Draft Conclusions/
Recommendations Mid-Term
Review
Global Foundations for Reducing Nutrient Enrichment and
Oxygen Depletion from Land-Based Pollution, in Support of
Global Nutrient Cycle
GPNM PSC
USDA - Washington, DC
10-11 December, 2014
Isabelle Van der Beck
MTR - OBJECTIVES
 Consistent
with UNEP and the GEF expectations
to evaluate/review project at Mid-Term
 Determine project achievements against
design/logframe and assess:
Effectiveness
 Efficiency
 Relevance
 Sustainability
 Project design and execution aspects
 Implementation arrangements
 M&E
 Financial management

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
Project investigations critical to understanding of nutrients in
general and specific to many GEF IW projects
 Project team – appropriate, highly competent and motivated
 Pilot projects – very successful, effectively implemented and
with signs of local impacts
 Low visibility of the project (website more of a ‘document’
repository)
 M&E reporting of financial and technical progress not as
expected
 Project actual costs not available on a component/activity
basis
 EA/PCU needs to prepare workplan, budget and revise
logframe/indicators/targets (asap)

LESSONS
 Importance
of ‘ground truthing’ through pilots (good
examples from L Chilika and Manila Bay work)

E.G. From PEMSEA pilot:

‘Nutrient management entails building awareness, understanding and
commitment across economic sectors that normally do not work together
(cities, agriculture aquaculture, forestry, manufacturing). An adaptive learning
process can build partnerships and strengthen collaboration across these
sectors. By example, the innovative modelling and forecasting tools developed
under this project provide a focus for communications and data sharing among
the different local stakeholders and a means to improve understanding of
perspectives, problems and solutions’.
 Lack
of Communications Strategy & ‘informative’
website have negative impact on overall project
 Important that changes in PCU staff and interim
reporting mechanism be made clear
RECOMMENDATIONS


Project Management
1. Logframe and indicators
2. Technical and financial reports
3. Workplan and budget for revised time-line
4. Project actual costs
5. Gender
6. Exit Strategy
Communications
1. Communication Strategy
2. Website
3. Experience Notes
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
 Project
has potential to be very successful
and have is expected to have significant
benefits to understanding of nutrient
management
 Addressing the project management and
communications aspects will help with the
‘impact’ of the actions beyond the project
partners/GPNM PSC
Thank you