2013 Annual Project Review (APR)
Project Implementation Review (PIR) OF UNDP Supported GEF Financed Projects
PIMS 3013 - Project Title: Strengthening capacity to control the introduction and spread of
alien invasive species in Sri Lanka
Focal Area
Biodiversity
Lead RTA
Lead Country(ies)
(SRL) Sri Lanka
Revised Planned Closing Date
28-Feb-2015
Overall Risk rating
Moderate
Overall DO rating
Moderately Satisfactory
Overall IP rating
Unsatisfactory
GEF grant amount disbursed so far 188,730
Project Summary
\"Sri Lanka’s geographic location, varied climatic conditions and topography have given rise to its unique biological
diversity. The country’s globally significant biodiversity is being threatened by increasing introduction, establishment and
spread of invasive alien fauna and flora. Weak and overlapping legislative and institutional mandates, the lack of a
coherent or integrated strategic planning and management framework combined with limited information base and
awareness of the threat posed by invasive alien species (IAS) are contributing to the loss of biodiversity as well as
undermining associated economic processes and human well-being. As Sri Lankan markets become increasingly
integrated into the global economy and in the face of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation, it is likely that the
threats posed by invasion will worsen in the future – as would their impacts on the natural environment, human
production systems and pro-poor economic growth.
The project will support the development of an enabling policy and legal environment for effective IAS control. It will
assist in finalizing the National IAS Policy, develop the National IAS Control Act for approval by the Cabinet of Ministers
and finalize the National IAS Strategy and Action Plan through stakeholder participation and technical assistance. The
project will also enhance integrated management planning and action, with corresponding budgetary and technical
support for the prevention, detection, and management of IAS. It will build capacities of the National Focal Point for IAS
and other stakeholders, especially those involved in enforcement and of local communities, to encourage their support
for IAS control activities. Information related to IAS will be assembled and managed through a national database that will
be made widely accessible through the internet. For this, the project will support the finalization of the National IAS
Communication Strategy to create awareness and further strengthen the understanding of IAS control and establish sitespecific, cost-effective IAS control mechanisms through public-private partnerships.
March 23, 2016
Page 1 of 29
The project will generate substantial benefits at the national and global levels on biodiversity conservation and human
and economic well-being. The ecological services from biodiversity that are necessary for livelihoods and agricultural
production will be sustained, benefitting primarily the poor whose livelihoods depend on healthy ecosystems. The project
will make a major contribution to the global environment by safeguarding Sri Lanka’s globally important biodiversity,
including reducing the risks to endemic species, unique and threatened ecosystems and protected areas. It is also
anticipated that by improving the control of the export of potentially invasive species out of Sri Lanka, the project will
reduce the threats to biodiversity in other parts of the world and risks to production and trade which are important to the
economies and livelihoods in other countries.
The project will be executed by the Biodiversity Secretariat of the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources
(MENR) of Sri Lanka in close cooperation with national level line agencies and research institutes, provincial governments
and directorates, national and local NGOs and community representatives. \"
UNDP-GEF Technical Advisor’s Comments
Explanation for change to Overall DO Rating or Overall IP Rating:
No change
Is this the terminal PIR that will serve as the final project report? No
If the mid-term review (MTR) OR the terminal evaluation (TE) was started but not completed
this reporting period, please explain how these are progressing and note if any delays are
expected:
If the mid-term review (MTR) OR the terminal evaluation (TE) was completed this reporting
period, or if this is the final APR/PIR, please address the following points here:
UNDP Country Office’s Comments
If the mid-term review (MTR) OR the terminal evaluation (TE) was started but not completed
this reporting period, please explain how these are progressing and note if any delays are
expected:
MTR is still on schedule except that the TE may be delayed as indicated in the PIR
If the mid-term review (MTR) OR the terminal evaluation (TE) was completed this reporting
period, or if this is the final APR/PIR, please address the following points here:
March 23, 2016
Page 2 of 29
Dates of Project Steering Committee/Board meetings during reporting period:
July 2013
March 23, 2016
Page 3 of 29
PROGRESS TOWARD DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES
Description
Description of Indicator Baseline Level
Target Level at end of
project
To build capacity across
sectors to control the
introduction and spread of
invasive species in Sri Lanka, in
order to safeguard globally
significant biodiversity
% of relevant agencies meeting Less than 5% of relevant
minimum standards to enable agencies have all staff trained
the implementation of IAS act in IAS control
provisions
80% of relevant agencies meet
minimum standards [a. SOPs in
place; b. All relevant staff
trained in IAS control]
No change as the
project is starting
Not applicable, as
this work is
scheduled for 20132014
Number of joint initiatives
between Agencies, Private
Sector and NGOs formulated
through the NISSG & NFP on
IAS control
At minimum 10 joint initiatives
are organized involving
Agencies, Private Sector and
NGOs through the NISSG/NFP
on IAS control
Discussions with
Private Sector
initiated. Interagency partnerships
related
implementation is
being discussed
0 conducted to
date. Discussions,
planning and
ownership building
on joint activities
for IAS control are
on-going with
identified local
authorities such as
Matara, Vaunia
District Secretariats,
and Balapitiya
Pradeshiya Sabha.
Field activities are
yet to be started,
therefore, no
change
0 to date.
Discussions with the
Private Sector and
communicates are
on-going. Interagency partnership
building and related
implementation has
been finalized.
Discussions have
also been
conducted with
Four (joint) joint activities
implemented through interagency participation, with no
private sector involvement
Level at 30 Level at 30 Level at 30 Level at 30
June 2009 June 2010 June 2011 June 2012
Total targeted environmentally Less than 100 ha of Protected At minimum 50,000 ha of
sensitive area preserved with Area currently preserved with globally important PAs benefit
community participation
community participation
directly from IAS management
programme, including 3,000 ha
of protected area in Sri Lanka
cleared of IAS with community
participation.
March 23, 2016
Page 4 of 29
Level at 30
June 2013
National Park
Wardens of
selected sites.
