Appendix A4 Mid-term Evaluation Report (February 2003) 1. Introduction

This report presents the results of the Mid-term Review (MTR) of the GEF project on Wetlands Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use in China. The MTR was asked to provide a “forward looking review” of the wetlands biodiversity project that would answer three key questions, with most emphasis placed on the last question:

What has been accomplished to date? What are the design and implementation problems that are affecting project

success? What does the MTR team recommend be done to fix these problems and improve

project performance?

The report, though it will be broadly shared with all stakeholders, is mainly directed to members of the Tripartite Review (TPR) to assist them in management and planning roles. In particular, it will assist them in reviewing the progress of the project to date and deciding whether the project should continue as it is, should be terminated or should be redesigned.

A six-member team composed of the following individuals did the MTR:

Joan Freeman: Team Leader and Institutional SpecialistXIE Yan: National Team Leader and Biodiversity/Institutional SpecialistJohn MacKinnon: International Biodiversity SpecialistZHANG Liquan: National Biodiversity SpecialistGerard Fitzgerald: Inernational socio-economic SpecialistLAI Qingqui: Naional socio-economic Specialist

Methodology

The scope of the MTR was broad; it investigated both evaluation issues (results and performance) and redesign issues. This was an enormous scope of work to accomplish within the budget and time given1, consequently the team leader proposed that the MTR use a strategic, team consensus and rapid appraisal approach to do the work. This approach was approved by UNDP, and it was agreed that the detailed TORs and report contents prepared by UNDP (see Appendix A) would not be followed by the MTR. Instead the MTR would focus on the three questions listed above, would only provide information significant for these three questions and only to the level of detail needed for TPR decision-making (i.e. not detailed). The emphasis would be on logic and clarity of analysis rather than detail. Finally, team member inputs would be coordinated and consensus approaches would be used to develop the findings and recommendations.

The rapid appraisal and team approach used by the MTR involved: Initial scoping of the issues by reviewing background documents, holding

discussions with senior officials (TPR members) and meeting as a team to discuss and agree on the MTR focus, report contents and team assignments;

Fact-finding and initial analysis, which involved visits to all four areas and team discussion and sharing of perspectives as the facts emerged. The team traveled extensively and held numerous meetings with stakeholders, project staff and beneficiaries in all areas (see itinerary in Appendix B for details).

Consolidation of the findings and team agreement regarding the main findings and recommendations

Report finalization.

Unfortunately, it was impossible to fully coordinate the MTR or arrive at the team consensus expected of this approach due to contractual constraints (the six MTR team members were contracted through three different agencies – UNDP, UNOPS and CPMU – and the TORs of the team members were not coordinated). Consequently, the team did not reach proper consensus on either the findings or recommendations – there was not enough time to do so before team members began to leave (three people left earlier than the planned end date for team work of Dec. 5).

Therefore, the MTR report was synthesized and prepared by the team leader from inputs received by the team, but it is not a consensus report. That being said, the MTR team generally agreed with the redesign recommendations, but there is disagreement about the details. Finally, it should be pointed out that the technical team members (i.e., biodiversity and socio-economic specialists) all prepared mission reports. These provide additional analysis and detail, but are lengthy and not appended to this report. The mission reports are available from UNDP and are recommended to readers wishing more detail, in particular about the threats to and opportunities for wetlands.

1 The budget provided for the MTR was the amount normally provided for an evaluation of a project of this size. However, the MTR was expected to do both an evaluation and to provide forward-looking redesign recommendations within an evaluation budget and timeframe.

2

The main methods used were file and document review, individual and group meetings, informal workshops, site visits and observation, phone and email connections with people we were unable to meet in person and cross-checking/analysis of various budget and input items. We also sent out an email questionnaire to most of the international consultants who had worked on the project (names and emails supplied by the Chief Technical Advisor – CTA). The results of this survey are provided in Appendix C. Finally, we found the briefing reports prepared by CMPU and the four PPMUs that we visited most helpful.

MTR Report The MTR mission occurred between November 6 and December 12, 20022. At the end of the mission, the International and National Team Leaders provided a debriefing and mission report to UNDP and other key partners (NPD/CPMU and AusAID). This MTR report expands upon the summary analysis and conclusions presented in the mission report. The report is divided into two parts: Chapters 2 and 3 present the evaluation part of the MTR and chapters 4-6 the forward-looking part of the MTR.

The report begins with a description of the context and background to the project (Chapter 2). It then goes on to identify the results of the project to date and those likely to be achieved by the end of the project. (Chapter 3). To predict results to the end of the project, we assumed that the project design and implementation practices would not change. Because the thrust of the report is forward-looking, the design and implementation changes that need to be made to improve performance are identified next (Chapter 4). Finally, our recommendations regarding the sub-contracts (Chapter 5) and redesign of the project are provided (Chapter 6).

AcknowledgementWe would like to thank all the people who have contributed to the MTR, providing information, meeting with us and openly discussing the project’s problems and solutions. In particular the NPD has made himself very available to the MTR team, the CPMU and PPMUs worked very hard arranging logistics, documents and meetings. Nature reserve staff from the Ruoergai and Sanjiang Plains areas traveled great distances to meet us when we lacked the time and favourable weather conditions to visit their nature reserves. Also, key people and organizations in Beijing made themselves available to us, often at very short notice. We thank you all, and believe that the time people gave to the MTR indicates the amount of interest in this project – and this bodes well for the project.

2. Context

2 These are the dates the MTR team leader was in China, one team member did a few days of work in October before the main mission started. The timing for the full mission with all team members was slated for November 6 to December 5, with the team leader staying a week after other members left. In fact, the full mission ended November 28, as team members began departing November 29.

3

This chapter introduces the project and the institutional conditions and priorities that originally gave rise to it. With that background established, the chapter goes on to examine changes in context that have occurred since the project was designed.

“Context” in terms of this chapter does not refer to technical and scientific issues. The project design document provided considerable “background and context” related to threats to wetlands and wetland values and opportunities: these are addressed again in Chapter 4 under project design issues. Instead, this chapter looks at policy and organizational issues as they affect the project.

2.1 Project Background and Context

2.1.1 The Wetlands Project

The project, Wetland Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use in China, was launched in May 2000 as a five-year project involving an $11.7 million USD investment of GEF, a $ 2.59 million USD investment by AusAID and a $20.3 million USD investment by the Government of China (GOC). Final project approval and signing of the project document occurred in December 1999, and the project was slated to end in September 2004; it has since been extended by a year. UNDP is the GEF implementing agency for the project, which it has designated a “national execution project.” Thus, the GEF project office of China’s State Forest Administration (SFA) is the national executor for all but the AusAID portion of the project. Implementation responsibility for the AusAID portion of the project was originally assigned to the United Nations Office of Project Services (UNOPS) but, within six months of project approval, this was shifted to the China International Center for Economic and Technical Exchanges (CICETE) of the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation (MOFTEC).3

The overall objective of the project is:

to secure the conservation of globally significant wetland biodiversity in China. To this end, the project will combat threats to wetland biodiversity, promote sustainable development in and around wetland sites and develop local and national capacity to integrate conservation into the development process.4

To accomplish this objective, the project intended to work at the national level to strengthen national policies and legislation and, as well, in four globally significant wetland areas in China. Work in all four areas was to focus on two levels: area-wide activities that related to biodiversity issues for the whole of each area; and local activities within a few nature reserves in each area. Generally, the area-wide activities aimed: to make land-use and development planning biodiversity-friendly; to raise public 3 UNDP Project Amendment to the Cost-sharing Agreement between UNDP and the Government of Australia, signed by UNDP February 15, 2000. Note that in both the original and amended agreement with AusAID, SFA was designated as the executing agency for the “whole project” and that UNOPS and later CICETE were identified as implementing agencies (not executing agencies). 4 Project design document, page 17.

4

awareness; and to develop alternative livelihood schemes for local communities living near wetlands. The activities in nature reserves were designed to improve reserve boundaries, management, equipment and staff skills.

The four areas and the specific nature reserves targeted within them were:

Sangjiang Plains: Honghe NNR (under SEPA) Ruoergai Marshes: Xiamann PNR, Gahai Lake NNR, Shouqu PNR (all under

SFA); Yancheng Coast: Dafeng NNR (under SFA); and Dongting Lakes Basin: East Dong Ting NNR (under SFA).

UNDP has two levels of execution under national project execution: the top level is an executing agency (EA); under this, there are one or more implementing agencies (IAs). In this project, the main executing agency is SFA’s Academy of Forest Inventory and Planning (AFIP), which has set up a project management office – the Central Project Management Unit (CPMU) – to control day-to-day management of the project. The CPMU is an executing agency. The other implementing agency is UNOPS, which is mainly responsible for the recruiting/contracting of required international experts. Four packages of project work have been organized into sub-contracts ranging in value from $270,000 to $2.4 million USD. Three of the sub-contracts are for the area-wide work to be done in all four areas: sub-contract 1 covers land-use ($740,000); sub-contract 2, public awareness ($1,080,000); and sub-contract 4, alternative livelihoods ($2,400,000). The final sub- contract –sub-contract 3 ($270,500) – relates to a single nature reserve (Honghe NNR in the Sanjiang Plains area) and covers hydrological work done with the aim of restoring the water level.

The CPMU is staffed with a national project manager (NPM), a chief technical advisor (CTA), and five to six other technical and support staff (biodiversity advisor, central site coordinator, training specialist, translator, accountant, etc.), all funded by the project. To coordinate work in the four areas, a Provincial Management Unit (PMU) was established in each province. As the Ruoergai Marshes extend into two provinces (Sichuan and Gansu), there are five PMUs for the project as a whole. Each PMU is staffed with a full-time coordinator and a UN volunteer, both paid for by the project.

The inputs described above are funded by GEF/Third Party funds. The Government of China (GOC) is also providing $20.3 million USD co-financing, mainly to fund capital works, project personnel (and training), equipment, facilities and transportation. (See section 2.1.2: Counterpart contributions, below.)

2.1.2 China

Wetlands – When the project was designed, wetlands were still a new issue in China, and they remain so. Again and again, members of the MTR team were reminded that the dynamic nature of wetlands is not yet well understood in China, nor has their ecological

5

value been fully realized. China still has a shortage of people with ecological training and even fewer with a background in wetland ecology.

Priorities related to wetlands – At the time that the project was designed, the GOC gave high priority to water conservation, both in terms of flood prevention and preservation of the water supply. In 1998, serious floods on the Yangtze and Song Hua Rivers resulted in even more emphasis being given to flood protection and gave rise to the 32-Word Policy covering the restoration of marginal agricultural lands to wetlands. This water restoration policy applies to two of the project areas: Dong Ting Lake and Sanjiang Plains. Thus, water conservation was the GOC’s main reason for preserving wetlands. At the same time, however, economic development and poverty alleviation were (and remain) top GOC priorities, and these affect how wetlands are used and managed.

By the time the project was designed, the GOC had signed on to a number of international conventions relating to wetland preservation and biodiversity (notably, the Ramsar Convention, Agenda 21 and the Convention on Biodiversity). It had also designated a number of national, provincial and local nature reserves and had begun to develop policy both for a National Biodiversity Conservation Action Plan and a National Wetlands Conservation Action Plan. Nevertheless, economic and development priorities remained more important than those relating to biodiversity in China, and wetlands areas were valued primarily in terms of their economic value as:

(a) sources of natural resources, including fresh water, fisheries (catch and capture), agricultural land (especially pasture/grasslands and areas for new agroforests) and sources of other exploitatable natural resources, such as fibres for paper-making; and

(b) important service providers, such as flood control, waste disposal and pollution control5 and, in particular regions, water transportation routes and strategic locations for urbanization and industrialization.

Thus, it is primarily in economic terms that the GOC addresses wetland issues; ecological conservation (including biodiversity protection), while recognized, is afforded relatively low value.6

GEF Wetlands Project Office – To underline its commitment to the project, the SFA established a GEF Wetlands Project office and seconded five staff members to manage it during the project development phase. Many of these staff members were experienced with donor projects, as they had worked on the Nature Reserve Management Project, a large GEF World Bank project. Also, they had substantive experience with wetlands, as they had been drawn from SFA units working on the Wetland Conservation Action Plan and other wetland issues.

Counterpart contributions – The $20.3 million USD co-financing provided to the project by the GOC includes: personnel ($3.36 million USD); protected areas operations and maintenance, mostly buildings and infrastructure ($9.96 million USD); equipment and facilities, such as offices and equipment, translation, utilities and use of local vehicles 5 Wetlands are often referred to as “the kidneys” of the environment.6 See the mission report of Gerald Fitzgerald for further details.

6

($6.37 million USD); and transportation for site visits ($600,000 USD). In addition to these co-financing investments, the GOC is investing $56.6 million USD in associated projects, mostly for water restoration activities in Dongting Lake. Although the project document is unclear, it is likely that most of the co-financing contribution (except for capital works) was intended to be in kind. The list of contributions and discussions with Chinese partners suggest that they give considerable importance to the construction of buildings and development of revenue-generating attractions (game farms, environmental education centers, etc.). It is not clear whether the GOC realized that it was also expected to fund implementation of the plans, methodologies and designs arising from the project.7

2.1.2 GEF

The GEF approach to project design involves: identification of the threats to biodiversity; analysis of underlying causes for those threats; identification of mitigation measures; and, finally, project design (based on identified mitigation measures). The design process, which started in 1994 and took over three years to complete, was carried out by Wetlands International and funded by a separate GEF grant of $330,000 USD. Another standard feature of the GEF approach is stakeholder consultation. During the project preparation phase, consultations were held with communities in all four areas and at township and county levels, and local lead groups were set up to represent various stakeholders. Clearly, consultation focused at the local and provincial levels, and early design documents indicate that the project intended to work beyond SFA at the local level to involve other departments and the local county level authorities in project delivery. What is less clear from the design documents is the number of consultations on the project held within SFA.8 The negotiations between SFA and UNDP/GEF needed to secure project approval were long and protracted (according to staff in CPMU, 13 separate negotiations were needed): this suggests that the initial design did not reflect SFA’s interests.

Also in keeping with the standard GEF approach, the project was designed to preserve globally significant biodiversity, so its objectives did not address basic capacity building in any major way. This is because GEF’s mandate is to preserve global benefits, and it interprets this to mean that recipient countries should pay for all items of local or national benefit (such as basic capacity building), whereas GEF should only pay the “incremental” costs required to preserve global benefits that are beyond individual country responsibilities. Taken literally, what this means for the wetlands project, is that GEF would expect that the capacity building of wetlands institutions and staff needed by the Chinese for their own development reasons either was already done or would be done by the Chinese government. In reality, however, the Chinese context had not arrived at a stage where “increments” for global preservation could be made; in fact, basic capacity development was needed (here as in many other projects) before global benefits could be usefully addressed. Thus the project’s stated objectives were designed to satisfy GEF while many of its activities focused on basic capacity building –causing a disconnect

7 This is the MTR’s interpretation of the situation; the project document is not explicit about these assumptions.8 It was reported to the MTR team that AFIP of SFA, the body tasked by SFA to implement the project, was not consulted by the design team; however, we were unable to verify this.

7

between the project’s stated and unstated objectives. On the one hand (from the GEF point of view), the project’s stated objectives aimed to enhance Chinese efforts to preserve biodiversity resources for the global benefit; in the Chinese context, this objective was premature: so the unstated objective was to build long-term capacity as was an essential foundation for sustainable global biodiversity benefits. This fundamental disconnect between the project’s stated and unstated objectives caused the MTR team to seek clarification regarding the real objective of the project, from GEF’s perspective. We were told sustainability and long-term impacts were key for GEF, and thus the primary objective of the project was: capacity building done to preserve global biodiversity long-term.

Again, once GEF designs a project, it typically hands it over to the GEF implementing agency – in this case, UNDP – to deliver. At the time of this particular hand-over, however, GEF had not yet established procedures for assigning responsibilities to the implementing agency. Today, when a project is handed over, GEF also assigns management responsibilities and sets expectations in a formal letter between UNDP and GEF. This was not done for the Wetland Project UNDP, moreover GEF did not give any direction to UNDP about management or supervision of the project.

2.1.3 UNDP

In addition to acting as a GEF implementing agency, UNDP had its own development priorities related to gender and community development/poverty alleviation, and these were added to the project.

Because the project was designed as a national execution project, implementation was handed to a Chinese executing agency. In most cases, UNDP uses CICETE as its executing agency in China. In this case, however, SFA was used, and UNDP had no experience with SFA. Typically, UNDP requires the EA and IA (the two levels of executing agencies referred to earlier) to be separate agencies; in this case, they were not: the SFA acts as both the EA and IA. National execution of projects always follows specific guidelines, referred to as the NEX manual, that are agreed upon by UNDP and the GOC. These guidelines, include specific rules for training, procedures for hiring project staff, procedures for payment of government staff, monitoring, evaluation and reporting, supervision reporting, etc.

UNDP was implementing a policy of “mainstreaming” around the time this project began: mainstreaming means that UNDP does not engage in the micro-management of projects. Instead, it relies on the executing agency to manage the project properly, with UNDP’s role being mainly one of policy guidance and broad oversight. The Wetlands Project, which was treated as a UNDP project, was subject to mainstreaming. In practice, therefore, until this year UNDP provided little supervision, allocated no technical time to project support/supervision and carried out no field visits. Rather, it relied on reports received from the EA and IA and advanced funds to the project as requested.

8

A related issue is UNDP’s technical capacity to supervise the Wetlands Project. By and large, UNDP concerns itself with basic capacity development and, in a general way, with project management. At the moment, the China country office (CO) has no specific technical focal point for the environment. At the same time, GEF operates at a complex level that demands advanced technical expertise.

Finally, continuity of staff presented certain challenges. UNDP professional staff rotate regularly within the organization as a normal part of career development. A major staff turnover occurred around the time of project approval. At that time, several key people departed who had been involved in development of the project from its beginning in 1994. The result was a serious loss of corporate memory between design, negotiations and implementation.

2.1.4 AusAID

AusAID agreed to participate in the project because, at the time, it fit in with Australian priorities. Moreover, the organization was interested in working more closely with multilateral agencies such as GEF/UNDP, reducing its administrative burden and leveraging its investment for a better return by administering related projects under a single common umbrella. With respect to Australian priorities, AusAID’s policy interests in China at the time of project design included: the environment; poverty alleviation; and grassroots development. Thus, AusAID took on as its special responsibility the part of the project that related to poverty alleviation and the development of alternative livelihoods.9

When it came on board, AusAID agreed to what it considered – and still considers – to be a sizable financial contribution ($5 million Australian). Because of a requirement to report to the Australian government in detail how those funds were used and what had been accomplished, AusAID required separate reporting arrangements for its funds. To that end, AusAID’s contribution was managed as a separate sub-contract.

2.1.5 UNOPS

UNOPS was brought into the project to support SFA with its expertise on UNDP’s international contracting procedures. UNOPS has extensive experience with the procurement of consultants (both individuals and firms) and equipment according to UNDP rules. Although UNOPS was based in Kuala Lumpur when the project was designed, it was expected to support the project by drawing on its roster of consultants/firms to identify and recruit qualified international consultants and by contracting and managing those consultants and providing quality control.

9 The MTR did not review the design history in enough depth to determine whether the element of alternative livelihoods was always integral to project design or if it was added afterwards, when AusAID became interested in the project.

9

Early project design documents and comments made by consultants involved in the project design suggest that UNOPS originally was intended to take responsibility for managing the four sub-contracts as well as the international consultants. However, sometime during the design or negotiation of the project, UNOPS’s role was reduced to responsibility for international consultants,10

2.2 Changes since the Project Began

2.2.1 China

Conditions in China are dynamic, as the country is rapidly developing and changing. Currently China has a population of just under 1.3 billion people, with a slow rate of natural increase (slightly less than 0.7 percent per annum). While the intense poverty that once characterized China has largely been relieved in recent years, it has not been entirely eliminated. Economic growth is running at over 7 percent a year, but that growth is unevenly distributed: annual incomes and standards of living tend to be higher (and improving faster) in the east and in cities generally and lower in the west, central and rural areas. This is relevant because GEF project sites are all located in rural areas and one area (the Ruoergai Marshes project) is located in the Western Region. The GOC is working to alleviate structural problems related to the east-west divide, and it has introduced a new policy to develop the Western Regions. In particular, it is opening up the Ruoergai area through new construction (specifically, a new highway, rail line and gas pipeline). Improved access is likely to result in new migration into the area and increased pressure on wetland resources. It also could produce eco-tourism opportunities for local herders.

At the same time, China is rapidly industrializing, and the shift towards a market economy is causing new economic stress. In particular, the government’s programme of industrial and agricultural “corporatization,” which requires enterprises to compete in the marketplace, has resulted in more unemployment. Many people in rural China still rely on the exploitation of common lands and local natural resources for at least part of their livelihood, and unemployment has tended to intensify pressures on the wetlands. The government has responded by developing poverty alleviation programmes and has drawn on the rapidly growing economy to create a new social security system.

Thus, although great strides have been made, China has not yet won its war on poverty. China’s overall focus remains – and for the foreseeable future will continue to remain – economic development. However, a number of new policies and priorities have been introduced that will influence how this development proceeds. In terms of the Wetlands Project, the current policies/priorities the MTR learned about are:

(a) Environment – The environment is becoming more and more a priority in China, where air and water pollution are regarded as serious threats both to health to healthy economic/industrial development. Reducing pollution

10 An individual told the MTR, that UNOPS retained the management fees allocated for managing the sub-contracts even though the responsibility was handed over to SFA. We could not confirm the accuracy of this information, as the MTR was unable to establish a clear financial picture of the management costs/allocations for the project (see chapter 5 for further financial details).

10

levels is thus a national priority. Consequently, over the past five years the State Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) has expanded, and SEPA is responsible – in addition to pollution control – for biodiversity preservation. In terms of significant new activities relating to the environment, the China National Wetlands Conservation Action Plan, which the SFA completed in 2002, is now available to provide guidance for this project. Moreover, the GOC is actively implementing new environmental initiatives in the Yangtze River basin. For over three years, the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) has been working to deliver an integrated Yangtze River basin program in support of GOC policy. Two aspects of the WWF program are especially relevant to the Wetlands Project: first, WWF is doing an alternative livelihood program in West Dongting Lake; and, second, it recently won approval to set up an Integrated River Basin Management Task Force under the China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development (CCICED). The CCICED task force will provide a forum for integrating water management issues (including wetlands) into the national policy development process.

(b) Poverty alleviation – This continues to be a priority of the GOC, and it is now elaborating policies for the creation of a second tier of cities to divert rural in-migration from existing economic growth centers, such as Beijing and Shanghai.

(c) Water conservation – In the wake of serious flooding in 2002, the conservation of water has also increased in importance as an issue.

(c) Government reform – The GOC is pursuing an ambitious program of government reform, which includes streamlining and reducing the size of government. As a result, the administrative staff of SFA has shrunk since the project began. The government also introduced a related policy in 1998 to govern the management of donor projects. This policy, which applies to the CPMU, requires project offices to be managed by separate business units, like AFIP, outside the normal administrative workings of the bureaucracy.

2.2.2 Project

(a) Nature reserves – The number of nature reserves included in the project has increased from six to eleven, with new sites being added in Sanjiang Plains (1), Ruoergai (1), Yancheng Coast (1) and Dongting Lakes (2).

(b) Turnover of SFA staff – SFA staff from within SFA administration (eg staff from the Wetland Office) who were involved in development of the project left the project office shortly after implementation began. New staff, many without technical knowledge of wetlands or experience in managing donor projects, were assigned to the project. Also, the National Project Manager of the project was reassigned in late 2002; at the time of the MTR, the National Biodiversity Advisor was acting project manager.

11

(c) Executing Agency – Soon after project approval, CICETE took over implementation of the AusAID portion of the project (i.e., sub-contract 4). It is unclear whether CICETE was initially intended to act as an IA under SFA or as an EA: the original cost-sharing agreement arrived at between UNDP and the Government of Australia suggests the former. Whatever the original intention, CICETE is now acting as an Executing Agency.

(d) Project extension – The bidding and contracting process for all the sub-contracts took longer than anticipated, and consequently the project was extended a year.

(e) Implementation problems – Implementation of sub-contracts 2 and 4 has been suspended due to problems with the terms of reference (TORs). The MTR is being used to address those problems.

12

2.2.3 Donors

(a) UNDP mainstreaming – After pursuing a mainstreaming policy for several years, UNDP has recognized that more supervision is needed than it had originally planned. In China, time has now been allocated for UNDP staff to make two field visits a year. However, as some UNDP staff are responsible for up to 10 projects (only one or two of which will be visited), supervision is still an issue.

(b) Technical support – GEF/UNDP regional offices have recognized the need for technical involvement in project supervision and monitoring/evaluation and are changing the role of their professional staff accordingly.

(c) UNDP staff turnover – Changes in key staff will occur in 2003 (the resident representative, deputy resident representative and project manager), just as the project enters a critical phase of redesign and improved implementation.

(d) Service agreements – For new projects, GEF now enters into a service agreement with UNDP; however, this does not apply to historic projects, such as the Wetlands Project.

(e) AusAID priorities and policies – AusAID has changed its priorities for the China programme, de-emphasizing the environment, and the Wetlands Project no longer fits its priorities. Also, AusAID has new resettlement policies in place, and these must apply to any alternative livelihood activities it funds that involve resettlement. Finally, AusAID is troubled by that part of the project design that includes micro-credit: like many donors, it has learned that such schemes are problematic. On the other hand, it has had good success with small grants and supports them.

(f) UNOPS office – UNOPS opened an office in Beijing around the time that the project was approved and has managed the project from there. However, the UNOPS project officer recently left China, and the future of the Beijing office is uncertain: it may relocate to Kuala Lumpur.

2.2.4 Donors: Lessons Learned

(a) In general, the best way to improve integration within and coordination between various sectors of the GOC is to strengthen existing mechanisms, rather than attempting to develop and institutionalize new mechanisms.

(b) It takes time for donors to establish relationships, build connections and generate interest and support among the decision-makers in the recipient country; however, this process is essential to the effecting of change. Often the building of relationships can take considerable time. For example, during the sustainable

13

livelihood project for West Dongting Lake, WWF found it took about three years to establish strong relations at all the decision-making levels involved.

(c) Innovative or experimental environmental projects in new fields (e.g., climate change, persistent organic pollutants [POPs], biodiversity) require more supervision and expert technical assistance than do conventional projects. Also, as the way to achieve the desired outcome is often initially uncharted, such projects demand flexibility. Approaches are needed that bring together ideas from developed and developing countries to produce practical solutions tailored to the particular context.

3. Project Results and Impacts

In the past two years, considerable investment has been directed to the Wetlands Project. The question is this: what has been accomplished through this expenditure? The answer: despite many inputs and a high level of activity, there has been limited progress made in terms of achieving the project’s objectives. Experts have done numerous studies (61 reports); personnel have undergone training; equipment has been delivered to project areas. However, without a major redesign, these inputs are unlikely to lead to the conservation of globally significant wetland biodiversity in China.

Progress in relation to the project’s objectives is presented in section 3.2. Details on the results of specific activities and outputs of the project are given in sections 3.3 and other results are presented in Section 3.4.

3.1 Status

The Wetlands Project has been underway for slightly over two years since its inception in July 2002. During that time, the implementation of activities has adhered to the plan as laid out in project documents and annual work plans. Project documents suggest that the implementation of activities has been very good, with CPMU figures showing that approximately $5.5 million USD of the GEF/Third Party funding had been dispersed as of December 2002. Despite the fact that the implementation of some activities and sub-contracts has been delayed, the dispersal of planned GEF inputs was similarly high, measured as a percentage of the total budget rather than in terms of specific activities. The GOC has invested a counterpart contribution of $6.28 USD (CPMU statistics) so far, mainly on infrastructure for nature reserves and capacity building. Sub-contracts 1 and 3 are well underway however; sub-contracts 2 and 4 have been delayed due to a bidding process that was more time-consuming than anticipated and also more fruitless. The bidding process for sub-contracts 2 and 4 suffered from problems with TORs, as well as certain irregularities and interference. There was, for example, an unacceptable length of several months between the evaluation of bids and announcement of the winner for sub-contract 4.

14

3.2 Achievement of ObjectivesThis section presents project achievements in relation to overall and intermediate objectives. We assessed both progress to date and what the project will likely achieve by the time it ends, assuming that neither the design nor the method of implementation change.

3.2.1 Outputs and Intermediate ObjectivesIn our view, none of the six intermediate objectives are likely to be achieved by the time the project ends. Figure 3.1 presents those objectives and related outputs. Our reasons for concluding that none of the objectives will be achieved follow.

15

Figure 3.1 Wetland Project, Intermediate Objectives and OutputsIntermediate Objective 1: To ensure conservation of globally significant wetland biodiversity at Honghe NNR and the surrounding area

Outputs:1.1 An expanded Honghe NNR in Sanjiang Plain to include additional biodiversity hotspots and create wetland corridors

within the PAS. 1.2 Strengthened protected wetland area management of the extended Honghe NNR. 1.3 Restoration and management of the water regime at Honghe NNR. 1.4 Biodiversity-friendly agricultural development demonstrated in buffer zone of Honghe NNR. 1.5 Over all the plain, biodiversity-friendly land use planning demonstrated through preparation of biodiversity overlays. 1.6 Raised public awareness of wetland values and functions in the Sanjiang Plains.

Intermediate Objective 2: To ensure conservation of globally significant wetland biodiversity at Xiaman PNR, Gahai NNR, Shouqu PNR and intervening areas in Ruoergai Marshes.

Outputs:2.1 Expanded protected wetland areas in Ruoergai Marshes to include additional biodiversity hotspots, as necessary. 2.2 Strengthened protected area wetland management in the Ruoergai Marshes (Xiaman PNR, Shouqu PNR and Gahai NNR). 2.3 Increased community involvement in management of protected wetlands at Ruoergai Marshes. 2.4 Over a wider area, biodiversity-friendly land use planning demonstrated through preparation of biodiversity overlays. 2.5 Raised public awareness of wetland values and functions in Ruoergai Marshes.

Intermediate Objective 3: To ensure conservation of globally significant wetland biodiversity at Dafeng NNR and surrounding areas in Yancheng Coastal Marshes.

Outputs:3.1 Expansion and re-alignment of protected wetland areas in Yancheng Coastal Marshes to include additional biodiversity hotspots

and creation of coastal wetland eco-cline. 3.2 Improved protected area management and protection of globally significant biodiversity in the core areas of the

Yancheng Biosphere Reserve. 3.3 Sustainable use of inter-tidal resources demonstrated by local communities and cooperatives in Dafeng NNR buffer

zone. 3.4 In the Yancheng coastal area, biodiversity-friendly land use planning demonstrated through preparation of biodiversity overlays. 3.5 Raised public awareness of wetland values and functions in Yancheng Coastal Marshes.

Immediate Objective 4: To ensure conservation of globally significant wetland biodiversity at East Dongting NNR and surrounding areas in the Dongting Lakes Basin.

Outputs:4.1 Improved protected area management at East Dongting NNR. 4.2 Identification and management of biodiversity hotspots in the wider Dongting Lake basin. 4.3 Biodiversity overlays prepared and biodiversity conservation fully integrated into development plans for a large area. 4.4 Raised public awareness of wetland values and functions in Dongting Lakes area.

Intermediate Objective 5:To develop sustainable alternative livelihoods with local communities in and around wetland areas in order to decrease pressures on globally significant biodiversity.

Outputs:5.1 Alternative livelihood schemes developed for local communities in and around wetland areas in Sanjiang Plain. 5.2 Alternative livelihood schemes developed for local communities in and around wetland areas in Ruoergai Marshes. 5.3 Demonstrations of sustainable grassland management for local herder communities in Ruoergai Marshes. 5.4 Alternative livelihood schemes developed for local communities in and around wetland areas in Yancheng Coastal Marshes. 5.5 Alternative livelihood schemes developed for local communities in and around wetland areas in Dongting Lakes.

Intermediate Objective 6:To incorporate wetland biodiversity conservation into national conservation plans, legislation and processes.

Outputs:6.1 National support structures for integrated wetland management established and operational. 6.2 Lessons learned and project results disseminated nationally and internationally.

16

Objectives 1 to 4: Conservation of Globally Significant Wetland Biodiversity in four areas: Sanjiang Plain, Ruoergai Marshes, Yancheng Coast and Dongting Lake

As Figure 3.1 illustrates, intermediate objectives 1 to 4 relate to conserving globally significant biodiversity in one to three nature reserves in each of the four areas; they also involve implementing some wider effects in the surrounding area (mainly public awareness and biodiversity friendly land-use planning and development decision-making). Thus, achievement of these objectives requires that actions at two levels be effective: the local or nature reserve level and the wider regional level. To make our assessment for these objectives, we looked at the two levels separately, and assumed for the local level that the regional actions were effective and vice versa.

