| General Information |
Project/Program |
Project |
| Project Name |
The Tonle Sap Conservation Project (TSCP) |
| Duration |
2004 ~ 2011 (7 years) |
| Donor |
UNDP, GEF |
| Implementiong Organization |
Cambodia National Mekong Committee (CNMC) |
| Sector and/or Subsector Classification |
Protection |
| Region |
N.A |
| Financing |
US $ 5.47 million |
| Analytical Information |
Stakeholders |
UNDP, GEF, CNMC, Ministry of Environment (MoE), Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports ( MOEYS), NGOs. |
| Cross-cutting Issue |
Environment |
|
| Gender |
|
| Impact Analysis |
One of the most significant achievements of the project was to establish the Management Information System (MIST) for biodiversity monitoring along with a rapid response mechanism on illegal activities. Monitoring protocols was developed for colonial waterbirds, watersnakes and other wildlife as well as for fire outbreaks. The monitoring activities provided information on the status of key species. Another great achievement was seen things related with education. The Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport (MoEYS) and the project team developed and environmental education curriculum and teaching aids that will have a lasting benefit for Tonle Sap and beyond. |
| Effectiveness |
Ownership/Partnership |
Evaluation |
The ownership of the project was weak. This is tied to the project design and strategy that focused on field outputs rather than headquarters support and capacity building. The project organization, with much of the decision making authority outside of MoE, contributed to these criticisms of a donor-driven approach. Similarly, the relationship between the project and the Fisheries Administration was never fully explored by the project, which ultimately limited project potential. The lack of strong country ownership was also aggravated by UNDP’s initiative for early closure of the project. |
| Rating |
1/5 |
| Policy Coherence/Harmonization |
Evaluation |
The project was completely aligned with the government’s national priorities for Tonle Sap which include the designation of specified conservation areas. In terms of harmonization, the project generally had effective manager and technical advisors at the strategic level that have recognized the importance of the project for Cambodia and UNDP and sought to improve the performance of the project. However, there were also significant internal operational weakness that constrained project partnerships, performance and quality assurance, including communication and coordination issues between CNMC, MoE and UNDP. |
| Rating |
3/5 |
| Evaluation Framework |
Evaluation |
The evaluation was based on 1) review of documents and reports that describe progress on project outputs, outcomes and objectives as per indicators in the project designs, 2) interviews with project participants and stakeholders to verify achievements and to identify issues related to project design and implementation, 3) guided stakeholder group workshop discussions that reviewed project results and lessons learned, and 4) selective site visits to compile evidence of local achievements and to consult with beneficiaries and participants. |
| Rating |
5/5 |
| Alignment/Composition of Finance |
Evaluation |
The sustainability of the project is mixed. Among the achievements, trainings of the TSCP were extremely successful in building a foundation and capacity for improved natural resources management. However, it was often recognized that the trainings were too infrequent and too short to establish long-term sustainable capacity of skills and knowledge. This means that the activities do not have great sustainability. But it was mentioned, according to the evaluation report, that RGC is willing and able to provide long-term financial support to the project, indicating that the project is likely to be sustained with lasting funds. |
| Rating |
3/5 |
| Other Remarks |
|