A comprehensive national
regulatory framework for the
control of IAS in Sri Lanka is in
place
Number of environmental
management (including climate
change adaptation) policies,
and strategies developed
A working draft of the National
IAS policy
A working
draft of the National IAS
Strategy and Action Plan
1.1. A comprehensive National
IAS Policy adopted
1.2. National IAS Strategy and
Action Plan is finalized and
adopted
National IAS policy
draft was circulated
for comments
along with the
National IAS
Strategy and Action
Plan
Both target
documents, the
National IAS Policy
and the National IAS
Strategy and Action
Plan were finalized,
after stakeholder
consultations. The
documents have
now been
translated into both
local languages,
Sinhala and Tamil as
well. Both
documents are yet
to be adopted.
Presence of a national IAS
control act
National IAS Control Act does
not exist
Drafting of a
National IAS Control Act
approved by the Cabinet of
Ministers
1.3 National IAS Control Act is
formulated, and enacted
No Change
The National IAS
Control Act was
drafted and is with
the legal draftsmans
office. A discussion
is ongoing with the
legal draftsmen.
No formal national experts’
committee to advise the
stakeholders on IAS related
matters
National Focal
Point (NFP) or mechanism for
effective implementation of
the IAS control activities does
not exist
2.1 NISSG established and
mandated for advising
Government of Sri Lanka on
IAS control
2.2 A National
Focal Point (NFP) in place
No change yet as
the project is
starting
No change. This
work has been
prioritized for 20132014 period at the
steering committee
meeting held in July
2013.
A well-coordinated
Presence of an institutional
institutional mechanism is in coordination mechanism for
place for integrated planning IAS control
and decision making at
national and local levels with
greater access to information
on the status, threat and
means of controlling IAS
Number of knowledge products Draft set of scientifically valid 2.3 IAS pre-entry and postIAS Risk Assessment Protocols entry Risk Assessment
March 23, 2016
Page 5 of 29
Risk assessment
A number of
protocols have been knowledge products
developed
available
Ad hoc national
lists of invasive alien flora and
fauna No national level
database on IAS
Limited
information on ecology,
biology and control of IAS No
national level interactive
website on IAS
Protocols developed and used
by the stakeholders 2.4
National lists, potential lists
and black lists of invasive alien
flora and fauna in place and
updated every 3 years
2.5
Web-based interactive and
user-friendly IAS database
developed and regularly
updated
2.6 Two
catalogues of IAS of Sri Lanka
with detailed information on
ecology, biology and related
international knowledge
2.7 A website on IAS is
developed and regular update
mechanism in place
March 23, 2016
Page 6 of 29
discussed and being
improved;
preliminary work on
the national
database on IAS
started; and
photographing the
IAS species started
to improve the
information system
have been
developed. - One
very important
product is the Preand Post Entry Risk
Assessment
Protocols, which
have been finalized
through stakeholder
consultation. National Lists,
Potential Lists and
Black lists of IAS
Flora and Fauna
have also been
compiled. A risk
assessment will be
carried out again in
2 years time. - An
IAS database is
designed,
information
uploaded and
nearing completion
and launch. - Fact
sheets identifying
the Top 10 Invasive
Alien Flora and
Fauna has been
compiled and is to
be finalised. Two
case studies have
been developed on
2 of these IAS Top
10 species. - The
national IAS website
was developed,
launched and
regularly updated
Decision makers at national
Presence of a National IAS
and local levels are aware of Communication Strategy
cost-effective IAS controls
being implemented at national
and local levels, best practices
are shared and stakeholders’
capacities strengthened
No national communication
strategy on IAS
3.1 National IAS
Communication Strategy
introduced and dialogue on
IAS Control enhanced
No change
The National IAS
Communication
Strategy was
developed and
finalized, after
stakeholder
consultation.
% of trained technical,
enforcement and customs
agency staff applying skills 6
month after training
Poorly coordinated IAS control
and quarantine mechanisms in
place with inadequate staff
trained and in a limited
number of fields
3.2 At least 500 staff from
technical, enforcement and
customs agencies at all ports of
entry are trained in the
following areas through the
new National IAS Policy: IAS
detection; legal restrictions on
IAS import, export and use;
sanitary and phytosanitary
standards; risk analysis; and
IAS control techniques with at
minimum 85% applying skills 6months post training.
No change
The training
schedule and
material has been
prepared. Training
has been scheduled
for 2014.
% participants in public
awareness and workshops that
report greater knowledge of
IAS management efforts
<5 % of political leaders, <20%
of secondary level school
children and general public,
0% of media institutions are
aware of the threats of IAS and
the need for their control
3.3. 80% of participants
indicate increased awareness
of the threats of IAS and the
need for their control post
training.
No change
Initial arrangements
have been taken to
conduct awareness
work on IAS
through the mass
media. Draft copies
of the information
leaflets on IAS have
been prepared with
the collaboration of
the Central
Environmental
Authority.
Presence of financial incentives No market-based instruments 3.4 Financial incentives and
and disincentives support for and financing mechanisms to disincentives to support IAS
IAS control
support IAS control
control are developed and
endorsed by the government
No change
Work has been
scheduled for 2014.
March 23, 2016
Page 7 of 29
for their use
Number of knowledge products No best practice toolkits or
developed and piloted
participatory mechanisms in
place
3.5 Site specific, cost-effective,
best practice toolkits
developed for 4 cases each of
priority invasive alien fauna
flora are piloted at selected
sites through public-privateNGO partnerships.
March 23, 2016
Page 8 of 29
Work on the best
practises tool kit
started
A number of
knowledge products
were developed as
described earlier.
Discussions were
held with NGOs
working on IAS
control, to
determine a model
of best practice.
RATINGS OF PROGRESS TOWARD MEETING DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES
DO Rating: Please review the Development Objective Progress page of this APR/PIR and then
answer the questions below. A DO rating will be generated based on your answers.