We start with what will be accomplished in the Nature Reserves. According to the plan, biodiversity in the nature reserves will be conserved once certain changes have been implemented (specifically: boundaries enlarged to incorporate biodiversity hotspots, training and equipment provided for nature reserve staff; management plans developed and implemented; and site-specific problems fixed at some sites (i.e., water levels restored in Honghe NNR). In our view, these changes, although they will contribute to biodiversity conservation, will be insufficient to preserve biodiversity in the nature reserves. The main reasons for that conclusion are that the measures do not address:

the dynamic nature of the biodiversity resources, specifically: birds move freely over large areas, which means that protecting one site will not provide protection for species at large;

the dynamic nature of wetland ecosystems, specifically: Dongting Lake has changed shape dramatically since 1949, shrinking to half its size, with the emerging land being claimed for farmland; also, the Yancheng Coastline is accreting at a rate of 50 to 100 m a year; and

the financial situation and realities of nature reserves, specifically: the reserves have very little recurrent budget, which makes it impossible for them to mount proper programs for monitoring poaching and enforcement, or to prevent farmers and fishermen from using lands in the reserves; in fact, the reserves often depend on monies received from users of lands within the protected area to bolster their operating budgets.

In short, the project design is flawed. Even if the activities are well done they will not result in protection of biodiversity in the nature reserves. This does not mean that the activities are not worthwhile; building the capacity of nature reserves is an essential ingredient for biodiversity conservation. Most of the nature reserve activities are designed to do this, and in that sense are worthwhile and will contribute to biodiversity conservation. However, basic capacity development on its own will not be sufficient to protect biodiversity locally, the three issues listed above also need to be solved for the nature reserves to achieve the desired objectives. The immediate objectives for the nature reserves are unrealistic and unachievable, even in the long-term. We also looked at how well the activities are being implemented, and as discussed in section 3.3, have identified

17

a number of implementation problems. So the activities as they are being implemented now will fall short of achieving adequate capacity development.

Now we turn to the plans for protecting biodiversity in wider areas around the various nature reserves. In these areas, the project aims to do three things to improve biodiversity conservation: (i) raise public awareness; (ii) integrate biodiversity considerations into development and land-use planning; and (iii) develop alternative livelihoods for local farmers/fishermen who are degrading wetlands. The issues of public awareness and influencing land-use/development plans are addressed in objectives 1 to 4, and we discuss them below. Alternative livelihood activities are mainly addressed under objective 5, and it is discussed under that heading below.

As was the case with nature reserves, in order to assess the likelihood of regional activities achieving the desired results, we looked at the fundamental rationale of the plans (i.e., would the planned activities actually lead to the desire outputs?), as well as considering how well the activities are being implemented. On both counts, we found problems. In terms of implementation, little progress has been made in improving public awareness because of problems with the bidding and contracting process for sub-contract 2. Also, the biodiversity overlay work, which is the main activity intending to influence land-use and development planning, is somewhat behind schedule due to delays in contracting. (For further details on implementation issues related to sub-contract 1, see section 3.3.) However, even if these sub-contracts were implemented well, we do not think they would achieve the desired results for the following reasons:

To achieve biodiversity-friendly land use planning in the wider areas, two main approaches are being used – development of biodiversity overlays and establishment of a Wetlands Management Authority (WMA) at the provincial level, composed of senior decision-making officials. The MTR does not believe these two approaches are sufficient to result in changes in land-use and development decision-making. Moreover, we have problems with the two approaches themselves.

In our view, the main impediments to biodiversity-friendly land-use and development plans are: (i) the lack of agency/sectoral cooperation and coordination; and (ii) the low priority of biodiversity in relation to economic development and poverty alleviation. The production of biodiversity overlays and the setting up of WMAs does nothing to address these constraints.

Rather than attempting to set up some completely new authority, we should make use of existing planning and decision-making processes (such as Provincial Planning Commissions).11 Having said that, the project must go beyond providing Planning Commissions with biodiversity information; which would not change the uncoordinated and economically focused way decisions are made. Much more needs to be done in order to change the decision-making process – for example, awareness-raising of decision-makers, getting agencies working

11 The WMA is useful however, as a project leading group to secure counterpart funding

18

together and linking biodiversity considerations directly to the economic and social policies being implemented.

Regarding the biodiversity overlays, good information is certainly needed to inform decision-making, and this is what the biodiversity overlays aim to provide. However, we are concerned about the “static” nature of biodiversity overlay mapping and believe that an approach should be developed that would produce not a “snapshot” (a description that remains current only briefly), but rather a constantly updated picture of biodiversity conditions. To achieve that, overlay mapping should be linked to a process of ongoing monitoring of biodiversity species, habitats and trends.

The public awareness elements of the project were designed as a separate sub-contract. In our view, it will be impossible to develop operational awareness and educational programs in isolation from the rest of the project. To develop successful awareness programs (i.e., programs that effectively raise awareness and that the forestry authorities are capable of implementing), the work must be integrated into other project activities and coordinated with the ongoing work of provincial and natural reserve units. The present sub-contracting and management arrangements prevent the achievement of this integration.

Immediate Objective 5: Sustainable Alternative Livelihoods

Significant problems with the bidding process for sub-contract 4 have prevented the launching of work to develop alternative livelihoods schemes. However, even if the sub-contract were implemented as currently designed, it would not produce the desired results. The reasons are twofold: first, because the TORs for the sub-contract are flawed and the type, sequence and details of outlined activities are ill conceived and not in keeping with good practice; and second, conditions in each area are not properly understood or taken into account. The project as designed would deliver a similar alternative livelihood package to each area, whether or not alternative livelihood schemes are a priority there or not. Indeed, it is assumed alternative livelihoods are needed in every area and are a suitable means to decrease local pressure on biodiversity resources: we do not think this is the case in any of the four area:

(a) Sanjiang Plains – Planned activities involve developing eco-tourism as an alternative livelihood around Honghe Nature Reserve, even though the feasibility of eco-tourism here is unknown and should be assessed as a first step. Also, a community development model is the approach to be used for all areas, and it is inappropriate here, where State Farms own all the land. Moreover, the government plans to reflood lands in seven natural reserves; including Honghe NNR, and the central issue is thus one of resettlement, not the mitigation of agricultural practices. As part of resettling people, the government will help affected people develop alternative livelihoods that are economically viable. An Asian Development Bank (ADB) loan will be used to finance the government’s alternative livelihood program and another GEF project is helping

19

integrate biodiversity considerations into the design of the ADB loan. There is no role or need for separate alternative livelihood activities here.

(b) Ruoergai Marshes – To succeed, any alternative livelihood scheme (for example, eco-tourism) must take into account national and provincial policy and development issues that lie beyond the control of local communities. The current project design does not do this. Micro-credit approaches in general have been found to be problematic and are no longer favoured by donors. In this case, the micro-credit amounts proposed to encourage local herders to reduce their use of the grasslands provides no incentives.

(c) Yangcheng Coast Marshes – With economic and population pressures affecting local communities and a lack of operating funds for nature reserves, the current pattern of land being quickly claimed for aquaculture, agriculture and industry in the lowland coastal areas in Yancheng will continue. Also, tenure and jurisdictional issues make it difficult for nature reserve staff to exert any influence beyond the core area of the reserve. These problems cannot be solved at the local level by community development approaches. Thus, alternative livelihood schemes are unlikely to cause any decrease in human impact throughout the large Yancheng Biodiversity Reserve.

(d) Dongting Lake – Once again, when the government refloods marginal agricultural land for flood protection reasons, the issue will be resettlement, and not alternative livelihoods and, in any case, government-funded resettlement schemes will include compensation and economically focused alternative livelihood packages. Also, WWF has already been working successfully in West Dongting Lake to promote sustainable alternative livelihoods among relocated farmers/fishermen. Assuming that the purpose of GEF is to develop new models for addressing biodiversity problems, the WWF model has proven its worth at Dongting Lake. There is no need to do more unless there is value in learning how to replicate successful approaches from one area (West Dongting Lake) to another (East Dongting Lake).

Immediate Objective 6: National Policy Development

Work relating to this objective is meant to result in the creation of national support structures for integrated wetland management that will feed into national policy review mechanisms and legislation. However, although the CPMU has been established and a CTA hired, the lack of involvement of SFA staff in the project and the isolation of CPMU from SFA has prevented the project from making a useful contribution to national policy development. If these isolated and non-participatory practices continue, we do not expect the project to provide any support for national policy development.

The project also envisages the comprehensive dissemination of project results nationally and internationally so that lessons learned can be applied to the management of a wide suite of wetland sites throughout China and elsewhere with a view to improving

20

practices. It is marginally possible that it is still too early to determine the feasibility of such broad national dissemination. To date, however, there has been on interest in analyzing lessons learned or improving practices within the CPMU. It is safe to say that, if present practices continue, no progress will be made in this area by the time the project ends.

3.2.2 Overall Objective

Impact on Global Biodiversity – GEF funded this project in order to preserve global biodiversity, and the MTR was asked to assess the project’s impact in terms of the project’s overall objective, which is to secure the conservation of globally significant wetland biodiversity in China.12

The achievement of global benefits takes a long time and requires that all the building blocks for global protection of a resource be in place and working well. Specifically”

the capacity has to be built at all levels, from local to national; operational approaches for managing biodiversity resources have to be developed

and successfully implemented; and the institutions (national and provincial) for protecting biodiversity and the

policies that make it a priority have to be in place and supported by the government and public.

In our view, the overall objective is unachievable within the timeframe of this project and should be adopted as a long-term objective instead. In that light, the vital question is whether the project is heading in the right direction. Are its activities likely to lead towards preservation of globally significant wetland biodiversity in China?

The members of the MTR unanimously agree that this project, as presently designed and implemented, would have little impact on the preservation of global biodiversity in China, even in the long-term. If it continues as it is, the project is likely to cause modest capacity development of facilities and staff of Nature Reserves, CPMU and PPMU. However, capacity development is not enough. If long-term benefits are to be realized, there are three elements – capacity development, development of practical management approaches and policy development – that must all progress sufficiently so as to persist after the project ends. This implies that there must be some means of replicating the project’s lessons elsewhere. Our assessment is that only one of the elements needed to achieve long-term benefits – and that is capacity development – will have been accomplished by the end of the project. Even in that area, however, no downstream mechanism for continuing to build capacity will be in place.

Finally, the project is designed to achieve its overall objective by three means:13

12 The project document uses both the terms secure and maintained in the statement of overall objectives in different places of the document. We use the term secure for the overall goal as it is the term used in the main text of the project document. 13 See objective statement on page 17 of the project document.

21

combating threats to wetland biodiversity; promoting sustainable development in and around wetland sites; and developing local and regional capacity to integrate conservation into the

development process.

In our view, this project will have difficulty improving the situation through any of these means. With reference to the first mechanism, the project is generally designed to identify and address most of the local threats to wetlands (such as poaching, poisoning of fish and birds, etc.) and some threats from wider regional and national sources. The design demonstrates weaknesses and a lack of understanding of some of the local issues (e.g., overgrazing and causes of the mice explosion in Ruoergai). However, the biggest weakness in terms of threat analysis is that the project does not address the two most important threats to wetlands: (i) the lack of agency/sectoral cooperation and coordination; and (ii) the low priority given to biodiversity compared to that accorded economic development and poverty alleviation. Unless the project is designed to address these threats, its long-term impact on biodiversity conservation will be marginal. With regard to the second mechanism for addressing the overall objective (promotion of sustainable development with reference to alternative livelihoods) and the third (integration of conservation into the development process), our concerns are discussed in section 3.2.1 above.

3.3 Quality and Utility of Specific Products

3.3.1 Biodiversity Assessments

Many international and national experts associated with this project have conducted a number of field biodiversity surveys at the four sites and produced many technical reports. However, the quality of the reports is variable, from good professional work to mere collections of out-of-date data drawn from early work of the local research institutes and universities. Some reports actually contain misleading information; for example, the Honghe NR list referred to many dry-land and even montane species that are not, in fact, found within the reserve boundaries. It is highly questionable whether international consultants should have undertaken so much basic data collection and data checking in the course of such short visits. Where domestic experts have been hired, they have often been used as interpreters and facilitators.14 The division of work responsibilities between international and national experts has not proven to be an efficient use of resources. National experts who know the language, customs and species in the areas would have done the basic survey and inventory work much more efficiently. International experts, on the other hand, would be better employed drawing on their broad experience to provide general guidance, introduce new methodologies and find new ways of collecting and analysing biodiversity data from their broad experience.

14 It was reported to the MTR that there has been some reluctance on the part of CPMU to hire the best local experts available for a variety of personal and institutional turf reasons.

22

On the other hand, these data are at most a snapshot of the current situation, and snapshots taken at the species biodiversity level at that (e.g., the species list includes rare and endangered species). There is not enough spatial (geo-referenced) and temporal information on, for example, species distribution, population dynamics and vegetation, nor are there habitat maps. The lack of biodiversity information on the habitat and landscape levels makes the mapping of biodiversity overlap and monitoring difficult: therefore, supplemental surveys will be necessary at each site, focusing perhaps on rare and endangered species, plant community types, habitat types and landscape level, depending on data availability and local conditions of each site. These supplemental survey should be jointly conducted by the nature reserve and local research institutes and universities under the guidance of CPMU, PPMU and the specialist team, with the emphasis on the capacity-building of the nature reserve staff and establishment of a sustainable monitoring system.

3.3.2 Socio-economic Surveys15

One of the disappointing aspects of the project to date occurred in the coverage of social issues in the various areas. The main problem seems to be a lack of purpose or strategic focus for the planned social “advice,” support and investigations. Unfortunately, these issues could not be explored directly with international or national specialists, as none was present during the MTR visit.

In terms of personnel, the project document called for:

(a) an international social economic advisor (ISEA) to be recruited for five person months and spending one month a year in the CPMU and local PMUs, the role being to provide advice and support to the project and to backstop sub-contracts 2 and 4 ; and

(b) a national socio-economic advisor (NSEA) to be recruited for 41 person months (the equivalent of one full-time person for 3.4 years), the role being to act as a CPMU-based technical support person.

Between preparation of the project document and implementation, the TOR for the ISEA changed to the following at each project site:

to assess actively social and economic conditions; to determine specific needs for social and economic monitoring; to advise on a framework for baseline socio-economic surveys to be carried

out at the community and household levels; and to propose a participatory mechanism for community-project conflict

resolution.

As a result of this change in role, the five one-month inputs became one two-month inputs and three one-month inputs, delivered “at appropriate times during the remaining period of the contract.” The role of the NSEA was also changed from technical support to become essentially an assistant and language interpreter in support of the ISEA.

15 For further details on the socio-economic surveys see the mission report of Gerald Fitzgerald

23

As per the modified TOR, the ISEA carried out a series of scoping and profiling studies at each site, with surveys based on semi-structured individual, household and group interviews. The results of these studies were presented in the form of two reports covering the site-level findings and recommendations, in a summary report with recommendations and in the form of a seminar presentation. However, these general scoping studies provide no specific details.

It is worrisome that the entire budget of the international socio-economic advisor (intended to cover five months) had been spent by mid-2002. This is not surprising, given that the revised TORs call for the ISEA to assess the social and economic conditions at each site. It was a change that involved a huge increase in the scope of work. It was not possible to carry out the study in a detailed way within the available five-month budget. The socio-economic work suffered the same problem as the biodiversity assessment: the international and national experts have been used inappropriately. It is particularly unfortunate that the role conceived for the international socio-economic expert was appropriate to begin with but was changed to become inappropriate.

The rush to generate reports and complete assignments and the lack of strategic purpose for the socio-economic studies means that the work done to date has not been of much value, and it tends to be isolated from the project. The recommendations of the PAS management specialists confirm this, as do the activities proposed in the various nature reserve management plans that are part of the GEF project.

This situation gives rise to a number of questions:

How will the more detailed and focused social-economic baseline studies – where required – be initiated. How will they be paid for? (Note that the ADB-funded Sanjiang Plain project will include technical assistance for the socio-economic assessment and that the WWF Yangtze programme includes various focused social and economic surveys and studies.)

How will the socio-economic monitoring – where required – be designed, initiated and implemented, and who will carry out the site-level data gathering? (Note that the WWF Yangtze programme also includes monitoring work.)

How will these activities be guided and supported, given the apparent exhaustion of contracted time for the ISEA and the “absence” of a NSEA?

3.3.3 Training

Training is the most important benefit of the project to date. Almost everyone the MTR met identified training as the key benefit. Some of the training is already having an impact: nature reserve staff reported that they had used Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) approaches to talk to local people and found them helpful. The effect of other training is more intangible, peoples’ general knowledge of wetland issues, co-management and other approaches have increased but so far this has not translated into

24

changes in how they perform their jobs. The study tours have also had an influence; one provincial official observed after visiting New Zealand that its not important to build large buildings on nature reserves. Another provincial official returned from visiting wetland sites in Europe with a new understanding and commitment to preserve wetlands in China. The MTR team agreed that training is the most successful aspect of the project. We also feel that the training could be made more effective, with proper targeting, planning, selection of participants and better tailoring of the training to needs.

As training is so important to this project, the MTR team has spent considerable time understanding the status of training, what and how training is being delivered and issues related to training that should be addressed. These are discussed below.

The provision of training and capacity-building is central to the design and strategy of the GEF Wetlands Project. The project document (pages 9 to 11) indicates that training is the main (if not the only) benefit envisaged for “target beneficiaries” of the project at all levels. Within the six immediate project objectives, there are 127 listed activities, of which 19 specify training or capacity-building.

Expenditures on training – On the project input side, $4,129,00 USD are explicitly earmarked for training (see Table 3.2). In addition, training is a component of a number of other activities, although the cost for the training is not indicated separately. (See Table 3.3.)

The Training Needs Assessments – Four different consultants were hired (one for each site) to complete the training needs analysis at the beginning of the project. These generated separate reports, which were complemented by an overview or synthesis report prepared by one of the TNA specialists. The TNAs generally followed a standard and accepted formula at each site and for the CPMU and came up with a standard package of training activities involving six types of training:

international and in-country fellowships; international and in-country study tours; international-standard short courses delivered in-country; and national short courses or workshops.

There are two points of interest here: (i) the kinds of training suggested by the TNA specialist closely resembled the list included in the original project design document (page 67); and (ii) the training workshops and short courses proposed for the provinces and nature reserves were general in character, rather than tailored to the specific sites.

However the CPMU described this overall plan, with listed courses and personnel priorities, as “unworkable” due to, among other things, the consultant’s “poor knowledge of the actual situation in China.” The CPMU then recruited its own training manager/consultant to produce, a “new practical training program that met the actual needs of the project sites.” Despite not having a workable training plan between July 2000 and April 2001, a number of training courses were delivered, including site-level short courses in basic computer and the Internet, financial management, reserve management planning and wetland survey, monitoring and evaluation.

25

Table 3.2Training Activities Costed in the Project Document US$Donor funding

Specialist inputs

International training needs analysts and trainers not in sub-contracts 768,000National training needs analysts and trainers not in sub-contracts 308,000

Training Courses

Domestic workshops and study tours in management planning, wetland monitoring, networking and communications, education and awareness programme design

1,518000

International study tours and training fellowships 535,000Donor sub-total

3,129,000

GOC funding

? Staff training 1,000,000

All sources Total 4,129,000

Table 3.3Contractor Training component not included in table 3.2 ValueSC1 TNA* and provision of training in specialized techniques of integrated

biodiversity, etc., for minimum of 5 staff at each project siteunknown

SC2 Supply of training relating to environmental education campaigns, TNA, and supply of “extensive training for local agency staff” in techniques of environmental education, etc. (Includes “overseas training opportunities in the form of fellowships, work placements and study tours”.)

unknown

SC3 TNA and in-country training to staff of lead agencies in Sanjiang Plain and in local agencies and protected area authorities in hydrological monitoring techniques. (Includes training in hydrological monitoring at Honghe, GIS database operations, and water resource planning.)

unknown

SC4 Group training in use of PRA techniques and community development issues for forestry, livestock and agriculture bureau at county level

unknown

CTA-TOR ‘Contribute directly to specialist training activities through involvement in training workshops at national and local levels.”

unknown

International PAS management specialist

“Field training in PAS management” unknown

International project management (M&E) specialist

“Provide inputs to M&E training” unknown

International bidding & contracting expert

“Provide on-the job- training to the national experts and agencies responsible for bidding”

unknown

National bidding & contracting expert

“Provide on-the job- training to the national experts and agencies responsible for bidding”

unknown

** International Collaborative Management specialist (part of SC4?)

“Conduct four training workshops (one at each project site) in co-management approaches and methods applicable to Chinese wetlands in general and the project sites in particular”

Estimated at least 50% of cost of consul-tancy

* Training needs analysis** Does not appear on project description list of specialists to be recruited (see

consultant’s final report, Appendix A).

It is difficult to discern any substantial difference between what was proposed by the international TNA specialist in terms of topics, content and trainers’ content for the national training workshops and what was actually implemented as workable training by the CPMU. The programme of short courses adopted by the CMPU closely resembled that laid down in the project document. The short courses proposed were still mostly generic and not tailored to the local needs (tailoring of training was an improvement suggested to the MTR by nature reserve and provincial officials). The only differences

26

that we noted were the expansion of international study tours (the budget was revised to accommodate this) and expansion of the number of key officials from SFA and CPMU participating in international and national study tours and fellowships.

Content and targeting of training – It is difficult to discern whether the national short courses were successful or not, as English-language versions of the national training specialists’ reports were not available to the MTR team. However, reports on the courses delivered by international trainers were available. A particular concern repeatedly raised by these trainers (for example, by the PRA and co-management trainers) was that a number of participants in their courses had no subjective or objective need for the particular training. Three kinds of mismatch were noted: (i) too senior people attending field-level courses; (ii) field level staff attending courses targeted to senior management or decision-makers; and, (iii) people attending course in areas not relevant to their jobs.

A review of the available materials dealing with course content indicated that the training actually provided by the international specialists was of a reasonably high quality. However, much of its value may not have been realized because it was delivered through a translator/interpreter who lacked sufficient knowledge of or experience with the subject matter. More effort could have been made by UNOPs and other parties to locate and provide trainers with the necessary language skills and technical expertise from within the international or Asian regional scene.

CPMU training needs – According to the CMPU’s report to the MTR, central officials (CMPU and senior project management) received a high proportion of the “senior level” training (as shown below), compared to senior staff of the four PPMUs and 11 nature reserves:

1 of the 3 international fellowships; 10 of the 24 positions on international study tours (shared among six officers); 9 of the 44 positions on national study tours; 8 attendances at overseas seminars or workshops; and 5 attendances at international seminars or workshops delivered in China; and 2 of the 5 national fellowships for PhD degrees.

The project design did not envisage extensive training and capacity-building of CPMU or senior project management staff. However, there has clearly been extensive training, and, in our view, there are several plausible reasons for this:

the project document overestimated the capacity of SFA personnel and should have provided capacity building for project staff

the persons appointed to the particular positions did not reach the required professional standards outlined in the project document and thus required training,

there was a lack of understanding of the nature of the project and of the intended training focus on individuals from outside the project office (i.e. nature reserve, provincial and national officials), or

staff treated the training as a perquisite or bonus.

27

3.3.4 EquipmentAfter training, equipment was considered the next most important project benefit by everyone the MTR met. The project has provided equipment to the CPMU, the five PPMUs and to 11 Nature Reserves. The equipment packages provided to CPMU, PPMU and the NRs generally follow the specifications outlined in the project document. Of all the beneficiaries, the Nature Reserves seemed most in need of equipment and also were most appreciative of the equipment provided by the project. The following issues were noted by the MTR regarding equipment.

Unlike the specifications in the project document, equipment has been supplied to 11 Nature Reserves, not the 6 identified in the project document. As a result, there has been a dilution of the equipment delivered to individual nature reserves from what was planned. (eg. 10 vehicles have been distributed across 11 nature reserves [1 per reserve except West Dongting], instead of 6 reserves).

Although most of the equipment for NRs has already been procured, the reserves still have very little equipment for biodiversity monitoring and patrolling. Without such equipment, the NR staff is unable to perform these functions properly.

Central procurement of equipment following the NEX guidelines has caused delays and increases costs. Also, because equipment is not procured through local suppliers, no training or servicing of the equipment is available for the equipment once it is delivered.

Whereas it was felt necessary to base the training programme on a training needs assessment it was not felt necessary to base equipment delivery on any clear analysis of real needs. Instead, a standard packet of the same equipment was delivered to each province and project site. In no case was equipment sufficient and it was sometimes inappropriate. To maximize the use of equipment as well as to suit the local condition, a clear analysis of the real needs of each site, including the need for training on the use and maintenance of the equipment should have been done before any equipment was procured16.

Equipment has been provided without consideration of how it would be maintained. Before purchasing equipment there should be a commitment from provincial co-funding agencies that they were able or willing to pick up the consequent maintenance and operation costs.

A packet of good quality GIS hardware and software (ArcGis) has been delivered to PPMU at each site and, however, at the time of the MTR, no training on the equipment had been provided.

The distribution of equipment between CMPU, PPMU and NR needs to be reviewed. CPMU appears to have more equipment than planned (eg. 14 desktop computers and 6 laptops vs 8 and 2 in the plan), including technical and field equipment that was not designated for CPMU (eg. GPS systems, telescopes, binoculars and tents). The nature reserves appear to have received less (eg. 11 telescopes sent to NR reserves vs 25 in the plan, 0 cellular phones vs 20 in the plan). Generally PPMUs appear to have received what was planned, except for vehicles, where 9 instead of 5 have been provided to PPMUs.

16 A proper equipment needs assessment should include an itemized list of equipment based on the needs of each site, the schedule for procurement, and a plan for training and local servicing of equipment

28

3.3.5 Protected Area (PA) Management Plans

At the time of the MTR mission, management plans had been developed for seven nature reserves (the 6 identified in the project document plus one in Ruoergai). Unfortunately, all of the management plans developed by international GEF consultants are regarded by Nature Reserve staff as impractical, as they are too costly to implement Although none of the plans can be implemented as they stand, the exercise has not been a complete waste: some NR managers view the plans as ideal and expect to use them as guidance while developing practical plans, other managers intend to implement some (affordable) parts of the plans. Another positive contribution to PA management has been through the delivery of training in PA management and Participatory Rural Assessments. Capacity to identify key species in PAs has been enhanced but only for birds. NR staff remains very poor at recognizing plants, fish and invertebrates and unaware of threats from invasive species.

The reasons the plans are not practical include: There is no budget for implementation. GEF funds paid for development of plans

but not for financing their implementation. The project document is not explicit about this but appears to have assumed that implementation would be paid from provincial or national budgets as part of the co-funding. Whether or not provincial and national governments knew of this assumption, they have not made any budgetary provisions to implement the plans.

The TORs for consultants hired to develop management plans required a comprehensive plan, did not require the plans to be doable (i.e., within the financial means of NRs) and did not allow much field/consultation time for consultants to discuss the plans with local authorities.

International consultants prepared these management plans without adequate consideration of the budgets of the agencies that would implement them.

Basic data needed for the plans was either lacking, not translated or provided very late in the planning process. The lack of data has affected the quality and accuracy of management plans. The most critical data gaps were biodiversity and socio-economic information and good quality maps. Other data sometimes missing were the master plans of NRs.

Too much emphasis was placed on producing PA management plans, rather than supporting local NR staff to develop the plans (a TORs problem). By undertaking much of the planning themselves, project experts have undermined the role of local planners and managers rather than help build up their capacity.

Improper use of international and national experts. As with the socio-economic and biodiversity assessments, international experts were expected to collect the basic background information themselves. If NR staff or national experts had done this it would have been much more efficient. Qualified national experts, although available in China, were often not recruited to support the international experts, and separate translators were usually not hired (see Appendix C). As a result, instead of being technical, the national experts’ role often was reduced to translation.

Dilution of effort. Management plans for all four nature reserve in Ruoergai have been developed. Using expensive international consultants to do the same job

29

four times is a waste of resources and doesn’t allow any learning and improvement of the planning approach from one plan to the next.

Another way to make the plans practical would be to monitor and revise them as they are implemented. However, there is no budget to do this. The budgets for the international experts are all used up.

3.3.6 Subcontract 1: Basemaps and Biodiversity Overlays

The time estimates in the project document for delivery of basemaps are unrealistic. Due to the time required to complete the bidding process, sub-contract 1 started much later than anticipated. This lead to frustrations by consultants who had to complete field surveys, data collection and management plans without the benefit of the base maps or GIS overlays that should have formed a planning tool.

The speed of completion of work since the subcontract started has been very satisfactory. A huge amount of data has been acquired and digitized into the many coverages making up these basemaps – topology, water system, roads, human settlements, administrative boundaries and PA boundaries. This has meant digitization from several hundred resource sheets at a very high scale of resolution. Details for the core areas of Yanchenc Marshes and Sanjiang Plains was digitized on screen over scanned images of maps at scale 1:10,000, more detailed than originally requested but maps of 1:25,000 do not exist. The work has been done to highest levels of quality as revealed by GPS ground checking that indicate maps are accurate to within 10m. The institute has used top of the line GIS hardware and software (Workstation Arcinfo) converted to coverages that can be viewed with Arcview family products on PC computers. Plans for finishing the land cover and land-use covers are well in hand and sound.

Rather questionable is the use by the contractor of very old topographical maps circa 1960s. They will need considerable revision based on recent satellite imagery, and as the wetlands in all four areas have changed dramatically in the past 40 years the usefulness of the maps is limited.

The institute is up to scratch technically and is capable of delivering a first class map product to SFA, if it has access to good quality data from which to generate the maps. However, the MTR has two concerns about the remaining work:

Is it sensible or appropriate to have this work done through an external sub-contractor rather than completing the work in SFA’s own GIS division, and building SFA’s capacity in the process? This point was raised by CPMU and PPMUs all of whom feel SFA could have undertaken this work.

Who is going to develop the methodology for collecting the biodiversity data and how will this data be analyzed and integrated into useful maps/models for management purposes? The institute doing sub-contract 1 is technically excellent at GIS and map production but does not have the biodiversity data collection, analysis and modeling skills need to produce practical biodiversity overlays. This issue is discussed farther in Chapter 5.

30

3.3.7 Subcontract 3: Restoration of Honghe Hydrology

This sub-contract is slated to finish sometime in the spring of 2003. At the time of the MTR, the sub-contractor had produced a plan costing roughly $8 million USD to construct a rubber dams to retain water in Honghe NNR. The cost of this solution is far in excess of the $1,087,500 in counterpart funding earmarked in the project document for water compensation engineering works in Sanjiang (page 31 of project document). Unless a cheaper solution is found, it is unlikely that the water level will be restored in Honghe NNR. Moreover, the plan may not be flexible enough to cope with further developments and water diversions, as it has been developed in isolation of other plans (such as the proposed expansion of Honghe NNR to more than three times its size). Unless the work becomes more practical and linked with future development and water restoration plans, the investment will have been wasted. A final consideration is that the flora of the site may be already compromised by the lowered water levels.

3.4 Other Results

The Wetlands Project has had certain results – both positive and negative – that go well beyond the original objectives. These include:

(a) Project Management capacity development (training) – Staff who have received training at the CPMU will be available to support ongoing work on other projects. In particular, a group of SFA staff has been learning project management skills. Also, English-language and computers skills have increased in CPMU and, to a degree, in the PPMUs/provincial offices.

(b) National consultant development – Consultants who work with the project will take away from it a much better understanding of such projects and the problems related to them. Their capacity to design more practical programs will be significantly enhanced. In a more general way, national experts have come into contact with new ideas and new ways of thinking through working with international experts.

(c) GEF and UNDP credibility – The credibility of GEF and UNDP has been undermined as a result of the flawed bidding process for sub-contracts and the misuse of international consultants. Problems with the sub-contracts and with management of international consultants have caused financial losses for some contractors (for example, Wetlands International) and have reduced their goodwill towards the project and its partners.

31

(d) Institutional change – The high profile of this project and perceived problems with performance may galvanize interest in and a desire for change among major partners. For example, GEF is discussing policy changes related to monitoring of the Wetlands Project. The CPMU/SFA have expressed interest in a sharper focus on quality and results, instead of merely delivering activities, and they are supportive of higher levels of provincial involvement.

4. Design and Management IssuesThis chapter describes design and implementation features that require improvement. Some design and implementation problems are identified in Chapter 3; these are not repeated here, as the focus on this chapter is on what to do about the problems, i.e. recommendations. The MTR received numerous suggestions about how to improve the project – from very detailed to general. Again and again we were told that the project suffered from a lack of good design and good management. Improvements to both are needed for the project to succeed. In this chapter we list the categories of improvements needed. However, we only discuss the key few ones that we believe are showstoppers for the project and must be rectified.

4.1 Design Improvements NeededThe design features needing improvement are outlined in Table 4.1. Most of the improvements in this Table are presented in the form of recommendations, i.e., what we suggest be done to fix certain design problems. The design showstoppers that must be fixed for the project to succeed are described below.

(a) Understanding of Background and Context – as described in chapter 3, the analysis of threats to wetlands17 that forms the basis for design is flawed. Clearly, the designers lacked a good understanding of either institutional or socio-economic conditions and so missed the two most serious threats to wetlands: (i) the lack of agency/sectoral cooperation and coordination; and (ii) the low priority given to biodiversity compared to that accorded economic development and poverty alleviation. If these had been understood the project would have been designed differently. For example, because economic and poverty priorities are so dominant, it is clear that biodiversity initiatives, to be effective, must be link to socio-economic policies and developments rather than working in splendid isolation. The design contains many examples of project designers not understanding the situation properly, and therefore proposing incorrect or unrealistic actions – including alternative livelihoods, PA management planning, WMAs, sub-contracting out major components of the work, etc. Redesign of the program must be based on a sound multi-disciplinary understanding of threats and opportunities. Where understanding is

17 MTR technical specialists spent considerable time assessing the threats to and opportunities for wetlands. For further details about this analysis see the Mission reports of the experts (available from UNDP).

