain range gives to the region outstanding beauty due to its rugged relief, with peaks reaching 2,000 meters above sea level and lush forest cov- er extending from the high plains down to the seacoast. PRESENTING ABOUT 85% OF WELL-PRESERVED FOREST COVER, the mixed site area forms the second larg- est remnant of the Atlantic Forest biome.
    [Show full text]
  • Paraty Culture and Biodiversity
    LATIN AMERICA / CARIBBEAN PARATY CULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY BRAZIL Aerial view of the Juatinga Ecological Reserve component © IUCN / Doris Cordero Brazil – Paraty Culture and Biodiversity WORLD HERITAGE NOMINATION – IUCN TECHNICAL EVALUATION PARATY CULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY (BRAZIL) – ID N° 1308 Rev IUCN RECOMMENDATION TO WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE: To inscribe the property under natural criterion (x). Key paragraphs of Operational Guidelines: Paragraph 77: Nominated property meets World Heritage criterion. Paragraph 78: Nominated property meets integrity, protection and management requirements. Background note: Paraty was nominated under cultural criteria (ii), (iv) and (v) and as a cultural landscape in 2009. The nomination of Gold Route in Paraty and its landscape (Brazil) was deferred by the Committee (Decision 33 COM 8B.37), to allow the State Party to revise the property’s dimensions and consider renominating Paraty as a mixed property, highlighting its exceptional natural and cultural values. 1. DOCUMENTATION Forest Biodiversity Hotspot. Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF); Conti, B., & Irving, M. (2014). a) Date nomination received by IUCN: 25 March 2018. Desafios para o ecoturismo no Parque Nacional da Serra da Bocaina: o caso da Vila de Trindade (Paraty, b) Additional information officially requested from RJ). Revista Brasileira De Ecoturismo (RBEcotur), 7(3); and provided by the State Parties: Following the joint Fidelis Bahia, N.C., Seixas, C.S., Araujo, L.G., Farinaci, IUCN-ICOMOS field mission, a letter requesting J.S. & Chamy, S. (2013). Implementation of a National supplementary information was sent on 17 October Park over the traditional land of the Trindade community 2018. Information was sought on boundaries, notably the in Paraty, Brazil.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Entrepreneur:
    Environmental Impact Assessment – RIMA CNAAA (Admiral Álvaro Alberto Nuclear Power Plant) Unit 3 INDEX 1. ENTREPRENEUR: ....................................................................................................................8 2. ADVISORS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PREPARATION OF EIA/RIMA..........................9 3. DESCRIPTION OF THE ENTERPRISE...............................................................................10 3.1. WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE ENTERPRISE?.............................................................................10 3.2. WHERE IS CNAAA LOCATED?......................................................................................................10 3.3. WHAT LOCATION IS BEING CONSIDERED FOR THE SETTING UP OF ANGRA 3?..........13 3.4. WHAT IS THE MAIN INFORMATION ABOUT ANGRA 3?.......................................................14 3.5. HOW DOES A PWR NUCLEAR PLANT WORK?.........................................................................15 3.6. WHY WAS THE “PWR” REACTOR CHOSEN?...........................................................................18 3.7. WHAT WILL THE GENERAL ARRANGEMENT OF ANGRA 3 BE LIKE ?.................................19 ATTACHED FILE IN DWG FORMAT........................................................................................................... 20 FIG07_ARRANJO_RIMA.DWG................................................................................................................. 20 WHAT ARE ANGRA 3 SUPPORT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES AND WHAT ARE THEY FOR?...21 3.8.
    [Show full text]