| General Information |
Project/Program |
Project |
| Project Name |
Cambodia: Tonle Sap Environmental Management Project 33418 |
| Duration |
Approval: 22-Nov.-2002 Actual Closing Date: 2-Sept.2009 |
| Donor |
Asian Development Bank (ADB) |
| Implementiong Organization |
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries (MAFF), Tonle Sap Basin Reserve Secretariat (TSBR secretariat), Fisheries Administration (FiA), Ministry of Environment (MOE) |
| Sector and/or Subsector Classification |
Government Administration |
| Region |
Not directly specified; (i) core areas, ca. 70,837 ha, (ii) buffer zone ca. 510,768 ha of wetlands, and (iii) a large encircling transition area, ca.899,652. |
| Financing |
Estimate Total: USD19.4million Actual Total: USD 14.84million ADB: USD 10.6 million Borrower: USD 2.34million Global Environment Facility: USD 2.1 million UNDP: Not Available.// ADB also assisted USD 540,000 for technical assistance. |
| Analytical Information |
Stakeholders |
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries (MAFF), Tonle Sap Basin Reserve Secretariat (TSBR secretariat), Fisheries Administration (FiA), Ministry of Environment (MOE), Cambodia National Mekong Committee (CNMC), Royal Governmnet of Cambodia,Project Implementation Unit (PIU), Project Implementation Office (PIO), Five Non Governmental Organizations (Not specified), Voluntary Service Overseas (VSO). Civil Society/Organizations, fishery private sector, local community |
| Cross-cutting Issue |
Environment |
Conflicting interests of the local governmnet staffs is a prevailing problem in Cambodia and this project. |
| Gender |
Not Available |
| Impact Analysis |
As the Government went through various reforms (Oct.2000)- moving many fishery lots from the private sector to the local communities, Cambodia needed assistance to improve regulation and planning. In addition, the project was aligned with the Royal Decree on the Establishment of Community Fisheries, the Sub-decree on Community Fisheries Management, and the Prakas on the Guidelines for Community Fisheries. Overall the project was rated highly relevant. |
| Effectiveness |
Ownership/Partnership |
Evaluation |
Government institutions and beneficiaries participated actively in overall project management -no further explanation in completion report. According to the completion report, MAFF committee met regularly to advise on implementation, resolve problems, that went beyond individual ministerial mandates, and review progress. The executing agency thus showed high levels of ownerhsip. |
| Rating |
4/5 |
| Policy Coherence/Harmonization |
Evaluation |
Harmonization among local government departments and agencies to form a common agenda/objective was a problem. Completion report critizes low coordination among senior staff largely due to disparate personal and political agendas. ADB itself had no implementation or administrative problems and was rated highly satisfactory. |
| Rating |
4/5 |
| Evaluation Framework |
Evaluation |
The targets set in the design and monitoring framework were mainly qualitative; many time specific targets were not met- no further explaination. Project implementation was heavily delayed in the early stages; according to the completion report, these are due to delayed allocation of counterpart operating funds and setting up of provincial accounts and an unsatisfactory pre-contract award arrangement with UNESCO and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). In addition, there has been no formal assessment of outcomes and impact.The completion report explains some internal governmnet procedures were very time consuming and frustrating to project management personnel and disagreements over FAO's proposed staffing and schedule. Moreover, FAO was inefficient in finding a timely solution to these issues and its leader was replaced twice due to poor performance. |
| Rating |
2/5 |
| Alignment/Composition of Finance |
Evaluation |
Disbursements picked up in the third year due to ineffective negotiations with the UNESCO. Convenants were neither altered nor waived and complied with in general. |
| Rating |
2/5 |
| Other Remarks |
TSEMP was the first of the four major projects of the Tonle Sap Initiative (TSI). No penalities were reported for the significant delays. The TSBR Secretariat is effectively nonoperational 12months after the project, and the investment in staff and other resource (not specified) has not been sustained. |
