ROM BACKGROUND CONCLUSION SHEET (ONGOING)
ROM ID
Project Title
Country
Project Task Manager
C-303093 / MR-146849.05
Clima East: Supporting Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation in Russia and eastern Neighbourh
Expert(s)
ROM field visit dates
Moldova
Bella NESTOROVA
start:
Ruth MALLESON
2 Jul 2013
1. RELEVANCE
end:
19 Nov 2013
The extent to which the objectives of the intervention are still consistent with beneficiaries’ needs and partners' and donor's
policies.
1.1 Does the intervention presently respond to the needs of the target
groups?
a. Were there any changes in the
situation of the target groups and the
context which have, or will, influence the
relevance of the operation for target
groups?
b. Have the activities of other actors
such as government and donors
changed the needs and priorities of the
target groups?
c. From the target groups' perspective,
what is the level of priority of the needs
the operation is addressing?
A
B
C
D
Target groups of the Clima East Part II Project, referred to from now on as the "Clima East
Pilots Project" or the "Pilots Project" include: 18 communities (c. 51,290 people) living in
and around Orhei National Park, the Ministry of Environment (MoE), Ministry of
Agriculture and Food Industries, Moldsilva Forestry Agency, Forest Research and
Management Institute (ICAS), local and regional government authorities, NGOs, and
scientific institutions. Continuing political tensions over the last three years are a
problem for target groups. The inability to elect a president has delayed reforms. The
country is facing elections. This has made long term planning for national and local
government departments problematic. Moldova is currently going through a process of
decentralisation and this has disrupted funding for Local Public Authorities (Local
Councils). The MoE has internal communication problems which negatively impacts on
the Project's ability to work with staff. From the target groups' perspective, the Project
addresses a priority need. Moldova is a relatively poor, developing country, which makes
it more vulnerable to adverse climate impacts, have fewer resources with which to adapt
and to recover losses caused by extreme weather events and, in general, more
dependent upon the natural environment for livelihoods. This poses a threat to Moldova
achieving the Millennium Development Goals. The energy sector of Moldova is very
vulnerable due to limited production capacity, low energy efficiency and insecure
supply. Energy imports cover almost all the country's energy needs. Recent
developments on the global energy markets hit Moldovan consumers particularly hard.
Prices for imported gas and electricity have risen significantly in the past few years. The
target area, the recently established (2013) Orhei National Park and surrounding buffer
zone, is located in the Plain of Central Moldova, which has been identified as one of the
areas most likely to be affected by climate change. According to projections, the annual
mean air temperature is likely to increase by 4.1- 5.4 degrees C by the end of this century
and is likely to be accompanied by a decline in precipitation. The area is highly affected
by soil erosion and it is proposed that part of it should be afforested during 2013-2016.
Moldova suffered unprecedented hot weather in June - August 2012 leading to crop
and livestock losses including a 23% loss in agricultural production. Degraded pastures,
high costs of imported fossil fuels (mainly natural gas), continuing rural out-migration,
de-stocking (which is an on-going trend in Moldova, the national cattle herd is being
reduced by some 10,000 head of cattle per year mainly due to rural migration) are all key
issues for local people, though many local people are not fully aware of the effects of
climate change. This Project aims to address these issues through restoring pastures,
creating community forests that will provide firewood and improving livestock and
forest related livelihood opportunities. Priority needs for the Orhei National Park
Administration include the conservation and sustainable management of pastures
within the Park and the development of a robust system for monitoring carbon
dividends and ecological integrity of pastures and forest ecosystems within the Park to
enable it to respond to pressures on natural resources in the area.
Page 1 of 18
1.2 Does the operation presently support the policy (or its development) of
the partner government and is it in line with existing policy?
A
B
C
D
Moldova signed the United National Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) in 1992 and ratified it in 1995. This led to the First National Communication of
the Republic of Moldova on Climate Change, which reflected national aspects of
vulnerability and analysed climate change trends in Moldova. In February 2003, the
Republic of Moldova acceded to the Kyoto Protocol. Both the PP and OO are consistent
with and supportive of Moldovan policies which refer to the need for the enhancement
b. Is the operation supporting the
development or improvement of a sector of national capacity for climate change preparedness, particularly on poor and rural
communities and establishing an enabling environment for resilience to climate change.
policy?
The Project is in line with: 1) the Government of Moldova's Programme for Conservation
and Increase the Soil Fertility 2003-2010. However, due to lack of funding only about 5%
of activities under this programme were implemented to date, it has now been extended
to 2020. The programme states that soil erosion problems could be solved through
afforestation activities on lands affected by landslides and ravine formation and effective
grassland restoration and management. According to the Programme's Action Plan
(2011-2020) approximately 12,800 ha. of community degraded lands will be afforested
from 2013-2016 and approximately 50,000 ha are planned to be improved through
agricultural techniques, including pasture management; 2) the National Strategy for
Sustainable Development of the Agricultural Complex for 2008-2015, which recognizes
that climate change can affect food security through erosion, droughts and floods; 3)
Action Plan for Drought Mitigation Measure in the Agri-Food Sector (2012-2015), which
pays special attention to the improvement of the management of pastures for reducing
the impact of droughts on the livestock sector; 4) the draft National Adaptation Strategy
to Climate Change (2013), the Strategy for Sustainable Development of Forestry (2001),
the National Action Plan for Afforestation (2013-2015) and the National Energy Strategy
(2030) which envisages the establishment of local forest plantations to meet firewood
needs for heating, cooking as an effective measure for climate adaptation.
a. Have there been any changes in
Partner government policy which have
had, or will have, an impact on the
relevance of the operation?
1.3 Is the operation in line with EC development policy and strategies?
a. Is the operation in line with the latest
EU development cooperation policy?
b. Is it aligned with EU policy for the
specific sector in the country/region?
c. Does the operation respect the EU's
international commitments such as the
Paris Declaration and follow-up?
d. Is the operation embedded in and
supporting policy dialogue which the
EUD/HQ is engaged in?
Note: a = very good; b = good; c =
problems; d = serious deficiencies.