1
Please rate the cumulative progress being made toward achieving the end-of-project targets as reported in the project results
framework in the DO page of this APR/PIR
2
Please rate the likelihood that the project will deliver environmental and social benefits for an extended period after project
completion?
3
Please rate the likelihood that social or political risks may threaten the sustainability of project outcomes
Project Manager/Coordinator: Is the person managing the day to day operations of the project.
MANDATORY RATING MUST BE PROVIDED for projects under implementation in one country or regional projects where appropriate.
Please justify your rating and address the following points in your comments. Please keep word count between 500 words minimum and
1200 words maximum.
1.
Explain why you gave a specific rating.
2.
Note trends, both positive and negative, in achievement of outcomes as per the
updated indicators provided in the DO sheet.
3.
Fully explain the critical risks that have affected progress.
4.
Outline action plan to address projects with DO rating of HU, U or MU.
Overall 2009 Rating
Overall 2010 Rating
Overall 2011 Rating
Overall 2012 Rating
Moderately Satisfactory
2013 Rating
Moderately Satisfactory
Comments
A rating of \'Moderately Satisfactory\' has been given because a considerable
amount of work has happened over the last reporting period. In terms of the
first output area, related to the comprehensive national regulatory
framework for the control of IAS in Sri Lanka, progress has been slow but
steady. Both target documents, the National IAS Policy and the National IAS
Strategy and Action Plan were finalized, after detailed consultations with
stakeholders. These consultations took considerable effort in terms of
facilitating various perspectives and ideas of the large group of varied
stakeholders and the varied floral and faunal IAS under consideration. For
example, some species though invasive alien species, were found to have
become useful and necessary now for local consumption. These sort of
adaptations came out strongly in stakeholder consultations, and required
considerable facilitation to reach an agreement on the way forward. Thus
though the process has been long and tedious, a strong foundation is in place
to support the eventual implementation of the strategy and action plan.
Work in the 2nd output area related to establishing a well-coordinated
March 23, 2016
Page 9 of 29
institutional mechanism for integrated planning and decision making at
national and local levels with greater access to information on the status,
threat and means of controlling IAS has been slow. The mechanism is to a
certain extent to be informed by the IAS strategy and action plan and thus the
process is awaiting the adoption of the same. In one aspect though, related to
the generation of knowledge products, some progress has been made. One
important product developed is the Pre- and Post Entry Risk Assessment
Protocols, which have been finalized through stakeholder consultation. This
will enable custom officials to monitor the entry process effectively,
preventing further IAS from entry. National Lists, Potential threat lists and
Black lists of IAS Flora and Fauna have also been compiled to enable easy
identification and decision making by local authorities. An IAS database has
been designed, and nearing launch, this will enable basic awareness creation
amongst the public. Fact sheets identifying the Top 10 Invasive Alien Flora
and Fauna have been compiled. Two case studies have been developed on 2
of these IAS Top 10 species. All these various products will set the stage for a
comprehensive awareness creation campaign to be launched that will raise
the basic awareness of the public to a common knowledge level. Substantial
progress was achieved in the third output area related to decision makers at
national and local levels being aware of cost-effective IAS controls to
implement at national and local levels. The National IAS Communication
Strategy was developed and finalized, and accordingly initial arrangements to
conduct awareness work on IAS through the mass media have been made.
The earlier described knowledge products will also feed into this component
and enhance its effectiveness. Thus all together, a significant foundation has
been laid for the effectively implementation of the communication strategy
and a strong awareness & knowledge building component. The slow
progress of the consultation process cannot be hurried, if buyin and
ownership among all stakeholders is to be built. This is essential in the Sri
Lankan context, without which the effective implementation of the policy will
be impaired. Thus bearing this in mind, the substantial parallel progress in the
other components of the project is an effectively strategy.
UNDP Country Office Programme Officer: Is the UNDP programme officer in the UNDP country
office who provides oversight and supervision support to the project.
MANDATORY RATING MUST BE PROVIDED for projects under implementation in one country. Not necessary for regional or global projects.
Please justify your rating and address the following points in your comments. Please keep word count between 500 words minimum and
1200 words maximum.
1.
Explain why you gave a specific rating, for example, if your rating differs from the rating
provided by the project manager please explain why.
2.
Note trends, both positive and negative, in achievement of outcomes as per the
updated indicators provided in the DO sheet.
3.
Fully explain the critical risks that have affected progress.
4.
Outline action plan to address projects with DO rating of HU, U or MU.
Overall 2009 Rating
Overall 2010 Rating
Overall 2011 Rating
(-) No rating submitted or requested for this year
March 23, 2016
Page 10 of 29
Overall 2012 Rating
(MS) Moderately Satisfactory
2013 Rating
(MS) Moderately Satisfactory
Comments
Project achieved momentum during the year of review. Delivery is expected to go up
soon with the implementation of pilot projects starting. IP Management focal point for
the project was handed over to the Biodiversity Secretariat from the Policy Planning
Division of the Ministry of Environment and Renewable Energy starting August 2013.
Also the project still have not had a formal programme manager, therefore, the
attention on delivery has taken lesser priority. However in addition to the policy
(Invasive Alien Species Management) and tools developed (in-situ and ex-situ
protocols) the main development was the identification of pilot activities, consultative
sessions to validate the needs using stakeholder groups, prioritizing the interventions
and budgeting. Currently about five interventions at pilot scale has been finalized and
ready for funding. Information collection, compilation and development of a public
web interface for education and awareness is also a major breakthrough during the
current year. Management and control of invasive alien species is also being linked to
other development efforts including bio-energy, tourism and economic activities such
as paper pulping etc. At the same time the project is facing conflicts. For example, the
Thilapiya (fish variety) that is being identified as one of the top 10 IAS in the project is
being promoted by the Govt. as an inland fishery. These conflicts, potential damages
by IAS, economic avenues of IAS and the potential linkages of climate change and IAS
will make the project relevant and timely. Having done the policy elements and
putting the enabling environment in place for knowledge management, pilot activities
the project is expected to move forward much during the next year.