32

lacking, basic research must be done before specific interventions are programmed.

33

Table 4.1: Design Improvements NeededBackground and Context

Threats to wetlands and opportunities need to be better understood and the project fundamentally redesigned to make it realistic, suitable for Chinese situation, supported by implementers and likely to achieve its planned objectives.

Project Vision The project lacks a coherent vision – one is needed.

Objectives Clarification of objectives – intermediate objectives and outputs are unrealistic.

Scope and Assumptions Narrow scope – project is too broad and should focus on implementation and management of

wetland biodiversity conservation Reduce emphasis on NR – work more with provinces solving threats beyond NR control Alternative livelihood focus – this is inappropriate and should be dropped

Concepts and approaches Change capacity development concept – shift to SFA “learning by doing” instead of experts doing

the work Clarification of the meaning and place for co-management in the project. Integration of work activities – activities need to be linked together not isolated Design site specific approaches – provision of training and equipment should be tailored to each

site, not generic Reduce level of detail about activities – project document reads like a prescriptive blue print, it is

inflexible and prevents improvement and learning during implementation Support needs and priorities of beneficiaries (vs. supply driven) Revise role of WMA to project leading group – use existing planning processes to link with

decision-making rather than setting up new onesManagement arrangements

Reduce complexity of management structures – to 1 EA, 1-2 less sub-contracts, 2 IAs Clarify roles and responsibilities – UNDP, GEF/UNDP, coordination between different groups Decentralize management of provincial and nature reserve activities

Practical Issues Money is needed for planning and implementation by provinces and NRs Structure and management of the project should support integration Clarification of the links between co-financing and GEF financing is needed Possible need for development of project management capacity

(b) Clarification of the project objectives and vision – as explained in chapter 2, there is a major disconnect between the stated and unstated objectives of this project. Also, the secondary objectives of poverty alleviation and gender objectives are not well integrated into the project. The lack of clear objectives has caused confusion among the partners – and prevents everyone from working towards a common purpose. A clear vision18 for the project needs to be articulated that all partner support.

18 In discussions with the GEF regional coordinator the MTR was told that if the project had to be redesigned that the immediate objectives could be changed so long as the overall objective is not changed. We therefore recommend that the overall objective not be changed but considered a long-term objective and that the immediate objectives be changed and made realistic.

34

(c) Make plans and management flexible – this is an experimental program, yet the activities for the entire five-year project are laid out in the project document. Such a rigid and prescriptive project document prevents the project from evolving or being experimental. This is no way to develop new models or approaches for preserving biodiversity. What should happen is that as the project progresses, unsuccessful activities should be dropped and the focus should shift to those that are working. A more flexible approach to work planning is needed – activities should not be detailed in the project document, instead they should be developed annually on the basis of what has been learned the previous year.

(d) Simplify management structures – the management structures are unnecessarily complicated, which is causing inefficiencies, un-necessary expense and miscommunication. There are 2 EAs and 4 sub-contracts. In terms of efficiency, it would be best to drop CICETE as an EA and folding at least one sub-contract (#2) directly into the project. Consideration also should be given to folding the remainder of sub-contract 1 directly into the sub-contract and to keeping sub-contract 4, but integrating it closely with other program activities.

(e) Change delivery model for capacity development – capacity development of nature reserve, provincial and other SFA staff should be based on learn by doing with the aim of developing SFAs skills. Experts should be used to support, guide and introduce new methodologies but not to do the work.

(f) Focus on practical and needed activities – all activities, equipment and capacity development provided by the project should be i) needed by the beneficiaries; and ii) within the budgets, resources and capabilities of the beneficiaries to do.

(g) Assign SFA responsibilities that are within its mandate – Project activities SFA is asked to do should relate to its mandate, which includes managing and setting policies for wetlands and SFA nature reserves. However, SFA does not have the mandate for land-use or development planning, so SFA should not be expected to deliver results for these areas. Similarity, it is unrealistic to expect the SFA to be able to set-up an effective body to inter-agency integration body (i.e. WMA), SFA has no mandate to do this. The project should use other partners with the mandate or contacts to work effectively across sectors (such as Provincial Planning Commissions or NGOs like WWF).

(h) Coordinate the co-financing more closely with GEF/Third Party funded activities – the co-financing so far has mainly been for buildings (monitoring stations and environmental centers) and project personnel. The MTR team found that the project may be encouraging development of buildings and facilities which cannot be maintained under the small

35

recurrent budgets of Nature reserves. Also some of the infrastructure actually detracts from biodiversity conservation. Finally, in efforts to generate operating revenues, some nature reserves are building facilities that undermine biodiversity conservation (like a pheasant shoot gallery at Dafung). Rather than supporting these incorrect approaches, the project should make sure it does not facilitate wasteful spending of GOC funds on unsustainable activities.

4.2 Management/Implementation Improvements Needed

Improvements are presented in this section that same way as they are presented in Section 4.1. The category of implementation improvements are listed in Table 4.2, most of which are in the form of recommendations. The management showstoppers that must be fixed are described below.

(a) Focus on results not inputs – SFA, UNDP and UNOPS all need to shift their focus from spending money and completing activities to delivering value for money. This mean they must focus on results and the quality of products delivered. To do this, all members of the senior management team (SFA, UNDP and UNOPS) must allocate competent technical resources and sufficient management time to do proper supervision and quality control.

(b) Senior partners need to work together as a team – communications and trust among the partners were poor at the time of the MTR. For the project to work, all partners need to work together to solve problems, they cannot not stay within narrowly defined “contractual” roles. At the same time, clarification of roles and responsibilities is needed and will help reduce the misunderstandings. Formal procedures and mechanisms to improve coordination and communication between the partners need to be developed – such as semi-weekly meetings, quarterly meetings about work plans, etc. The project is too complicated to rely on informal approaches. This project needs both to good communications and cooperation within and across provinces and agencies to work. To achieve this UNDP and SFA/CPMU need to demonstrate leadership to the other partners regarding communications and cooperation – they are not doing this at present.

(c) Review CICETE’s role – CICETE has not, so far provided value for money. It has not shown any technical expertise or interest in the project, its management of the bidding/contracting process for sub-contract 4 has been unsatisfactory and its relations with SFA/CPMU are troubled. In light of these problems, and the coordination problems caused by having 2 EA, it would be desirable to remove CICETE from the project. This recommendation is based on effectiveness and management reasons. The MTR is well aware of CICETEs political connections and cannot assess

36

the merits of these to the project – that assessment is best made by the TPR.

37

Table 4.2: Implementation Improvements Needed

Big problems Focus on results vs. inputs Understanding of project purpose among partners – better understanding of the project and what

GEF means by incrementally and will/will not support is needed. Technical understanding and a vision of what the project is about is needed by all the senior

partners (UNDP, SFA, CPMU, UNOPS, CICETE) Goodwill/trust among the project partners – better communication and trust among partners is

neededPerformance of Key Partners

UNDP Performance – UNDP needs to provide the project with stronger supervision, strategic direction, overall progress monitoring and financial control

CPMU Performance – improvements are needed in quality control, strategic direction, links between administration and technical work, office systems and procedures, linkages with SFA policy development and collaboration with provinces and NRs

CICETE and SFA/CPMU – value added of EA for sub-contract 4 must be improved –unless this is done CICETE should be removed as EA. For managing sub-contracts, both EAs (if CICETE stays) should follow with UNDP sub-contracting rules more closely

Stronger and more representative Tripartite Review – include provinces Decentralization of project implementation and benefits

Nature reserves – money for NR work planning and implementation should go direct to NRs (or County offices)

Provinces – money for provincial work planning and implementation should go direct to provinces Project Planning, Implementation and Monitoring

Need to develop a framework and strategy for remainder of project – that allows flexibility and is not a detailed prescription of activities.

Annual work planning of activities – to be done by all groups Monitoring and evaluation – annual and semi-annual reviews need to be done and to feed into

project work planningInvolvement of Other Stakeholders

Need to create partnerships beyond SFA (other sectors, NGOs, research institutes, etc) Awareness raising needs to cover decision-makers as well as public Need to work more closely and strengthen units in SFA and provincial forestry bureaus (Wildlife,

Wetlands, GIS/Mapping and Monitoring Units).Recruitment/Role of Experts

International – international experts still are needed to provide ecological thinking and western approaches, ideas and technologies. They should provide guidance and advice but Chinese should do the actual management and research work.

National – high quality and experienced experts that understand multidisciplinary ways of working must be recruited for the project to succeed.

Fees – competitive rates must be paid for international and national experts to get the caliber of expertise needed for the project. UNDP’s/UNOPS rates for international consultants and NEX rates for national consultants should be reviewed and made competitive

Practical Issues Integration of work components and activities – activities and work components need to be linked

rather than implemented in isolation. Also, one activity should build on another; so careful sequencing of activities is needed.

Improve collaboration and sharing of lessons between NRs and provinces.

38

(d) UNDP performance must improve – UNDP’s management of the wetlands project has been unsatisfactory. Unless it commits to providing adequate supervision and technical resources, the MTR team is concerned that project performance will not improve. By allowing the MTR team to be contracted through 3 different agencies and not coordinating their TORs, (despite its agreement to do otherwise) the MTR was treated first hand to the difficulties that UNDP’s lack of resources and management capacity is causing the project. It was only by working very hard, donating excessive amounts of unpaid time and because of the professionalism of the team that the MTR was able to keep somewhat focused – and we had a clear vision of what we had to do. This in our view is no way to run the Wetlands project – it is too hard on both UNDP and project staff and is also leads to unproductive activities.

(e) CPMU performance must improve – the CPMU also must improve its performance. Project staff needs to understand the project much better and to design and sequence activities to be productive. Simply following the project document and work plan without thinking is not acceptable. Also staff needs to understand the value and role of national and international consultants and to recruit them accordingly. CPMU needs to develop better TORs for consultants it hires, and to support them properly when they are doing their work (translation, background materials, etc.). Consultants who are not supported properly will not perform well, which wastes project money. CPMU staff also must focus more on the big picture and not concern themselves with minor cost-cutting and micro-management issues. Also, it is important that CPMU keeps the project focused – and micro-management has the opposite effect.

(f) Provide more benefits to provinces and nature reserves – this issue was brought to the MTR’s attention repeatedly. The NPD confirmed that it would be possible to send money directly to the provinces and nature reserves. We recommend this be done. Also, provincial representatives should participate in the TRP. Finally, NR and provincial officials should do their own work planning as much as possible – with support from CPMU as needed.

(g) Prevent scope creep – the number of nature reserves under the project has grown from 6 to 11. This dilutes the resources and results in no reserves getting enough equipment or training. The focus should be on results rather than equal distribution of project inputs.

39

5. Options for Optimizing Remaining Project Resources

5.1 Remaining resourcesTo optimize the budget for the remainder of the project, it is essential to know what the remaining resources are. Although the focus is mainly on GEF/Third Party financing, we also considered the resources remaining from Government of China (i.e. co-financing).

GEF and Third Party FinancingThe MTR found it difficult to obtain a clear financial picture of the remaining resources. For project redesign purposes it is important to know the resources available for programming and for management, accordingly we sought the following information:

1. The total budget available by line item, after all liabilities have been met2. The amount of budget needed for management purposes.

Total available budget.The CPMU provided the MTR with a combined delivery report on November 29 of what the estimated project budget would be as of Dec. 31, 2002. This combined report is summarized below along with the original budget. (See Appendix D for the combined delivery report table provided by CPMU). According to this budget, $5,498, 562.54 US has been spent and the total remaining donor budget (GEF + AusAID monies) is $8,782,437.46 US. The remaining GEF budget (without AusAID) is $ 6,392,437.46 US. This remaining budget includes $484, 298.93 that remains for sub-contract 1 and $134,742.22 that remains for sub-contract 3. Also, according to figures received from CPMU, it will costs approximately $245,000 to pay salaries and other liabilities for the first quarter of 200319, so if these liabilities are deducted ($864,041.15), the actual remaining budget available for re-programming is roughly $7.9 million (GEF + AusAID monies). The remaining available GEF budget (without AusAID) is roughly $5.5 million. However, as discussed below under management, there is considerable confusion about some line items (eg 54), and it is possible that the available budget could be several hundred thousand dollars more.

Summary of Remaining Budget as of Dec. 31, 2002

DescriptionBudget

Amount RemainingCurrent (revised)

Original

International Experts & Consultants (11)

2,463,480 2,546,000 836,297.00

National Consultants (17) 1,777,300 1,672,000 978,491.93Sub-contract 1 (21.01) 740,000 740,000 484,298.93*Sub-contract 2 (21.02) 1,080,000 1,130,000 998,870.82Sub-contract 3 (21.03) 270,500 270,500 135,757.78*Sub-contract 4 (21.04) 2,400,000 2,540,500 10,000 + 72,000 to CICETETraining Total (31 & 32) 1,911,920 2,093,000 1,155,490

19 We assume re-programming will take at least 3 months, therefore these costs also need to be deducted to determine the total available for re-programming.

40

Fellowships (31.01 & 31.02)Study Tours (32.01 &32.03)Group training (32.02)

519,120353,920

1,518,000

315,0000.00

1,738,000

454,817.39321,640.41949,290.70

Equipment (45) 1,827,650 1,827,650 637,342.64Report, translation & interpretation (52)

289,300 438,000 256,043.12

UNDP management costs (54) 281,780.00 missing

629,460 0

Budget Total (99) 14,281.000 14,281,000 8,782,437.46

Management costsWe were unable to determine either the total amount or proportion of the budget used for management/administration costs, due to the variety of accounting practices and assumptions used by CMPU, UNDP, UNOPS. For example: The combined delivery report provided by CPMU does not separate out

management costs. During the initial MTR briefing provided by CPMU we asked for a breakdown of the budget with the management and administration costs of CMPU and PPMU separated out. Although CPMU said it would provide this, we never received it.

Line item 54 for UNDP management costs may have been incorrectly deducted and should actually go back into the budget.

At the time of the MTR, there was a discrepancy of approximately $500,000 between the amounts UNOPS estimates showed as spent vs. the budget of CPMU. This problem has something to do with the lag between UNOPS/UNDP accounting systems in New York and the actual disbursement figures. Although the problem happened in the previous fiscal year and had been known for over 6 months, it had not been fixed at the time of the MTR.

$72,000 had been deducted for CICETE NEX administration costs; it was not clear whether this amount was over and above the 3% normally paid to CICETE to execute UNDP projects.

Thus we are unable to determine how much it has costs to manage the project to this stage, and whether management costs are in-line with what they should be. In our experience management costs for a project of this nature should be around 20%.

Need for a full AuditBecause of the uncertainty of management costs and the discrepancies in budget figures between UNDP, CPMU and UNOPS, we recommend that a full audit be done of the project. This would include more than CPMU activities and should cover the management costs incurred to date by CPMU, UNDP, UNOPS, CICETE and GEF-UNDP. We understand that costs for this audit would be borne by UNDP or UNDP-GEF and not by the project.

Government Co-financingThe GOC has invested a counterpart contribution of $6.28 USD (CPMU statistics) so far, mainly on infrastructure for nature reserves and capacity building. However, the MTR team observed some discrepancies between the items listed as counterpart funds provided

41

by CPMU, the items NRs included in counterpart contributions (from our site observations) and the items included in the counterpart budget in the project document. We believe these discrepancies are due to misunderstandings and lack of clarity among CPMU, provincial and nature reserve staff about what is and is not included in counterpart funding. For example, although the size of staff at East Dongting Nature Reserve has declined since the project began, the staff salaries for East Dongting NNR are included in the counterpart contributions. Normally, only the salaries of additional staff hired because of a project are included in counterpart contributions20. CPMU, PPMU and Nature Reserve staff need to develop a clear and common understanding of the items eligible for counterpart funding. Also, CPMU needs to check and verify the contributions reported by provinces and nature reserves.

5.2 Options for Sub-contracts

This section outlines the options the MTR considered for the sub-contracts.

5.2.1 Subcontract 1The likely results and effectiveness of sub-contract 1, if it is unchanged, are discussed in Chapter 3. As sub-contract 1 is not producing maps useful to the project, and is unlikely to given its design, we recommend that the sub-contract be changed. The two options for consideration follow.

Option 1: To keep the continuation of the project, the present subcontractor Changchun Institute of Geography (CIG) will continue this subcontract in the condition that they work closely with SFA’s GIS division and CPMU to provide technical supports and guidance to the biodiversity supplement survey at PPMU and NR level. Most of the efforts and funds should be diverted to the NR level. The work of supplement survey and biodiversity overlay should be jointly conducted by the nature reserve and local research institutes and universities under the guidance of CIG, SFA’s GIS division and a specialist team, with the emphases on the capacity building of the nature reserve staff and the sustainable monitoring system. CPMU and PPMU should organize, coordinate and monitor this biodiversity overlay building process.

Option 2: Terminate sub-contract 1 on completion of ongoing land-cover overlays, and design biodiversity overlay process and use the funds to complete this work in SFA’s own GIS division using the monitoring program to generate data (eg see reprogramming proposed for DongTing Lake). The work of supplement survey and biodiversity overlay should be jointly conducted by the nature reserve and local research institutes and universities under the guidance of SFA’s GIS division and a specialist team, with the emphases on the capacity building of the nature reserve staff and the sustainable monitoring system. CPMU and PPMU should organize, coordinate and monitor this biodiversity overlay building process.

20 This is normal practice for counterpart contributions in other projects, although this practice for counterpart salaries is not specified in the project document.

42

5.2.2 Subcontract 2

As described in Chapter 3, providing public awareness through a sub-contract that is isolated from the rest of the project is inappropriate. To be effective, public awareness activities should be closely related to the other project activities, especially capacity building. Thus we recommend that this sub-contract be terminated and the sub-contracts funds become part of the pool used for reprogramming. Chapter 6 outlines the reprogramming we recommend.

Although the sub-contract would be gone, this should not mean that awareness raising activities are dropped. Rather awareness raising should be integral to all of the seven proposed reprogramming components Awareness raising is needed and it is needed at all levels, not just of the “public”. The project should provide awareness raising for all levels from farmers/fishermen to county authorities, to provincial and national authorities. Support from decision-makers is essential for conservation of wetlands. For this reason the main target of awareness raising should be country, provincial and national authorities.

5.2.3 Sub-contract 3The likely outcome of this sub-contract is also described in Chapter 3. This sub-contract should be continued, but needs to be fine-tuned to make it more effective. Specifically, the remaining work should focus on developing practical solutions that can be implemented. This means the solutions proposed must be much cheaper and also should consider other development and water restoration plans (such as expansion of Honghe NNR boundaries. It is essential that the solution proposed continues to be appropriate once these wider developments occur – otherwise valuable counterpart funds could be wasted.

5.2.4 Subcontract 4

What to do about this sub-contract was a question the MTR team struggled with and did come to agreement about by the end of the mission. This is because the issues related to this sub-contract are complex and information about local socio-economic conditions was limited (see Chapter 3 for discussion about the quality of socio-economic surveys).

The National and International Team leaders are of the opinion that this sub-contract should remain a sub-contract and also that it should continue to be done by WWF. WWF could play a very important role in this project – making links with stakeholders that need to be involved in the project but which SFA has difficulty working with as they are outside of SFA’s mandate. Such stakeholder could include, for example, other departments involved in economic develop of wetlands, local officials for agencies outside of NRs, local community officials, etc. Having an NGO who can work with multiple agencies would allow the project to work across sectors more effectively than using the WMA model. Another effective role for WWF would be to facilitate

43

local/grass-roots community work. Finally WWF could provide effective support for any environmental initiatives undertaken by the project (eg proposed demo for Yancheng – see Chapter 6 for details).

We see two possible models for continuing sub-contract 4. Option 1 would involve assigning WWF responsibility for some or all of 1-3 components of the program. The proposed programs that would most fit WWF’s strengths are the Ruoergai demonstration, the Yancheng demonstration and the basic capacity training component (program #1). The actual package of work assigned to WWF would depend on the scope of work involved in each program and the available budget. Option 2 would involve integrating WWF more directly into the overall program – by for example making the NGO a resource that has some assigned responsibilities (eg Ruoergai demo) and also becomes a general resource that is drawn on and used for all the programs.

This section is not final as it is waiting for input from the socio-economic specialist.

6. Recommendations

This chapter presents our overall recommendations as well as suggested next steps. Chapters 4 and 5 present a number of specific design and management recommendations and options. However, implementation of these specific recommendations in and of themselves is insufficient. What this project is missing and sorely needs is an integrated vision and strategic approach. Specific recommendations must be implemented in the context of such a framework to be effective.

In this chapter we outline the key programming and management elements that we recommend be integrated into a cohesive package. In addition, we identify a number of preconditions that we believe the project’s senior partners (UNDP, GEF, SFA) need to address before changing the project’s programming and management.

Section 6.1 presents the preconditions for redesign of the project. Sections 6.2 – 6.4 outline the MTR team’s thinking regarding redesign of the project’s programming and management. The final section presents our recommended next steps.

6.1 General Recommendation

Should the project continue?Not unless the project is changed – given the lack of achievement of results and the project’s numerous design and implementation flaws, we do not think the project should continue as it is. If there are not significant changes made to both the design of the project and how it is implemented we recommend that the project stop.

What needs to be changed? We believe that the project can be turned around, but it will take two major changes:

44

1. Project partners need to change their way of thinking and working on the project – this includes all the partners – UNDP, GEF, UNOPS, SFA, CPMU, provinces

2. The project must be redesigned to fix the programming and management arrangements.

We view the first of these changes – partners changing their way of thinking and working – as a precondition for redesign, because if these fundamental changes are not made the project will fail even if it is redesigned. The preconditions are described below and the second set of changes – programming and management changes – are described in 6.2-6.4.

Precondition for Redesign – Partners must change their commitment and mindset towards the projectAll the key partners in this project – UNDP, GEF, SFA, and CPMU – need to change their mindset and commitment towards this project. The partners need to work together to solve problems and to think beyond their narrowly defined roles and responsibilities. GEF projects are somewhat demanding of partners, they require innovation, learning as you go and working together. Unless the partners are willing to work this way and to change their internal procedures and systems to allow these ways of working to happen, this project will fail.

So before redesigning the project, all of the partners need to ask themselves if they are willing to change and work together this way? The MTR has identified a number of specific changes that each partner needs to make to their internal procedures and approaches to ensure they are working together constructively and as a team. These lessons are as follows.

GEF Lessons: Projects that involve development of new models/approaches are by their nature

experimental and innovative. To succeed, the design and implementation of such projects must be strategic, flexible and suited to country realities. GEF must find ways to facilitate this type of project design and implementation.

The responsibilities that are expected of UNDP country offices must be clearly spelled out when GEF transfers project authority to a UNDP CO – furthermore we recommend that GEF formally specify its service expectations to UNDP CO for the Wetlands Project.

The project supervision role of GEF regional coordinators vs. the supervision role of UNDP COs needs to be clarified21

UNDP Lessons: UNDP needs to find ways to ensure continuity of project supervision/guidance

despite staff changes22

21 i.e.,UNDP CO and the GEF regional coordinator had somewhat different views about the regional coordinator’s role with respect to follow-up on TRP recommendations and reviewing quarterly work plans and advance requests. 22 This is likely to be an issue in 2003, as the resident rep, the deputy res. rep and the UNDP project manager may all leave.

45

UNDP is ultimately accountable for the financial and results performance of its projects. As UNDP moves upstream away from micro-management, it still must ensure projects are performing properly.

Complex projects, like this GEF one, need strategic and technical support from UNDP (technical resources need to be committed to this project).

SFA Lessons: Shift from management of inputs to achievement of performance Focus on performers vs equally distributing project benefits Share project responsibilities and benefits with provinces and other partners Develop partnerships with organizations/individuals outside SFA, to work

together on solve complex problems that cannot be solved by SFA alone

Why partners should make changes and do this projectThis type of project (innovative and adaptive) will become more common in future, as China’s development needs change. Thus the GEF project provides a wonderful learning opportunity both for individuals and units within SFA, UNDP, GEF and provincial forestry bureaus, of the “way of the future.” In addition, for China, the substance of the project is important for three main reasons:

Restoration of wetlands is a government priority The project can improve the way wetland restoration is done by providing the

ecological knowledge and broad view that is needed to make these policies work Reform of government institutions is another important state priority. Learning

modern management approaches through this project will place SFA and the individuals participating in the project in a good position within government institutions as they are reformed.

6.2 Programming Recommendations

Reprogramming ConceptThe MTR team developed an outline of new programs for the project, which takes into account the situation at each site, as well as the design and implementation issues outlined in Chapters 4 and 5. We designed the new programming to be focused, strategic and responsive to the needs of its beneficiaries (rather than supply driven). We also tried to make the program and its management as practical and suitable for “Chinese conditions” as possible. The overall program includes a basic capacity development program for each nature reserve, different demonstration programs for each of the four areas as well as programs for provincial and state level coordination and policy development support. The proposed programming has been verbally presented to the CTA, UNDP, CPMU/NPD and AusAID and all have supported it.

The rationale for these proposed programs comes from the team’s understanding of the broad context (chapter 1), the socio-economic causes of wetland degradation and opportunities for wetland conservation23 and the relationship to these threats and

23 See mission report of Gerald Fitzgerald for further details.

46

opportunities to ecological and biodiversity conditions24. It also comes from our view of what must be developed to protect wetland biodiversity long term, which are:

the basic capacity of staff and facilities has to be built at all levels, from local to national;

operational approaches for managing biodiversity resources have to be developed and successfully implemented; and

the institutions (national and provincial) for protecting biodiversity and the policies that make it a priority have to be in place and supported by the government and public.

The new programs will cover all three of these building blocks for sustainability. Also, we are suggesting programs that address some of the underlying problems: one program tackles the revenue generation problem of nature reserves (Yancheng), another aims to link biodiversity (and social issues) into regional economic development plans (Ruoergai) and a third focuses on raising awareness of decision-makers through monitoring and public involvement (Dongting Lakes).

The basic capacity building work would be largely managed and implemented at the NR level (with money going directly to the NR to support their work), with broad coordination by SFA. The demonstration programs would be mainly managed at the provincial level and they are intended to focus on biodiversity management problems that are wider than a particular nature reserve and need to be solved at the provincial level. The NR basic capacity program is meant to lay the foundation for the specialized demonstrations. The demonstrations for each area will focus on a specific priority issue for each area, and will develop and test practical approaches for managing each issue. These approaches could include awareness raising, applied research, monitoring, integration into development decision-making and mitigation of unsustainable livelihood practices. The aim is to build the technical and management capacity of provincial and nature reserve staff by teaching them new problem solving, technical and management concepts and methods which they can use in their work.

As much as possible all the capacity building will be done through practical on the job training or “learning by doing”. This approach to capacity building will make it more sustainable, but also will take longer. There is one basic capacity program for the NRs, one specific program for each area (4 in total), and also a coordination/policy program for the provincial and state levels. In total there are seven programs. These programs are outlined below.

1. Development of Basic Nature Reserve Capacity

This program would go through two phases. Phase 1 would involve training the staff of one nature reserve from each province. Phase 2 would involve spreading the training to the remaining nature reserves in each area. We do not recommend doing training at all 11 nature reserves at once – this is wasteful of resources, inefficient and will not teach

24 See mission report of John MacKinnon for further details.

how to spread capacity from one reserve to another. It should be recognized that by the end of the project the capacity in all 11 Nature Reserves would have been raised.

By the end of the project, we expect that the staff and facilities at each nature reserve would have developed as follows:

Staff know the role, rules and legal rights of the NR. They understand conservation of biodiversity principles and what are good and bad practices for biodiversity conservation.

Staff are able to do basic inventory/monitoring work Staff understand the importance of and methods for working with other users of

nature reserves (communication, awareness and negotiation approaches) NR has basic equipment to fulfill its functions NR has support from authorities to maintain essential equipment and to perform

basic functions in priority areas of the reserve

At this point in time we think it is premature for the nature reserves to develop management plans. However, if 1 or 2 Nature Reserves are ready to do so in a year or two, this could be added to their work program at that time.

The nature reserves we targeting for phase 1of the project are: Ruoergai NNR Gahai NNR South Dongting Lake PNR Hongue NNR (or combined training with Sanjiang NNR could be done if

agreeable to all) Yancheng NRs (or combined training with Dafung could be done if they agree to

do that).

2. Development of a Basic Biodiversity Monitoring Program for Dong Ting Lake A monitoring program for key biodiversity indicator species/habitats in Dong

Ting Lake would be designed, pilot tested, reviewed, refined and implemented. Development of this program would involve working with volunteers/partners,

raising public awareness and gaining support of County and provincial decision-makers and feeding monitoring results into the decision-making process.

If development of the monitoring program is not delayed, the monitoring program could go through two phases. Phase 1 would involve design and implementation of the basic biodiversity-monitoring program. Phase 2 would involve adding water quality, climate and other physical/chemical data to the program.

3. Development of Awareness Raising and Local Involvement Program for Ruoergai Marsh aimed at integrating ecological/biodiversity issues into key Economic Development Plans

The aim of this program is to design and test practical approaches for integrating ecological/biodiversity considerations into the major economic development plans that will negatively impact on the biodiversity of Ruoergai Marshes (eg. water restoration, fencing/agricultural plans, Great West Development Plan and tourism development plan).

To be effective this program needs to develop practical approaches for addressing multiple and conflicting objectives and development plans. A suite of approaches will be developed, with the main focus being on awareness raising of all levels of decision-makers (County, Provincial and State) and with developing practical mitigation approaches for herders and other users of the nature reserves. The work with local people would involve identifying practical ways of changing herders’ practices to make them sustainable and supportive of biodiversity conservation.

Considerable applied research will need to be done to provide conclusive information for awareness raising of decision-makers about several ecological problems, which are poorly understood at present. These include: causes of desertification; whether over-grazing is occurring and if so its impact on biodiversity and desertification; the impact of nomadic herding, fencing, pasturing and drainage on wetland ecosystem and biodiversity. This research will need to be done before the awareness activities can begin.

Participatory research to identify the impacts on local people is suggested and it is suggested that County officials be involved in this research.

4. Development of Awareness Raising and Technical Advisory Approaches for

integrating ecological/biodiversity factors into Water Restoration Plans for Sanjiang Plains

The aim of this work is to develop practical approaches for integrating ecological/biodiversity considerations into the major water restoration plans proposed for the Sanjiang Plains.

The approaches would focus on technical advice (through expert studies/analysis) and awareness raising of provincial decision-makers (planning commission, water, agricultural reclamation and state farm bureaus) about wetland issues.

Improvement of the management capacity in HPFB would occur through its participation in the design and management of the technical assistance work.

This project should be linked to an Asian Development Bank (ADB) project25, which is now in the planning stages. The ADB project involves USD 12-15 million loan for developing alternative economic livelihoods to support water restoration in 7 nature reserves in the Sanjiang plains. A $600,000 US technical assistance (TA) to design the loan is now in the bidding stage. Another GEF project is providing part of the funding for the TA; to ensure that biodiversity issues are covered during design of the loan.

Of all the programs this has the most uncertainty. If the ADB loan goes ahead and the other GEF project successfully integrates biodiversity into the ADB project, then there is no need for a program under the Wetlands project. But if the ADB loan is cancelled for some reason (as can happen), then there could be a place for the Wetlands project to provide ecological/biodiversity knowledge to the government as it embarks on reflooding lands.

5. Development of Sustainable Environmental Education Approaches for Yancheng and Dafeng Nature Reserve

25 The ADB project is called the Sanjiang Plains Wetland Protection project (earlier it was called Integrated Natural Resources Management for Sanjiang Plains)

The aim of this work is to develop practical approaches for environmental education at Yancheng and Dafeng NRs that support biodiversity conservation. By this we mean an environmental education program that helps raise public awareness and provides the correct messages about the biodiversity conservation, and also that is financially viable for the nature reserves (i.e. either breaks even or makes money for the nature reserves).

This would involve advice and capacity building regarding environmental education. Depending on the scope of work, defined at the “problem identification” stage of this work, environmental education could include outreach activities with school children, farmers and local officials or public involvement in bird species monitoring as well assistance with the actual displays and program carried out in the nature centers.

This program concentrates entirely in the core area of the NR, and does not deal at all with the multiple and often incompatible uses in the very large buffer and experimental areas.

6. Development of Provincial Capacities for Coordination of NR Implementation, Policy Development and Replication of Successful Approaches

Train and assist Nature reserves with work planning and design of their capacity development activities.

Identify and transfer the lessons learned from implementation in one nature reserve in each area to the other nature reserves in the area – thereby developing approaches for spreading the learning more widely.

Identify and expand the lessons and approaches learned from the practical programs in each province to policy or management applications in the province. For example the experience developing the Dong Ting Lake monitoring program could be expanded to assist with development of an ecosystem monitoring system for the entire Hunan province.

7. Development of State Capacities for Policy and Guideline Development and Coordination of NR Development

State coordination of NR capacity building would focus on providing general guidance/advice to the nature reserves as they develop their activities, monitoring progress and distributing lessons learned and feeding results into any national guideline development SFA may wish to do related to NR development and management.

General policy/regulation development work would focus on the priorities and needs related to wetland biodiversity as they emerge over the course of the project. It could involve support for development of a Wetlands Action Plan, policy for nature reserves, revenue generation in nature reserves, etc.