A
B
C
D
The Project supports EU development and cooperation strategies including the Country
Strategic Plan, through addressing key issues identified by it including: protection of
nature, climate change, promoting local renewable energy sources, the implementation
of multilateral environmental agreements especially the UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol agreement. The Project will facilitate an
integrated approach to policy development and the need for an understanding of the
close inter-relationships between climate change and biodiversity in the context of the
European Neighbourhood Policy, as underlined by the EC Climate Change White Paper.
The operation is embedded in and supporting policy dialogue which the EUD and HQ
are engaged in. The Head of Sector, RPNE DEVCO visited in February 2013 to discuss
relevance of Project. A representative of the EU Del has had preliminary meeting with
the UNDP Pilots team and will be a member of the Project Board with observer status,
however as of September 2013 the Board had not met.
Overall conclusion - Relevance
A
Page 2 of 18
2. QUALITY OF DESIGN
The internal coherence and validity of the intervention logic, its formalization in a logframe (or other format) and
the implementation arrangements.
2.1 Does the present intervention logic still hold true and is it clear and
coherent?
A
B
C
D
A "Results and Resources Framework" similar to a logframe exists, is of reasonable quality
and coherent. The approach takes into account previous experience and knowledge in
similar interventions. Pasture inventories, which will form the basis for the design of
pasture management plans (R1), will be based on data from the Agency for Land
b. Is the operation's underlying
Relations and Cadastre and other national institutions. Development of forest
intervention logic coherent, clear and
management
plans (R1) will use a similar approach to “Improving Forest Law
realistic?
Enforcement and Governance in the European Neighbourhood Policy East Countries and
c. Is the approach adopted in the design Russia” (ENPI FLEG) Programme. For R2, the pasture restoration approach will either be
taking sufficiently into account previous based on: 1) methodology and guidelines developed under the Community Support
experience and state of the art
Program for Sustainable and Integrated Forest Management and Carbon Sequestration
knowledge in similar interventions?
though Forestation" or other tested methodology; or 2) the methodology described in
the book "Steppe vegetation Republic of Moldova, Shabanova G.A. 2012 and tested in
d. Are the resources, capacity and
the framework of the TACIS project "Sustainable Integrated Land Use of the Eurasian
timeframe adequate to achieve the
Steppe" in the Cahul region. Afforestation will be undertaken according to the national
project purpose?
guidelines on scientific forest management and silvicultural practices implemented by
Moldsilva. For R3, the Project will use experience in GHG inventory and vulnerability
e. Does the intervention logic explicitly
mention risks and assumptions and are assessment tools of CDM project: Moldova Soil Conservation Project for carbon
monitoring and assessment of degraded lands. Risks not mentioned in the logframe
they specific, up to date and holding
true? Are risk management
include: 1) the Project proposes to use native tree species for reafforestation, however
arrangements in place?
there is little knowledge on how native species will perform in a changing climate; 2)
Project reafforestation activities may reduce land available for pastures, negatively
f. To which degree does the design
impacting on local herders; 3) Lack of commitment from Local Public Authorities (LPAs)
foresee sufficient flexibility for
and the state to invest fees paid by pasture users in order to manage communal pasture
adaptation to a changing context?
land. It is important that risk management strategies are in place to deal with these
issues. These could be reported on in the next annual report. It would therefore appear
g. Are the indicators SMART?
advisable to use a good mix of native species for risk 1) for example. An assumption
made by the Project is that there are no existing livestock or forest user associations.
However, during the course of the ROM mission it became apparent that there are
existing livestock associations. It is recommended that the Project should carry out a
stakeholder analysis exercise to identify existing local institutions involved in pasture
management and livestock production. Another assumption made by the Project is that
there are no existing local pasture and forestry management practices. It is
recommended that the Project should work with local people to find out if such practices
exist and where possible build on them or incorporate them into the pasture
management plans. It is important, as part of the Ecosystem based Approach to Climate
Change to acknowledge the value of local as well as scientific knowledge to develop
sustainable natural resource management practices. Currently most indicators on the
Project work plan are not SMART. For example, indicators such as "number of hectares of
pasture land restored", it could be improved by listing plant species used by local people
which indicate that pastures are healthy, undergrazed or overgrazed. Ideally indicators
should be "SPICED" Subjective, Participatory, Interpreted, Cross-checked, Empowering
and Diverse.
a. Does a logframe exist and what is its
quality?
Page 3 of 18
2.2. Do the implementation arrangements take into account the capacity of
the partners, and is the design fully supported by them?
a. Are the timescale and activities
realistic with regard to the
stakeholders' capacities, organizational
structure and implementation
arrangements?
b. Have the relevant stakeholders been
actively involved, as a driving force, in
the design process?
c. Do all relevant stakeholders,
especially the target group, understand
and agree on the intervention logic?
d. Are the roles and responsibilities of
all partners clearly defined and
understood by all concerned?
e. Does the operation foresee adequate
capacity development support?
Note: a = very good; b = good; c =
problems; d = serious deficiencies.
B
C
D
a. The Project is quite ambitious, given the timescale, relatively limited stakeholder
capacities: the MoE and LPAs are currently underfunded and understaffed.
Forest Agency Moldsilva, Forest Research and Management Institute (ICAS), the
Ministries of Environment and Agriculture and the Agency for Land Relations and
Cadastre were involved with the design for the Clima East Pilots Project in Moldova from
the beginning of 2013.These organisations, together with LPAs will be involved in
selecting the most suitable plots for restoration in accordance with approved criteria.
The final list of selected pilot plots will be based on collected data and field visits by an
Evaluation Panel, consisting of the Project team, experts in the field of climate change,
agriculture and pasture management. However it is not clear whether or how local
people will be involved in pilot plot selection. It is important that they are, to facilitate
local project ownership and sustainability. LPAs are expected to delegate responsible
staff to manage the planted sites and establish cattle breeder associations, however it is
uncertain whether they will have sufficient capacity, given limited staff and budgets.