Project Implementing Partner: Is the representative of the executing agency (in GEF
terminology). This would be Government (for NEX/NIM execution) or NGO (for CSO Execution)
or an official from the Executing Agency (for example UNOPS).
RECOMMENDED but NOT MANDATORY for projects under implementation in one country and
regional projects.
Please justify your rating and address the following points in your comments. Please keep word count
between 200 words minimum and 500 words maximum.
1.
Explain why you gave a specific rating.
2.
Note trends, both positive and negative, in achievement of
outcomes as per the updated indicators provided in the DO
sheet.
3.
Provide recommendations for next steps.
Project Implementing Partner
Overall 2009 Rating
Overall 2010 Rating
Overall 2011 Rating
Overall 2012 Rating
(MS) Moderately Satisfactory
2013 Rating
March 23, 2016
Page 11 of 29
Comments
GEF Operational Focal point: Is the government representative in the country designed as the
GEF operation focal point.
HIGHLY RECOMMENDED but NOT mandatory for projects under implementation in one country. Not
necessary for regional or global projects.
Please justify your rating and address the following points in your comments. Please keep word count
between 200 words minimum and 500 words maximum.
1.
Explain why you gave a specific rating.
2.
Note trends, both positive and negative, in achievement of
outcomes as per the updated indicators provided in the DO
sheet.
3.
Provide recommendations for next steps.
GEF Operational Focal point
Overall 2009 Rating
Overall 2010 Rating
Overall 2011 Rating
Overall 2012 Rating
(MS) Moderately Satisfactory
2013 Rating
Comments
Other Partners: For jointly implemented projects, a representative of the other Agency working
with UNDP on project implementation (for example UNEP or the World Bank).
RECOMMENDED but NOT MANDATORY for jointly implemented projects.
Please justify your rating and address the following points in your comments. Please keep word count
between 200 words minimum and 500 words maximum.
1.
Explain why you gave a specific rating.
2.
Note trends, both positive and negative, in achievement of
outcomes as per the updated indicators provided in the DO
sheet.
3.
Provide recommendations for next steps.
Other Partners
Overall 2009 Rating
March 23, 2016
Page 12 of 29
Overall 2010 Rating
Overall 2011 Rating
Overall 2012 Rating
2013 Rating
Comments
UNDP Technical Adviser: Is the UNDP-GEF Technical Adviser.
MANDATORY RATING MUST BE PROVIDED for all projects.
Please justify your rating and address the following points in your comments. Please keep word count
between 500 words minimum and 1200 words maximum.
1.
Explain why you gave a specific rating (do not repeat the project
objective).
2.
Note trends, both positive and negative, in achievement of
outcomes as per the updated indicators provided in the DO
sheet.
3.
Fully explain the critical risks that have affected progress.
4.
Outline action plan to address projects with DO rating of HU, U
or MU.
UNDP-GEF Technical Adviser
Overall 2009 Rating
Overall 2010 Rating
Overall 2011 Rating
Overall 2012 Rating
(U) Unsatisfactory
2013 Rating
(MS) Moderately Satisfactory
Comments
This is the second PIR of the project. The project is rated MS ‘moderately satisfactory’ for progress towards achievement of its
development objective. The project started experiencing
serious implementation delays right from start. As explained in
the last years PIR by both the UNDP CO and the RTA, this
delay was mainly because of the inability of the project to have
key personnel on-board to lead the project (as a fully NIM
project these personnel have to be seconded from the existing
government staff which took time). However since the last
reporting period the project benefitted from a reasonably staff
PMU (the Programme Manager was still not appointed) and
implementation of activities were slowly undertaken. Having
overcome some of the initial management weaknesses, the
March 23, 2016
Page 13 of 29
project made several notable achievements during the reporting
period: the project finalized two key documents namely the
National IAS Policy and the National IAS Strategy and Action
Plan following several rounds of stakeholder consultations.
These documents are of paramount importance as they are
expected to define actions and steps that the country will need
to undertake to control the entry and spread of IAS, provide
guidelines and prescriptions for different sectors and actors to
effectively combat the spread of IAS; likewise the project has
also completed the drafting of the National IAS Control Act; the
project has developed several knowledge products related to
management and eradication of IAS (e.g. Pre- and Post- Entry
Risk Assessment Protocols; National Lists, Potential Lists and
Black lists of IAS Flora and Fauna) while an IAS database is
under construction. In the next reporting period, we expected
to see earnest implementation of several on the ground
activities. The project has been preparing the grounds for
implementation of several activities: it has prepared the training
schedule and materials to roll out training on IAS management
aspects to government sector staff in 2014; similarly the project
has drafted a National IAS communication strategy, as per
which, and based on the several knowledge products
developed, the project will conduct the awareness campaign on
IAS. One of the most important outcomes of the project is
emplacing an effectively institutional coordination mechanism for
IAS control. The project reports that this is being prioritized this
for next reporting year. Similarly it has held several discussions
with local authorities such as Matara, Vaunia District
Secretariats, and Balapitiya Pradeshiya Sabha to plan local
level actions to control IAS. Now that the project has been
officially housed in the Biodiversity Secretariat and will soon also
having the Programme Manager, it should focus on making use
of the tools developed this year and the information generated
as a result of several policy drafting processes, to plan and
implement pilot field activities. The project is also due to Midterm review. It is recommended that the review be carried out
earlier in the reporting period to provide greater opportunity for
course correction and also increasing the awareness of the
project’s objective and planned actions in the various ministries.
It may also be opportune to plan a wider stakeholder workshop
to present the MTR findings and also review key roles and
responsibilities of different sectors and ensure their support
including planning joint activities to manage and control the
spread of IAS.
Highly Satisfactory (HS)
Project is expected to achieve or exceed all its major global
environmental objectives, and yield substantial global
environmental benefits, without major shortcomings. The project
can be presented as 'good practice'.