Policy/Guideline Development work would follow from the specific programs in the four area and would involve identifying the lessons and significance for national guideline development from the work done at Dong Ting (monitoring), Ruoergai (awareness and local participation for development planning), Sanjiang (ecologicial/biodiversity technical advice for water restoration plans) and Yancheng (environmental education approaches).

6.3 Management RecommendationsA number of specific management problems and recommendations are identified in Chapter 4. In this Section we describe the three broad management changes that must be made to improve the project as well as our recommended approach for managing the programs outlined in Section 6.2.

6.3.1 Essential Management ChangesProfessional Project Management26 – the quality of project management must be improved. We recommend that the project management office be bilingual (i.e., all staff are able to function verbally in English and Chinese), be manage jointly by a project administrator and a project technical advisor (both of which should have extensive management experience implementing donor projects), and work directly with SFA Wetlands, Wildlife and Nature Reserve Units as well as with AFIP. As SFA staff are too busy to do day-to-day management of the project, we suggest retention of the CPMU, but that it be streamlined (in keeping with the programming functions outlined in 6.3.2) and overhauled to ensure it provides the level of professional service needed for this difficult and innovative project. The positions that we believe the new project office needs are described in Table 6.1. To place the project management office on a professional footing, we recommend that SFA and UNDP both be responsible for approving the two co-manager and the capacity development candidates, as the quality of professionals filling these positions will largely determine the success of the project. Also we suggest that the CTA position be changed to technical advisor co-manager (the CTA’s TORs would need to be changed), as this will provide the project with continuity and stability. See section 6.4.2 for more discussion about the CTA. If possible, qualified candidates for the other positions should be recruited from within SFA. However, it may be difficult to find qualified and available staff from within SFA to fill all of the positions27. If this is the case, qualified external experts should be recruited to fill positions that cannot be filled by SFA staff. To recruit outside experts, UNDP hiring policies and procedures should be followed (e.g. advertise the jobs, establish a selection panel and document the hiring process). Before filling any positions, proper job descriptions should be developed for all positions and UNDP must approve these job descriptions.

SFA may wish to develop additional project management capacity through the project. If this is the case, some of the current CPMU staff who do not fit the new job descriptions could stay with the project office and act as counterparts to the new

26 Based on feedback received to the mission briefing report,this section has been modified since the briefing at the end of the mission. 27 A policy has been in place since 1998 when SFA staff reductions occurred that make it difficult to use SFA administrative staff on foreign projects. As SFA administrative staff would be the ones with the most technical experience (i.e. staff from wetlands office, etc.) it may be difficult to fill the technical positions with SFA candidates. This policy also prevents project offices from being located within SFA administrative units, they must be located in business units like AFIP.

Table 6.1: Suggested Positions for Central Project Office

Administrative project co-manager. This person would be responsible for setting up the new project office systems, recruiting and training all other project office members except the technical co-manager and the capacity development specialits, designing/implementing the project’s financial and administrative systems in the provinces. He/she would be responsible for ongoing administration of the project over its lifetime. This manager should have extensive experience implementing UNDP and other donor projects, be able to work in English and also be able to jointly manage the project with a technical advisor.

Technical advisor co-manager. This person should have a broad background in capacity building, biodiversity conservation and experience designing and implementing programs that work from the local/community level to the top decision-makers at the state levels. He/she would be responsible for guiding the overall direction and strategy of the project and as such should be strategic rather than detailed oriented. The technical manager would assist SFA/UNDP with recruiting the capacity development specialist and would have joint responsibility, along with the administrative co-manager, for recruiting the technical advisors who will guide the four provincial demonstration programs. The technical co-manager would be expected to coordinate the state policy development program (program #7), assist with provincial work planning, monitor the project’s overall progress and provide technical input into 1 or more of the provincial programs. Also, it would be desirable if the technical co-manager could work in both languages.

Capacity development technical specialist – the functions of this person are described in section 6.3.2. This would be a full time position for the first two years, with the option for it to become part-time for the remainder of project. (TRP to decide if it should become part-time). He/she must be fluent in both languages, have extensive and broad experience designing and implementing capacity programs that involve coaching, on-the-job training and learning by doing rather than traditional training. He/she must have with environmental and biodiversity issues and with working with government staff at the local level.

Accountant – accounting background, experience doing accounting for UNDP/donor projects. Basic knowledge of English and able to provide reports and financial statements that fit UNDP standards. Computer literate and familiar with management and financial computer packages.

Bookkeeper/secretary – workable English, bookkeeping experience, typing skills, computer literate and familiar with spreadsheets and basic computer packages.

Translator/Interpreter – able to do both verbal and written translation and interpretation.

staff. As the counterpart’s skills develop through on the job training it should be possible to gradually hand management of the project over to them.

In addition to strengthening the staff, the following should also be done:

UNDP rules for paying Government employees should be followed for all SFA staff working in the project office. These rules would apply to SFA staff working in both project office positions or as counterparts.

Financial, documentation and administration systems need to be set-up that conform to UNDP requirements and provide the level of reporting and transparency needed.

Procedures need to be developed for training, hiring of consultants and equipment procurement that conform to the requirement of UNDP’s NEX manual.

Flexible project planning, implementation and monitoring – this project needs to use flexible and adaptive processes that allow learning and reallocation of resources from activities that are not working to those that are working. This means that:

The redesigned project should not be as detailed as what is in the project document. The activities for the redesigned programming should not be detailed in the reprogramming framework; only the main sub-components of each program area and the general phases of work should be outlined. The specific activities for each year should be worked out during annual work planning. This means that this project will not follow the outline given in either UNDP’s Programming Manual or the NEX manual for project documents. Instead it will stop short of defining activities, but will define intermediate objectives, outputs and the responsible parties.

Provinces and nature reserve staff should participate in the work planning for all activities to be done in their sites. Some training and support may be needed to help provinces/nature reserves prepare their work plans. The project should provide some financial assistance to the provinces/nature reserves for work planning.

CPMU’s role in provincial/nature reserve work planning is only to guide and coordinate preparation of the planning work done at these levels. CPMU also would prepare the work plans for national policy develops activities and would consolidate the work done by the provinces and nature reserves.

Progress should be tracked and used to help work planning. Progress monitoring should focus on whether capacity is being built (i.e. capacity development results and accomplishment) rather than reporting on activities and inputs.

Effective Project Monitoring, Supervision and Strategic Guidance – the procedures laid out in the NEX manual for project monitoring, supervision and reporting should be followed. Related to these procedures, the following specific items are recommended:

The Tripartite Project Review should include provincial representation The location of the TPR should rotate among the sites each year. Two meetings should be held per year for the implementers to share experiences

and identify management improvements that need to be made. These meetings

would be held in Chinese. One should be immediately before the TPR and involve provincial officials. The second should be half a year later and would involve provincial and nature reserve representatives.

The CPMU should report progress semi-annually, once for the PRI/APR and once a month before annual work planning begins.

UNDP should circulate these progress reports to all project partners (provinces, nature reserves and sub-contract 4 contractors) for comment.

UNDP should review the project’s progress each year, with the aim of confirming the outputs reported by the CPMU in progress reports and identifying strategic issues that need the attention of the TRP. To do this we suggest UNDP lead a project review mission with the NPD that examines progress at the national levels as well as some provinces and sites. If possible a GEF representative (and maybe AusAID) also should participate in the annual missions.

It is critical that UNDP/GEF provide the level of technical and strategic support this projects needs. We estimate that approximately 30-35 days per year will be needed for monitoring and technical advisory work after the project is redesigned (to review quarterly work plans and advances, participate in annual monitoring mission, etc.). We recognize that both organizations are stretched and may not be able to provide the technical advisory/monitoring resources from within their organizations at this point in time. If this is the case, we recommend that an external advisor be hired until qualified technical resources are available internally. The costs for this technical support/monitoring should be paid for by UNDP/GEF management overheads not by the project budget28.

6.3.2 Management of the ProgramsOverall Execution/administration of the project would remain with SFA/CPMU. In addition to execution/management of the overall project, the state level would have some specific technical functions. These are described below along with the technical functions proposed for the provincial and nature reserve levels. CMPU/National officeThe project should support three Key National Functions, these functions are:

Coordination of NR Basic capacity building (with money for planning and implementing the activities in the NR going direct from the state level to the nature reserves). This would involve collection of lessons learned and distribution of these lessons.

Policy Development/Follow-up from Programs/Approaches developed at the Provincial Level.

Policy Development of national Wetland Biodiversity Priorities, plans and policies.

28 If the management fees are inadequate, GEF’s policy towards paying UNDP management cost may need to be revisited. As this is a policy issue, the project should not be expected to increase UNDP/GEF supervision costs.

In addition to these three functions, the CPMU/national office would provide broad guidance and coordination of the overall project and would therefore have a final technical function:

Broad technical advice and integration of the design and implementation of the overall program.

PPMU/provincial officesAt the provincial level, the following functions would be done:

Training and support NR to do work planning and implement their basic capacity building programs

Replication of successful NR capacity building approaches to other nature reserves in the area

Design/management of programs for Dong Ting lake and Ruoergai Design/management of approach for Sanjiang Plains Joint design of Environmental Education program with Yancheng (this may not

work, as PPMU is FB and NR is EPB).

Nature Reserve Roles and Responsibilities Work planning for the basic capacity building program for their reserve Implementation of this program – so they will get a modest amount of money for

this.

6.4 Other Considerations

6.4.1. Should the project be extended?Consideration should be given to extending the project, to ensure there is enough time to build the capacity within SFA. By the time the project has been redesigned and the new team in place, there is likely to only be 2.5 years left. This is not much time to build capacity through learning by doing approaches. An extension would allow activities to be conducted at the rate and pace most suitable for beneficiaries and also would allow some of the successful demonstration practices to be replicated from one area to another. For instance, with more time, the monitoring approaches from Dong Ting could be transferred to Sangjang and a monitoring program for Sanjiang developed. We believe there is enough money to support replication of provincial demonstrations to other provinces, if activities are implemented efficiently.

We suggest that the project be extended for two year, but that activities be implemented at their natural pace. What we mean by this is that activities should not be artificially spread out to last two more years. Activities should be done at the pace that suits each province and nature reserve, and in many provinces all the activities will be finished before the extra two years are up. That is fine.

6.4.2. CTA PositionThe CTA position should be extended, for another two years, after which it could become part-time or transferred to a national technical advisor. The reason for this is that the

CTA is needed to help implement the redesigned project. One of the roles of the CTA should be to train a national to take over from him, as was intended in the original design of the project. After two years, the CTA should either hand-over the work to a national or be phased out, into a part-time position with SFA technical experts taking over. This decision should be made by the TRP two years from now.

Although a CTA has been in place for two years, unfortunately most of the CTA’s time has not been used effectively, due to both design/implementation problems and problems with the first CTA. The redesigned project is somewhat like starting over, and the CTA’s position needs to be looked at in that light – it too should “start over” and be used effectively for the next two years.

6.5 Next Steps

There are basically two options possible under UNDP programming guidelines for redesign of a project:

Suspend the project, redesign it and begin again – this could involve production of a new project document. With risks of GOC and AusAID backing out.

Stop implementation of almost all present activities (except sub-contracts 1 and 3), and redesign the remainder of the project over the next 3 months. This should not involve production of a new project document.

Whether the project is suspended or not, this project’s redesign would fall under the UNDP category of substantive revisions (see UNDP Programming Manual). A substantive revision must be made through a participatory process involving the key stakeholders and approval by the TPR. We suggest that following steps be followed to redesign the project:

Concept paper development – we suggest a working group be formed to develop the concept paper.

Consultation with partners about the concept paper (UNDP, GEF, AusAID, SFA, provinces, WWF and Nature Reserves)

Finalization of the concept paper (based on feedback received) and meeting of the TRP for approval of the revision.

Development of whatever forms/documentation UNDP needs to complete the substantive revision.

Signature of the revised documents by all the signatories to the original project document (the Government, UNDP and the Executing Agency (SFA)

APPENDIX A

Wetland Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use in ChinaCPR/98/G32

Terms of Reference for Mid-Term Review

Introduction to the Mid-Term Review (MTR) Process for United Nations Development Program/Global Environment Facility (UNDP/GEF) projects

Monitoring and Evaluation at the UNDP/GEF project level has four main objectives: i) to monitor and evaluate results and impacts; ii) to provide a basis for decision making on necessary amendments and improvements; iii) to promote accountability for resource use; and iv) to document, provide feedback on, and disseminate lessons learned.

In accordance with UNDP/GEF policy and procedures, projects are encouraged to conduct mid-term reviews. In addition to providing an independent thorough review of project performance and making recommendations for improvements, this type of evaluation is a response to GEF Council decisions on the need for transparency and better access to information during implementation. It provides a vital opportunity to test the assumptions in project design and to evaluate the appropriateness of the design strategy.

The mid-term review of a project is intended to identify project design problems, to assess progress towards the achievement of objectives, to identify and document lessons learned (including lessons that might improve design and implementation of other UNDP/GEF projects), and to make recommendations regarding specific actions that might be taken to improve the project). The mid-term review covers all aspects of a project, including technical, management, administrative and financial and examines the roles of all those involved from design onwards.

Introduction to the Project

Wetland Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use in China is a project funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) [US$ 11.7 million] and the Australian Aid and Development Agency (AusAID) [US$ 2.6 million] - both through the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) - and the Government of China (GOC) [US$ 20.3 million]. The objective of the project is "to secure the conservation of globally significant wetland biodiversity in China". To this end, the project will combat threats to wetland biodiversity, promote sustainable development in and around wetland sites, and develop local and national capacity to integrate conservation into the development process.

UNDP is the GEF Implementing Agency for the project. The project is nationally executed, by the GEF project office of the State Forest Administration, and implemented by the Academy of Forest Inventory and Planning (AFIP) at the SFA. The UN Cooperating Agency, responsible mainly for international recruitment is the United Nations Office of Project Services (UNOPS). CICETE is managing the Sub-Contract 4, and in this role participating in the overall management of the project.

China has over 25 million hectares of diverse natural wetlands, supporting a wide range of globally important species of plants and animals. In addition to providing habitats for resident species, the wetlands act as crucial staging and breeding areas for migratory bird populations, including many globally threatened species. The economic values and social benefits of China’s wetlands are enormous. Many local communities rely heavily on local wetland resources for daily food (fish and rice), medicines, energy and building materials and clean water supply. In addition, wetlands play an important role in micro-climate stabilization, flood mitigation, securing ground water supply and in providing transportation routes.

However, China’s natural wetlands and their associated biodiversity are under constant threat of degradation, mostly from human development pressures, such as drainage, over-use of water resources, conversion to agricultural and other uses, unsustainable harvesting and resource use, illegal hunting, siltation and pollution. Without a balanced and well-structured approach to wetland conservation and sustainable use, the wetlands will be lost, along with many of their economic values and benefits.

A National Wetland Conservation Action Plan was been prepared under the leadership of State Forestry Administration with the participation of a wide range of institutions and was published in September 2000.

The project aims to protect globally important biodiversity at four demonstration wetland sites centred on nature reserves through a combination of capacity building, increasing public awareness and facilitating the integration of wetland management and biodiversity conservation into development planning at central and local levels. The four sites are widely separated geographically - the Sanjiang Plains of northern Heilongjiang province, the region around Ruoergai on the border between Sichuan and Gansu, the Dongting Lakes of the Yangtze river basin in Hunan, and the Yancheng coastal marshes and mudflats and Dafeng Pere David's Deer reserve in Jiangsu Province. Of the eleven nature reserves presently receiving attention under the project, seven have been designated as Wetlands of International Importance as defined under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands.

The immediate objectives of the project cover management and management planning for seven nature reserves (although the project has since included four more nature reserves), and wetland use and management at the wider (approaching ecosystem) level in the surrounding areas. The project document includes changes in exploitation patterns of wetland resources through establishment of alternative sources of income and ways of life at the demonstration sites, and for the incorporation of wetland biodiversity conservation into national policy and dissemination of the results of the project to other wetland sites in China.

Sanjiang Plain is a vast alluvial floodplain. Its natural habitats consist of sedge and reed marshes, wet meadows, ox-bow lakes, riparian willow scrub, and wooded hummocks of birch and poplar. Every year many rare waterbirds, including Red-crowned Crane Grus japonensis, White-naped Crane G. vipio and Oriental White Stork Ciconia boyciana

58

stopover or breed. During the past 30-40 years much of the wetlands of Sanjiang Plains have been converted to cultivation. The human population within the five municipal jurisdictions of the Sanjiang Plain is nearly eight million. Development has led to significant degradation of the wetlands, loss of locally and globally important biodiversity, lessening of the flood mitigation capacity and reservoir functions of much of the wetland area. There is cultivation inside the reserves, even in the core zone; on the other hand there are good natural wetlands nearby that do not have protected area status.

Ruoergai Marshes are situated in the trans-boundary area of Sichuan and Gansu Provinces at an altitude of 3,400-3,900 m. The area consists of peat bogs, sedge marshes, lakes and wet grasslands, interspersed with low hills and drier grasslands. It is the largest area of plateau peat bog remaining in China. With up to 600-900 Black-necked Cranes G. nigricollis during the breeding season Ruoergai Marshes represent the most important breeding site of this species worldwide. Tibetan people, who are almost exclusively pastoralists with vast herds of sheep, yaks, horses and goats, inhabit the area. In recent decades the traditional nomadic pastoralism has been superceded by transhumant and settled systems. Drainage has led to desertification in sandy areas on the hills and to loss of large areas of wetlands. The four nature reserves in the Ruoergai Marshes cover large areas of grassland and even in the core zones there is grazing allowed at certain times of the year.

Yancheng coastal marshes (a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve since 1992) consist of inter-tidal mudflats, salt marshes, reed beds and marshy grasslands. More than a third of the world population of Red-crowned Cranes winter there, and the 600 km coastline provides breeding habitat for about 50% of the world population of Saunder’s Gull Larus saundersi. Yancheng is also home to the largest semi-captive population of the critically endangered Pere David’s Deer or Milu Elaphurus davidianus, which has no viable population in the wild. Sea dykes have been built over the years and much of the natural habitat has been converted to other uses such as fish and shellfish farming and salt production. These estuarine and inter-tidal environments are exceptionally dynamic ecosystems that require innovative and well planned strategies to ensure the protection of key habitats for biodiversity conservation and defence against storms and tidal surges, at the same time as allowing commercial harvesting of resources in certain areas. The nature reserves have land title to relatively small areas, and even within those areas there are commercial activities taking place that are detrimental to the wetland habitats.

Dongting Lake is a vast complex of freshwater lakes and inter-connecting rivers and drainage channels. Dongting Lake supports an exceptionally high biodiversity. At least 16 globally threatened species of migratory birds have been recorded from among its 258 species. It provides winter sanctuary for more than 30% of the global population of Lesser White-fronted Goose Anser erythropus. The critically endangered Yangtze River Dolphin or Baiji Lipotes vexillifer has been recorded in Dongting Lake. Dongting provides enormous benefits for the large human populations in the middle Yangtze River valley. These benefits can be measured in terms of domestic, agricultural and industrial water supply, flood mitigation through its enormous water storage capacity, waste water treatment, transportation, fisheries, reed procuction, and other resource uses of national

59

benefit. However in recent decades the area and quality of lakes has been reduced, thereby threatening biodiversity and reducing the benefits to the local community. There are several excellent initiatives to manage the area at the ecosystem level.

The project document was signed in December 1999 and project implementation began in May 2000. The project has six specific objectives: the first four focus on biodiversity conservation in protected areas and the surrounding areas at each of the four sites, the fifth specifies establishment of "sustainable alternative livelihoods" in order to reduce pressure on globally significant biodiversity and the sixth is the incorporation of wetland biodiversity conservation into national policy. The project is heavily dependent on subcontractors to carry out important parts of the work. A bidding procedure was established to select subcontractors and work has started on three of the subcontracts, although one subcontract has since been suspended.

The following are the planned immediate objectives and outputs as listed in the project document:

Immediate Objective 1To ensure conservation of globally significant wetland biodiversity at Honghe NNR and the surrounding area

Outputs1.1: (As necessary) an expanded Honghe NNR in Sanjiang Plain to include additional biodiversity hotspots and create wetland corridors within the PAS.1.2: Strengthened protected wetland area management of the extended Honghe NNR.1.3: Restoration and management of the water regime at Honghe NNR.1.4: Biodiversity-friendly agricultural development demonstrated in buffer zone of Honghe NNR.1.5: Over all the plain, biodiversity-friendly land use planning demonstrated through preparation of biodiversity overlays.1.6: Raised public awareness of wetland values and functions in Sanjiang Plain.

Immediate Objective 2To ensure conservation of globally significant wetland biodiversity at Xiaman PNR, Gahai NNR, Shouqu PNR and intervening areas in Ruoergai Marshes.

Outputs2.1: Expanded protected wetland areas in Ruoergai Marshes to include additional biodiversity hotspots, as necessary.2.2: Strengthened protected area wetland management in the Ruoergai marshes (Xiaman PNR, Shouqu PNR and Gahai NNR).2.3: Increased community involvement in management of protected wetlands at Ruoergai Marshes.

60

2.4 : Over a wider area, biodiversity-friendly land use planning demonstrated through preparation of biodiversity overlays.2.5 : Raised public awareness of wetland values and functions in Ruoergai Marshes

Immediate Objective 3To ensure conservation of globally significant wetland biodiversity at Dafeng NNR and surrounding areas in Yancheng Coastal Marshes.

Outputs3.1: Expansion and re-alignment of protected wetland areas in Yancheng Coastal Marshes to include additional biodiversity hotspots and create coastal wetland eco-cline.3.2 :Improved protected area management and protection of globally significant biodiversity in the core areas of the Yancheng Biosphere Reserve.3.3 : Sustainable use of inter-tidal resources by local communities and cooperatives in Dafeng NNR buffer zone demonstrated3.4 : Over the total Yancheng coastal area, biodiversity-friendly land use planning demonstrated through preparation of biodiversity overlays.3.5: Raised public awareness of wetland values and functions in Yancheng Coastal Marshes

Immediate Objective 4To ensure conservation of globally significant wetland biodiversity at East Dongting NNR and surrounding areas in the Dongting Lakes Basin.

Outputs4.1: Improved protected area management at East Dongting NNR.4.2 : Identification and management of biodiversity hotspots in the wider Dongting Lake basin.4.3 : Biodiversity overlays prepared and biodiversity conservation fully integrated into development plans over a large area.4.4 : Raised public awareness of wetland values and functions in Dongting lakes area

Immediate Objective 5To develop sustainable, alternative livelihoods with local communities in and around wetland areas in order to decrease pressures on globally significant biodiversity.

Outputs5.1: Alternative livelihood schemes developed for local communities in and around wetland areas in Sanjiang Plain.5.2 : Alternative livelihood schemes developed for local communities in and around wetland areas in Ruoergai Marshes.5.3 : Demonstrations of sustainable grassland management for local herder communities in Ruoergai Marshes:5.4 : Alternative livelihood schemes developed for local communities in and around wetland areas in Yancheng Coastal Marshes.

61

5.5 : Alternative livelihood schemes developed for local communities in and around wetland areas in Dongting Lakes.

Immediate Objective 6To incorporate wetland biodiversity conservation into national conservation plans, legislation and processes.

Outputs6.1 : National support structures for integrated wetland management established and operational.6.2 : Lessons learned and dissemination of project results nationally and internationally.

Purpose of the MTRThe overall objective of the Mid Term Review (MTR) is to review progress towards the project’s objectives and outputs, test assumptions made in project design, identify strengths and weaknesses in design of project strategy and in implementation, assess the likelihood of the project achieving it objectives and delivering its intended outputs, and provide recommendations on any modifications (whether technical, management, administrative, or financial) necessary to achieve success.

Scope of the MTR

Assess that the assumptions implicit within the design still hold and if not assess the impact on expected Project outcomes and their contribution to the Goal of the Project

Analyze the underlying factors beyond the Project’s control that influence the achievement of the Project Goal/Objectives

Assess, quantitatively and qualitatively the achievements for each of the Project components to date in terms of outputs and their contribution to outcomes as defined in the project document

Review Project implementation including site level assessments consultant inputs

Determine the ability of the Project to achieve the Goal and recommend changes, if necessary for the future implementation

Assess the Project ownership and recommend change to the implementing arrangements to improve this

If necessary, propose strategies for repositioning of the Project activities so that the remaining Project resources can be applied with maximum effect towards the Goal

Develop a monitoring framework with time bound indicators to track Project implementation

Review execution arrangements and the appropriateness of joint implementation, execution and Project management within the one agency

Assess the appropriateness of each site, the progress made towards creating a demonstrable outcome that can be used elsewhere in China, and implications for possible future change in number of project sites

62

Review other GEF experiences to garner the lessons learned and assess the extent that these are being applied.

Identify and document lessons learned and their dissemination during project implementation

Review the quality and timeliness of the support given by UNDP Country Office, UNDP/GEF and UNOPS

Review the performance to date of CICETE Comment on the support given by AusAID

Approach and implementation arrangementsThe review team will read key documentation, including project materials such as the project document, consultant reports, annual and quarterly work plans and reports, monitoring reports, financial reports and correspondence, as well as relevant policy documents and laws and reports of other projects, researchers and conservation organizations. The team will visit the central project management unit, the GEF Project Office and the Academy of Forest Inventory and Planning (AFIP) and will interview relevant personnel (preferably in person, but by phone if necessary) within the project, the government and UNDP (including UNDP/GEF), and independent observers of the project and its activities. Field visits to project sites will be conducted to view activities of the project, to meet with local project staff, government counterparts and the general public, to gain understanding of the wetland conservation problems and to assess the extent to which the project is addressing them effectively and how it could address them better. The subcontractors will be required to attend site and national level workshops and both the performance of the subcontractors and the appropriateness of their inputs will be assessed, and where possible new approaches to reaching the goals will be developed.

This MTR is going to assess progress and redesign the project to achieve the goal, so the approach during the evaluation will be to review project log frame, build ownership at the site level, encourage stakeholder input and lay the ground for decentralization of planning and implementation. In order to do this it will be necessary to hold workshops at the central and site levels, concluding with a final workshop in Beijing at which provincial representatives will be present.

There is flexibility for the evaluation team to determine the best and/or combined approach (of desk reviews, questionnaires, field visits, interviews, validation, participation of stakeholders and/or partners etc.) to collecting and analyzing data.

The review team will consist of three international consultants, each with a national counterpart and will take five weeks from beginning to end. One consultant will be designated as team leader and will carry overall responsibility for organizing and completing the review and delivery of the final report. All the consultants will be asked to work on the project from home for a few days before arrival in the country, and the team leader will be employed to complete the final report. The team will be supported by national interpreters/translators and a co-ordinator, who will accompany the mission to gather data, set up meetings, identify key individuals, assist with planning and logistics,

63

and generally ensure that the evaluation is carried out in smoothly. This person will not be a member of the project staff.

The criteria for assessmentAchievements should be measured against the project document, including the “success criteria” used throughout Section D, the crude log-frame in the project planning matrix in Annex 9 and the Project Brief in Annex 10. Decisions made at the Tripartite Review meeting in 2001 have to be considered effectively as parts of the project control documentation. The project is also expected to fulfil the requirements of, and be in line with, the objectives of the GEF. A succinct summary of these requirements and objectives will be provided to the team by UNDP/GEF so that the reviewers are able to assess the contribution of the project and the projected contribution of a redesigned project, towards the goals of the GEF, and the extent to which the GEF principles are being supported.

OutputsThe team will provide an overall assessment of the project, assessing all of the following aspects and answering the questions to be provided upon arrival under the same headings, but should not limit their analysis to these.

PROJECT DESIGN

PROJECT PROGRESS (towards achievement of outputs and in their contribution to immediate objectives as presented in Project Document)

Overall

Training Equipment (including vehicles)

Research/Data gatheringPublic information/ Understanding of the project Planning and wetland managementSocial aspects of conservationLaw and Policy

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

64

Staff

InfrastructureWetland Management AuthoritiesLogistical supportConsultantsExecution and Implementation Arrangements

Project Support

Financial Coordination Work Planning and MonitoringAdaptive managementLinksSubcontract awards

SustainabilityAn assessment of “sustainability” of Project activities – constraints to this and possible mechanisms to address these will be produced.

The team will pay particular attention throughout the review to assessing the sustainability of inputs and changes. For example they will answer questions such as:

Will the resources necessary to sustain activities and changes in the future be provided? and How well are management plans and other project outputs reflecting the likelihood of post-project support being available?

The project is designed to learn from site level experiences and contribute lessons to national level policy and legislation. The reviewers should assess what is the "learning environment" of the project and what role each level (site, province, central) plays in this. A focus on the log frame followed by a SWOT analysis during the review workshops will facilitate both assessment of performance so far in this aspect of the project and recommendations for changes in resource allocation to strengthen this component. In this connection the institutional placement of the project requires assessment.

65

Also relevant under Sustainability is the issue of decentralization of capacity and authority and the need for the project to allow for each province to have its own policy functions and extension programme to capture the lessons learned.

Lessons learnedThe team will assess what are the main lessons that have emerged in terms of: project design project monitoring and evaluation country ownership of the project and conviction in the feasibility and value of the

objectives stakeholder participation adaptive management sustainability knowledge transfer role of monitoring and evaluation in project implementation

In describing all lessons learned, an explicit distinction needs to be made between those lessons applicable only to this project, and lessons that may be of value more broadly, including to other, similar projects in the UNDP/GEF pipeline and portfolio.

RecommendationsThe review team will include any recommendations they have on adjustments to the project design, to project activities, procedures and organization, including changes in implementation arrangements if necessary, and any consequential changes to supporting legal documents.

In particular, the following outputs will also be produced: Review of the SFA wetland programs and how these are to be institutionalised Development of an institutional monitoring program including HRD, Financing, and

processes of greater consultation

Evaluation Team RequirementsThe MTR Team will consist of three international consultants and three national counterparts. The team will be made up as follows:

International Institutional Specialist (Team leader) Academic and/or professional background in institutional aspects of natural resource

management. A minimum of 15 years relevant experience is required. Experience in the evaluation of technical assistance projects, preferably with UNDP

or other United Nations development agencies and major donors. If possible, experience in the evaluation of GEF-funded biodiversity conservation projects.

Excellent English writing and communication skills. Demonstrated ability to assess complex situations in order to succinctly and clearly distill critical issues and draw forward looking conclusions.

Experience leading multi-disciplinary, multi-national teams to deliver quality products in high stress, short deadline situations.

66

Proven capacity in working across the levels of institutions from policy, to legislation, regulation, and organisations

An ability to assess institutional capacity and incentives Excellent facilitation skills

International Wetland/Biodiversity SpecialistAcademic and professional background in wetland and protected area management, with extensive experience in biodiversity conservation and an understanding of the landscape ecology approach. An understanding of GEF principles and expected impacts in terms of global benefits. A minimum of 15 years relevant working experience is required Experience in implementation of technical assistance projects and an understanding

of GEF principles Skills in biodiversity assessment techniques Knowledge and experience of ecosystem planning Experience and skills in biological/ecological monitoring and information systems Expertise in hydrology an advantage, as would be relevant experience in China. Excellent English writing and communication skills Excellent facilitation skills

International Sociologist with an emphasis on society and resourcesAcademic and/or professional background in the sociological aspects of natural resource use Experience in managing and evaluating integrated conservation and development

projects and substantive knowledge of participatory planning, monitoring & evaluation.

A minimum of 15 years relevant working experience is required; Must have knowledge and experience in:

participatory resource management, social assessment proven facilitator skills (for workshops), experience with Protected area and landscape planning processes, social monitoring and baseline assessments, information systems data analysis and reporting training

An ability to work on diverse social effects Excellent English report writing and communication skills. Ability to work in small, multi-disciplinary, multi-national teams and contribute

constructively to the delivery of quality products is essential. An understanding of the sociological aspects of natural resource use in China would

be an advantage Excellent facilitation skills

National Institutional Specialist Academic and/or professional background in institutional aspects of natural resource

management. A minimum of 10 years relevant experience is required.

67

Experience in the evaluation of technical assistance projects, preferably with UNDP or other United Nations development agencies and major donors. If possible, experience in the evaluation of GEF-funded biodiversity conservation projects.

English writing and communication skills. Demonstrated ability to assess complex situations in order to succinctly and clearly distill critical issues and draw forward looking conclusions.

Proven capacity in working across the levels of institutions from policy, to legislation, regulation, and organisations

An ability to assess institutional capacity and incentives

National Wetland/Biodiversity SpecialistAcademic and professional background in wetland and protected area management, with extensive experience in biodiversity conservation and an understanding of the landscape ecology approach. A minimum of 7 years relevant working experience is required Experience in implementation of technical assistance projects Skills in biodiversity assessment techniques Knowledge and experience of ecosystem planning Experience and skills in biological/ecological monitoring and information systems Expertise in hydrology an advantage English writing and communication skills

National Sociologist with an emphasis on society and resourcesAcademic and/or professional background in the sociological aspects of natural resource use Experience in managing and evaluating integrated conservation and development

projects and substantive knowledge of participatory planning, monitoring & evaluation.