Moldsilva and ICAS are both Project Partners with relatively strong capacity and
considerable experience of working on community forestry and pasture management
issues in Moldova through former projects including "Community Support Program for
Sustainable and Integrated Forest Management and Carbon Sequestration through
Forestation", the Moldova Soil Conservation Project (MSCP) Project and the ENPI FLEG
Project. It is recommended that Moldsilva's Auxillary Department should be involved in
identification of tree species for community forests, together with local communities, as
they carry our research on economically significant non-timber forest products.
Government institutions and LPAs involved in the Project understand the intervention
logic, their roles and responsibilities appear to be relatively clearly defined and
understood. However, local communities appear to have not been so actively involved in
the design process and are not clear about the roles and responsibilities they will have in
the Project. This is partly because the Project is at an early stage and the specific Pilot
Project areas have not been identified yet.
2.3 Is the current design sufficiently taking cross-cutting issues into account?
a. Have the relevant cross-cutting issues
(environment, gender, human rights
and governance, donor coordination or
others) been adequately mainstreamed
in the design?
A
A
B
C
D
No specific gender or human rights analyses appear to have been made during the design
phase. Environment issues are, to some extent, mainstreamed in project design through
encouraging sustainable pasture and forest management. However, care needs to be
taken to encourage the use of indigenous pasture and forest species and discourage
dependence on more costly exotic species and artificial fertilisers. Donor coordination has
been taken into account and is well mainstreamed in Project design. Good governance
will be encouraged through working with Local Public Authorities and the formation of
local livestock associations. However, women are under-represented in leadership
positions in village councils (c 26.% positions occupied by women in 2007), district
councils (c.13%of positions occupied by women in 2007) and Mayors (18% were women in
2007). The majority of activities target men and women. However livestock production
and forestry appear to be dominated by men so the Project needs to actively encourage
women to participate to ensure their needs, views and aspirations are incorporated into
management plans.
Overall conclusion - Quality of design
Overall conclusion - Relevance and quality of
design
B
B
Page 4 of 18
3. EFFICIENCY
A measure of how economically (in terms of quality, quantity and time) resources/inputs are converted to outputs.
3.1 How well is the availability and use of inputs and resources managed?
A
B
C
D
Originally, UNDP Moldova was not included in the Pilots Project as it was not seen to be
ecologically relevant to it. However in the latter half of 2012, when it was decided that
the Clima East Policy and Clima East Pilot Projects should be combined, the UNDP
Regional Technical Coordinator was asked by the EU Task Manager to develop a
proposal for Moldova, so that all of the ENPI countries would be involved in both the
Clima East Policy and the Clima East Pilots Projects. In December 2012, UNDP Moldova
b. To what degree are inputs available
was approached by UNDP Regional Technical Coordinator (RTC), Bratislava and asked to
at planned costs (or lower)?
develop a project proposal. The project was finalised through a local project appraisal
meeting organised by UNDP in March 2013. 2013 the EC-UNDP agreement was amended
c. Are staffing arrangements proving
adequate?
to include the Moldova agreement. Two addenda were made to the EC-UNDP
agreement in May 2013 new versions of 1)Annex I: Description of the Action was
d. Are inputs monitored regularly, and
developed which included a 4th component entitled 'Sustainable management of
by whom, to encourage cost-effective
pastures and community forests in Moldova's first National Park Orhei to demonstrate
implementation of activities?
climate change mitigation and adaptation benefits and dividends for local communities'
and
2)Annex III Budget for the Action was drawn up including a new budget line for the
e. Are operation resources managed
4th component of 500 000 Euro. Moldovan government counter signed the agreement
well and in a transparent and
in July 2013. To date, inputs and resources to implement activities appear to be
accountable manner?
provided/available on time and at planned costs. Staffing arrangements appear
f. Is the current budget break-down
excellent. Project staff include a Project Manager, currently part-time, but will become
conducive to the implementation of the
full-time from December 2013 and a Project Assistant (half-time). This team has good
operation?
local networks and has built up good rapport with local people. The Project is well
supported by the UNDP Portfolio Manager in Moldolva, who has excellent knowledge
g. Are all contractual procedures clearly
and contacts relating to climate change, the RTC who provides excellent technical
understood and do they facilitate the
backstopping support and the Regional Coordinator, who provides day to day project
implementation of the operation?
coordination. Inputs are monitored by the UNDP Country Office supported by the UNDP
Regional Team and through the UNDP system which encourages the cost-effective
implementation of activities. Resources appear to be managed in a transparent and
accountable manner. The current budget is conducive to the implementation of the
operation. Contractual procedures appear clearlyAunderstood
quite D
B and although
C
3.2 How well are the activities implemented?
lengthy, they facilitate the implementation of the operation.
a. To what extent are activities
So far, activities appear to be implemented as planned and there have been few delays.
implemented as planned/scheduled? If
There has been a slight delay in the tendering process for the pasture inventory
there are delays, have the reasons been
contract. A tender was announced in August 2013 with a deadline on 2/9/13. Although
identified and remedial action been
there were lots of inquiries about the tender not one institution submitted a tender. So
taken to get the operation back on
the Project Manager will need to draw up another tender for the pasture inventory.
track?
Funds that have been spent to date have been spent in line with the implementation of
activities,
including costs of attending the Clima East Package Launch in July 2013,
b. Are funds spent in line with the
expenditure
on the inception workshop in September 2013. The Project's Monitoring
implementation of activities? If not,
framework
is
described in the Project Document. Project staff will report quarterly as well
why?
as annually to the Project Board. An Annual Project Review will be prepared and periodic
c. Is there a need to change any of the
monitoring through site visits will be carried out by the UNDP Country Office and the
planned activities? If so, how well have
UNDP Regional Coordination Unit. The Project has made a good start on coordinating
these changes been managed?
with similar interventions for synergy and in order to avoid overlap, by identifying past
and existing relevant projects. Donor funded projects with a direct or indirect link to the
d. How well are activities monitored? Is
Project are listed in the Project Document. The Project is designed to build on the UNDPmonitoring used to take corrective
implemented GEF-funded project "Improving coverage and management effectiveness
action?
of the Protected Area System in Moldova" and to create synergies with other projects
such
as the Moldova Energy and Biomass Project funded by UNDP and the Agriculture
e. How well does the operation coordinate with other, similar
Competiveness Project funded by the World Bank. Specific attention will be paid to
interventions (if any) for synergy and in creating synergies with the Food and Agricultural Organisation's (FAO) planned project
order to avoid overlaps?
entitled "Promotion of Disaster Risk Reduction in Agriculture for small farmers in
Moldova". UNDP is involved in the sector coordination council in Environment, Water
f. Is a logframe (or an equivalent tool)
and Sanitation. The Portfolio Manager from UNDP Moldova aims to propose a subgroup
actively used as management tool? If
within this on climate change. A workplan for the Project is provided in the Clima East
not, why?