Satisfactory (S)
Project is expected to achieve most of its major global
environmental objectives, and yield satisfactory global
March 23, 2016
Page 14 of 29
environmental benefits, with only minor shortcomings.
Moderately Satisfactory (MS)
Project is expected to achieve most of its major relevant
objectives but with either significant shortcomings or modest
overall relevance. Project is expected not to achieve some of its
major global environmental objectives or yield some of the
expected global environment benefits.
Moderately Unsatisfactory (MU)
Project is expected to achieve its major global environmental
objectives with major shortcomings or is expected to achieve
only some of its major global environmental objectives.
Unsatisfactory (U)
Project is expected not to achieve most of its major global
environment objectives or to yield any satisfactory global
environmental benefits.
Highly Unsatisfactory (HU)
The project has failed to achieve, and is not expected to
achieve, any of its major global environment objectives with no
worthwhile benefits.
March 23, 2016
Page 15 of 29
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS RATING
IP rating: Please review the Implementation Progress page of this APR/PIR and then answer the
questions below. An overall IP rating will be generated based on your answers.
1
Please rate the progress in delivery of outputs. For example, do the annual outputs represent
sufficient progress in order to achieve the project outcomes (see DO page of this APR/PIR)?
2
Please rate the efficiency in delivery of outputs. For example, in this reporting period are
budget resources being spent as planned? (i.e. is project delivery on target?)
3
Please rate the quality of risk management. For example, in this reporting period were project
risks managed effectively?
4
Please rate the quality of adaptive management. For example, in this reporting period were
actions taken to address implementation issue identified in the APR/PIR last year?
5
Please rate the quality of monitoring and evaluation. For example, in this reporting period
were sufficient financial resources allocated to project monitoring and evaluation
Project Manager/Coordinator: Is the person managing the day to day operations of the project.
MANDATORY RATING MUST BE PROVIDED for projects under implementation in one country or
regional projects where appropriate.
Please justify your rating and address the following points in your comments. Please keep word count
between 500 words minimum and 1200 words maximum.
1.
Explain why you gave a specific rating.
2.
Summarize annual progress and address timelines of projec
output/activity completion in relation to annual workplans.
3.
Outline the general status of project expenditures in relation to annual
budgets, the effectiveness of project management units in guiding
project implementation, and the responsiveness of the project board in
overseeing project implementation.
Overall 2009 Rating
Overall 2010 Rating
Overall 2011 Rating
Overall 2012 Rating
(MS) Moderately Satisfactory
2013 Rating
(MU) Moderately Unsatisfactory
Comments
Overall a rating of \'moderately unsatisfactory\' was given due to the
slow rate of delivery, which is the main concern in 2013. Though a
number of activites did progress, these were largely deviant from the
annual work plan timelines. work related to the first 2 ouputs related to
the national regulatory framework and coordinated institutional
mechanisms progressed slowly. This was mainly due to the
March 23, 2016
Page 16 of 29
consultative sessions taking more time than expected, however this is
a necessary process to ensure the buyin and committment of the
various stakeholders. The field components of the work have also
been delayed awaiting clarity on the policy work. The bulk of the funds
are tied into this component. Activities related to the communication
strategy and knowledge product developed progressed considerably
well during the reporting period.
UNDP Country Office Programme Officer: Is the UNDP programme officer in the UNDP country
office who provides oversight and supervision support to the project.
MANDATORY RATING MUST BE PROVIDED for projects under implementation in one country.
Not necessary for regional or global projects.
Please justify your rating and address the following points in your comments. The QORs and
delivery data in the ERBM portfolio project monitoring report should inform your rating. Please
keep word count between 500 words minimum and 1200 words maximum.
1.
Explain why you gave a specific rating. If your rating differs from
the rating provided by the project manager please explain why.
2.
Summarize annual progress and address timeliness of project
output/activity completion in relation to annual workplans.
3.
Outline the general status of project expenditures in relation to
annual budgets, the effectiveness of project management units in
guiding project implementation, and the responsiveness of the
project board in overseeing project implementation.
Overall 2009 Rating
Overall 2010 Rating
Overall 2011 Rating
(-) No rating submitted or requested for this year
Overall 2012 Rating
(MS) Moderately Satisfactory
2013 Rating
(MS) Moderately Satisfactory
Comments
Major drawbacks in the past year have been corrected during the 2013,
namely, the delays in decision making, money transfer issues and
some of the human resource needs. Partnerships have been
developed by the project through the pilot activities. For example the
project is partnering with Dept. of Wildlife Conservation, Marine
Pollution Prevention Authority, National Botanical Gardens, Forest
Dept., Agriculture Dept. etc. Number of capacity development
activities have been identified that include capacity building in mapping
of IAS, databases and knowledge transfer mechanisms etc. The key
policy work and tools have been completed with satisfactory degree of
stakeholder approval. Pilot projects identified have been wetted among
stakeholder groups and agreed. Project is now on course and
expected to deliver results along with ground level implementation also
moving forward
March 23, 2016
Page 17 of 29
Project Implementing Partner: Is the representative of the executing agency (in GEF
terminology). This would be Government (for NEX/NIM execution) or NGO (for CSO Execution)
or an official from the Executing Agency (for example UNOPS).
RECOMMENDED but NOT mandatory for projects under implementation in one country or
regional projects.
Please justify your rating and address the following points in your comments. Please keep
word count between 200 words minimum and 500 words maximum.
1.
Explain why you gave a specific rating.
2.
Note trends, both positive and negative.
3.
Provide recommendations for next steps.
Overall 2009 Rating
(-) No rating submitted or requested for this year
Overall 2010 Rating
Overall 2011 Rating
Overall 2012 Rating
(MS) Moderately Satisfactory
2013 Rating
(-) No rating submitted or requested for this year
Comments
GEF Operational Focal point: Is the government representative in the country designed as the
GEF operation focal point.