A minimum of 7 years relevant working experience is required; Must have knowledge and experience in:

participatory resource management, social assessment proven facilitator skills (for workshops), experience with Protected area and landscape planning processes, social monitoring and baseline assessments, information systems data analysis and reporting training

An ability to work on diverse social effects English writing and communication skills. Ability to work in small, multi-disciplinary, multi-national teams and contribute

constructively to the delivery of quality products is essential. An understanding of the sociological aspects of natural resource use in China would

be an advantage Excellent facilitation skills

Tentative Agenda

68

Pre-missionThree days are allowed for consultants to read reports emailed to them or available on the project website.

69

Tentative Schedule for MTR in 2002

The itinerary may be adjusted by the MTR Team as necessary.Day Date ActivitiesDay 0 Tue. 5 Nov. 2002 Joan Freeman (JF) and Gerard Fitzgerald (GF) arrive in

Beijing.Day 1- Day3

Wed. 6- Fri. 8 Nov.

Meetings in Beijing with UNDP, SFA, CPMU, AusAID, etc.

Day 4 Sat. 9 Nov. RestDay 5 Sun. 10 Nov. Team meeting with John MacKinnon (JRM) returningDay 6 – Day 9

Mon. 11 Nov. – Thu. 14 Nov.

Beijing to Chengdu for Ruoergai.

Day 10 Fri. 15 Nov. Chengdu to ChangshaDay 11 -Day 13

Sat. 16 Nov. – Mon. 18 Nov.

Dongting Lake

Day 14 Tue. 19 Nov Dongting to Changsha to BeijingDay 15 – Day 17

Wed. 20 Nov – Fri. 22 Nov.

Beijing meetings with Govt. NGOs, donors, subcontractors etc.

Day 18 Sat. 23 Nov. Rest Day 19 – Day 22

Sun 24 Nov – Wed. 27 Nov.

JF and GF Beijing to Harbin; JRM Beijing to Nanjing

Day 23 – Day 29

Thu. 28 Nov. - Wed. 4 Dec.

Return to and stay in Beijing, Report writing in Beijing , comments and review, workshop, and finalization of the report

Day 30 Thu. 5 Dec. GF and JRM leave ChinaDay 38 Fri. 13 Dec. 2002 JF leaves China

70

Specific TOR for the International Team Leader/Institutional Specialist, as a supplement, within the Framework of the Overall MTR TOR

In consultation with UNDP and within the framework of the overall MTR TOR, the International Team Leader/Institutional Specialist (ITLIS) has the overall responsibility for the MTR in terms of the following:

MTR preparation, e.g., design, approach, itinerary, document review, team discussion, focus of MTR efforts among the three broad categories (state of the project, review of project progress towards delivering the impacts expected by the GEF, and recommendations for future steps);

Realistic scoping of the MTR (e.g., format, contents, and length of the MTR report, level of details expected including the amount of quantitative data, roles and participation of key partners), within the available resources (time and financial budget etc.);

Clarification and designation of specific responsibilities of the team members (e.g., national institutional specialist, national and international biodiversity and sociology specialists); supervision and certification of the performance of the MTR team members;

Coordination of the actual implementation of the MTR; Within the MTR Team, focusing on the institutional aspects of natural resource

management, across the levels of institutions from policy to legislation, regulation, and organizations; assessing institutional capacity and incentives; and assessing complex situations in order to succinctly and clearly distill critical issues and draw forward looking conclusions

Final report writing with inputs from the team members to meet the objectives of the MTR TOR.

For the purpose of workload calculation, the follow schedule is tentatively planned. The more specific itinerary of travel and work in China may be adjusted and improved by the MTR Team as necessary, in consultation with UNDP.

Number of Work Days

Indicative Date Activities

8 Starting 25 Oct. 2002

Preparation, including 5 days at home base and 3 days in Beijing, China

20 Starting 8 Nov. 2002

Travel and field visits and work at selected wetland sites and provincial capitals in China

6 Meetings and data review in Beijing 11 Team discussions, report writing, and client debriefing in

China and at home base

71

More specifically, the ITLIS will assess project design and performance and propose appropriate changes in design, focus and implementation that would facilitate progress towards the overall goal.  The work will involve reading documents, informal and formal meetings, workshops at which presentations of ideas will be required, and preparation of a final report.

Before the mission starts the ITLIS is expected to communicate with UNDP and the team members for MTR preparation, and read  relevant documents on the project website, including the project document, the CTA's quarterly report (Sept 2002), the biodiversity assessments and the draft protected area management plans for all sites and all consultant reports for 2002. 

The ITLIS will prepare a final report to cover the contents agreed to with the client (UNDP and the Government of China) during the specific design of the MTR. The following is an indicative list before the specific design, which may be discussed and adjusted:

1.  Itinerary and activities, with brief summaries of meetings2.  General assessment of project objectives and overall design3.  An independent assessment of the main threats to biodiversity and wetland function at each of the project sites4.  An independent assessment of the main constraints that face attempts to address those threats and recommendations on what actions and resources are necessary for the project to overcome such constraints5.  An assessment of the potential impact of the project on global biodiversity conservation in general, and on protected area management, provincial and national policy formulation in particular.  7.  A description of how the Team would choose to target the funds available under Subcontracts to the best effect in mitigating threats to project wetland ecosystems.  8.  An analysis of options for the integration and coordination of activities under Subcontracts 1, 2 and 4 to the best effect in mitigating threats to project wetland ecosystems9.  Comments on the biodiversity assessments and the draft protected area management plans for the four sites with recommendations for further work10. Recommendations in general for future project steps 11. Recommendations, if any, for changes in geographical scope of the project from the point of view of the feasibility of provision of valuable demonstrations at the four sites.  12. Detailed recommendations on how data collection, management and use should be improved under the project. 

The length of the final report is expected to be 20-25 pages, with any additional details needed to be supplied in supporting appendices/annexes.

Based on the response to the above points and timely inputs to the final MTR report, the performance of the ITLIS services will be certified by UNDP China Office.

72

Implementation Arrangements

According to the China National Execution Manual and normal practice for UNDP projects, UNDP China Country Office will recruit the three international consultants including the team leader, while the Government Executing Agency will recruit the three national consultants. None of the six independent consultants have been significantly involved in the formulation or implementation of the project.

UNDP China will provide the following inputs, as more specific description of the travel provisions of the SSA: Domestic mission travels to and from the project sites in China: round-trip economy-

class air tickets and/or land transportation following the actual mission itinerary between Beijing and the project sites;

International mission travel: one round-trip business-class air-ticket for the most direct route for Ottawa, Canada/Beijing, China/Ottawa, Canada, plus airport charges as required.

Reporting to UNDP Country Office The MTR team will maintain close contact with SFA, UNOPS, AusAID, CICETE, and UNDP and report to UNDP China Country Office. Although the team should feel free to discuss any relevant matters with the project authorities and partners/stakeholders in relation to its assignment, it is not authorised to make any commitment on behalf of UNDP or the Government.

APPENDIX B: Itinerary and ActivitiesItinerary Activities Summary

29th Oct. JRM

Reported to CMU office of project. Introductions to chief project staff. Collection of key project documents additional to those supplied some days earlier by CTA and Project coordinator. Reported to UNDP (Maria Suokko) and UNOPS (Gerald Gunther). Organisation and preparations for trip to Jilin. Discussions with CTA and other key staff

30th Oct. JRM

Meeting with National Project Director Mr. Liu Guoqiang. Continued discussions with CTA. Review of GIS software installed on CPMU computer. Demonstration of ARCBC website and on-line biodiversity database to CPMU. Travel to Changchun City, provincial capital of Jilin Province accompanied by CPMU staff Mrs. Zhang Xiaokun. Meeting and dinner with key staff of Changchun Institute of Geography (CIoG), the executant of sub-contract No. 1 (GIS modelling, base-maps and biodiversity overlays). Further review of documents.

31st Oct. JRM

Introduction to Changchun Institute of Geography (and Agricultural Ecology) and the subcontract No.1 progress. Demonstration of base maps of the 4 sites now completed, plus demonstration of the ArcMap software

73

that is being distributed with datasets to CPMU, PPMU and eventually to NR’s. Discussions on many technical aspects of the work. Demonstration by consultant of ARCBC online database. Demonstration and delivery of a mapping tool to allow local site data entry of georeferenced data over maps. Discussions over lunch and through afternoon about future aspects of work including completion of the land cover overlays by end of 2002 and acquisition of satellite imagery and especially about how CIoG intend to integrate biodiversity data into the GIS models. Discussions extended over dinner.

1st Nov. JRM

Fly back to Beijing. Attend project MTR briefing report at SFA offices, presented by National Project Director. Discussions with SFA and project staff about the presentation and some identified problems and project design flaws. Continued discussions with staff and CTA. Further review of project documentation and reports

2nd Nov. JRM

Long phone call with MTR team leader Joan Freeman. Detailed briefing by and discussions with project biodiversity specialist, project coordinator and project training officer on the many problems CPMU are having with design aspects of the project. Further discussions with CTA. Further review of documents and reports. Writing of notes and conclusions

3rd Nov. JRM

Reading consultant reports and writing trip report/notes. ZLQ arrive Beijing.

4th Nov. ZLQ, LQQ

Arrive Beijing. Discussions with CPMU staff and CTA as well as collection of project documents.

5th Nov. XY, ZLQ, LQQ

Meeting with CPMU and reading consultant reports. CPMU explains the background of the project and existing problems, which including poor communication with UNDP, sub-contracts have been contracted to institutions other than the implementation agencies which cause not enough activities and funds were channeled down to sites, difficult to control quality of international experts and poor quality of some international experts.

6th Nov. Whole team except JRM

First meeting of the MTR team in the CPMU office and meeting with UNDP and GEF office in the afternoon. UNDP and GEF have expressed their concerns and existing problems they had encountered in the project. These problems include not enough activities and funds down to sites, low quality of some international experts and poor cooperation from national side with some international experts.

7th Nov. Whole team except JRM

Meeting with National Project Director Mr. Liu Guoqiang and other staff of SFA in the morning and with Ministry of Finance in the afternoon. SFA has made a presentation about the background, institutional arrangement, activities and achievements until now by the project. Discussions on problems in the project.

8th Nov. Whole team except JRM

Meeting with SEPA in the morning and with CPMU in the afternoon. SEPA has a high evaluation to the project which including good cooperation between SEPA and SFA, SEPA NRs have got benefit from the project. It also expresses wishes to channel more activities and fund to sites.

74

9th Nov. Rest10th Nov.Whole team

All day MTR team meeting at CMPU offices. Introductions, general discussion of project and early opinions; allocation of team member responsibilities; consensus on approaches and types of information and opinions to be collected on the field visits; draft outline for final report.

11th Nov.Whole team

Fly to Chengdu. Preliminary meetings with members from PPMU and staff from protected areas and county governments. General introduction to project including summary of progress and achievements by different PPMU members.

12th Nov.Whole team

Meeting with project staff at county and reserve level. Discussions and presentations on the threats to biodiversity in Ruoergai project area. Teams from two counties gave separate presentations and showed good understanding of problems, issues, inter-relationships and ideas of necessary actions. Levels of commitment were also high. Planning of next 2 days of activities and meetings.

13th Nov.Whole team

In the morning, meetings with SEPB. It was immediately clear that SEPB had a broader mandate than SFA with regard to protection of the Ruoergai marshes area and had large overplapping plans to develop an ecological reserve on top on the nature reserves of SFA. We were abler to see a draft plan for implementation under the Great Western Development Programme. SEPB were also better placed to undertake cross sectoral integrated planning. Some elements of their plan included contradictory and poorly thought out elements for fencing, control of rodents (inside nature reserves!) etc. In the afternoon, meeting with WMA. Representatives of different agencies discussed what their agencies did in the region. The body did not appear able to deliver the level of coordination required by the GEF project or the needs of the Ruoergai marshes. It appears there is a provincial planning committee that may be more suitable.

14th Nov.Whole team

In the morning meeting with PPMU. Discussion of problems and issues. PPMU clearly had low opinion of much of the work done by international experts and expressed the wish that much more of the activities under planning, data collection, awareness and livelihood developments should be undertaken at provincial level. The PPMU showed considerable confidence and ability but also apparent that there were many divergent and contradictory views about threats, solutions and priorities. JRM and XY take 2 hours to visit GTZ office who is in charge of the project ‘Protected Areas support programme for Sichuan’. Discussions with CTA Berthold Siebert about possibilities of Bureau of Forestry handling biodiversity overlays for protected areas under the project. In the afternoon, meeting with Chengdu Biological Institute. Several scientists engaged in ecological studies and monitoring of upland areas and Ruoergai in particular talked about their work. Much of their conclusions varied from the general views we had been given by Forestry Bureau and by SEPB officials. This led to discussions about the ways in which academics are able to transfer their knowledge of land systems into

75

government policy and plans and secondly on reasons why the institute was so little involved in the GEF project. It was concluded that there was a lot of excellent ecological knowledge and know-how at provincial level with good knowledge of the particular conditions in Ruoergai and Tibetan pastoral lands and that it was much more appropriate, sustainable and cost-effective to use such expertise rather than use international or even national level experts in the monitoring and planning of these wetlands.

15th Nov.Whole team

Fly to Chengsha, in the afternoon, meetings with local PPMU. General presentation including a very poor English summary of project progress to date.

16th Nov.Whole team

Drive to YueYang town. Meet with local Forestry and project officials at city municipality level.

17th Nov.Whole team

Field visit to East Dongting NNR. See buffer zone (includes city, towns, agriculture, poplar plantations, reed cutting etc. Visit core area where some numbers of waders, duck, geese and common cranes were seen (total 40 bird spp). See monitoring station, staff house; interview visiting bird watchers and talk to county level and reserve staff.

18th Take boat down lake from Yueyang to Yuanjiang (county town and site of large polluting paper mill) and then Yiyang (prefectural) town. Have meeting with local project staff. Drive to inspect polder livelihood project of WWF. No-one was there but clear they are rearing crayfish (invasive species!). A few waders about.

19th Nov.Whole team

Have meeting with reserve level and county level staff of South Dongting NR in Yiyang. Drive to Chengsha city. Have meeting with EPB biodiversity director. It is apparent that there is much overlap and little coordination by EPB and SFA plans.

20th Nov.Whole team

Fly back to Beijing. Foreign experts report to UNDP/UNOPS collect and cash cheque. JRM discussions about CCICED wetland taskforce with Prof. Wang Sung. All team writing up report and observations.

21st Nov.Whole team

Team meeting with AUSAID to discuss the subcontract 4. Meeting with UNDP Res. Rep. Team meeting with WWF China programme about their Wetlands project and subcontract 4. They clearly have some interesting and successful models for how to go about planning and setting up alternative livelihoods that could be used in training capacity to staff from other sites. Possibly their sub-contract could therefore be narrowed in focus but extended in scope to allow other aspects of training and awareness work in a ‘broadening of the partnership’.

22nd Nov.Whole team

Project meeting with CPMU leaders about state of project and some feed back of their hopes for the project revision. JRM meeting with CCICED co-chairs including discussion of idea for a special wetlands task force. XY, JRM, and ZLQ Visit to SFA to see Wetlands monitoring unit, Protected areas unit, CBIMS (Chinese biodiversity information management system), GEF wetlands project office and GIS lab. They clearly have the capacity to handle the biodiversity monitoring design, overlays, web-based data sharing and other work left over from sub-contract 1. There is some reluctance to share data caused by security

76

regulations although they are trying to get more freedom in this respect. Team debriefing on current thoughts for the project and plans for the two field visits.

23rd Nov.Whole team

Writing of report to date.

24th Nov.Whole team.

XY and JRM attend CCICED council meeting, and JRM make presentation including proposal for a wetlands task force. JRM meet Xie Zhenhua, minister of SEPA; Vice President of CAS – Chen Yiyu; DGs of IUCN, WWF; senior members of Word Bank and ADB and UNEP. Discuss wetlands taskforce with Prof. Sun Honglie (chairmen of WWF sponsored wetlands taskforce). Discussion of previous WB GEF project with Susan Shen. The team is broken into two. Team one are XY, JRM, and LQQ and go to Jiangsu. Team two are JF, GF and ZLQ and go to Harerbin Team one fly to Nanjing. Meet some province PPMU staff and travel to Taizhou, arriving late at night.Team two fly to Harerbin, dinner and introductions to PPMU and senior officials in HPFB.

25th Nov.Team one

In the moring set off at 0600 and drive to Dafeng. Visit to Dafeng Nature Reserve and milu deer captive breeding station. See education center (embarrassingly poor), bird shooting gallery, mini zoo, nature reserve and coast. Watched video about reserve (good) and had discussion with reserve managers. In the afternoon drive north along coast road to Yancheng NR

25th Nov.Team two

Morning – meet with PPMUAfternoon – meet with EPB and State Farm representatives of WMA

26th Nov.Team one

In the morning visit Yancheng NR. See core area, buffer zone. See cranes. Talk to reed cutters. Visit ostrich and crane farm, which also has large specimen rooms and butterfly picture factory. Meeting with reserve managers. In the afternoon drive back to Nanjing.

26th Nov.Team two

Morning – met with sub-contractors for sub-contract 3Afternoon – met with NR staff from Honghe and Sanjiang Nature reserves

27th Nov.Team one

Meeting with PPMU and SEPA in Nanjing to discuss project progress, hopes for future, rationale and economics of deer farming and needs or potential for monitoring, awareness and livelihood work. General opinion was that local experts were better and cheaper than internationals, and subcontracts should be done locally. p.m. fly back to Beijing. SFA adamant that reserves should not be merged. Money for use at province level still has to be channeled through CPMU.

27th Nov.Team two

Morning – met with Planning Commission officials regarding ADB loan for water restoration & alternative livelihoods in Sanjiang PlainsAfternoon – fly back to Beijing

28th Nov.Whole team

Meeting of the MTR team. Discuss objectives of the GEF project, and analysis needs to these four sites.

29th Nov.JF, XY, GF,

JRM leaves to Philippines. Prepare report in the morning, have a telephone conference with Tim Claire during 1:30-3:10pm and MTR team

77

LQQ meeting to discuss management of the GEF project.30th Nov. Preparing report1st Dec.JF, XY, GF, ZLQ

Lai Qingkui leaves to Yunnan. Prepare field trip report.

2nd Dec. JF, XY, GF, ZLQ

Preparing reports.JF and XY Meeting in CPMU office to discuss reprogramming. Meeting with Liu Guoqiang and visit CICETE in the afternoon.

3rd Dec. JF, XY, GF, ZLQ

Preparing reports.JF meeting with UNDP and UNOPS in the morning.

4th Dec. JF, XY, GF, ZLQ

XY meeting in CPMU office with Mr. ZHAO Shidong, the expert in charge of monitoring indicators setup and assessment the project. Discussions on his work and his recommendations. Gerard Fitzgerald leaves China in the afternoon. JF and XY meeting with WWF. Discussions on contract 4, wetland task force under CCICED and experiences of WWF on wetland conservation. Further meeting with CPMU exchange ideals about reprogramming. ZLQ writing report and join the meeting with CPMU.

5th Dec. JF, XY

JF & XY meeting with AUSAID during 1:30-2:20pm, discussions on reprogram and arrangement with Sub-contract 4. AUSAID has shown great support to the reprogram. JF & XY writing reports. ZLQ leaves Beijing

6th Dec. JF, XY, JRM

JF & XY writing reports. JRM comment on reprogramming at home.

7th Dec. JF, XY

JF & XY writing reports.

8th Dec. JF, XY

JF & XY writing reports. 6:00-7:30pm meeting with CTA to identifying available funding resources, 7:30-9:00pm meeting with UNDP GEF (Tim Clairs)

9th Dec. JF, XY, JRM

JF & XY writing reports. JF & XY meeting with Foreign Cooperation Department, SFA during 11:00~12:30 to discuss the involvement of SFA units as wildlife conservation, wetland office and nature reserve management. 2:00-3:30pm meeting with Tim Clairs and Andrew Laurie, discussions on reprogramming. JRM editing on MRT report at home.

10th Dec. JF, XY

JF & XY writing reports.

11th Dec. JF, XY

JF & XY meeting with Nature Conservation Section, SFA.Writing reports.

12th Dec. JF, XY

JF & XY writing reports. ZLQ leaves Beijing

13th Dec. Joan Freeman leaves China.

MTR Team:Joan Freeman (JF): the Team LeaderXIE Yan (XY): the National Team Leader

78

John MacKinnon (JRM): the biodiversity expertZHANG Liquan (ZLQ): the national biodiversity expertGerard Fitzgerald (GF): the social economy expertLAI Qingqui (LQQ): the national social economy expert

APPENDIX C

INTERNATIONAL EXPERTS’ FEEDBACK ABOUT THE GEF/UNDP PROJECT ON CHINA WETLANDS (CPR/98/G32)

BACKGROUNDA mid-term review (MTR) of the GEF/UNDP project on Wetland Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use in China is being conducted now. As part of this review, the MTR team is seeking feedback about the project from all the international experts who have done work for the project. We would appreciate it if you could take a few minutes to provide us with answers to the following questions. This should take no more than 15 minutes of your time. (But if you wish to take longer and write extra comments, the information will be appreciated and used). Your responses will be kept confidential and we would appreciate having them by December 2, as the MTR ends December 10.

The MTR team has read many of the mission and project reports produced by international consultants. What we are interested in knowing here are your personal views and insights about the project. Please send your responses to the MTR team leader Joan Freeman by email (joan@avantel.ca) and Gerard Fitzgerald MTR social scientist (gerard@fitzgerald.co.nz).

In case we have difficulty identifying you through your email address, please tell us your name, the purpose of your work and in which of the four areas you worked (Sanjiang Plain, Ruoergai Marshes, Dongting Lakes, Yancheng Coast).

Name: Purpose of work:Area(s) where you worked: QUESTIONS

Each question below asks you to provide a rating from 1 to 5, with 5 being very high and 1 being very low.

Contracting and Terms of Reference 1. Rate the overall quality of your TORs (1= very poor, 5 = excellent):

79

If rating is 3 or lower, identify the main problems with the TORs

2. Rate your satisfaction with the contracting process for your contract (1= very dissatisfied, 5 = very satisfied):

If rating is 3 or lower, identify the main problems with contracting process.

Support Provided

3. National consultants: a. How many national consultants were provided to work with you? (Give

number)b. Were any of these consultants forestry staff? (yes or no). If yes how

many? (Give number)c. For each national consultant assigned to you, rate his or her qualifications

and English skills (1 = very poor, 5 = excellent)i. Qualifications/skills

ii. Command of English

4. Interpretation (verbal communications): a. Were you provided with an interpreter? (yes or no)b. If yes, rate the overall quality of the interpreter(s) provided. (1= very poor,

5 = excellent)

5. Adequacy of reports, maps and background informationa. Rate the adequacy of maps, reports and other data provided by the project

for your assignment. (1= very poor, 5 = excellent)

Interest of Forestry Staff in your assignment(s)(Indicate N/A if you did not meet staff from a particular level)

6. Rate the level of interest of Nature Reserve staff in your work (1 = 0 or very low interest, 5 = very high interest)

7. Rate the level of interest of provincial forestry staff in your work

8. Rate the level of interest of state forestry staff (i.e., CPMU) in your work.

Results of your Work9. Rate the relevance of your work results/products to preservation of wetland

biodiversity. (1 = 0 or very little relevance, 5 = very high relevance)

10. Rate the increase in capacity produced by your assignment. (1 = none or very low, 5 = high, i.e., beneficiaries now able to do this work themselves)

80

11. Rate the practicality of the products/results for preserving wetland biodiversity at the sites in which you worked. (1= not useful, 5 = very useful).

Questions about the overall Project

12. Rate the overall quality of the design, execution and supervision of this project compared to other development projects you know about. (Give ratings for each item below)

a. Quality of design.b. Quality of project execution by UNOPS (i.e., international contracting)c. Quality of project execution by Central Project Management Unit (i.e.,

work planning and day-to-day management, coordination and monitoring of activities)

d. Quality of project supervision by UNDP (i.e., guidance and monitoring of the overall project)

General Comments and SuggestionsPlease provide any comments or suggestions you wish.

Finally, if you would like a follow-up phone call from the MTR team, please give a location and phone number where you can be reached between now and December 7.

APPENDIX CInternational Experts Feedback about the GEF/UNDP China Wetlands Biodiversity and Sustainable Use Project

As part of the MTR of the GEF/UNDP project on Wetland Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use in China, feedback was sought from all the international experts who have participated in the implementation of the project to date. A short questionnaire was used to capture this feedback. It consisted of 12 questions, the majority of which were based around five point scales used to rate aspects of the project and the expert’s experience, and included several sections available for comments.

Six practitioners replied within the format of the questionnaire, and one provided comment in another format. The respondents covered a good range of types of expertise, and had experience of the project at different stages: two of the respondents had provided PAS management services, two had undertaken training needs analyses, two had provided other specialist inputs and some training, and one had provided specialist training.

81

A. Project ManagementProject management was covered by six items, and rated by the international consultants from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The rating of the overall quality of the consultants Terms of Reference ranged from

2 to 4 with a mean of 2.9 (satisfactory). Several commented that their TORs included no provision for review of previous research findings and the need for background work.

Satisfaction of international consultants with the contracting process was varied. Scores indicated both satisfaction and dissatisfaction with the process.

Rating of quality of project design also varied, with scores ranging from 1 to 4 with a mean of 2.3. Comments by practitioners indicated that centralised implementation was not appropriate in the local context and the focus should have been more provincial.

Ratings of the quality of UNOPS (international contracting) execution of the project were relatively consistent across the 5 respondents, with a mean of 3.

The quality of project execution by the CPMU was rated by 4 of the 6 practitioners, with a mean score of 1.75 – reflecting dissatisfaction with the rather confused approach of the CPMU.

Quality of UNDP project supervision had a mean score of 2, one practitioner commented that they were “Not really aware of this happening”.

82

B. Supporting Consultants and Resources

This section was broken down into four different categories, reflected in the legend of figure 2. The same five point scale was used, 1 indicating “very poor”, 5 indicating “excellent”. Overall qualifications and skills of the national consultants were rated by five

respondents – four of those ratings fell between 2 and 3, with a mean score of 2.67. Command of the English language was generally judged to be good with a mean of

3.4. This rating was reflected in the relatively high quality of interpreters (scores ranging

from 3 to 5) as often times the national consultants were acting as interpreters for the international consultants.

The supply and quality reports, maps and background information were judged to be seriously inadequate (mean 1.3), mainly due to the lack of this kind of information being provided, or even available.

C. Project Staff Interest

The staff interest referred to here is nature reserve staff, provincial forestry staff/PPMU and SFA staff/ CPMU. In this case the five point scale used in the questionnaire ran from “very low interest” (1) to “very high interest” (5). Nature reserve staff showed consistently high levels of interest, ranging from 5 to 3

(rated by all six respondents). The overall interest of provincial forestry staff had a range of 2.5 between the five

experts who answered, with a mean of 3.2. The interest levels of SFA/CPMU staff were rated very low by two of the five

respondents, and average to good by the remaining three.

83

The comments of International consultants indicated that in the case of reserve and provincial staff, interest levels varied between the various sites they had worked in – averages were therefore used to generate the ratings below. It was also stated by one respondent that though interest levels were high at the time, it is suspected that they have decreased since. Also, participatory and multiple stakeholder methods seemed to be problematic for staff.

84

Benefits and outcomes of the Expert’s Work

In the questionnaire benefits and outcomes of the expert’s contribution to the project were indicated by the relevance of the work and the results and products to preservation of wetland biodiversity, the increase in capacity produced by the work (are beneficiaries now able to do this work themselves) and the practicality of the products and results for preserving wetland biodiversity at the relevant sites.

All respondents regarded the work as mostly relevant, and in some cases highly relevant. The mean of 4.3 reflects these responses.

The extent of capacity increase was rated as low, the five scores ranging from 1 to 3. The practicality of results was only rated by three respondents, with scores of 2.5, 4

and 4.

85

Summary:The international experts who worked on this project and who responded to the evaluation questionnaire regarded project management, especially by the CPMU and the UNDP, as unsatisfactory, and the weakest overall aspect of the project. Project support was considered generally satisfactory, though the lack of maps, reference material, and translation of project documents received the lowest overall score for any of the aspects of the project, and came in for a lot of criticism. The nature reserve staff were considered to be the most interested in and committed to the project. Not surprisingly, the experts’ felt that their involvement was worthwhile, but they had low expectations that the capacity-building benefits might endure.

It would have to be said that based on their previous project and work experience, the experts considered that this GEF project was generally below average in its key performance areas.

86

Appendix A5 Report of Tripartite Review (March 2003)

Appendix A5 Report of the Tripartite Project Review Meeting

CPR/98/G32 – Wetlands Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use in China

Date: 18 March 2003Venue: State Forestry Administration, BeijingAgenda: see Annex 1Participants: see Annex 2

1. Introduction

The Tripartite Project Review (TPR) was the second one held since the Project Document was approved in December 1999 and project implementation started in spring 2000. The first TPR meeting was held on 4 August 2001 in Ruoergai, Sichuan Province.

A mid-term review (MTR) was conducted between 29 October and 11 December 2002. The MTR recommended that the project be redesigned to improve progress towards the overall objective. Based on the main conclusions and recommendations from the MTR, a Concept Paper (CP) was formulated to guide the redesign of the Project Design. The CP was distributed as a working document to the TPR participants.

2. Project Results to Date

The progress after the first TPR was presented by the Acting National Project Manager. Following progress had been made by CPMU:

1) All TPR decisions from the first TPR have been carried out. Consultations have been held to improve the capacity and the management of WMAs;

2) Sub-contracts 1-3 were signed and implementation commenced;3) New CTA was recruited jointly by SFA, UNOPS and UNDP;4) UNVs were recruited for each province;5) A state audit was conducted in 2001;6) A documentary film on wetlands was produced by TVE (commissioned by UNDP);7) MTR was conducted in October-Decemeber 2002;8) Publicity activities were strengthened.

As part of regular project activities, annual and quarterly workplans were drafted centrally and at provincial level. 27 international and 16 national specialists were hired to work for the project. So far, 864 people have been trained under the project. Four international study tours with a total of 33 participants have been organized.

Chief Technical Advisor (CTA) presented the conclusions and recommendations from the MTR. Since October 2002, the project activities have significantly slowed down due to the MTR. Most project activities have been suspended, except for some overseas fellowships and workshops. The MTR report was received two months later than scheduled. The main findings from the MTR are

87

clear: the project will not achieve the main and immediate objectives without major revisions in the approach. Changes are needed both in terms of substance and management.

2. Record of Discussion, recommendations taken

The crucial issues to be decided by the TPR were listed in the “Draft decisions of the TPR meeting” document, which was prepared jointly by SFA and UNDP. The document was circulated among TPR participants shortly before the TPR. The discussion followed the structure of this document, item by item, after they were presented by the CTA. There was discussion on whether the TPR meeting would make binding decisions and it was agreed that the final record of the meeting would reflect the recommendations of the TPR, and thus actions to be taken by the project. There was discussion on whether the The following recommendations were given and agreed upon by the TPR meeting would make binding decisions and no clear agreement by the end of the meeting on that poing. The following decisions agreed upon in principle by the TPR, but are regarded by SFA as recommendations to the Project Leading Group (additional comments in italic).

Recommendation 1: The TPR accepted the Concept Paper for Project Redesign following Mid Term Review ("theConcept Paper")) as the basis for project’s redesign.

The Project Revision will be worked out on the basis of the CP. A revised Project Document will be signed in June. There was some discussion about the extent of the work that is required for revision of the Project Document.

Recommendation 2: The project design and implementation require improvement and the project will be redesigned according to the following principles:

emphasis on activities that address the underlying causes of the immediate threats to biodiversity,

increased project involvement outside nature reserves, increased attention to ecological services in addition to biodiversity, integration of social aspects, including local people and their livelihoods, throughout the

project, with appropriate coordination and support to policy formulation, strengthened links with national government programmes for wetland conservation substantial input to policy and agency coordination for wetland and nature reserve

management at all administrative levels, focus on capacity building through practical on the job training, joint work planning for government (co-funding) and GEF inputs to ensure coherent and

timely funding support, stronger management to ensure technical quality, coordination of inputs, and adaptive

management to respond to needs, increased participation of site and provincial personnel in project planning and

implementation, strong participation with local people at the wetland sites

The TPR participants had a lengthy discussion about the principles, considering their fundamental importance for redesigning the project. There was general agreement on the principles. Various points were raised. For example, there was concern that a project cannot change policy but can merely give recommendations.

88

Recommendation 3: The project will be redesigned to achieve the two immediate objectives in the GEF Project Brief, namely:

Immediate Objective One: To ensure conservation of globally significant wetland biodiversity at four demonstration sites;

Immediate Objective Two: To incorporate wetlands biodiversity conservation into national conservation plans, legislation and processes.

Recommendation 4: The roles and responsibilities of major partners follow those proposed in Section 5.3.1 of the Concept Paper. In brief:

UNDP: Adequate technical and strategic support shall be provided. Continuity shall be ensured despite staff changes. Monitoring capacity shall be increased;

SFA: There shall be a shift of focus from management of inputs to achievement of results, especially at the policy formulation level, and greater involvement with government programmes in wetland and nature reserve conservation;

CPMU: Management shall be strengthened. The staff needs to fully understand the project in order to plan and manage the activities efficiently.

It was agreed that clear roles and responsibilities need to be agreed upon between UNDP and SFA. Communication between the organizations has to be further strengthened.