Pilots Regional Inception report, however this is not very detailed. Project Management
g. Is a work plan/implementation
needs to draw up a more detailed workplan that can be actively used by project
schedule available and actively used by
management.
project management?
a. To what degree are inputs and
resources provided/available on time
from all parties involved to implement
activities?
Page 5 of 18
3.3 How well are the outputs achieved?
a. Are the outputs delivered as planned
and in a coherent manner e.g. logical
sequence?
b. What is the quality of the outputs?
Are they likely to lead to the intended
outcomes?
c. Have the outputs been produced/
delivered in a cost-efficient manner?
d. Are the outputs accessible to the
target group?
A
B
C
D
To date there have been few Project outputs, however those that have been delivered
have been done in a coherent, cost efficient manner. The ROM Monitor attended the
Project's Inception workshop. The workshop was well organised and well-attended.
Some presentations were quite lengthy and technical. Whilst the Presentation on the
Project was quite rushed, as the workshop started late (this was not the Project's fault).
Discussion on the work plan and the roles and responsibilities different stakeholders was
limited. There was little opportunity for people to ask questions and discuss the Project.
The workshop did not appear to do much to build local people's ownership of the
Project. However, the field trip in the afternoon provided an opportunity for
participants to see potential pilot sites and for local participants to exchange views and
hold discussions with technical experts.
e. Are they correctly reflected through
indicators?
Page 6 of 18
3.4. How well are the Partners involved and contributing?
A
B
C
D
A Project Board will be formed, relevant institutions have been asked to nominate
individuals and all nominated members were invited to the Project's Inception Workshop
in September 2013. Project Board members include representatives of Ministry of
Environment, Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry, Agency for Land Relations and
Cadastre, UNDP Moldova, Moldsilva, Raional Council Orhei, Representative from local
b. Is there good communication between communities (Association of Mayors from Orhei, National Academy of Science or NGO,
National Focal Point for Clima East Pilots/Policy Project (observer), EU Del (Observer). It is
partner government, EU, project
proposed
that the Board's first meeting will be held about two weeks after the Inception
management and other stakeholders?
Workshop. The Project Board will evaluate results of evaluation panel that will select the
c. If necessary, are specific
pilot sites for pasture restoration and community forestry. Ministry of Environment is
arrangements (e.g. Memoranda of
currently understaffed and lacks capacity so communications with that Ministry is
Understanding, etc.) in place to promote currently weak. The Ministry of Environment expressed some discontent at the Clima
active stakeholder involvement?
East launch in July and subsequently about the fact that the budget for the Moldovan
Clima East Pilots Project is half that of other Partner Countries. This has somewhat
dampened relations between the Ministry of Environment and UNDP. However
Moldsilva currently has good capacity and the Project has a good working relations with
this organisation. To date, there appears to be only limited communication between
'sister' pilot projects. Project efficiency is likely to be improved through improving
communications and information exchange between 'sister' pilot projects, especially
Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan Pilot Project, that are involved in pasture management
and/or community forestry initiatives. There was a Clima East Policy Project Scoping
mission in May 2013 with staff from HTSPE UK and the Key Expert 4 (KE4), Regional
Coordinator for the Caucauses and Moldova, but not the Team Leader. Fruitful
discussions with UNDP Pilot Project staff were held and alot of overlaps were identified.
It was concluded that both Projects should collaborate closely. However, since May
2013 to date, there has been no communication between KE4 and the UNDP Pilot
Project staff in Moldova. The KE4 was not invited and did not attend the Pilot Project
Inception workshop. Although there are currently no formal links between the Clima
East Pilot and Clima East Policy Projects, it is proposed that a coordination mechanism
will be established between the two projects with quarterly exchange of information
between the Pilot Project Regional Coordinator and the policy project. There is potential
for the Policy Project to help promote Pilot Policy recommendations on policy, legal and
normative regulations on the use of pastures and grazing revenues. Some of the critical
points that are likely to be addressed are: Policy and administrative frameworks
governing use of communal land; Management of communal pasture land so as to
improve productivity, including policy on grazing seasons and actions to improve the
carrying capacity of pastureland. Communication between partner government, EU,
project management and other stakeholders is good. UNDP, with its long term presence
in Moldova, has built up a strong, working relationships between the partner
government. A representative from the EU Del was invited to the Project Inception
workshop in September 2013.
a. Do the inter-institutional structures
(e.g. steering committee, monitoring
and reporting system, etc.) facilitate
efficient implementation?
Note: a = very good; b = good; c =
problems; d = serious deficiencies.
Overall conclusion - Efficiency
B
Page 7 of 18
4. EFFECTIVENESS
The extent to which the intervention's objectives (on outcome and project purpose level) are, or are expected to be, achieved.
4.1. How well is the operation achieving its expected outcomes?
a. Have the expected outcomes been
achieved to date?
b. What is the quality of the outcomes?
c. How do target groups assess their
usefulness?
d. Do all target groups (and everybody
in the target group) benefit from the
operation as expected?
e. Are there any factors which prevent
target groups from benefitting?