MANDATORY RATING MUST BE PROVIDED for projects under implementation in one country.
Not necessary for regional or global projects.
Please justify your rating and address the following points in your comments. Please keep
word count between 200 words minimum and 500 words maximum.
1.
Explain why you gave a specific rating.
2.
Note trends, both positive and negative.
3.
Provide recommendations for next steps.
Overall 2009 Rating
(-) No rating submitted or requested for this year
Overall 2010 Rating
Overall 2011 Rating
Overall 2012 Rating
(MS) Moderately Satisfactory
2013 Rating
(-) No rating submitted or requested for this year
March 23, 2016
Page 18 of 29
Comments
Other Partners: For jointly implemented projects, a representative of the other Agency working
with UNDP on project implementation (for example UNEP or the World Bank).
RECOMMENDED but NOT mandatory for jointly implemented projects.
Please justify your rating and address the following points in your comments. Please keep
word count between 200 words minimum and 500 words maximum.
1.
Explain why you gave a specific rating.
2.
Note trends, both positive and negative.
3.
Provide recommendations for next steps.
Overall 2009 Rating
(-) No rating submitted or requested for this year
Overall 2010 Rating
Overall 2011 Rating
Overall 2012 Rating
2013 Rating
(-) No rating submitted or requested for this year
Comments
UNDP Technical Adviser: Is the UNDP-GEF Technical Adviser.
MANDATORY RATING MUST BE PROVIDED for ALL projects.
Please justify your rating and address the following points in your comments. The QORs and
delivery data in the ERBM portfolio project monitoring report should inform your rating. Please
keep word count between 500 words minimum and 1200 words maximum.
1.
Explain why you gave a specific rating. If your rating differs from
the rating provided by the UNDP Country Office Programme
Officer and/or the Project Manager please explain why.
2.
Summarize annual progress and address timelines of project
output/activity completion in relation to annual workplans.
3.
Outline the general status of project expenditures in relation to
annual budgets, the effectiveness of project management units in
guiding project implementation, and the responsiveness of the
project board in overseeing project implementation.
UNDP Technical Adviser
Overall 2009 Rating
Overall 2010 Rating
March 23, 2016
Page 19 of 29
Overall 2011 Rating
Overall 2012 Rating
(U) Unsatisfactory
2013 Rating
(U) Unsatisfactory
Comments
The RTA rates this project as U – ‘unsatisfactory’ for this the quality
and timeliness of its implementation progress. Despite resolving
several implementation issues experienced during the last year, the
project management failed to demonstrate any real momentum in
terms of implementing planned activities. As noted under DO rating, a
lot of achievements have been made but these are mainly in the area
of drafting policies and knowledge products. The project is recognized
for drafting two important documents namely the National IAS Policy
and the National IAS Strategy and Action Plan and translating them
into two local languages, Sinhala and Tamil. However, it has failed to
implement any of the activities towards establishing an effective
coordination mechanism. Instead the focus has been on development
of knowledge products and toolkits. This is actually understandable
given that the project still does not have the full leadership without a
Programme Manager while it was only recently (later in the reporting
period) that the project has been given full institutional ownership in the
Biodiversity Secretariat. Likewise, the project has drafted a
communication strategy but has not been able to even pilot test this
strategy. The project’s pilot activities are also only planned for the next
reporting period. In terms of UNDP project monitoring, the project
performed fairly satisfactory. Project AWP has been monitored and the
ATLAS risk management has been updated. The financial delivery of
the project however was very poor. It was only 62 percent for 2012
while the delivery till June 2013 is negligible. This is indicative of a
complete lack of attention from the Implementing Partner first half of
2013. The project board has met towards the end of the reporting
period, concerned as well with the lack of progress with the
implementation of the project, and has made several recommendations
(e.g. prioritizing several actions to be implemented in the next period).
The project will undergo a mid-term review next year. It is
recommended that this occurs in the first half of the reporting period
(i.e. before the end of 2013) so that the project can benefit fully from
the course correction recommendations that this review can provide
and in most cases also generate significant momentum in projects that
are lagging in implementation. While the MTR will be commissioned by
the UNDP CO, the project is recommend to full own the process and
make maximum use of this review including coordinating meetings,
consultations and field visits to enable a most beneficial outcome.
UNDP CO should also ensure that the MTR is commissioned as
recommended in the first half of the reporting period. In addition the
RTA suggest organising a strategic planning meeting bringing together
all major stakeholders right after the MTR (if completed in 2013) or
before (if MTR is deferred) to draft a detailed implementation plan for
the rest of the project period.
Highly Satisfactory (HS)
Implementation of all components is in substantial compliance
with the original/formally revised implementation plan for the
March 23, 2016
Page 20 of 29
project. The project can be presented as 'good practice'.
Satisfactory (S)
Implementation of most components is in substantial compliance
with the original/formally revised plan except for only few that are
subject to remedial action.
Moderately Satisfactory
(MS)
Implementation of some components is in substantial compliance
with the original/formally revised plan with some components
requiring remedial action.
Moderately Unsatisfactory
(MU)
Implementation of some components is not in substantial
compliance with the original/formally revised plan with most
components requiring remedial action.
Unsatisfactory (U)
Implementation of most components is not in substantial
compliance with the original/formally revised plan.
Highly Unsatisfactory (HU)
Implementation of none of the components is in substantial
compliance with the original/formally revised plan.
March 23, 2016
Page 21 of 29
PROGRESS IN PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
Outcome 1- Key Outputs this Reporting Period: A comprehensive national regulatory framework for the control of IAS in Sri Lanka is in
place
2 important documents have now been developed, which is the National IAS Policy and the National IAS Strategy and Action Plan. These
documents have also been translated into the two local languages, Sinhala and Tamil, as well. These documents will form the foundation and help
establish a comprehensive regulatory framework for IAS control.