Recommendation 5: A new management structure for the project will be created. The Central Project Management Unit will be restructured according to the details in Section 5.3.2 and Annex 1 of the Concept Paper and the provincial and site level project management units will be restructured through local planning workshops.

The current CPMU contracts will be reviewed. The CPMU management is to be strengthened by introducing joint management by an administrative manager and the CTA (as technical co-manager). The CPMU will operate in close collaboration with the Wildlife Conservation Division of the SFA. It is proposed that the CTA position be extended by two years, after which the post of technical Co-manager would be filled by a national. SFA and UNDP will finalize and approve the revised individual job descriptions. Any staff paid by the project budget should meet the qualifications as defined in the respective job description and be recruited in line with UNDP rules and procedures. For staff members who do not meet the qualifications under the new job descriptions, the contract will not be renewed. In case qualified candidates cannot be found within SFA, external candidates will be considered.

The recommended positions are: Administrative Co-manager Technical Co-manager (CTA) Biodiversity Capacity Development Officer Biodiversity Information Officer Administrative Officer Accountant Translator

The rules and procedures for recruiting project staff were discussed.

It was agreed that specific issues concerning recruitment of CPMU staff will be settled through further consultations between UNDP and SFA.

89

Recommendation 6: Planning and management of whole outputs under the project will be delegated to the provincial and site Project Management Units according to the proposals in Section 5.3.3 in the Concept Paper.

It was decided that through provincial workplanning process, it would be decided what are the most appropriate management arrangements at each site.

Recommendation 7: Monitoring of performance and technical quality will be be carried out by a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) that makes periodic field visits to report on progress to a Steering Committee that replaces both the existing Project Advisory Committee and Project Leading Group. The Steering Committee (SC) will meet at least twice a year, one of these times to coincide with the TPR (See Section 5.2.5). The composition and TORs will be worked out after the TPR.

This is understood to refer to one single group providing overall guidance to the project implementation and including both technical experts and decision-makers.The TAG would be a subcommittee and provide technical support to the Steering Committee in the form of monitoring and review of outputs. Special monitoring visits could be carried out especially before the TPR meeting.

Recommendation 8: The number of sub-contracts in the project will be reduced to simplify the project structure, to enable delegation of authority for planning and management to the local level, and to improve the coordination of different inputs. The sub-contracts will be dealt with according to the proposals in Section 5.2.4 of the Concept Paper, namely:

Sub-contract 1 (Demonstrating biodiversity friendly land use planning through preparation of biodiversity overlays): to be foreshortened after completion of the base maps and necessary training in GIS techniqueSub-contract 2 (Public awareness, environmental education and outreach in wetland areas): to be canceledSub-contract 3 (Restoring and managing Honghe NNR hydrology): to be foreshortened after review of activitiesSub-contract 4 (Developing alternative livelihood schemes for local communities in and around four wetland sites): to be recast as contributions to specific outputs.

Status of the four sub-contracts was discussed in detail, and proposals were made on how the sub-contracts could be revised so as to best benefit the project. MTR’s general suggestions were agreed upon, but further work needs to be done in redesigning the individual activities or sub-contracts.

According to AusAID, the Sub-contract 4 is no longer appropriate. Changes to the AusAID contribution will be made to meet the needs as identified in the CP. AusAID agrees in general with proposed changes. There are aspects which are in line with AusAID’s country strategy. Further consultations are needed among SFA, MOFTEC, UNDP and AusAID to determine the exact scope and size of AusAID’s contribution. It was agreed that the AusAID funds need to be used in a way that is transparent and allows for efficient reporting to the donor.

Recommendation 9: Copies of the most recent versions of all relevant UNDP rules and procedures will be made available in all project offices, followed in project implementation, and kept updated with any revisions.

90

The updated China’s National Execution (NEX) Manual will be provided to CPMU by UNDP as soon as it has been finalized. UNDP guidelines on staff recruitment were provided to CPMU prior to the TPR.

Recommendation 10: The timetable for the substantive revision of the project document included the steps laid down in Sections 7.1 and 7.3 of the Concept Paper. A revised project document for signature by UNDP and SFA should be ready by 5 June 2003.

The provincial authorities voiced the commitment to do their best in order to implement the project successfully and start as soon as possible.

4. Conclusion and the Follow-up Actions

The above ten recommendations will be implemented as described, so as to pave the way for the redesign of the project. Consensus was reached to restart the project as soon as possible. The project was urged to begin the provincial workplanning workshops without further delay.

Possible extension of the project will be considered as the project planning proceeds. The financial implications will be considered accordingly. It was noted that additional financial assistance would not be provided by GEF or UNDP. The project will, however, strive to achieve its objectives in the agreed timeframe (by the end of 2005) in order to provide a good model for wetlands projects in the government programme cycle that will start in 2006.

PIR reports for 2001 and 2002 have been prepared by CPMU and finalized by UNDP-GEF. Whether the AusAID support will be channeled through a sub-contract or as regular cost-sharing (supporting earmarked activities) will remain to be decided shortly after the TPR. The appropriate management of these funds will be decided accordingly. Further discussions are required between UNDP, AusAID, MOFTEC and SFA.

All parties confirmed their commitment to make this project a success by working together efficiently, and as a model for future interventions in this area.

Prepared by Maria Suokko, ARR / Cluster Manager, Energy and Environment

Cleared by

91

Annex 1.List of Participants 中国湿地生物多样性保护与可持续利用项目

Wetland Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use in China年三方评审会议参会人员名单姓 名

Name职 务

Title单 位

Organization谢红Xie Hong

项目官员Project Officer

财政部国际司International Department of MOF刘明明

Liu Mingming处长Division Chief

对外经济贸易部国际司International Department of MOFTEC印红

Yin Hong副司长Deputy Director

国家林业局保护司Wildlife Conservation Department of SFA鲍达明

Bao Daming处长Division Chief

国家林业局保护司Wildlife Conservation Department of SFA雷昆

Lei Kun项目官员Project Officer

国家林业局保护司Wildlife Conservation Department of SFA待定

Uncertain副司长Deputy Director

国家林业局国际司International Cooperation Department of SFA吴志民

Wu Zhimin处长Division Chief

国家林业局国际司International Cooperation Department of SFA王雪红

Wang Xuehong处长Division Chief

国家林业局对外合作项目中心Foreign Cooperation Project Center of SFA林进

Lin Jin项目执行主任Director of Executing Agency

国家林业局GEF湿地项目办公室GEF Wetland Office of SFA刘国强

Liu Guoqiang项目主任NPD

国家林业局项目实施单位CPMU王隆富

Wang Longfu项目经理NPM

国家林业局项目实施单位CPMU安德鲁

Andrew Laurie项目首席技术顾问CTA

国家林业局项目实施单位CPMU袁军

Yuan Jun中央项目协调员Central Project Coordinator

国家林业局项目实施单位CPMU明亚林

Ming Yalin处长Division Chief

中国国际经济技术交流中心CICETE郭力

Guo Li处长Division Chief

中国国际经济技术交流中心CICETE崔光范 省级项目主任 黑龙江省GEF湿地项目办公室

92

Cui Guangfan PNPD PPMU of Heilongjiang Province李晓民Li Xiaomin

联合国志愿者UNV

黑龙江省GEF湿地项目办公室PPMU of Heilongjiang Province严宏生

Yan Hongsheng省级项目主任PNPD

江苏省GEF湿地项目办公室PPMU of Jiangsu Province徐惠强

Xu Huiqiang项目协调员Project Coordinator

江苏省GEF湿地项目办公室PPMU of Jiangsu Province桂小杰

Gui Xiaojie省级项目主任PNPD

湖南省GEF湿地项目办公室PPMU of Hunan Province李建国

Li Jianguo省级项目主任PNPD

四川省GEF湿地项目办公室PPMU of Sichuan Province顾海军

Gu Haijun项目协调员Project Coordinator

四川省GEF湿地项目办公室PPMU of Sichuan Province赵长清

Zhao Changqing项目协调员Project Coordinator

甘肃省GEF湿地项目办公室PPMU of Gansu Province陶冶

Tao Ye项目官员Project Officer

甘肃省GEF湿地项目办公室PPMU of Gansu Province

Kerstin Leitner Resident Representative UNDP ChinaMacleod Nyirongo

Senior Deputy Resident Representative

UNDP China

Maria Suokko Assistant Resident Representative UNDP ChinaTim Clairs Regional Coordinator /

BiodiversityUNDP-GEF, Kuala Lumpur

Fan Xiaojie Head, Beijing Implementation Office

UNOPS

Shane Nichols Programme Officer AusAIDBabet Naefe Programme Officer AusAID

93

Annex 2. TPR Agenda

UNDP/GEF Wetland Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use in China

Tripartite Review MeetingAgenda

State Forestry Administration, Meeting Room 22118 March 2003

Chair: Mr. Lin Jin, SFA (Director of Executing Agency)

(translation provided)09:00-09:10 Self-introduction of the participants09:10-09:30 Objectives of the meeting

Mr. Lin Jin, Director General of Forest Resources Management, SFA Ms. Kerstin Leitner, Resident Representative, UNDP China Ms. Xie Hong, Ministry of Finance

9:30-11:00 Progress report (Acting NPM Wang Longfu, CTA Andrew Laurie):1. Since last TPR2. Main findings and conclusions from the Mid-term Evaluation3. Key decisions to be taken by the TPR

11:00-11:15 Tea break

11:15-12:00 Discussion

12:00-13:30 Lunch

13:30-15:00 Discussion continued15:00-15:20 Adoption of decisions15:20-15:30 Closing remarks by Mr. Liu Guoqiang, National Project Director

94

Appendix A6 Concept for Project Redesign (March 2003)

UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME, CHINA

Concept for Project Redesign following Mid-term Review

CPR/98/G32Wetland Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use in China

Executing Agency: GEF Project Office of State Forestry Administration (SFA)

Implementing Agency: Overall Project: Academy of Forest Inventory and Planning (AFIP) at the State Forestry Administration

[ but one subcontract: China International Centre for Economic and Technical Exchange ]

UN Cooperating Agency: United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS)

Project Sites: Beijing and wetland areas in Heilongjiang, Jiangsu, Hunan, Sichuan and Gansu provinces.

Date of signature of projectdocument: 6 December 1999

Duration of project: Originally five years, extended to six years at the 2001 TPR

(MTR proposes further two year extension - to eight years total)

Dates of Mid-term Review: 28 October-11 December 2002 in country

MTR Report received: Bulk of report (less Chapter on Subcontracts received 19 February 2003)

Date of Tripartite Review: Scheduled for 18 March 2003

95

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED

CI Conservation InternationalCEPF Critical Ecosystem Partnership FundMOFTEC Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation MTR Mid Term ReviewUNESCO United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural OrganizationCCICED China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and

DevelopmentNEX National ExecutionUSD US DollarsSPC State Planning CommissionMWR Ministry of Water ResourcesTA Technical AssistancePIR Project Implementation ReviewAPR Annual Project ReportNWCAP National Wetland Conservation Action PlanNGO Nongovernmental OrganizationTCM Technical ComanagerACM Administrative ComanagerBCDO Biodiversity Capacity Development OfficerBIO Biodiversity Information OfficerAO Administrative OfficerCAS Chinese Academy of SciencesPA Protected areaSFA State Forestry Administration CTA Chief Technical AdviserUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeGEF Global Environment FacilityTPR Tripartite ReviewMTE Mid-Term EvaluationCPMU Central Project Management UnitCO Country Office (always as UNDP CO)PRA Participatory Rural AppraisalWWF World Wide Fund for NatureCIGAE Changchun Institute for Geography and Agricultural EcologyGPS Global Positioning SystemCICETE China International Centre for Economic and Technical ExchangeTOR Terms of ReferenceWMA Wetland Management AuthorityGIS Geographical Information SystemEDG Environment and Development GroupUNOPS United Nations Office of Project ServicesAusAID Australian Agency for International DevelopmentPPMU Provincial Project Management UnitNRPMU Nature Reserve Project Management UnitNPD National Project DirectorNPM National Project ManagerAFIP Academy of Forest Inventory and PlanningNNR National Nature ReserveNR Nature Reserve

96

ADB Asian Development BankSEPA State Environmental Protection Agency

97

Contents

1. Introduction............................................................................................................................................22. Lessons learned and responses proposed.....................................................................................22.1 Scope...........................................................................................................................................22.2 Approaches..................................................................................................................................22.3 Management................................................................................................................................2

3. Assessment of Threats and constraints................................................................................................23.1 The Wetland Sites.......................................................................................................................2

3.1.1 Dongting..........................................................................................................................23.1.2 Ruoergai Marshes............................................................................................................23.1.3 Sanjiang...........................................................................................................................23.1.4 Yancheng.........................................................................................................................2

3.2 The Nature Reserves...................................................................................................................23.3 Underlying causes......................................................................................................................2

4. Responses to the problems, and Strategies for implementation..........................................................25. Outline for redesigned project..............................................................................................................2

5.1 The outputs.................................................................................................................................25.1.1 Output 1.1 Strengthened protected area facilities and management for eleven nature reserves at four wetland sites....................................................................................................25.1.2 Output 1.2 A basic biodiversity monitoring programme for the whole of the Dongting Lake designed and operational..................................................................................................25.1.3 Output 1.3 Raised capacity of local government and nature reserve officials in understanding the Ruoergai ecosystem and application of sound ecological principles in their decision making, , and good interagency coordination in economic development of the region...................................................................................................................................................25.1.4 Output 1.4 Ruoergai herders cognizant of ecological principles and using their experience together with newly acquired knowledge and skills to contribute to decisions on grazing management systems, infrastructure and economic development............................................25.1.5 Output 1.5 Sound ecological and hydrological principles in use by local officials, planners and developers, including project managers, on the Sanjiang plains in land-use planning and water management....................................................................................................................25.1.6 Output 1.6 Strengthened public information on biodiversity conservation, and improved environmental education programmes in the Yancheng coastal marshes area.........................25.1.7 Output 2.1 Strengthened processes and capacities for coordination of development and other activities affecting wetland biodiversity and nature reserves..........................................25.1.8 Output 2.2 Proposals for changes in policy and legislation with respect to wetland biodiversity conservation and nature reserves submitted to the Chinese government.............2

5.2 Duration of the project...............................................................................................................25.3 Management Arrangements.......................................................................................................2

5.3.1 Roles and Responsibilities of each partner in Management...........................................25.3.2 Staff of Central Project Management Unit (CPMU)......................................................25.2.3 Decentralized management.............................................................................................25.2.4 Sub-contracts...................................................................................................................25.2.5 Monitoring and evaluation..............................................................................................2

6. Indicative budget...................................................................................................................................27. Next steps...............................................................................................................................................2

7.1 Tripartite Review Meeting.........................................................................................................27.2 Planning workshops....................................................................................................................2

98

1. Introduction

The Mid-term review (MTR) for this project took place between 28 October and 12 December 2002 in country and an incomplete final report was received on 19 February 2003 from the MTR Team Leader. Chapter 5 (on subcontracts) is still missing at the time of writing. There are also individual reports from the five other MTR team members that have not been distributed but are available at the UNDP CO.

The MTR team concluded that although an impressive amount of activities had been carried out there are a number of serious design and implementation faults that demand redesign of the project in order to ensure that future activities contribute effectively to the project's overall objective, which is: "To secure the conservation of globally significant wetland biodiversity in China". The MTR team proposed new programmes under this overall objective, based upon their conclusions on design and implementation and the local circumstances at each of the project sites. The MTR team stressed that the recommended changes in programme can be made only if there is commitment from all parties to fundamental strengthening of project management so that it is "professional", "flexible" and linked effectively with government programmes. The MTR report emphasised that the proposed changes to programming will also require more decentralized management, with provincial and NR staff being given more responsibility (and more accountability) for outputs and results. Recommendations for major changes to management structure and operation have been linked with the programming changes in one package.

This concept paper summarizes the MTR conclusions and illustrates how the project could be redesigned based on the MTR recommendations The concept paper follows the MTR. It deliberately does not make changes to the recommendations apart from when required to by GEF Secretariat on the arrangement of the work programmes.

2. Lessons learned and responses proposed

2.1 Scope

The MTR team assessed the site level threats to wetlands and wetland biodiversity and also the underlying causes of those threats, or constraints that affect efforts to address the site level threats. They concluded that the threat analysis in the original project document was flawed and that this led to poor project design. The MTR report states that the project designers missed the two most serious threats to wetlands, namely (i) lack of agency/sectoral cooperation and coordination and (ii) low priority given by government to biodiversity compared to that accorded economic development and poverty alleviation.

Wider than nature reservesNature reserves alone cannot protect biodiversity. First, they are not large enough to cover the annual ranges of many of the important species. And second there are

99

interactions with the wider ecosystem. Many of the threats to nature reserves arise from outside the borders. Pollution, for example arises both inside and outside nature reserves, but control over pollution from outside is beyond the control of the nature reserves. It is now clear to project management that work on threats to wetlands and wetland biodiversity far outside nature reserves is vital and that such threats will be addressed under the redesigned project.

Ecological ServicesThe global biodiversity values of wetlands are not of immediate interest to many of the local people and to local governments. Wetland functions such as provision of ecological services will be given more attention under the redesigned project.

Alternative livelihood componentThe MTR team concluded that provision of "alternative livelihoods" are not a suitable means to decrease local pressure on biodiversity in any of the four project sites and that the component should be dropped.

2.2 Approaches

Working with government programmesThe project document stated that the CPMU would be strengthened to coordinate wetland conservation nationally. This is clearly an inefficient use of project resources because the CPMU will disappear at the end of the project. The MTR team recommended that the project be linked closely with the national programmes related to wetland conservation, particularly in SFA (various divisions within the Department of Plant and Animal Conservation) but also in SEPA and other agencies.

Government coordinationThe project has attempted to tackle the underlying threats, or constraints, through establishment of "Wetland Management Authorities"but this approach has not succeeded. . Without a programme to enhance natural resource governancethe project will not advance towards its overall objective. The new project design will include more work with national, provincial and local governments and other organizations on institutional coordination, policy and planning.

Capacity Development The MTR team concluded that as far as possible capacity building will be done through practical on the job training or “learning by doing”, rather than "learning by watching experts". This approach to capacity building will make it more sustainable, but also will take longer, necessitating an extension of the project.

100

There was great reliance on international consultants during the first half of the project, with national consultants mainly working only for the short periods that international consultants were in country. Under the redesigned project more and better use will be made of highly qualified national consultants, and they will be properly remunerated and contracted with clear tasks International consultants will work in support of the national consultants' long term efforts.

Integration of activitiesThe MTR pointed out that many of the project activities were poorly linked or not done in the proper sequence and that value was lost as a result. In particular some of the outputs attributed to the project under government cofunding are at best not contributing towards the objectives and at worst obstructing progress. A coherent programme for the whole project will be established, linking all activities, whether funds originate from government GEF, AusAID or elsewhere. Social considerations, although vital, should not be separated as a separate component (alternative livelihoods) but integrated into most aspects of the project.

2.3 Management

The main improvements recommended in management are a greater focus on results rather than inputs, increased common understanding of project objectivesand the GEF principles that must underlie all project activities, and a wider constituency of partners and stakeholders These are to be achieved through reduction in complexity of management structures, clarification of roles and responsibilities, and decentralization of management of provincial and nature reserve activities.

Technical qualityProject management must increase attention to technical quality of activities and outputs and be more flexible, so that changes to project implementation can be made in response to events and experience. It is important that the project should become known as a reliable source of information and opinion on wetland matters nationally. This will require working to create more links with organizations and individuals outside the project.

Simplification of management structureAccording to the MTR, the complexity of the project management structure has been a major factor in slowing project progress. There ae four subcontracts, one of which (Subcontract 4 on alternative livelihoods) has a separate implementing agency (CICETE) and three of which include activities that overlap with each other or other components of the project at all four project sites . The MTR recommended that the number of

101

implementing agencies be reduced by removing CICETE from the project structure, and that the number of subcontracts be reduced by foreshortening or canceling three subcontracts and bringing unspent funds from the canceled subcontracts under the direct management of the project.

DecentralizationManagement from the centre led to lack of "ownership" at the provincial and site levels and this contributed to slow progress. Under the new design there will be greater autonomy at the provincial and site levels. However, there has to be a good balance here. Sound technical input from the CPMU will ensure that all project initiatives be subjected to critical review, particularly of their potential effects on biodiversity or the environment.

3. Assessment of Threats and constraints

3.1 The Wetland Sites

There are a number of easily identifiable threats to biodiversity at the site level, both inside the nature reserves and in surrounding areas at the target sites. As mentioned above (section 2.1), the MTR concluded that many of these threats have underlying causes in institutional constraints (see below 3.2 and 3.3)

Hunting is still not under control - despite some progress in limiting the ownership of guns, and fishing is under regulated. At many sites there is widespread land conversion that reduces important habitat. However, some anthropogenic habitats are of benefit to the globally significant species: many species feed on cultivated or grazing land and such land is an important part of the habitat for those species. Overgrazing may be threatening biodiversity in some areas of Ruoergai. Such threats are often portrayed as having their roots in poverty, but the MTR sociologist concluded that at none of the sites, with the possible exception of Yancheng, is poverty of local people a key threat to wetland biodiversity.

Invasive alien species are significant threats at all sites. Particular concerns are Spartina alterniflora at Yancheng, pasture grasses for grazing "improvement" and trees for rehabilitation of degraded land at Ruoergai, fish at pretty well all sites, and crabs and crayfish (Procambarus clarkii) at Dongting and Yancheng.

Pollution from agriculture, industry or city waste is a major threat in some areas, particularly Dongting. Reed-harvesting in Dongting and wetland drainage in Ruoergai and Sanjiang are significant threats elsewhere: the extent of such activities has to be balanced with their effects on the biodiversity and ecological services.

102

There is still much unplanned and uncontrolled activity and law enforcement is generally poor. The provincial Environmental Protection Bureaux are mainly responsible for decision making on development affecting ecological and biodiversity values of wetlands at the site level, although the provincial Forestry Bureaux have jurisidiction within some of the Nature Reserves.

3.1.1 DongtingMajor threats include pollution, hunting (with guns or poison), lack of effective fishing regulations, invasive alien species, and human disturbance. Biodiversity conservation in Dongting Lake requires high levels of coordination by a wide variety of national, provincial and local organizations, both governmental and non-governmental. Nature Reserves that only cover part of a lake ecosystem such as Dongting are bound to be subject to severe limitations in what they can achieve alone. There is a Dongting Lake wide "Ecological Function Reserve" being planned by the Hunan provincial Environmental Protection Bureau, but with little coordination with the Forestry Bureau who run the individual nature reserves. Lack of coordination between reserves and between reserves and other organizations is a major constraint to success. Accurate and up to date information on biodiversity and other biophysical variables is particularly important for good management of the whole ecosystem, and monitoring systems to provide such information are lacking at present.

In Dongting the geographical scope for influences on nature reserves from the surrounding areas is enormous. Pollution can arise from far outside the nature reserves, and the degree of erosion upstream leading to siltation of the lake, and the changes to be introduced by the Three Gorges Dam are wide reaching and completely out of the control of the NR authorities.

3.1.2 Ruoergai MarshesThe threats to globally significant species such as Black Necked Cranes are not severe, but it is important that the area be valued for its ecological services as a water reservoir for the Yangtze and Yellow Rivers. The main threats to wetland biodiversity are loss of habitat through drainage, degradation of grasslands through desertification and overgrazing in some areas, introduced species, increasing human disturbance, inappropriate management practices (for example, rodent and pika poisoning and current approaches to herding systems such as fencing of grasslands), and insufficient mitigation of development initiatives such as new roads. Digging for rock, sand and gravel for upgrading of National Highway 213 through Gahai-Zhecha NNR and along the eastern boundary of Ruoergai NNR is already leaving scars on the landscape that will cause erosion in the future, and the improved transportation will bring increased tourism with possible negative environmental effects. Recent reduction in rainfall attributed to global climate change could be the result of a local change in climate following the widespread drainage projects.

103

As in Dongting, there are relatively advanced Environmental Protection Bureau plans for an Ecological Function Reserve covering the whole of the Ruoergai Marshes and overlying the Forestry Bureau run nature reserves, but little coordination in planning it and setting it up. There has been insufficient consultation with scientists for example.

3.1.3 SanjiangThe major threats in Sanjiang are reduction of the water table and surface water levels through drainage projects, and agrochemical pollution. The captive breeding programme for Oriental Storks in Honghe NNR is also a threat to the species in that it is almost certain to be a drain on the wild population and that it takes resources away from useful activities.

3.1.4 YanchengIn Yancheng the local threats consist mainly of pressure from local people to convert the whole area into fields (particularly to cotton) and aquaculture ponds, harvesting of shellfish and worms on the unenclosed mudflats, the rapid spread of the introduced grass Spartina alterniflora, and the artificial breeding of Red-Crowned Cranes in an attempt to establish a resident population. Saunders' Gull is now reported to be restricted to only one breeding site, in the core zone of the Yancheng NNR, whereas only three years ago it was breeding in three sites - a reduction of range attributed to some biologists to the spread of S. alterniflora

3.2 The Nature Reserves

The project has been active in eleven nature reserves within the selected wetland sites. Farming, fish-farming, reed-harvesting, drainage, hunting, fishing, harvesting of plants, overgrazing, damage by alien invasive species and pollution occur inside the nature reserves. The Nature Reserve managements do not have legal land tenure rights over large parts of the nature reserves under their nominal control, and this hampers any coherent attempts to manage their reserves.

There are other underlying constraints to Nature Reserves in China, such as the need for all Nature Reserves to raise their own operational costs, and the incentives in the system to spend large amounts on capital costs (which in turn generate the need for more operational costs). This has resulted in Sanjiang, for example, in parts of a nature reserve being rented out to farmers to raise money to cover nature reserve operational costs. And the Yancheng NNR 's own revenue raising activities such as fish farming and reed cutting inside the core

104

zone (the zone that provides the highest legal level of protection) also constitute threats to biodiversity.

There are other threats that arise from within nature reserves, such as poor fire management, inappropriate development of tourism, and taking endangered species from the wild for captive breeding or displays.

The underlying constraints that result in such unsound management practices, include lack of training or poor training, and a policy framework that encourages nature reserve leaders to compromise the objectives of the reserves in order to raise money to cover operational costs, and to spend money on buildings and staff are not required for effective management.

Many of the boundaries are untenable: in some cases there are towns or cities located inside nature reserves, contrary to nature reserve regulations. The legal framework for PAs in China is inappropriate to the varied conditions and pressures faced. Although there are three main types of Protected Area and various administrative levels of Nature Reserves, such as Prefectural, Provincial and National (the latter with, among others, a criterion that sets a minimum area and encourages inappropriate boundary demarcation) there is only one basic category of Nature Reserve, with one set of possible zones that can be established by management (core, buffer and experimental) and no provision, for example, for a functioning multiple use reserve.

3.3 Underlying causes

The direct threats listed above have their roots in the constraints under which the managers and decision makers are working. The underlyingcauses can be listed as follows:

Population pressure leading to destruction of habitat Lack of information and inadequate monitoring Poor understanding or (or poor acceptance and application of) basic ecological

principles and their relationship to management of wetlands Lack of information Poor enforcement of environmental laws and regulations, leading to widespread

abuse of the legislation Inappropriate policies of central and provincial governments on management of

wetlands. [Lack of funds for law enforcement and nature reserve management operations is also generated from inappropriate policies.]

Inadequate institutional and intersectoral coordination for policy development and implementation, including conflicting objectives and policy between sectors, overlapping jurisdiction and legal uncertainty

Poor public information and environmental education on wetland conservation, and insufficient incorporation of such activities into tourism for example

Flaws in the protected area system (categories, zonation, funding and management culture)

105

Rates of return on funds invested in biodiversity and ecological services of wetlands not widely understood or taken into account. Low priority given to biodiversity conservation by government

4. Responses to the problems, and Strategies for implementation

Some of the root causes can be addressed by this project: others have to be addressed in different ways. But it is clear that this project will not progress towards its objectives unless ittackles underlying causes and not just the site level manifestations of those underlying problems.

Approaches will include: capacity building of managers and relevant decision makers at all levels from

nature reserves to county governments up to the state levels so that they gain a better understanding of ecological principles and the importance of wetlands and biodiversity to the people and the economy.

sound research and monitoring programmes to measure trends and provide information for use in decision making and in assessing the effectiveness of management interventions

mitigation of the most severe deleterious impacts of human use on wetland restoration through targeted interventions to modify certain practices or the effects of certain practices (such as proposed in the most recent protected area management plans)

working through existing planning mechanisms to establish patterns of consultation and communication and to involve scientists in wetland management where appropriate and take into account their research findings

review of law and policy related to wetlands and nature reserves at the state level, particularly where current policies contribute to the threats facing nature reserves

sound, ecologically based, public awareness and environmental education programmes taking into account social factors

including the people most closely affected by the environmental problems in designing solutions

The strategies to be used to carry out the required responses under the redesigned project differ from the original project design in the following characteristics:

Improved coordination through a more comprehensive and coherent approach to management at each site and elimination of specialized sub-contracts that address one component of the project at each of the four project sites.

Decentralization of project management so that provincial project management units become accountable for achievement of objectives and outputs, and site specific approaches are developed through local planning workshops the organization of which is delegated to the local units.

106

Emphasis on ensuring that the project management units at the various levels have a clear and common understanding of the threats facing wetland biodiversity and the institutional and other constraints facing attempts to combat those threats.

Stress on “learning by doing” rather than experts doing the work Limiting the role of "Wetland Management Authorities" to project leading

groups and using existing planning processes to influence decision making on wetlands rather than setting up new institutions

Proper coordination of the government co-financing with GEF financing and use of project budgets and workplans that combine funds and activities from the the two sources

Strong links and joint work with government programmes so that training and general capacity strengthening applied to units that will be managing wetlands and nature reserves after the project ends

Use of long term volunteers (rather than short term consultants) in the field when it is necessary to gain good understanding of the local conditions prior to project interventions

Dynamic links between project activities Cooperation and exchange of ideas with Chinese and international

conservation organizations

5. Outline for redesigned project

The MTR considered the overall objective and the threats and underlying problems and designed a new approach to implementation that focuses more closely and realistically on the needs at each site and at the policy level and includes seven "programmes" that were intended to be regarded as the new Immediate Objectives.

However, in order to complete a substantial redesign without suspending the project and referring the changes back to GEF Secretariat, the Immediate Objectives must remain the same as the original ones. The proposed programmes do not fit well under the project document's immediate objectives, because those are too focused on nature reserves and they include a component on sustainable alternative livelihoods that the MTR team recommended removing from the project. There is a difference between the immediate objectives in the GEF Project Brief and those in the UNDP Project Document: there are only two in the Project Brief as opposed to six in the Project Document. Now as the GEF Secretariat are concerned primarily with the immediate objectives in the Project Brief, it is permissible to edesign the project locally without referring the revised document to the GEF Secretariat by switching back to the immediate objectives in the Project Brief. The seven programmes proposed by the MTR team have been reorganized below (Table 1) as outputs under the two Immediate Objectives in the Project Brief.

TABLE 1. IMMEDIATE OBJECTIVES AND OUTPUTS

107

Immediate Objective 1 (From Project Brief)To ensure conservation of globally significant wetland biodiversity at four demonstration sitesOutput 1.1 (MTR proposed Programme 1)Strengthened protected area facilities and management for eleven nature reserves at four wetland sites

Output 1.2 (MTR proposed Programme 2)A basic biodiversity monitoring programme for the whole of the Dongting Lake designed and operational

Output 1.3 (MTR proposed Programme 3) Raised capacity of local government and nature reserve officials in understanding the Ruoergai ecosystem and application of sound ecological principles in their decision making, , and good interagency coordination in economic development of the region

Output 1.4 (MTR proposed Programme 3)Ruoergai herders cognizant of ecological principles and using their experience together with newly acquired knowledge and skills to contribute to decisions on grazing management systems, infrastructure and economic development

Output 1.5 (MTR proposed Programme 4)Sound ecological and hydrological principles in use by local officials, planners and developers, including project managers, on the Sanjiang plains in land-use planning and water management

Output 1.6 (MTR proposed Programme 5)Strengthened public information on biodiversity conservation, and improved environmental education programmes in the Yancheng coastal marshes area

Immediate Objective 2 (From Project Brief) To incorporate wetland biodiversity conservation into national conservation plans, legislation and processesOutput 2.1 (MTR proposed Programme 6)Strengthened processes and capacities for coordination of development and other activities affecting wetland biodiversity and nature reserves

Output 2.2 (MTR proposed Programme 7) Proposals for changes in policy and legislation with respect to wetland biodiversity conservation and nature reserves submitted to the Chinese government

The MTR report effectively stressed the importance of the second of these two immediate objectives. If permitted under the rules of the substantial redesign it might be better to put the objectives in reverse order.

108

The rationale of this design is that lessons learned under Immediate Objective 1, which includes demonstrations of different aspects of wetland resource mangement, are passed up to provincial and national level to feed into policy review and development.