A
B
C
D
The Project's Purpose is to demonstrate a natural resource management model in the
pastures and forests of Orhei National Park and its buffer zone which increases
ecosystems' capacity to sequester carbon under pending climate risks, while at the same
time retaining biodiversity and economic values. The Project has is in its first year of
implementation, so none of the expected outcomes have been achieved to date. Key
factors that may prevent some target group communities from benefiting from the
Project are the fact that communities: 1) will be responsible for carrying out all the
activities for pasture restoration, monitoring and reporting to the Project Management
Team, in accordance with the grant agreements. 2) Local communities are expected to
contribute to pasture's rehabilitation with financial means (if available) or in the form of
services with at least 15% from the estimated costs. On the one hand, these factors may
build local ownership. On the other hand, they may prevent smaller, less wealthy
communities, that do not have sufficient human resources to carry out Project activities,
from participating in the Project. As already explained pasture users pay fees to Local
Public Authorities (LPAs) for the use of communal pastures, however currently little of
this money is fed back into pasture management, so it is unclear whether LPAs will be
prepared to invest in such schemes. It is important to note that relatively poor
communities, in general, tend to be more vulnerable to adverse climate impacts, have
fewer resources with which to adapt and to recover losses caused by extreme weather
events and are, in general, more dependent upon the natural environment for
livelihoods.
Page 8 of 18
4.2. As presently implemented, what is the likelihood that the project
purpose will be achieved?
a. To what extent has the project
purpose been achieved so far? Is this
measurable through the indicators or is
there other evidence for this?
A
B
C
The Project is only just starting so the Project Purpose has not been achieved to any
extent so far and progress is not yet measurable through indicators. However, the Project
looks set to achieve its purpose. There are currently no changing external conditions
which the Project has had to adopt to or unexpected negative or positive effects on the
target group.
b. Given the achievement and quality of
outcomes so far, what can be said about
the likelihood of achieving the project
purpose within the timeline of the
operation?
c. To what extent has the operation
adapted to changing external conditions
(risks and assumptions) in order to
ensure the achievement of the outcomes
and the project purpose?
d. Are there any unexpected, negative
effects on the target group which have
occurred or are likely to occur due to
the operation? Did project management
take remedial action against these?
e. Are there any unexpected positive
effects on the target group which have
occurred or are likely to occur?
Note: a = very good; b = good; c =
problems; d = serious deficiencies.
D
Overall conclusion - Effectiveness
B
Page 9 of 18
5. IMPACT TO DATE
Likelihood of positive and negative, medium to long-term effects of an intervention, both direct and indirect, intended and
unintended.
5.1. What are the operation’s direct impact prospects (i.e. contribution at the
level of overall objective)?
a. Are there any changes on the level of
the Overall Objective which can be
observed (through indicators) so far?
Can the operation be assessed as having
contributed to these changes?
b. Given the progress so far, what direct
impacts appear likely by the end of the
operation?
c. Are any external factors likely to
jeopardize the operation’s direct
impact?
d. Does the operation contribute to the
development or improvement of related
policies?
A
B
C
D
To date, no changes on the level of the Overall Objective can be observed so far.
However, the Project appears to be making good progress so direct impacts, including
the development and replication of sustainable pasture and community models which
increase the capacity to sequester and monitor carbon while at the same time retaining
biodiversity and economic values for local communities, appear likely by the end of
operation. External factors that could potentially jeopardize the operation are: 1) lack of
progress on the decentralization reform process; 2) lack of progress on developing policy
frameworks for communal pasture and community forest management that facilitate
sustainable and participatory management; 3) lack of policy support for smallholder
livestock production; 4) continuing rural out-migration 5) the introduction of policies
that encourage land privatisation and intensive, large scale livestock production.
d. Although not documented in Project reports to date, the Project aims to work with the
Clima East Policy Project and the forthcoming FAO Project to engage in policy debates
relating to sustainable community forestry and pasture management.
5.2 To what extent does/will the operation have any indirect (positive/
negative) impact?
A
B
C
D
There are currently no unplanned positive impacts on final beneficiaries. An unexpected
indirect negative effect on local herders may occur in degraded areas to be afforested.
These degraded areas may have been traditionally used by local herders, however they
may be prevented from using these areas because sheep and goats are prohibited from
b. Are there any observable or expected
grazing inside forests. Also, forests are traditionally used for grazing by local herders in
spill-over effects? Are there any
indications that elements/aspects of the times of drought. However, herders may be prevented from herding in newly restored or
recently afforested areas in such times. This could bring about an unexpected negative
operation will be rolled out to or taken
impact, limiting local herders' abilities to adapt to drought conditions. Due
up by other parties?
consideration needs to be taken by the Project on such issues so negative impacts can
c. What are the negative consequences,
be avoided. This possible negative effect may be offset by the pasture improvement
if any, of the operation on the target
component of the Project which should enable stocking rates on existing pastures to be
group and others? Did the operation
increased once pastures have been improved. However pastures and forests are unlikely
take timely measures to mitigate
to be in contiguous areas. The likely environmental, social and economic long term
negative impact?
effects of the Project are positive. If successful, the Project should create sustainable
community pastures and forests, that are environmentally sound, increase resilience in
d. What are the likely environmental,
the face of climate change, encourage local cooperation and good governance, improve
social, cultural, gender and economic
local income generating opportunities and stem rural out-migration. Donor coherence,
long term effects?
complementarity and coordination is set to improve the potential impact of the
e. Do donor coherence, complementarity operation. The Project is developing good relations with FAO and its new Project
and coordination encourage synergies
"Promotion of Disaster Risk Reduction in Agriculture for small farmers in Moldova". One
and/or improve the potential impact of of the key components of this proposed project is "Improvement in the management of
the operation?
pastures to reduce the impact of droughts on the livestock sector". The FAO project has
not been approved by the government yet. However there are plans for the two Projects
to work closely together. The Project has been sharing documents with FAO staff,
including Terms of Reference for consultants and progress reports.
a. Is there any unplanned positive
impact on the final beneficiaries?
Note: a = very good; b = good; c =
problems; d = serious deficiencies.
Overall conclusion - Impact to date
B
Page 10 of 18
6. SUSTAINABILITY TO DATE
Likelihood of the continuation of benefits of an intervention after its completion.