Outcome 2- Key Outputs this Reporting Period: A well-coordinated institutional mechanism is in place for integrated planning and
decision making at national and local levels with greater access to information on the status, threat and means of controlling IAS
This work is on going and expected to gather momentum when the IAS strategy and action plan is in place. A number of knowledge products have
also been developed to help provide greater access to information for planning processes.
Outcome 3- Key Outputs this Reporting Period: Decision makers at national and local levels are aware of cost-effective IAS controls
being implemented at national and local levels, best practices are shared and stakeholders’ capacities strengthened
The communication strategy has been developed, and finalised. Accordinly initial arrangements have been made to conduct awareness work on
IAS through the mass media. The earlier mentioned knowledge products will feed into this process. This work is on-going and is expected to
gather momentum as pilot project site work starts.
March 23, 2016
Page 22 of 29
Adjustments
Adjustments to Project Milestones, Project Strategy and Risk Management.
Key Project Milestones
Have significant delays occurred in the project start, inception workshop, Mid-term Review, Terminal
Evaluation or project duration?
Yes
If yes, were these changes reported in a previous APR/PIR?
Yes
Key project
milestone
Scope of delay (in
months)
Briefly describe the
Briefly describe change or implications or
reason for change
consequences this has had
on project implementation
Project Start (i.e. 11
project document
signature date)
The LPAC for the project was Overall project implementation
conducted on the April 07,
was delayed 11 months
2010, however the Prodoc
was signed, giving the
authority to implement, on
February 28, 2011. Govt.
hiring of staff for the project
was delayed due to internal
Govt. processes. As such
project work did not move
forward till January 2012. As
the project is implemented via
the National Implementation
modality with Ministry of
Environment as the
Implementing Partner, it was
not possible to advance the
project only with UNDP
interventions
Inception
Workshop
After much delays in staffing As a solution to the staffing
issues, the first National
issue, the same 1st NSC
Steering Committee (NSC)
approved the use of the eight
for the project was held on
member consultant group who
April 05, 2012 where the
developed the PPG of the
need of the inception
project, to provide support
workshop was highlighted.
during the implementation of
The inception workshop was the first year. As reported in
planned for Sept but
2012 PIR some of the first
eventually held on December year project work progressed
20, 2012. It captured the work at a slower pace. For example
done and discussed future
during 2012 the IAS policy,
alignments. During the
protocols above and
Inception workshop no
communication strategy had
changes to the technical
been started but was only
22
March 23, 2016
Page 23 of 29
design of the project was
proposed.
completed in 2013. In
summary the implication on
the project by this 22 month
delay is about half of that
duration.
Mid-term Review
Terminal
Evaluation
Project Duration
(i.e. project
extension)
Adjustments to Project Strategy
Has the project made any changes to its strategy (i.e. logframe/results framework) since the Project
Document was signed?
No
If yes, were these changes reported in a previous APR/PIR?
Change Made to
Yes/No
Project Objective
No
Project Outcomes
No
Briefly describe the change and the reason for
that change
<strong>
</strong>
Project Outputs/Activities
No
Risk Management
List number of critical risks as noted in the ATLAS risk log and briefly describe actions undertaken this
reporting period to address each critical risk.
# of Critical Risks (type/description)
Organizational
Risk management measures undertaken this
reporting period
The project has been managed by the Policy Planning
Division of the Ministry of Environment and Renewable
Energy since the begining of the year, which has delayed
the implementation of the project due to a mix match of
mandated activities. This severely affected the delivery
and implementation of the project. The project has now
been adviced to be transfered to the Biodiversity
Secretariat at the last project board meeting, as it is a
March 23, 2016
Page 24 of 29
better suited for the effective management given the
nature of the project. The transition was approved by the
Secretary of the Ministry and expected to take place in
Aug/September 2013. This will also involve familiarization
and other organizational issues. UNDP is in touch with
Director Biodiversity Secretariat. Director Policy Planning
is making sure the documentation is complete and project
proposals are in order before the hand over.
Adjustments general comments:
RTA Comments: UNDP CO highlighted three risks. The CO has not identified any of the three
highlighted as critical risks in ATLAS. The RTA reviewed and ascertained that one risk was critical -one reating to organisational location of the project. The other two risks that have been flagged here
as important issues that will merit attention in the following year: a) Due to the delays in starting
pilot projects sites the disbursement rate is still low. As such UNDP system started showing an ageing
balance related to the last advance, which was only recently sorted out. UNDP and Biodiversity
Secretariat (New management) will work closely to ensure the next advance gets utilized as planned,
primarily on the pilot sites. b) Staff capacity in the project is still coming from the PPG consultant
panel. Discussions are underway with the Ministry to add a procurement support for all UNDP
projects, which will cover this project as well. Assumption at this point is that Biodiversity Secretariat
will add more manpower starting September 2013.
Finance: cumulative from project start to June 30 2013
DISBURSEMENT OF GEF GRANT FUNDS
How much of the total GEF grant as noted in Project Document plus any project preparation grant
has been spent so far? (e.g. PPG + MSP or FSP amount. Do not break down by PPG or project
budget.)
Estimated cumulative total disbursement
as of 30 June 2013. (i.e.CDR information up to 20 188730.00
June 2013)
Add any comments on GEF Grant Funds
The total GEF Grant should be 1,955,000 (PDF A
= 25,000 + PDF B = 105,000 + FSP = 1,825,000).
FSP expenditure = 58,730 + PDF A expenditure =
25,000 + PDF B expenditure = 105,000.
DISBURSEMENT OF CO-FINANCING
How much of the total Co-financing as noted in Project Document has been spent so far? Cofinancing is the amount committed in the project document for which co-financing letters are
available
March 23, 2016
Page 25 of 29
Estimated cumulative total co-financing disbursed
as of 30 June this year. Please breakdown by
30000.00
donor.
Add any comments on co-financing including other As the project field activities have not started the
types and amounts of additional co-financing such co-financing so far is the Govt. staff time and
as in-kind, private sector, grants, credits and loans. venue\'s for meetings.