5.1 The outputs

The MTR report stressed that the project design should not be too rigid and prescriptive with respect to determination of inputs and activities and that activities should be decided upon during planning workshops. The outputs are presented in this concept paper in broad terms. Detailed outputs and activities will be elaborated during participatory planning workshops involving all major partners and interested parties. The general steps that will be needed and the expected end of project situation are indicated under the description of each output. The indicative logical framework (Annex 1) gives more details on indicators, sources of verification and preconditions or assumptions. Each of the eight outputs will go through a log-frame analysis as part of the redesign process involving the provincial offices, following a decision on the general project concept at the Tripartite Review Meeting. Outcomes and impacts will also be elaborated for monitoring purposes. And baselines will have to be established for the outputs - for example on current level of management where "strengthened management' is the output.

The results of each output will be used by other outputs: in particular Output 1.1 will feed into all other outputs, and Outputs 1.2 to 1.6 will feed back into Output 1.1. There will be a flow of lessons learned from Outputs 1.1 to 1.6 inclusive through Output 2.1 to Output 2.2.

5.1.1 Output 1.1 Strengthened protected area facilities and management for eleven nature reserves at four wetland sites

Nature reserve staff work under difficult conditions with often inferior equipment and clothing. But the main problem lies in the making of inappropriate management decisions - decisions that often detract from the objectives of the nature reserves (see Section 3.2). Some of the underlying causes for such behaviour are to be addressed under Outputs 2.1 and 2.2, but basic lack of understanding of conservation biology and the application of ecological science to habitat and species management will be addressed under this output through training. Training will be delivered through on-the-job activities so that much basic NR management will be supported by the project, including survey and monitoring work and public awareness and environmental education.

By the end of the project29 nature reserve staff from eleven nature reserves will understand basic conservation biology and will be able to apply their knowledge and experience to: habitat and species management protected area management planning, including rezonation where necessary assessment of the environmental implications reports and proposals29 Note that the MTR proposed that the duration of the project be extended by two years (See Section 5.2)

109

planning of patrols design and implementation of biological and social surveys analysis and review of survey and monitoring data involvement of the general public in biodiversity conservation and reduction of

conflicts between general public and nature reserves understanding the economic valuation of wetland goods and ecological services

and will be putting their training into practice and assisting in training staff from neighbouring reserves. The nature reserve staff will also have the basic equipment and field clothing necessary to fulfil their functions, and support to maintain that equipment. This output will be achieved through the following steps: training through courses and workshops tailored for each site separately, and

learning on the job through demonstrations and experience 30

provision of equipment and educational and technical resources including books and other publications

links with Outputs 1.2 to 1.5. (For example, through research and monitoring carried out under Output 1.3 the Ruoergai managers will have a better understanding of the causes of threats to biodiversity and wetland functions and will be better able to make sound management decisions. And Output 1.5 will contribute to capacity development of Yancheng nature reserve staff in design of effective public awareness campaigns and education programmes)

use of the management plans already prepared as training tools in management planning principles (Management problems that demand sound decisions will provide a focus for discussion and a way of training on the job. Examples include the rodent poisoning programme and the settlement of herders in Ruoergai, a release programme for Pere David's Deer at Dafeng, changes to revenue raising activitiesin the core areas at Yancheng, expansion seawards of the Nature Reseves at Yancheng due to accretion of mudflats year after year, the cost-effectiveness of various ways to restore water levels at Honghe, the basic needs for water in the farms around the Honghe NR)

procurement of equipment after careful equipment needs analyses at each reserve and assessment of the ability of the host institutions to obtain funds for operation and maintenance.

5.1.2 Output 1.2 A basic biodiversity monitoring programme for the whole of the Dongting Lake designed and operational

Although there is a considerable amount of published information on the biodiversity and the physical characteristics of Dongting Lake and further work is in progress or has been recently completed, there is no unified approach to monitoring by the various agencies and institutions involved in data collection. Recent declines in numbers of some relatively common water birds and shore birds (eg egrets and coots) have alerted people to the need to identify causes for such declines and to investigate underlying threats to the ecology of the whole lake and indeed to the health of the human population. There is a need for a biodiversity monitoring programme. Much data is already collected on

30 The MTR proposed that training and provision of equipment be completed first in seven nature reserves, followed by support to neighbouring nature reserves with training given by the staff already trained during the first phase. A third phase would involve spreading the training to the remaining nature reserves in each area. There is disagreement over the proposal and this requires resolution.

110

water quality but this programme will bring the various agencies and data together and ensure standardization of methods and sampling regime to make the results more useful. The subcontractors for subcontract 1 will complete the basemaps but the biodiversity survey activities under subcontract 1 will be managed by the project directly under this output.

It is vital for the success of this programme that good collaboration is achieved between relevant institutions responsible for monitoring of natural resources such as the Environmental Protection Bureau, the Forestry Bureau, the Fisheries Department, the Agriculture Bureau and the Dongting Lake Management Bureau. It also has to make use of a wide variety of partners, including bird clubs, pulp mill operators, fishermen organizations, and conservation NGO's, and implementation will contribute to raising of public and local government awareness about conservation and the need for action in response to trends detected. There is an excellent opportunity to involve civil society.

The Norwegian Government is planning a project on environmental policy coordination in Dongting to begin this year, and World Wide Fund for Nature have a longstanding presence at Dongting in environmental conservation. This project will work closely with both these agencies.

By the end of the project it is expected that: an effective monitoring programme for species and habitats in the Dongting Lake

will be in operation and producing coherent and standard data for decision makers on trends in biodiversity and water quality,

data from the monitoring programme will be used by decision makers in local and provincial governments to combat pollution for example, to strengthen law enforcement, and to contribute to lake-wide policy development and links to upper catchment management

local people will know about the monitoring programme, assisting with observations and reports, and aware of the importance of maintaining the ecological health of the lake

This output will be achieved through the following steps: review of existing information and maps, published and unpublished, on the

biodiversity, water quality, water levels, flooding, and climate of Dongting Lake. Conference including scientists and government officials and NGO's

Identification of gaps in existing programmes and how to coordinate ongoing work analysis of institutions and organizations required to be involved in the programme,

followed by a training needs analysis for the programme. training courses and workshops on sampling theory, biodiversity and

chemical/physical monitoring methods, data analysis, review and statistics, and identification skills for different taxa.

careful creation of plan for the monitoring scheme carefully through above training courses and additional series of workshops, with all partners assigned their roles.

equipment needs analysis, procurement of required equipment and assignment to those responsible for its operation and maintenance. preparation of habitat map of entire wetland

implementation of the monitoring programme itself

111

having designed and implemented the basic biodiversity monitoring program, data collection on water quality, climate and other physical/chemical variables will have been added to the programme in the final year.

involvement of public, NR staff, honorary game wardens, interested farmers, other partners, visiting bird watchers, scientists and nature lover groups

a website to share information among all stakeholders.

5.1.3 Output 1.3 Raised capacity of local government and nature reserve officials in understanding the Ruoergai ecosystem and application of sound ecological principles in their decision making, , and good interagency coordination in economic development of the region

An Ecological Function Reserve is planned for the whole of the Ruoergai Marshes. It could be a valuable tool in mitigating the environmental effects of aspects of the Great Western Development project in Ruoergai and in addressing the problems of pasture management. But in order for it to be successful government officials must take into account basic ecological principles when doing their planning and decision making. At present lack of good ecological understanding leads to policies on, for example poisoning of zokors and pikas, that detract from biodiversity conservation and compound the original problem that they were designed to solve.

The Ruoergai Marshes ecosystem and the role of herders and their livestock are still only poorly understood. Further research is necessary. This output will provide basic information and will design and test practical approaches for integrating ecological/biodiversity considerations into the major economic development plans that may have impacts on the biodiversity of Ruoergai Marshes.

By the end of the project it is expected that: A research programme will have been established for determination of

grazing capacities of Ruoergai Marshes, effects of fencing, rodent and pika control, peat mining and road construction on pasture and ecology and on wetland restoration methods.

A monitoring programme for rangeland health will have been established Local government officials at county, prefectural and provincial levels,

including representatives from all relevant departments and bureaux will be able to consider development proposals and actions in the Ruoergai Marshes in the context of biodiversity and wetland conservation principles.

Guidelines for ecologically sound exploitation and development (including herding and all other land uses) will be integrated into government planning for the Ruoergai Marshes

112

This output will be achieved through the following steps: Review of existing information and determination of needs for new data -

conference with scientists and government officials brought together Identification of gaps in knowledge and existing research projects Planning and implementation of research and monitoring programme. (Topics

for research include: causes of desertification; whether over-grazing is occurring and if so its impact on biodiversity and desertification; the impact of nomadic herding, fencing, settlement of herdsmen, grazing and drainage, on the wetland ecosystem and biodiversity; the ecological roles of pikas and zokors and effects of poisoning on the ecosystem and species (following up on completed research in Qinghai); relative impacts of different species of domestic livestock; whether herding patterns can be restored that benefit biodiversity, ecosystem function and eco-tourism potential of area)

investigation of methods for drainage reversal and restoration of wetlands capacity building of decision makers and planners in consideration of

ecological principles, in particular as they apply to the impact of human activities on the environment

demonstrations of how to integrate ecological principles into development; upgrading the highway is an urgent example.

improvement in coordination and communication between planners workshops to consider the various plans for development of the Ruoergai

Marshes, and policy options for revenue generation, including taxing of downstream communities for water conservation services.

Series of meetings leading to acceptance and adoption of guidelines and appropriate changes in current policy and decision making

5.1.4 Output 1.4 Ruoergai herders cognizant of ecological principles and using their experience together with newly acquired knowledge and skills to contribute to decisions on grazing management systems, infrastructure and economic development

The people of Ruoergai have a history of raising livestock on the Tibetan plateau for centuries and have long term grazing rights in the Ruoergai NNR. The ecological role of livestock in maintaining natural processes is a vital one now that wild ungulates are almost extinct. The drainage schemes started in the 1960's increased grazing land available but led to changes in water table that affected the ecology of the surrounding grasslands. This output is designed to make use of the skills, knowledge and experience of the Ruoergai herders, which are of vital importance in planning environmentally acceptable development and grazing systems for the area. It will increase the herders' understanding of ecology and how their own perception of the environment links with the formal scientific approach, and may also lead to identification of practical ways of changing herders’ practices to mitigate damaging effects on biodiversity conservation. The Ruoergai Marshes are included in one of the target areas for

113

the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund managed in China by Conservation International. This project will work closely with the CEPF in involving civil society in conservation.

By the end of the project, it is expected that: local herders will be cognizant of biodiversity and wetland/water conservation

trends, problems and values, and will be taking part in discussions on ways to tackle any conflicts between development proposals and their ways of life.

mitigation of the effects of certain current practices on biodiversity and water conservation will have been achieved

This output will be achieved through the following steps: dialogue with herders leading to herders being better informed about ecology,

protected areas and biodiversity. (Possible methods include meetings with opportunities for extensive discussions, and follow up meetings, workshops, a publicity campaign using TV and radio programmes and other media, and involving senior local government officials in lead roles. A mobile education unit could be equipped and sent around the Ruoergai Marshes working in an interactive way - better than merely delivering a message with no feedback and opportunity for answering queries. Other options include design of displays and provision of education materials for public information centers and establishment of links with relevant organizations through which experiences on peatland, wetland and crane conservation could be exchanged by local groups)

increased involvement of herders' representatives in planning processes and nature reserve management

appropriate policy changes and individual incentives to modify certain practices, particularly grazing in certain parts of the nature reserves

rezonation of the reserves

5.1.5 Output 1.5 Sound ecological and hydrological principles in use by local officials, planners and developers, including project managers, on the Sanjiang plains in land-use planning and water management

Most of the wetlands in the Sanjiang site are affected by drainage schemes, and patches of natural vegetation are being destroyed by new drainage despite regulations to the contrary. Much of the area is under State Farm management. An Asian Development Bank (ADB) project31, which is now in the planning stages, involves a USD 12-15 million loan for developing alternative economic livelihoods to support water restoration in 7 nature reserves in the Sanjiang plains. A $600,000 US technical assistance (TA) to design the loan is now at the bidding stage. Another GEF project is providing part of the funding for the TA, to ensure that biodiversity issues are covered during design of the loan. There is a role for this project too in provision of technical advice at both the TA 31 The Sanjiang Plains Wetland Protection Project

114

and the loan phase and in preparing local officials for sound decision making when considering their options.32

By the end of the project (and this particular output will have to be completed rather quickly): government officials including those at the state farms, will have increased

understanding of and capacity to deal with the biodiversity, water conservation and ecological implications of the various development proposals

the activities of Subcontract 3 will have been reviewed and available funds reallocated to new tasks if appropriate. (The project should not spend large amounts of money on the Honghe rehydration study and on purchasing equipment, without substantive review of the value of the results so far and the potential benefits of the equipment)

This output will be achieved through the following steps: close liaison with the forthcoming ADB project TA and provision of technical advice

for project formulation training courses, study tours and on the job training through an international United

Nations Volunteer development of practical approaches for integrating ecological and biodiversity

considerations into the major water restoration plans proposed for the Sanjiang Plains through technical advice (including expert studies and analysis) and awareness raising of provincial decision-makers (eg Planning Commission, Water Bureau, Agricultural Reclamation Bureau and State Farm Bureaux) about issues such as pollution, drainage, restoration of wetlands, NR boundary revision, ecotourism and links between NR's.

5.1.6 Output 1.6 Strengthened public information on biodiversity conservation, and improved environmental education programmes in the Yancheng coastal marshes area

This output includes development of practical approaches for environmental education at Yancheng and Dafeng NRs and surrounding areas that support biodiversity conservation i.e. that help raise public awareness and provide sound messages about biodiversity conservation, and that are financially viable for the nature reserves. There will be close collaboration with UNESCO is important under this output as the Yancheng NR is a Biosphere Reserve. WWF China is currently conducting education under their Yellow Sea Ecoregion Programme, and this output will be aligned with that programme.

Much work has been and is being done in the Yancheng and Dafeng NR's on public awareness and environmental education, in particular at information centres and museums. However, the messages from the programmes require

32 Depending on what is covered by the full ADB project there may be a reduced need for inputs from this project in Sanjiang after next year, in which case a budget revision could reallocate excess project resources.

115

adjustment and there is a need for people who are able to design displays that bdemonstrate principles of ecology and conservation biology. Instead of collections of stuffed animals from around the world, withno apparent organization or theme, displays will be designed to show the ecological processes and communities of the coastal marshes and mudflats and the influences on those processes and communities of all kinds of human activity, including the introduction of alien species, and the enclosure of mudflats with sea walls. And the capacity to develop such displays will have been strengthened.

By the end of the project, it is expected that: appropriate displays in education centers will have been established and existing

ones replaced selected nature reserve and local government officials will be able to design

appropriate displays and environmental education programmes and incorporate the principles into planning of other such displays and centres in the area.

routine presentations will be made to the public, and the public will be in dialogue with the NR authorities.

local people will be involved in and taking part effectively in various conservation activities such as collecting data, strengthening law enforcement and public education.

This output will be achieved through the following steps: advice and capacity building regarding environmental education environmental education incorporated into all activities, such as tourism

development, conducted by the NRs. training partly done “ on the job” through a project volunteer. study visits to some existing good education centers outreach activities with school children, farmers and local officials or public

involvement in bird species monitoring and law enforcement or even some research, as well as assistance with the actual displays and activities carried out in the education centers.

surveys and research on ecosystems and key species and threats to them supplying the education display and programmes with first hand data and making research and monitoring activities themselves integral parts of the education displays

links with national and international NGO's and their conservation programmes

5.1.7 Output 2.1 Strengthened processes and capacities for coordination of development and other activities affecting wetland biodiversity and nature reserves

The MTR stressed the importance of activities outside nature reserves. At present the project is having little or no impact on overall development planning and is not even well informed of relevant projects and development plans. The project will play an important role under this programme in facilitating productive cooperation between different agencies using existing planning mechanisms and structures and increasing capacity for planning in each of the five provinces to

116

take into account ecological and biodiversity considerations. Lessons and approaches learned from the practical programs in each province will be applied to policy or management in the province and/or considered at the national level in activities under Output 2.2.

By the end of the project it is expected that: the capacity of provincial planners and local governors related to wetland

management will have been strengthened coordination among different sectors in each province will have been improved provincial nature reserve system planning will have been improved nature reserve management problems that have policy implications will have

been examined and resolved. [Examples include how to ensure the nature reserves' land tenure over accreted mudflats at Yancheng, and how to solve the potential short term conflicts of interests in that the State Farm at Honghe in effect manages the NR and drains its water]

lessons from the provincial activities will have been communicated to the state level consideration of ecological factors in planning and development decision making will

have been improved

This output will be achieved through the following steps: identification of existing planning processes and mechanisms in decision making

related to wetland utilization and conservation in each of the five provinces identification of the key people for decision making in the various sectors development of training programmes to improve capacity in wetland management workshops on the relationships between existing and proposed environmental and

development plans in each province to ensure consistency between the plans and sound consideration of ecological principles and biodiversity, particularly as they apply to wetlands

establishment and maintenance of links to ensure smooth cooperation between agencies

attendance by selected people at relevant international meetings, such as the World Parks Congress in Durban in Sept 2003. development of a more comprehensive planning mechanism (based on existing ones)

to cover provincial wetland management regular sharing of information between nature reserves started as a wetland project

newsletter and established as an institution by the end of the project development of provincial regulations on wetland and biodiversity management

through a participatory process where needed

5.1.8 Output 2.2 Proposals for changes in policy and legislation with respect to wetland biodiversity conservation and nature reserves submitted to the Chinese government

Many of the problems facing nature reserve and natural resource managers at the local level stem from problems at the center - institutional or policy or both. To produce this

117

output the project will work in Beijing to identify such bottlenecks and to develop ways to change policy or legislation necessary to reduce problems caused by them in the field. There are conflicts between legislation and actual practice that are unavoidable under current policy: for example large numbers of people live in NRs illegally and this practice is accepted as inevitable or even encouraged by NR managers in order to raising operational funds. China’s Nature Reserves are all of one category legally, although various zones are available. The project will assist in particular with work on establishing additional nature reserve categories that would allow the system to correspond with the IUCN classification. Good coordination will be needed between the various institutions that manage Protected Areas in China in order to develop a more useful system of classification and to clarify jurisdictions in cases where there are overlaps. Selected people should attend the World Parks Congress in Durban in Sept 2003.

By the end of the project it is expected that: capacity will have been built at central government level for NR management

and system strategy and for making changes to policy and legislation that are necessary for effective management

the project will be communicating frequently with a network of wetland related agencies, governmental and non-governmental and will have assisted in implementation and periodic revision of the National Wetland Conservation Action Plan, and coordination between the concerned agencies will have been strengthened

policy options will have been developed for improving the management of the protected area system

proposals for changes in policy and legislation will have been submitted to the Chinese government

This output will be achieved through the following steps: establishment of effective working relationships with key government departments

involved in wetland and nature reserve management (for example the departments of Nature Reserve management, Wildlife Conservation and Wetlands in SFA, Department of Nature Conservation in SEPA and Department of Aquatic Wild Animals protection in Ministry of Agriculture) and other relevant organizations

a training needs analysis on the job training for government officers through provision of materials a training programme - mainly meetings and workshops, but also training courses,

study tours and internships (both incoming and outgoing) analysis of the problems at the four sites' protected areas review of existing legislation and regulations for PAs at all levels and in all

management authorities to identify requirements for change review of categories of nature reserves and other protected areas in China to clarify

the current inconsistencies between law and practice in protected area management review of funding mechanisms for protected areas and analyzing the current practice

of funding high capital costs but few operational costs (thus encouraging NR

118

managers to use the NR's own natural resources, in sometimes damaging ways,for revenue generation).

review and evaluation of the current requirements for Master Plans and Management Plans in nature reserves and the effectiveness of the current management plans and degree of implementation

examination of the effects of any incentives to make NR's large in order to achieve national nature reserve status

forming links with the National Wetland Conservation Action Plan Committee, conservation NGO's, and task forces of CCICED (Integrated River Basin Management, and In-situ Conservation) among others

discussions with concerned NGO's and other organizations, eg The China Environment and Sustainable Development Reference and Research Centerb

technical assistance on policy and legislation for revision of the draft “Wetland Conservation Regulations of China” and the “Nature Reserve Management Regulations of China”.

5.2 Duration of the project

The MTR team recommended that the project be extended for two years but that some outputs will have been completed before the end of that time. Activities will be scheduled and completed at the pace that suits each province and nature reserve.

5.3 Management Arrangements

The basic management structure of the project, i.e. central, provincial and nature reserve project management units (CPMU, PPMU and NRPMU), are retained. Wetland Management Authorities (WMA) were never operational in the function of "Authorities" and are renamed as Project Liaison Groups to make decisions on government cofunding and to facilitate cross-sectoral activities of the project, which are to be established under the new design. The redesigned project aims to improve government management and decision making capacity on biodiversity conservation, particularly in wetlands, strengthening existing government programmes and working through existing government channels (for example provincial planning commissions).

The responsibilities of central, provincial and site level project personnel, and also of the UNDP Country Office, have to be clearly defined and the staff must be capable of carrying out the work involved. The main responsibilities at each level are listed below (5.1). There will be a chain of command from the CPMU down through the PPMU's to the site level and the NRPMU's but at each level there will be independence and autonomy for the implementation of certain programmes or parts of programmes, and this will be linked tightly with accountability for results. Without results the programmes could be canceled. Work-planning will take place as part of project activities and, at least in the first year, will have the participation of CPMU staff.

5.3.1 Roles and Responsibilities of each partner in ManagementA. UNDP Country Office

119

advance project funds from GEF and AusAID in a timely manner according to the annual and quarterly workplans;

promote effective management and implementation of the project to ensure the achievement of the objectives

monitor project implementation and progress to ensure the wise and productive use of the project resources

organize the final evaluation of the project appoint an individual to oversee the project and maintain weekly communication and

fortnightly meetings with both comanagers authorize the financial and planning procedures under which the project will operate

(note that the MTR report recommended that NEX procedures were not appropriate in all aspects so, if this is possible, ad hoc amendments are needed and should be defined)

approve all posts and job descriptions in the CPMU approve all senior staff changes in the CPMU

B. State Forestry Administration

B1. Through GEF Wetlands Project Office and Central Project Management Unit) carry out the daily management and operation of the project to ensure the outputs of

the project lead towards its objectives overall direction and supervision of work carried out with AusAID funds overall and local work-planning to ensure that quality outputs planned participate in preparation of annual and quarterly workplans drafted at provincial

and site levels, approve advance payments and certify financial reports approve PPMU and NRPMU management structure and senior staff appointments transfer funds on a quarterly basis to all project management units at provincial and

site level submit quarterly work plans and financial reports for the whole project, covering site,

provincial and state levels (funded by GEF, AusAid and government co-financing) to UNDP Country Office at the end of each quarter; ensure the wise use of the funds and be accountable to Government of China and UNDP for the management and auditing of the funds;

coordinate all discussions and decisions on government co-funding and be responsible for ensuring that all funds are applied to activities that contribute to achievement of project objectives

monitoring implementation of the work-plans training in planning, implementation and monitoring links with other relevant organizations and projects both in China and abroad technical support - references, printed materials, contacts, information, ideas operational support - procurement of equipment, recruitment of consultants, trainers coordination of policy initiatives under Output 2.1 in each province, particularly with

respect to bringing together the various institutions sharing and dissemination of information across provinces and sites and linking the

field with the national level approval of all consultants and trainers hired for the provincial and nature reserve

activities

120

full responsibility for Output 2.2, collection of lessons learned in the provinces and at the sites

reporting (six monthly) monitoring, including development of a system of indicators that measure actual

achievements rather than quantify inputs. one annual Tripartite Review meeting and two biannual meetings to review

implementation

B2. Through Department of Wild Animal and Plant Conservation (Divisions of Wetland Conservation, Nature Reserves and Wild Animal and Plant Conservation) make arrangements to allow project staff to visit the SFA offices whenever required

for project activities and consultation assign counterparts to work with project staff collaborate on daily basis on project activities take particular responsibility for activities under Outputs 1.1 and 2.2

C. Provincial Project Management Units (one in each of five provinces, in the provincial forest bureau) provincial and local work-planning monitoring and implementation of the work plans sharing of information across agencies and between nature reserves and local

governments design and management of provincial based activities under Outputs 1.2 - 1.6 and

2.1 to include nature reserve administrations and a wide range of institutions at county, prefectural and provincial levels related to wetland policy and management

each unit accountable for the outputs assigned to it links between CPMU and the sites reporting (quarterly) attendance at one annual and two biannual meetings, including the annual Tripartite

Review, and two project meetings to review implementation

D. Nature Reserve Management Units (one at each nature reserve) work planning implementation of work plans and accountability for results under Output 1.1 monitoring other project work at the site making and maintaining links with wide range of local government officials and

general public required in order to carry out the programmes and work plans reporting (quarterly) transfer of techniques and knowledge to other nature reserves at the site participation in Outputs 1.2 to 1.6, and 2.1

E. (Provincial) Project Liaison Groups links between agencies necessary for effective project implementation - particularly

under Outputs 1.2 to 1.6 participate in meetings to finalize decisions on allocation of government cofunding -

with CPMU represented

CICETECICETE's role at present is to manage Subcontract 4. However, the MTR team recommended on management and effectiveness grounds that CICETE be removed from the project as they are considered to be a superfluous agency between the main

121

implementing agency (AFIP of SFA) and a subcontractor (WWF/EDG). A decision on this recommendation has to be made by AusAID and MOFTEC, presumably in consultation with CICETE. If CICETE are not involved SFA would contract WWF/EDG directly. The subcontractor for Subcontract 4 (WWF/EDG) will be responsible for implementing the work through and in collaboration with the appropriate PPMU's and NRPMU's

5.3.2 Staff of Central Project Management Unit (CPMU)Delegation of responsibility for whole programmes will release the CPMU from some administrative duties but the CPMU will maintain technical oversight in all areas. Following the recommendations of the MTR a new management structure for the CPMU has been drawn up (see Figure 1 below).

The staff positions in the CPMU are as follows:1. Administrative Comanager (ACM) – responsible for setting up and maintaining the

management system at all levels - national, provincial and site. S/he should have very good capability to take a broad view of the project, work well in the existing government channels, hold together all staff working on the project and coordinate relationships between agencies.

2. Technical Comanager (CTA) (TCM) - the original CTA position to be changed to this for about two years with the Biodiversity Capacity Development Officer to take over at the end of that time if s/he has reached the required standard of proficiency. [In the event that the CTA position was retained at the end of two years it would revert to a purely advisory position and be part time - say three months per year for two years]

Biodiversity Capacity Development Officer (BCDO) - in the first two years work closely with TCM and trained to become the TCM after around two years when the CTA think he/she is capable of taking over the position (see above). S/he should have good English, both written and spoken, good knowledge of environmental science and biodiversity, and appropriate experience with training, institutes of higher education, and government staff at the local level.

3. Biodiversity Information Officer (BIO) - will assist with the BCDO’s work, be trained on the job and prepare to take over the position of BCDO when the BCDO becomes the TCM. S/he must have good knowledge of English and experience with environmental and biodiversity issues.33

4. Administrative Officer (AO) – work as an interpreter, secretary and administrative assistant to the Comanagers. His/her English and Chinese must be sufficiently fluent that s/he is able to deal with daily tasks such as translating short documents quickly, oral translation for the CPMU office, communication with international consultants through emails or fax, catalogueing reports and documents in English and Chinese. S/he should also have good computer skills in order to maintain the computer network in the office and the database and library of reports and other documents.

5. Accountant - requires good English and must be able to prepare budget revisions and track shadow budgets using UNDP standard software.

6. Translator/interpreter - work mainly long documents and at official meetings

33 There is one more post here than proposed in the MTR report - to allow for a national technical comanager to be trained on the job .

122

Draft Terms of Reference (TOR) for all positions are shown in Annex 2: these require approval by UNDP. Appointments to the first three posts above need joint approval by UNDP and SFA. UNDP hiring policies and procedures should be followed to ensure that highly qualified persons are recruited, and remunerated properly.

123

Figure 1. New structure of Project Management of CPMU

National Project Director

Administrative Comanager

Accountant Translator

Administrative officer Biodiversity Capacity Development

PPMUs

Technical Comanager (CTA)

RPMUs

After around two years training on the job, replace the CTA, as the Technical Comanager (TCM) if it is agreed that he/she is by then

After around two years on the job training, fill in the position of BCDO when the former BCDO becomes TCM Biodiversit

y Information Officer

124

5.2.3 Decentralized managementFrom now on much more of the planning and implementation will be done at the local levels. PPMU management structure and TOR for provincial project management posts will be decided upon at the provincial level. They may vary between provinces. In order to strengthen technical input on planning, implementation and management at provincial and nature reserve levels, the TCM and BCDO will travel to each site at least once a quarter and provide training, help, advice, monitoring and supervision on developing workplan and implementation. Participation of the TCM and BCDO will be aimed at improving management capacity at the provincial and site levels, rather than doing the work themselves.

The MTR recommends that project planning, implementation and monitoring are flexible and adaptive, and that the redesigned project document confines itself to defining intermediate objectives and outputs and the parties responsible for them. Activities will be defined during work-planning exercises. It is important that the redesigned project document be very clear about how to achieve this flexible project planning process, particularly as the MTR recommends that the project does not adhere either to the UNDP Programme Manual or the NEX manual. The process must be well-defined and all must have confidence in its practicality. An indicative schedule of the processes required are shown below in Table 2. In summary, the NPD will submit reports, workplans and requests for quarterly advances to UNDP and the Reserves and Provinces will submit such requests to the Comanagers for approval.

Table 2: Reporting and advance payment timing

Month of each year

1

2RPMU submit quarterly report and request and workplan to PPMU and CPMU

CPMU submit an annual report for TPR meeting 2.5 PPMU submit quarterly report and

request and workplan to CPMUTPR meeting

3CPMU submit quarterly report and request and workplan to NPD and UNDP

4

125

5RPMU submit quarterly report and request and workplan to PPMU and CPMU

5.5 PPMU submit quarterly report and request and workplan to CPMU

CPMU submit a six month report to UNDP 6

CPMU submit quarterly report and request and workplan to NPD and UNDP

7

8RPMU submit quarterly report and request and workplan to PPMU and CPMU

8.5 PPMU submit quarterly report and request and workplan to CPMU

9CPMU submit quarterly report and request and workplan to NPD and UNDP

10

11RPMU submit quarterly report and request and workplan to PPMU and CPMU

11.5 PPMU submit quarterly report and request and workplan to CPMU

CPMU submit a six monthreport to UNDP 12

CPMU submit quarterly report and request and workplan to NPD and UNDP

The overall project quarterly reports, advance requests and workplans will be prepared by the comanagers and must be approved by both the NPD and UNDP. Those submitted by the PPMU and RPMU must be approved by both comanagers before any disbursements are made.

5.2.4 Sub-contractsThe MTR recommended as part of redesign reduction in the complexity of the management structures by cutting down the number of subcontracts and simplifying the implementation arrangements for the ones that survive.

Activities under subcontract 1 and 3 will be reviewed and remaining funds will be reallocated to be managed directly by the project management units. The base maps will be completed by the current subcontractor under Subcontract 1

but the biodiversity overlays are not required in the format requested, the subcontractor is not qualified to provide them, and the funds will be better spent developing sound monitoring schemes at the sites under Outputs 1.1 and 1.2.

If the funds remaining under Subcontract 3 are insufficient to fund an effective and accepted scheme to reflood the Honghe NR they will be reallocated to other activities under Output 1.5.

126

Subcontract 2 will be terminated as currently formulated: the surviving subcontractor (one has already terminated the contract) may be given assignments under Output 1.6 but the funds will be under the direct management of the project

The conclusion of the MTR is that alternative livelihoods (most of Subcontract 4) will not contribute to achievement of project objectives, and that the alternative livelihoods component will be removed from the project. However, the Ruoergai component of Subcontract 4 is of great importance to the project objectives both in its policy aspects and in mitigation of impacts on biodiversity and wetlands through changes in human practices, encouraged by carefully targeted incentives. Outputs 1.3 and 1.4 overlap substantially with the Ruoergai components of the Subcontract 4 TOR. It was the recommendation of the MTR team that WWF/EDG be retained as a subcontractor, without the involvement of CICETE, to carry out selected parts of the Outputs that match the programmatic criteria of AusAID. The most suitable components for WWF/EDG's involvement are Outputs 1.3, 1.4 (Ruoergai) and 1.6 (Yancheng). At meetings between the MTR team and AusAID it was concluded that the necessary revisions to the TOR for subcontract 4 could be made without a new bidding process. One option is to allocate three whole outputs (those listed above) to be carried out with AusAID funding by WWF/EDG the subcontractor. The second option is for AusAID to support specific parts of a number of different outputs - for example the community involvement parts of Output 1.1 and parts of outputs 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.6 and 2.1. , with the subcontractor engaged by the project for specific tasks.

The rough proposal for budget allocation in Section 6 includes all subcontract funds, so funds to be allocated to subcontracts would be identifiable in any or all of the cells.

Meanwhile subcontracts 1 and 3 are continuing, subcontract 2 remains suspended and subcontract 4 remains as yet unsigned by the winning group (WWF/EDG). Large expenditures under subcontracts 1 and 3 are not being approved for the moment, pending discussion made on the future of the project.

5.2.5 Monitoring and evaluationMonitoring and evaluation requires substantial improvement in moving from input based indicators to capacity based indicators that measure ability to carry out functions, and that are clearly attributable to the project. Many are either too simplistic or impossible to measure or verify, or changes in them are not attributable to project activities. With indicators such as, for example, "biodiversity considerations integrated into a county or a provincial land-use or development plan" the criteria for verification must be precise.