6.1 What is the financial/economic viability of the continuation of benefits
after the end of the operation?
a. Is there a viable financial
sustainability plan in place and is it
being implemented? i.e. if the benefits
have to be supported after the
operation’s end, will funds be available?
If so, by whom? By the partner
government/project authority? Or is
continued donor support required? If so,
is it likely to be available?
b. If there are costs for continued access
to the benefits, are target groups in a
position to assume their share after the
completion of the operation?
A
B
C
D
There is no sustainability plan in place as yet and it is recommended that the Project
Team starts to develop this in collaboration with key stakeholders, especially local
people and LPAs as soon as possible. Moldova is a relatively poor, developing country,
with considerable political uncertainties at present. The key stakeholder Ministry is
planned to undergo structural changes but is currently understaffed and underfunded.
The country is undergoing a process of decentralisation. However, it is unclear whether
LPAs, which are currently underfunded, will benefit from better funding in the future. So
the sustainability plan needs to take these issues into account. It is not clear whether
target groups involved in carbon monitoring will be able to maintain the system after
the Project ends.
c. Are there any external factors that
might jeopardize the sustainability of
benefits, and if so, have appropriate
measures been taken to forestall this?
d. Are the target groups and/or relevant
authorities/institutions able to afford
the maintenance or replacement of the
technologies/services/outputs
introduced by the operation?
e. Is the financial/economic dimension
of the phasing out strategy being
adequately addressed and implemented
as far as necessary to date?
6.2. What is the level of ownership of the operation by the target group and
relevant stakeholders?
a. Is an exit strategy integrated in the
design and has the implementation been
managed accordingly?
b. Is there any evidence of further
commitment of the relevant
stakeholders?
c. Is operation implementation demanddriven or is there simply passive buy-in
from target groups?
d. Do the target groups plan to continue
assuming their role in ensuring
continued outputs and outcomes? If so,
are they likely to materialize?
e. To what extent have they been
actively involved in the implementation
and steering process?
f. How far is the operation embedded in
the local structures of the target group
(possibly different from institutional
structures)?
A
B
C
D
An exit strategy is integrated into the design of the Project as it is proposed that LPAs
and local communities will continue to manage and monitor improved communal
pastures and community forests with support from the Ministry of Environment and
Moldsilva. However, the evidence on commitment to maintaining communal pastures
and community forests controlled by LPAs in a healthy state is scanty. Currently, most
pasture lands that are used communally, are not managed effectively by LPAs. Fees are
paid by livestock owners to LPAs for using the pastures, however income from these fees
is not usually reinvested in managing the pastures. So one of the big problems with the
livestock sector in Moldova is the poor investment in pastures, as the fees that are usually
paid are not reinvested in improving the land. This does not bode well for the future.
Local Public Authorities must be committed to investing fees paid by pasture users and
actively managing communal pasture land if the Project is to succeed. The Project must
work with Local Public Authorities to ensure that this happens. It is also important that
the Project does not underestimate the need for of capacity building of local
communities and LPAs and the time and effort that needs to be put into this to ensure
pasture management plans continue to be used to maintain pastures in a healthy state.
It is not clear whether or how local people will be involved in pilot plot selection. It is
important that they are, to facilitate local project ownership and sustainability.
LPA are expected to delegate responsible staff to manage the planted sites and establish
cattle breeder associations, however it is uncertain whether they will have sufficient
capacity, given limited staff and budgets. Currently there appears to be a " command
and control" attitude of some agencies. For example some Moldsilva staff appear to
have the view that they know which tree species should be planted in community forests
and that local people don't need to be consulted on this. They will be involved carrying
out planting activities but not in decision-making. This mindset needs to be changed to
develop local ownership and to ensure sustainability,
Page 11 of 18
6.3. To what degree does the policy environment support the operation?
a. Is the national, local, sector and
budgetary policy environment an
enabling factor for the continuation of
benefits? What specific support is being
provided?
b. Do changes in policies and priorities
affect the potential sustainability of the
benefits? If applicable, has the operation
adapted to ensure long-term support?
A
B
C
D
Currently there is very limited policy, legal and normative regulations on community
forests and the use of pastures and grazing revenues. Some of the critical points that need
to be addressed are: 1) Policy and administrative frameworks governing use of communal
land; 2)Management of communal pasture land so as to improve productivity, including
policy on grazing seasons and actions to improve the carrying capacity of pastureland. It
is hoped that the Project and the forthcoming FAO Project will develop recommendations
on the policy and administrative frameworks and these will promote the sustainability of
benefits.
c. If relevant, is any public and private
sector policy support likely to continue
after the operation has ended?
6.4. To what extent does the operation contribute to partners' capacity
development?
a. Does the operation contribute to the
development of partner's individual and
organizational capacities for
sustainable delivery of outputs and
outcomes?
b. How far is the operation embedded in
institutional structures that are likely to
function beyond the life of the
operation?
c. Will an adequate level of qualified
human and institutional resources be
available in the future in order to
continue delivering the operation's
stream of benefits?
Note: a = very good; b = good; c =
problems; d = serious deficiencies.
A
B
C
D
The Project plans to implement two workshops to disseminate Project experiences at the
national, regional and local level. A training programme in sustainable grassland and
forest management will be developed and implemented for local communities, national
park staff to ensure sustainability. Two training sessions will be organised by the project
dedicated to integrated management of community forests and pastures for local
authorities, farmers, leaders of farmers' association and other key groups. Some trainees
from outside the national park area will be involved. This should enable attendees to
replicate project activities at local, national and regional levels. The project will also
support the development and dissemination of a set of education materials as well as
special publications intended for project beneficiaries and specialist involved in project
implementation. Suggested publications include: Operational Manual " Management
practices of community forests", Guidebook for "sustainable pasture and restoration
management". The Project is not yet embedded in institutional structures that are likely
to function beyond its life, because the Project is at a very early stage. However, the
training programme, "on the job" capacity building and coordination with existing
institutions and relevant Projects at the local, regional and national levels should help to
ensure that the operation's steam of benefits are continued.