ADDITIONAL LEVERAGED RESOURCES
These additional resources can be from the same donors or new donors.
Estimated cumulative leveraged resources as of 30 0.00
June 2013
Add any comments on Leveraged Resources.
Other Financial Instruments
Does the project provide funds to other Financial
Instruments?
N
If yes, please discuss developments that occurred
this reporting period only.
Communications and KM
Tell the Story of Your Project and What has been Achieved this Reporting
Period
The development of the National IAS Policy and the National Strategy and Action Plan on IAS was one
of the main achievements. The objectives of the policy are: -To minimize the risks of IAS on
biodiversity, ecosystems, economy and society -To contribute to global efforts to control IAS through
nationwide operations -To communicate with all stakeholders on the national position and priorities
- To keep all stakeholders concerned of the risks posed by IAS and promote their participation in
responding -To promote sustainable economic development, technology transfer and enhanced
productivity The policy is guided by four strategic goals: - Prevention of intentional and
unintentional introduction of IAS - Early detection and rapid response at pre entry and post entry
levels - Containment, control and eradication of established and spreading invaders - Restoring of
biodiversity, habitats and ecosystems degraded due to impacts of IAS The development of the
Communication Strategy is another significant development. The objectives of which are -To
increase the awareness of the general public, key stakeholders and interest groups, etc on the issue
of IAS, including factors that enhance their success, their detrimental impacts and what pre-emptive
management and control methods can be undertaken. - to minimize any potential role the public
and stakeholders may have in the introduction and/or spread of IAS. - Ensure that a range of
audiences are able to correctly identify IAS or have contacts for expert identification, and highlight
cases where IAS could be confused with native species -To enable the community to provide
information on the location of IAS which can assist in the management and control of such species To build capacity of relevant line agencies which will enable them to perform their duties efficiently
and effectively. Protocols were also developed to assist in pre-entry and post entry risk assessments.
No such tools were previously available in Sri Lanka. Results could be directly added to the decision
March 23, 2016
Page 26 of 29
making process during import of live plan and animals into the island nation. Risks are assessed
under four categories -ecological and economical impacts - invasive potential - distribution management aspects of IAS A Black List of Top 10 priority IAS was also developed looking at a
variety of influencing factors. This list prioritizes attention and management interventions on the
species. Case studies on each will be developed. Currently 2 have been completed on Chitala ornate
(Clown Knife Fish) and Prosopis juliflora (Mesquite).
Adaptive Management this Reporting Period
Currently this project is managed by the Ministry solely and the project progress has been delayed
due to relating to organisational issues described elsewhere in this report. Thus UNDP CO has now
identified that to counteract these delays more manpower support is essential to speed up project
implementation and ease adjustment issues for the Biodiversity Secretariat(BDS). To this effect, the
PPG consultant team was retained to help provide the MInistry with essential technical support,
which helped the Ministry implement the project where possible. It is also being considered to
support the BDS which is taking over the project management in Sept 2013 with some assistance
related to procurement and project management.
Lessons Learned
The project has been delayed, with one of the main reasons being due to staffing. There have been
several changes of senior staff in the Ministry or Environment during the past year. In addition,
several senior level positions have remained vacant, with additional tasks allocated to remaining
staff. These issues have slowed project progress. However in the last Project Steering Committee
meeting (July 2013), these issues were address with the project being assigned to another senior
staff member. We assume that now the project will progress smoothly. The lesson identified is that
close monitoring of project progress will help identify implementation issues before serious delays
affect project delivery.
PARTNERSHIPS
Civil Society Organisations/NGOs
IUCN: Potential use of IUCN technical staff in case study development
Indigenous Peoples
N/A
Private Sector
The project is discussing the possibility of controlling and managing IAS species while generating
energy (biogas) using the green matter generated during the controlling process, in partnership with
private sector energy producers
GEF Small Grants Programme
Knowledge generated by the project is being used by the GEF/SGP biodiversity area and vise-versa.
Other Partners
National Botanical Gardens: Discussions on the way to establish a scientific/educational display at the
National Botanical Garden premises at Kandy (Peradeniya) where several thousands visit annually;
March 23, 2016
Page 27 of 29
Dept. of Wildlife Conservation: A potential partnership under discussion on a collaborative project as
a pilot site for management of IAS in Bundala Ramsar National Park, Southern Province of Sri Lanka
Marine Environment Protection Authority: Discussions on the controlling of IAS via Ballast Water
PROGRESS IN ADDRESSING GENDER EQUALITY
Has a gender or social needs assessment been carried out?
No
If a gender or social assessment has been carried out what where the
findings?
Does this project specifically target women or girls as direct beneficiaries?
No
Have there been any changes in specifically targeting women or girls as direct
beneficiaries this reporting period?
No
If yes, please explain:
The project will ensure consideration of gender issues in the implementation of pilot activities in the
next reporting period. A key activity for the project in the reporting period was related to the
development of national policies on IAS management and control. Steps were taken to ensure
adequate gender representation in the stakeholder consultations and meetings held to formulate
these policies. In addition, the project encourages qualified women to be recruited for positions in
the project.
Please discuss any of the points above further or provide any other
information on the project's work on gender equality undertaken this
reporting period
Some points to consider: impact of project on daily workload of women, # of jobs created for women, impact of
project on time spent by women in household activities, impact of project on primary school enrolment for
girls/boys, increase in women's income etc. Be as specific as possible and provide real numbers (e.g. 100 women
farmers participating in sustainable livelihoods programme).
ENVIRONMENTAL OR SOCIAL GRIEVANCE
March 23, 2016
Page 28 of 29
What environmental or social issue was the grievance related to?
What is the current status of the grievance?
How would you rate the significance of the grievance?
Please describe the on-going or resolved grievance noting who was involved,
what action was taken to resolve the grievance, how much time it took, and
what you learned from managing the grievance process (maximum 500
words). If more than one grievance was addressed this reporting period,
please explain the other grievance (s) here:
March 23, 2016
Page 29 of 29