Overall conclusion - Sustainability to date
C
Page 12 of 18
7. HORIZONTAL ISSUES
7.1 Quality Systems, Monitoring and Evaluation
a) Were the QSG comments taken into consideration and included in the final design and applied during
implementation?
Yes
No
N/A
b) Are the issues identified by ROM regarding design the same as those addressed in the QSG checklist?
Yes
No
N/A
c) Have previous evaluations or reviews (such as ROM, reviews by the EU operational manager) led to changes in
the operation?
Yes
No
N/A
d) Is the available monitoring and reporting information on the operation's progress comprehensive and reliable
in order to ensure the possibility to evaluate results and learn lessons?
Yes
No
N/A
Please comment on any of the questions / aspects above, qualitative data is very valuable:
A reasonably robust monitoring system is in place which should allow for the possibility to evaluate results and learn lessons.
However as the Project is still at a very early stage there is little monitoring and reporting information available to judge
whether actual information produced is comprehensive and/or reliable.
7.2 Review of Technical Cooperation/Capacity Development Quality Criteria
Adaptation to the context and existing capacity
a ) Are there critical constraints in the context which are likely to prevent the CD support from achieving its
objectives?
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
c) Do local partners effectively lead in the planning of CD support beyond formal endorsement?
Yes
No
N/A
d) Do local partners provide the inputs (human or physical) that would be required to enable the CD support to be
effective?
Yes
No
N/A
b) Is the CD support adequate vis-à-vis the present capacity of the local partner?
Demand driven TC/CD and ownership
Page 13 of 18
Result oriented TC/CD
e) Are the outputs or outcomes of the CD support clearly specified and still relevant (or adjusted to changes of
context)?
Yes
No
N/A
f) Are they regularly monitored and/or assessed (e.g. through a joint performance dialogue or an annual
reporting)?
Yes
No
N/A
g) Is the CD support taking into account CD interventions from other donors in the same sector?
Yes
No
N/A
h) Is there a donor coordination mechanism led by local partners and encompassing CD support?
Yes
No
N/A
i) Is CD support embedded in the broad institutional context of the local partners and have unnecessary parallel
mechanisms been avoided?
Yes
No
N/A
j) Do contracted experts, project managers and NGO staff take instructions from the partner and not the EC?
(while some form of reporting to the EC can still take place)
Yes
No
N/A
Harmonisation of TC/CD
Project Implementation Arrangement
Please comment on any of the questions / aspects above, qualitative data is very valuable:
The Project Document makes little specific reference to capacity development. Although, as pointed out above, capacity
development for local communities and LPAs will be essential for the long term success of the Project. It is important that the
Project does not underestimate the time and effort that will be required to ensure that local people and LPAs are equipped
with the relevant skills to manage communal pastures and forests.
7.3. EC Visibility
Does the operation contribute to promoting EC visibility (e.g. does it comply with the EC Guidelines)?
Yes
No
N/A
Please comment on any of the questions / aspects above, qualitative data is very valuable:
EC visibility has, to date, been poor. There was no EU logo on: 1) Project office door; 2) the Inception Workshop Folder given
out to participants or 3) on the Project Document. However, the Regional Coordinator has provided National Pilot Project staff
advice on EU visibility so this should not be an issue from now on. The advice was given too late for National Pilot Project staff
to incorporate the logo on Inception Workshop materials.
Page 14 of 18
8. CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES
8.1. Have practical and strategic gender interests been adequately considered in the
operation's strategy?
Yes
No
N/A
If so, how and to what effect? If not, why
not? If n/a, explain. Please consider the
following aspects of gender
mainstreaming:
The operation has not been planned on the basis of a gender-differentiated
beneficiaries' analysis. While both male and females are both potential project
beneficiaries,livestock production and forestry activities appear to be dominated by
men. However, a gender sensitive approach could lead to an improved impact of the
operation as women could potentially benefit from increased availability of reasonably
a. Has the operation been planned on
priced fuel wood, which may reduce their workload, freeing up their time to carry out
the basis of a gender-differentiated
more profitable activities as well as non timber forest products (e.g. mushrooms) for
beneficiaries’ analysis?
subsistence and income generation. This project is marked as G0 - Gender equality is not
b. To what extent will / could the gender targeted as an overall objective
sensitive approach lead to an improved
impact of the operation?
c. What is the likeliness of increased
gender equality beyond the operation's
end?
d. According to the OECD Gender Policy
Marker how would you classify this
operation?
8.2. Is the operation respecting environmental needs?
Yes
No
N/A
On the whole, the Project is respecting environmental needs. Two key project activities
If so, how and to what effect? If not, why are the development of sustainably managed pastures and community forests, both
not? If n/a, explain. Please consider the encourage local people to practice low cost, sustainable and environmentally friendly
following aspects of mainstreaming
natural resource management methods. In addition, once established these pastures and
environmental aspects:
a. Have environmental constraints and
opportunities been considered
adequately in the operation's design?
b. Are good environmental practices
followed during implementation (in
relation to use of water and energy and
materials, production of wastes, etc.)?
Does the operation respect traditional,
successful environmental practices?
community forests should play an important role as a carbon sink and so help reduce
green house gas emissions. The Project should develop local, regional and national
capacity to deal with unpredictable climate, in terms of drought and rainfall, by
encouraging people to grow drought tolerant pasture and tree species and practice soil
and water conservation techniques. The Project aims to demonstrate the feasibility of
ecosystem-based approaches to climate change. An essential ethos of this approach is to
acknowledge and respect local successful environmental practices, so the Project should
"practice what it preaches".
c. What capacities exist (within the
operation, among partners and the
operation's context) to deal with critical
risks that could affect the operation's
effectiveness such as climate risks or
risks of natural disasters (in the case of
operations in sensitive geographical
areas / natural disasters hotspots)?
d. Has environmental damage been
caused or likely to be caused by the
operation? What kind of environmental
impact mitigation measures have been
taken?
d. Is the achievement of project results
and objectives likely to generate
increased pressure on fragile ecosystems
(natural forests, wetlands, coral reefs,
mangroves) and scarce natural
resources (e.g. surface and
groundwater, timber, soil)?
Page 15 of 18
8.3. Has (good) governance been mainstreamed in the operation?
If so, how? If not, why not? If n/a,
explain. Please consider the following
aspects of governance:
Yes
No
N/A
Good governance has been mainstreamed in the Project. It aims to target poor rural
communities and encourage local management of natural resources. The Project appears
to have good, transparent, financial management and monitoring and evaluation systems
in place.
a. Does it take into consideration the
differential impact of poverty on
disadvantaged groups?
b. Is the operation designed in such a
way that it takes into account potential
conflict?
c. Is regular, transparent, financial
reporting built into the operation? Are
its results widely circulated and
understandable?
d. Are there effective anti-corruption
monitoring tools in place?
8.4 Does the operation actively contribute to the promotion of Human Rights?
If so, how? If not, why not? If n/a,
explain.
a. Has there been an analysis of
“winners and losers” regarding possible
“discrimination” of target groups by the
operation?
Yes
No
N/A
There appear to be no clear structures in place to ensure that poor households are
guaranteed access to benefits from community forest or communal pastures. Efforts need
to be made by the Project management to work with LPAs and local people to develop
clear structures to ensure that poor households are guaranteed access to benefits from
Project interventions.
b. Will the operation help to ensure
respect for any relevant human rights
and not cause them to be reduced in any
way?
c. Do any interested parties and
observers raise HR concerns?
Page 16 of 18
9. LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED/DOCUMENTS ANALYSED
Name / Position
Institution / other
Alexandru Rotaru/Project Manager
UNDP Clima East Pilots Project Moldova
Nadja Vetters/Portfolio Manager
UNDP Moldova
Dumitru Galupa/Director
Forest Research Management Institute (ICAS)
Mr Lazu/Geobotanics Department Researcher
Botanical Garden, Chisinau
Ion Nasalciuc/Chief of Agricultural Division of Raion Orhei
Raion Orhei Administration
Ion Talmaci/Technical Director
Forest Research Management Institute (ICAS)
Eugen Chiabur/Programme Manager
FAO Programme email: Eugen.Chiabur@fao.org
Mr Tudor Botnari/Deputy Director
Forestry Agency "Moldsilva" +373 22 277959
Ms Ala Rotaru/Convention of Biodiversity Focal Point
Ministry of Environment
Ms Maria Nagornii/Climate East Pilots & Policy Focal Point
Ministry of Environment
Mr Valerian Scutelnic/Deputy President of Raion Orhei
Raion Orhei Administration
Mr Viorel Petic/Director of Forest Enterprise Orhei
Forestry Agency "Moldsilva", Orhei
Mr Petru Dogocher/President of Mayors Association
Orhei
Mr Valeriu Pasa/Director
Natural-Cultural Reserve "Old Orhei"
Mr Henno Putnik/Project Manager
EU Del, Chisinau email: Henno.PUTNIK@eeas.europa.eu
Narine Sahakyan/Deputy Resident Representative
UNDP, Moldova email: narine.sahakyan@undp.org
Mr Lazar Chirica/Deputy Minister
Ministry of Environment email: chirica@mediu.gov.md
Mr Vesile Ciobanu/Project Coordinator
Pro Rural Invest (NGO)
Olga ??/Project Assistant
UNDP Clima East Pilots Project Moldova
Nicolae Afteni, Agronomic Engineer Auxillary Department
Forestry Agency "Moldsilva", Orhei
Documents Analysed
Clima East: Supporting Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation in Neighbourhood East and Russia (Clima East Pilots Project)
Inception Report May 2013
EU Contribution Agreement with an International Organisation ENPI/2012/303-093 Annex 1 Description of the Action
Republic of Moldova. No date. Moldova 2020 National Development Strategy
ENPI. Republic of Moldova Country Strategy Paper 2007-2013
Republic of Moldova. 2010. The Fourth National Report on Biological Diversity Development Ministry of Environment
World Bank. 2007. Rural Productivity in Moldova - Managing Natural Vulnerability
World Bank. 2013. World Bank Group - Moldova Partnership. Country Program Snapshot
Republic of Moldova Min. of Agric. 2012. Comprehensive assessment to evaluate the impact of the 2012 drought in Moldova
UNDP. 2009. National Human Development Report Climate Change and Moldova Socio-economic and impact
policy options for adaptation
FAO. 2012. Promotion of Disaster Risk Reduction in Agriculture for small farmers in Moldova
UNDP 2013. Project Document Sustainable Management of Pastures & Community forests in Moldova's first National Park
Orhei to demonstrate climate change mitigation & adaptation benefits & dividends for local communities
Page 17 of 18
OVERVIEW OF SUB-CRITERIA GRADES
Sub-criteria
1.1 Relevance for target groups
1.2 Relevance for partner
1.3 Relevance for EU
2.1 Intervention logic
Grade
A
A
A
B
2.2 Partners and Design
2.3 Cross-cutting issues
3.1 Inputs
3.2 Activities
3.3 Outputs
3.4 Partners and Implementation
4.1 Outcomes
4.2 Project Purpose
5.1 Direct impact
5.2 Indirect impact
6.1 Financial sustainability
6.2 Ownership
6.3 Policy support
6.4 Capacity Development
7.1 a) QSG comments
7.1 b) QSG and ROM on design
7.1 c) Evaluations and reviews
7.1 d) Progress information
7.2 a) TC/CD - constraints
7.2 b) TC/CD – capacity
7.2 c) TC/CD – partner lead
7.2 d) TC/CD – partner input
7.2 e) TC/CD – specified results
7.2 f) TC/CD – monitoring
7.2 g) TC/CD – other donors' intervention
7.2 h) TC/CD - donor coordination
7.2 i) TC/CD - embedded
7.2 j) TC/CD - staff instructions
7.3 EC visibility
8.1 Gender
8.2 Environment
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
B
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
8.3 Good Governance
8.4 Human rights
Yes
Yes
Page 18 of 18