Each year the TPR will provide the opportunity for the major partners to discuss achievements, experiences and problems in the previous year and to approve the annual workplan for the coming year. The MTR recommends that the annual TPR be attended by provincial project staff, and that there are an additional two more meetings each year, one just before the TPR and one six months later. CPMU and UNDP will of course organize additional meetings in Beijing for oversight. Apart from the TPR report (the joint PIR/APR) two reports will be prepared by the project each year - one of them just prior to the annual workplanning. The six monthly reports will be much fuller than the quarterly reports and will address any changes needed in project implementation. UNDP must guarantee that they allow sufficient time for dialogue with the project, for

127

familiarization of themselves with the project's activities and problems, and for monitoring and confirmation of outputs. Time must be allowed for field visits.

6. Indicative budgetThe following indicative budget is for the whole amount of the GEF and AusAID funds remaining. It is based on initial estimates of the amount of training, workshops and equipment etc required for each output. It gives an approximate picture of how the funds could be distributed towards the completion of each of the eight outputs but does not reflect the actual distribution of funds to individual project management units. Note that it does not include government cofunding: but the revised project document will include government project funds integrated under a single budget. Use of the AusAID funding depends on AusAID's agreement to changes in the TOR for Subcontract 4 to allow WWF/EDG either to be allocated (with provincial and nature reserve project management units)

two outputs in entirety, or to be allocated sub-components from a number of the outputs

The table below was prepared using estimated unit costs for workshops, training courses, study tours, consultant months and equipment and then estimating what might be the approximate requirement for each of the seven programmes. They are illustrative figures and will be subject to revision following the detailed planning workshops.

All subcontract funds have been included, subdivided according to the categories in the table, but such funds can still be managed by subcontractors. The funds in each cell of the table could be allocated to a project management unit (provincial or central) or a subcontract, or could be split between them.

Table 3: Outline budget (for the international funds only) for the two objectives and eight outputs in US$ thousands, assuming that US$ 8.0 million available from outstanding funds including subcontract funds

IO 1O 1.1NR's

IO1O 1.2

DT

IO 1O 1.3Ruo Dec

IO 1O 1.4Ruo PA

IO 1O 1.5San

IO 1O 1.6Yan

IO 2O 2.1Prov

IO 2O 2.2Pol

TOTALS

International TA34 120 220 75 75 120 50 170 170 1,000National TA7 400 110 200 200 200 90 105 105 1,410Training 190 95 120 110 55 55 115 115 855Planning workshops 300 145 200 175 65 65 180 180 1,285

Equipment + Books 630 150 120 120 80 180 130 30 1,440

Sundries - tel etc 100 20 10 10 20 20 100 20 300

34 including "volunteers"7

128

Subtotals 1,740 740 695 695 540 460 800 620 6,290Final Evaluation 110Management (20%) 1,600

TOTAL 8,000

7. Next steps

7.1 Tripartite Review Meeting

Due to delay in receiving the MTR report, the Tripartite Review Meeting has had to be delayed several times. At the time of writing (25 February) Chapter 5 on Subcontracts has still not been received. The most recent provisional date set for the Tripartite Review Meeting is 18 March.

7.2 Planning workshops

Detailed activities and responsibilities will be defined for each output during planning workshops to be held in Beijing, Chengdu, Lanzhou, Nanjing, Changsha and Har’erbin immediately following the Tripartite Review Meeting. It is important that these workshops are not rushed. The MTR report was delivered very late and this has created a pressure to get ahead with activities under a redesigned project. It is important that activities do not restart until all are confident that technical quality and good administration will be assured .

The planning workshop in Beijing will be organized by CPMU, and those in the provinces will be organized by each PPMU with assistance from CPMU. Each workshop will be facilitated by a professional facilitator (national) and will last four days (five in the case of Beijing), but will have been preceded by preparatory work assigned to the participants. Wide groups of stakeholders will be invited to attend for the first two days of the workshops and the groups will be narrowed down to small teams for the final two days. The plans produced will include use of the government cofunding .

Success of these planning workshops will require heavy involvement of as many stakeholders as possible. The following units give an indication of the range of representation at each workshop:

129

BEIJING

UNDPCPMUThe five PPMUsState Forestry Administration (SFA) – (units for nature reserve management, wetland office, wildlife conservation)Academy of Forest Inventory and PlanningState Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA)Ministry of Agriculture (units for Aquatic wild animal protection, wetland management)Chinese Academy of SciencesState Oceanographic Administration (SOA)State Planning Commission (SPC)Ministry of Water Resources (MWR)National Wetland Conservation Action Plan Committee (NWCAP)WWFUNESCO – (Biosphere Reserves Management Office)Wetland InternationalConservation InternationalChangchun Institute of GeographyTaskforces of CCICED eg In-situ Conservation, and Integrated River Basin Management

CHENGDU

CPMUSichuan PPMUGansu PPMUSichuan Forestry BureauSichuan Environmental Provincial BureauSichuan Agriculture BureauSichuan Water Resource BureauSichuan Planning CommissionChengdu Institute of Biology, CASGrassland Research InstituteWWFConservation InternationalAba PrefectureRuoergai CountyHongyuan CountyRuoergai NNRRiganqiao Prefecture NR

LANZHOU

CPMUGansu PPMUGansu Forestry Bureau

Gansu Environmental Provincial BureauGansu Agriculture BureauGansu Water Resource BureauGansu Planning CommissionDesert Research Institute, CASLanzhou UniversityNorthwest Normal UniversitySichuan PPMULuqu CountyMaqu CountyGahai Lake NNRShouqu PNR

HA'ERBIN

CPMUHeilongjiang PPMUHeilongjiang Forestry BureauHeilongjiang Environmental Provincial BureauHeilongjiang Agriculture BureauHeilongjiang Water Resource BureauHeilongjiang State FarmHeilongjiang Planning CommissionADBNortheast Forestry UniversityJiamusi CitySanjiang NNRHonghe NNR

NANJING

CPMUJiangsu PPMUJiangsu Forestry BureauJiangsu Environmental Provincial BureauJiangsu Agriculture BureauJiangsu Water Resource BureauJiangsu Planning CommissionNanjing Geography and Limnology Institute of Zoology, CASNanjing UniversityNanjing Forestry UniversityWWFDafeng NNRYancheng NNRDafeng CityYancheng City

131

CHANGSHACPMUHunan PPMUHunan Forestry BureauHunan Environmental Provincial BureauHunan Agriculture BureauHunan Water Resource BureauHunan Planning CommissionWuhan Hydrobiological Institute, CASHunan Normal UniversityWWFEast Dongting NNRSouth Dongting PNRWest Dongting PNRYueyang CityYiyang CitybHanshou County

132

Appendix B1 Threats, planned responses and project outcomes

1. Threats to wetland biodiversity

Despite measures taken by government to set aside wetlands35 as protected areas and to strengthen the legal framework and its implementation, the integrity of many wetlands and their biodiversity is still at risk from:

Drainage and conversion to agriculture and aquaculture Over-harvesting, both legal and illegal, of fish, birds, invertebrates and aquatic plants for

example Dams and diversions and other large infrastructure projects Pollution from industry, households, agriculture and aquaculture Siltation Over-use of ground and surface waters Introductions of certain alien invasive species

In the rush for economic development ecological systems are being destroyed at the cost of natural production systems. For example, there is heavy pollution of the Yangtze tributaries, pollution that should have been controlled by now according to government plans, and this pollution threatens the fish of the entire lake that is building up behind the Three Gorges Dam.

Many of the underlying causes of these immediate threats to wetland biodiversity lie in the ease with which activities that provide short term profit at the expense of long term stability can be carried out within the current policy, legislative and regulatory framework. The result is that different agencies often pursue their programmes independently and do not take into account fully the impacts of their actions on biodiversity, ecological processes or people’s lives. The functional significance of wetlands in the wider landscape is often ignored, for example: the importance of wetlands in irrigation water supply, ground water replenishment, for transport, micro-climate control, prevention of salt water intrusions, natural flood control, etc.

Protected areas are vital tools in wetland biodiversity conservation, but many protected areas in China are simply superimposed upon a mosaic of different land uses over which management has no jurisdiction. Many nature reserve managers (the vast majority of protected areas in China belong to the this category) have to tolerate activities inside their reserves that threaten species or interfere drastically with ecological function and are forbidden under the 1994 Nature Reserve Regulations. Sometimes whole towns or cities are included within nature reserves, yet none of the available management zones permit this.

2. Responses

Wetlands are extremely productive habitats that support a great range of biodiversity, provide valuable ecological benefits in terms of flood storage and shoreline protection, pollution

35 Wetlands are defined as “areas of marsh, peatland or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine water, the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six metres” (Ramsar Convention, 1971)

133

assimilation, climate control, groundwater recharge and river base flow maintenance, as well as opportunities for recreation and aesthetic appreciation.

Government recognizes these benefits and has acted to protect wetlands from the effects of fast economic development that is in some places outrunning environmental controls and proceeding in the face of negative environmental assessments.. Circular No 50 (2004) of the State Council General Office to the People's Governments of the Provinces, Autonomous Regions and Municipalities, and the Ministries, Commissions and Departments directly under the State Council, emphasizes the importance of wetland conservation and lays out various actions and approaches to be taken to strengthen wetland management, including changes in legislation, policy and funding mechanisms, and establishment of a wetland conservation management system that is implemented by different agencies in an integrated and coordinated manner.

Without proper regulation of industry the wetlands of China will continue to deteriorate. Government at the highest level has called attention to this, and has intervened in some cases to postpone or halt development projects in the interests of long term sustainability and is promoting limitation of public aspirations to “comfortable” or “well off” lifestyles in an effort to decrease the rush towards extravagant ones.

As the government follows through with measures on policy and institutional coordination the project will provide technical support for the full range of agencies with impacts on wetlands to ensure that wetland biodiversity considerations are included routinely in decision making and action. Good decision making requires accurate data analysed well and shared with all partners. A well informed public can contribute to decision making through coherent debate and holding government accountable for implementation of policy. Many of the problems faced by local natural resource managers stem from flaws in policy and coordination in parent institutions at the state level, as described above for protected areas for example. Through its activities the project will enhance vertical exhange of ideas and experience as well as horizontal coordination between agencies at each administrative level.

The project will work at the national level in Beijing, at the provincial level in Heilongjiang, and at the prefectural, municipal and county levels, including nature reserves, at four wetland sites (see Appendix B2). At each level the project will provide support to strengthen wetland information systems and the sharing of data between relevant organizations; to ensure that legislation conforms to basic criteria on wetland biodiversity conservation, to improve wetland management practices locally, to publicize the values of wetland biodiversity, the ecological services that wetlands provide and details of development decisions affecting wetlands, to raise the capacity of government officials to make sound decisions, to use the results of the project at other administrative levels and to disseminate the results nationwide. Through bringing agencies together for consultation and sharing of information according to the directions of the State Council Circular the project will start to break down some of the institutional barriers to coordination that currently hinder progress on wetland biodiversity conservation, indeed on environmental conservation in general. The scope of the project will extend to decision makin on the new Nature Reserve Law and the possible introduction of a new system of objective based protected area categories. It is through such changes that progress will be made on lifting some of the funding and jurisdictional constraints under which protected area managers operate and which limit their powers in protecting wetland biodiversity.

.

134

Ecosystem approachUntil now the main focus of project activities has been the nature reserves at the pilot sites. There has been an overemphasis on construction and hardware that place heavy long term maintenance burdens on the nature reserves and encourage misguided investments in animal breeding farms and other commercial enterprises, undue attention to marking boundaries and zones, a narrow focus on birds, a neglect of wider relationships outside the nature reserves and a tendency to promote unnecessarily large protected areas. The project has taken an ‘incremental” approach, mainly building on institutions within the sphere of the Implementing Partner.

The redesigned project will take a “strategic” sectoral approach to wetlands and water, addressing problems inside and outside nature reserves and the need for a coordinated “ecosystem” approach to environmental management involving all agencies with impacts on wetlands, and stressing the values of, and returns on investment in ecosystem services. For example, changes in agricultural practices can have widespread and rapid effects on wetlands, yet the full range of environmental effects of policy changes are not always adequately assessed.

Fundamental to a successful ecosystem approach will be the formation of a constituency of organizations, inside and outside government, that will coordinate efforts in their various spheres of influence, to safeguard China’s water resources and wetlands.

Civil society involvement The role of civil society and media action in resolving conflicts on the environment is increasing. A number of proposed projects have sparked heated public debate, with objectors recording success in cancellation of a recent dam project in Sichuan, and postponement of approval of a major series of dams on the Nu River in Yunnan. The project will encourage appropriate public involvement through provision of information and opportunities for dialogue, and aims to include the people most closely affected by the environmental problems in designing solutions. The project will develop patterns of consultation and communication to involve scientists in decision making and action, and to take into account their research findings. The aim is to establish knowledge driven planning and management with open sharing of research and monitoring results, and with full accountability of government officials to the public for their decisions and for enforcing policy and law.

135

3. The four Project Outcomes

OUTCOME A

Wetland biodiversity conservation is a routine consideration in government decision making and action at national level

In order to achieve this outcome the project will have to work with a wide range of national government agencies whose policies and decision making have impacts on wetlands, such as the Ministry of Water Resources (and associated River Basin Commissions), the Ministry of Agriculture, including the Department of Fisheries, the State Ocean Administration (SOA), the State Environmental Protection Agency, the Ministry of Science and Technology, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Land and Resources, the Ministry of Construction, the Ministry of Communications, the Ministry of Railways, the Ministry of Commerce, and the National Tourism Bureau. As a basis for the work of the project sectoral analyses will be carried out to assess the impacts of each sector on wetlands and the extent to which sector specific policy and legislation meets criteria for wetland biodiversity conservation. The results of these analyses will form the basis for recommendations for a national policy and legal framework to cover wetlands conservation, including specific sectoral legislation and cross-sectoral legislation and plans. This policy and legal work will also involve the Environment Protection and Natural Resources Protection Committee (EPNRCC) of the National Peoples Congress and the Legislative Office of the State Council . Speedy work will be necessary in order to have direct input into the environmental content of the Eleventh National Five Year Plan (2006-2010).

The CCICED task forces on Protected Areas and on Integrated River Basin Management have drafted recommendations for high level advisory bodies to the State Council, and similar recommendations have been made by the ADB/EPNRCC project on transjurisdictional environmental management referred to above. In case such a body is established this project will provide technical advice and specific recommendations on inclusion of consideration of wetland biodiversity.

The Wetlands Division of SFA, which is responsible for implementation of the Ramsar Convention in China, will take the lead, with the support of the project, in strengthening of information networks, both in the accuracy and relevance of the information collected and its analysis and sharing with partners. The project will work towards open sharing of the information required for the routine consideration of wetland biodiversity in decision making. This will include sound information not only on the biodiversity itself but on proposed development projects, land use changes, and environmental impact assessments.

There is a great range of laws whose implementation affects wetlands, and that do not include specific reference to wetland biodiversity or ecological integrity. For example, much legislation is focused on resource management (eg Agriculture Law, Soil and Water Conservation Law, Fisheries Law) and is silent on environmental impacts on wetlands, or produce conflicts with the enforcement of environmental legislation such as the Environmental Impact Assesment Law, the Environmental Protection Law or the Wild Animals Protection Law. There are inconsistencies in the implementation arrangements of the Water Law and the Water Pollution Prevention and Control Law already identified by the ADB funded project Transjurisdictional Environmental Management (TEM) (component on Local Legislation to support Transjurisdictional Water Pollution Management). The project will produce an integrated document on the various overlaps, omissions and ambiguities in current laws with the legal departments of all relevant

136

ministries and the NPC so that there is a common set of criteria and principles as a basis for making revisions in each law as these come up for revision. Ecosystems do not stop at international borders so the project will provide technical advice on the routine consideration of wetland biodiversity in decisions affecting other countries, for downstream on shared rivers.

The on-the-job training approach will see personnel trained during work on actual problems that arise from day to day, as well as the assignments for sectoral review, the development of criteria for assessment of consideration of wetland bioidiversity in decision making, and the preparation of recommendations for changes in policy and legislation to match those criteria.

SFA is leading the preparation of National Wetland Conservation Regulations (NWCR) as a basis for enforcing compliance with measures required for protection of wetland biodiversity and ecological services. The project will support the GOC with preparation of the NWCR through provision of technical assistance. Policy on wetlands is fragmented both legally and institutionally so there will be emphasis on placing the proposed regulations in the context of other relevant legislation, including existing and proposed measures on natural resource taxation and pricing incentives, in order to eliminate ambiguities and overlaps and focus on the components essential to complement and cross-reference existing legislation.

The project will make recommendations specific to wetland biodiversity conservation in connection with the drafting of a new Nature Reserve Law currently under way in SFA, SEPA and EPNRCC of NPC and on other initiatives on protected areas. There are recommendations from the CCICED Protected Area Task Force that may lead to the establishment of a range of different objective-based management categories for protected areas in China and allow managed resource protected areas, similar in some ways to the Ecological Functioning Conservation Areas (EFCA) being promoted by SEPA.

With the cooperation of a wide range of agencies SFA has overseen the production of the China National Wetland Conservation Programme (CNWCP) (2002-2030). The project will assist with ensuring that this programme and its implementation are in line with best practice on wetland biodiversity conservation, and will provide recommendations for periodic revisions.

The project will encourage the sharing of relevant information with the public, and will involve relevant civil society organizations in dialogue on wetland and water management and work towards the institutionalization of such public involvement, as an important part of decision making.

OUTCOME B

Government agencies in Heilongjiang province routiinely consider wetland biodiversity conservation in decision making and action

The project will work with the Heilongjiang provincial government to support implementation of the measures and approaches proposed in the State Council Circular on Wetlands. The word “routine” is very important in the project’s objective and outcomes. Unless considerations of biodiversity become routine they will not be effective in curbing the loss of biodiversity and ecological services provided by wetlands.

The immediate problems facing government officials are well known: loss of wetlands leading to increased dangers from flooding, directives (and large government grants) to restore farmland to wetlands on the one hand, and continued demand for farmland on the other hand, mainly through

137

immigration, plus widespread water pollution, the collapse of fisheries and uncertain incomes from cash crops. There are water shortages in some areas due to diversions.

Solutions to the problems depend on coordinated actions by a range of different agencies. At the provincial level, laws generally reflect national laws. There are some fundamental bottlenecks to effective water resources management in that the various laws (notably the Water Law and the Water Pollution Prevention and Control Law) and regulations do not cross reference each other sufficiently, and use terminology ambiguously. The Environmental Protection Bureaux and Water Resources Bureaux, concerned mainly with water quality and water quantity respectively, report to the provincial government but do not interact sufficiently in the field, and Agriculture, Fisheries, Forestry and Nature Reserves all depend on decisions on water allocation. There are Provincial Wetland Regulations that came into force in August 2003, but implementation of these and of the relevant laws is not always effective or transparent. Water pricing is not always applied rationally, low value crops are irrigated when there may be higher priorities, and the enforcement of water quotas for farmers requires improvement.

The project will involve a wide range of agencies that have influences on wetlands, and sectoral analyses will be carried out to determine the scope for project interventions in detail. Recommendations will be developed for provincial policies, legislation and coordination affecting wetland biodiversity, including review of the existing provincial wetland conservation regulations and other legislation and their implementation. This includes consideration of decisions and actions that have impacts across the international border in Russia, and relevant international agreements with Russia that have potential influence on wetland biodiversity conservation.

Biodiversity knows no political boundaries and the Heilong/Amur basin has be managed as a whole if wetland biodiversity is to be conserved. The project will contribute to establishment of links to provide information exchange and consultations on relevant activities and proposals. There has been increased attention recently to actions under joint agreements at various administrative levels between Russia and China on trade and the environment but progress is slow and wetland biodiversity is not adequately addressed in any of the agreements. The project will contribute to the revisions of existing agreements and decisions to develop further agreements and enforcement arrangements, and will assist with routine exchanges of observers provided for under existing agreements. The focus will be on exchange of information on resources and policy, and learning from the management experiences of each other. A GEF funded Amur Basin regional project is under preparation and will concentrate on wide ranging environmental policy: this project has a vital role in supplying the wetland biodiversity input to transboundary decision making and working to make sure that it becomes routine.

These results will be achieved through workshops, provision of relatively long term but intermittent technical advice in addition to the resident outcome coordinator, and through publications and arrangements for meetings with counterparts from neighbouring parts of Russia. The project will work closely with the the Provincial Development and Reform Commission.

Knowledge and data management on wetlands in the provincial forestry bureau, and systems of sharing data with the other relevant agencies, will be improved. Great attention will be paid to reliability of data, efficiency of data handling and analysis, and to keeping the data systems streamlined, focused and no more complex than necessary for the task. The sharing and common use of monitoring data by different agencies is essential for good water and wetland management. The role of Environmental Protection Bureaux and protected area management

138

bureaux in providing data that are accepted and utilized by other agencies is vital. Through collaboration with relevant agencies the project will demonstrate the use of data in decision making and planning. Technical advice (including expert studies and social, economic and biophysical analysis) will be provided in support of developing effective policy and coordination approaches to dealing with pollution and its monitoring, drainage, restoration of wetlands, nature reserve boundary revision, ecotourism, alien species, and the ecological and economic costs and benefits of the measures taken to conserve fish stocks in the Sanjiang plains and rivers, including the sturgeon fry release programmes

The project will encourage the sharing of relevant information with the public, and will involve relevant civil society organizations in dialogue on wetland and water management and work towards the institutionalization of such public involvement, as an important part of decision making. There are links here with Outcome D below.

OUTCOME C

Government agencies at local levels take into account wetland biodiversity conservation in decision making and action at four wetland sites

This outcome will focus on site level demonstrations of good practices in wetland management – it will include strong elements related to coordination of planning mechanisms for wetlands as part of the wider production landscape and demonstrate new approaches to implementing these.

In all of the project demonstration sites wetlands and the biodiversity they support are under pressure from a wide range of threats. These include conversion of wetlands for agriculture or aquaculture, crop changes, agro-chemical applications and water use for irrigation that rarely consider the importance of wetland functions for the wider environment, industrial factory development, large infrastructure projects for water diversions and road development, and overharvesting, legal and illegal, of wetland resources. Nature reserves play some role in mitigating these effects, acting as refuges for important biodiversity at some stages in their life cycles, but many species, including those of global importance also use much of the wider landscape. However, some of the important features of the wetlands are actually dependent on certain levels of human activities. For example, many of the migratory birds, especially the cranes, ducks and geese use the agricultural landscapes as important feeding areas.

The population dynamics of many of the migratory species and their fidelity to certain sites along migration routes is often unpredictable and the need to adaptively manage and protect areas within the wider production landscape is an important consideration in their conservation. All natural ecosystems are dynamic, rarely if ever self-contained, and involve complex webs of interdependent processes, and wetland ecosystems in particular are subject to rapid changes in the distribution of water and biological resources quite apart from the changes occurring as a result of local or global climate change. A look at the historical records of the wintering areas of crane (Grus sp.) species in southern and central China shows significant changes over time: many areas favoured now were not used in the past, and vice versa. Further changes can be expected in the future and effective policy must cover the maintenance of wetland function over wide areas and not be limited by the current preferences of individual species or within the boundaries of protected areas.

139

There project will work with both protected area managers and decision makers in the whole range of sectoral agencies whose programmes have impacts on the landscape, including protected areas. Many protected areas in China, are little more than ‘paper reserves’ in the wider production landscape – with high human population pressure and a wide range of economic activities taking place within them. The large sizes of many protected areas reflect the pragmatic approach of declaring large reserves on paper in an attempt to exert some form of control over activities that would be better managed through a landscape approach to conservation. A myriad of different government agencies and economic entities and individuals influence wetland biodiversity and ecological integrity at the site level, and the nature reserves themselves have their own effects too. Policies that require nature reserve managers to raise revenue for operational costs have led to activities that are clearly deleterious to the wetland functions and biodiversity that the nature reserves were designed to protect. In Chinese wetland nature reserves such revenue raising activities include cultivation, aquaculture, reed farming, and some forms of tourism developments, and the resulting negative effects include habitat destruction, pollution, eutrophication, disease, genetic changes and overfishing to feed captive fish, channeling for reed cultivation, and increased disturbance and opportunistic hunting. Revenue raising in nature reserves is important, but should be compatible with the objectives of the nature reserves. Here too the project will assist with a sound technical approach to consideration of wetland biodiversity in decision making and action, together with recommendations for changes in policies in the parent agencies to solve the problems.

Even when conservation funds are made available as grants or loans to local people for revenue generation, the environmental effects of the activities funded by such schemes are not always well assessed. In some integrated conservation and development projects no environmental criteria are used. The criteria for assessing consideration of wetland biodiversity in decision making wil be applied at these levels too. The importance of the maintaining natural ecological processes and habitats if aquatic species are to be saved will be stressed to all developers, whatever their motives: captive breeding and gene banks will simply not compensate for losses due to dams and diversions for example.

This outcome will strengthen capacities to collect good data and to manage and analyse them for decision making. The project will contribute to the forging of links between relevant organizations through on-the-job training and specific workshops. Sectoral analyses will be prepared at the site level and they will be used to develop economic frameworks for wetland conservation at each site. Good economic frameworks will contribute to inclusion of wetland biodiversity considerations in decision making in a way that makes sense to local officials faced with pressures to develop local economies.

There will be feedback to the central level policy development process on wetland biodiversity considerations in decision making in development sectors and the environmental protection sectors such as protected areas. The public will be involved in wetland biodiversity conservation through enhancing their understanding of its importance so that they are prepared if necessary to hold government officials to account, when policies are not enforced properly.

Sectoral analyses and economic frameworks for wetlands conservationEcological objectives for wetlands conservation in China compete with a large number of social and economic requirements for land and water which, cumulatively, threaten virtually all of China’s wetlands. In many circumstances, the limiting constraint is not a lack of understanding of the ecological values of wetlands, but simply economic necessity or population pressures. There is little probability of success in wetlands biodiversity conservation on a broad basis when

140

conservation measures are perceived by local governments as measures that deprive local populations of livelihoods or living space. Economic choice is the basis for decision-making on a broad range of environmental issues such as pollution control which is down-graded by local governments when pollution control negatively affects local taxation or employment for example. Therefore, success in wetlands conservation can only be guaranteed when wetlands are seen as a net economic benefit to local and provincial governments which have the legal responsibility for managing water quality and quantity. There are many possibilities for economic benefits ranging from the new and rapidly growing domestic tourism industry, to managed wetlands for pollution control. The latter has considerable merit insofar as municipal pollution control investment is largely focused on large cities, to a much lesser extent on small cities, and not at all on villages. Sectoral analyses will be carried out as at the provincial and national levels examining current management practices and policies within each sector (agriculture, transport, industry, water resources, fisheries, nature reserves for example) to identify their objectives and roles and the constraints they face. These will be accompanied by cost-benefit analyses of the four wetlands sites, as a basis for showing the economic benefits of wetlands conservation, and drawing up a number of options for various types of economic use of wetlands together with assessment of their social, financial and ecological impacts.

Strengthened capacities in decision making and action for conservation of wetland biodiversity at each site.

The project will work in local government offices and in nature reserves, at a pace decided by the preparedness of the staff at each site. Training “on the job” will be the main basis for technical capacity development, and in order to make such training effective a certain amount of basic wetland management will be supported by the project, including survey and monitoring work, and environmental education. Training will principally be carried out through deployment of long term, full time national and international United Nations Volunteers (UNVs) in combination with carefully selected national training consultants.

A coherent project programme for each sector will be developed to address both capacity development and the underlying constraints to progress that will not be lifted by training. Each sector will have to demonstrate the need for project inputs such as training, information, research and monitoring, and equipment, and include them in their operational work plans, before the project proceeds with those components. .

By the end of the project will have the confidence and understanding to make sound decisions based on clear analyses of problems. They will be putting their training into practice and where appropriate will have the basic facilities and equipment necessary to fulfill their duties.

Local government and protected area staff will be given specific training in research, monitoring and data handling and use in habitat and species management. Databases, whether relational or spatial, will be built up slowly according to demand, using relatively simple equipment and systems that can be added to as the users demonstrate progress and define their needs neatly.. Staff in the local Development and Reform Commissions and governors offices will increase their abilities to make proper use of the information available to interpret EIAs well and to improve their decision making with respect to wetland biodiversity in general. Training on the job will enable project staff to follow through the development decision processes in specific cases and advise on procedures, criteria and judgments as they proceed. Supplementary training, including study tours and training of trainers where necessary, will be arranged.

141

Biological monitoring and data sharing are important pre-requisites for development of wide-area, multi-sectoral land management plans. The project will strengthen capacity to decide on the appropriate level of effort to put into monitoring and how to select the best indicators of wetland health for assessments of wetland biodiversity conservation status. The project will demonstrate the monitoring of key indicator species whose abundance can be linked to wider environmental quality or problems, and which can be easily and relatively inexpensively monitored.

Although almost every nature reserves in China has a museum and an exhibition room the many of the displays do not address the main conservation problems or the context of the nature reserves in the wider ecosystem. The project aims to provide better information to the public, so that any interventions they make in decision making and action are based on sound concepts and data.

Each of the four project sites has different conditions and problems, and project activities will vary between sites so as to provide a different emphasis to the demonstrations at each site. At Yancheng, for example the emphasis will be on improved public knowledge of wetland functions and value; at Dongting on development of biodiversity monitoring programme and sharing and use of the data by sectoral agencies; at Sanjiang on biodiversity considerations in water management and international transboundary coordination; and at Ruoergai on biodiversity considerations in pasture management and interprovincial transboundary coordination.

Yancheng Coastal Marshes:emphasize improved public knowledge of wetland functions and value

The focus of the current education messages at the two nature reserves will be adjusted outwards to the wider ecosystem, including coastal ecology and its links with livelihoods, through demonstration of new approaches to communicating environmental messages, with the involvement of the public.

New displays will be designed that better interpret the local coastal ecosystems, clearly showing the ecological processes and linkages in these ecosystems – and especially the functions and values of coastal wetlands for local people, the high hunting pressure on wild bird populations, and the conflicts between mud flat enclosure and aquaculture with conservation. Wildlife ‘communities’ found within the coastal marshes and mudflats will be explored (not just the rare species), and species of global conservation importance such as the Red-crowned Crane and Saunders’ Gull will also be highlighted. Factors such as the influence of the introduction of alien species, the damming of rivers upstream and the enclosure of mudflats with sea walls will also be clearly interpreted. An overall view of the dynamics of the Yellow Sea inter-tidal mudflat ecosystem and its modification by man’s activities will be covered. The role of human livelihoods in providing components of wildlife habitat will also be demonstrated: salt farms, some types of aquaculture ponds and some arable land all provide feeding areas for shore birds and water birds. Many of the threats to biodiversity and wetland functioning come from large commercial enterprises and infrastructure projects, so it will be essential that the managers of such entities, as well as local farmers, fishermen and land workers are included in outreach and collaborative activities. Local government will play an important role in coordinating involvement of these sectors and implementation of resulting outreach awareness programmes. The State Ocean

142

Administration’s programmes concerning coastal zone survey and assessment and integrated management will be included in the planning of this output.

On the job training in environmental education and interpretation techniques will be carried out in part by the United Nations Volunteers, and also through a subcontract for design and implementation of the new programmes. There will be opportunities for formal training too, including possibly a study tour to examine interpretation facilities elsewhere in the region.

Dongting Lake: emphasize use of indicator species monitoring and data sharing in decision making and actions

Recent declines in numbers of some formerly common water birds (especially little egret Egretta garzetta and coot Fulica atra) have alerted local managers and conservationists of the need to identify the causes of such declines and to investigate the underlying threats to the ecology of the whole lake. The health of the lake ecosystem is very closely tied to the health of the human population living in the basin. There are increasing concerns about pollution in the Yangtze basin and the government has acknowledged that actions to control pollution are behind schedule. Fisheries management and reed management, flood control measures, siltation, potential changes in water levels resulting from Three Gorges Dam operations, will all have effects on the biological resources and water of Dongting Lake. There is a need for a biodiversity monitoring programme - it is vital to be able to follow long term trends in the variables that demonstrate the effects of use of lake resources, of pollution, and of river basin management measures, so that use of lake resources can be better planned and managed.

Although there has already been considerable survey and inventory work carried out within the Dongting Lake basin, and there are annual bird counts in the Yangtze basin under the Asian Waterbird Census, there has never been a unified approach to monitoring by the various agencies and institutions involved in data collection. Useful monitoring of such an area in a cost-effective manner is a complex undertaking: selection of variables, particularly effective indicator species and habitat quality indices, and standardization of methods and sampling regimes will have to be planned carefully. Local training will be required, particularly to design effective sampling protocols, and there will also be a study tour to observe the research and monitoring programme of the UK Broads Authority – tailored to the needs of reed management and wetland restoration (see Section ll of the main Project Redesign Document).

The project will demonstrate how a basic, indicator species wetland monitoring programme within the Dongting Lake basin enables shared data on biodiversity to be used in land use decision making. The indicator species will be identified carefully during project implementation, according to objectives and practical considerations. The project will not attempt to monitor the whole of the Dongting Lake basin – it will establish workable monitoring protocols (including the use of biological indicator species) with the key agencies and promote sharing and use of data by all. The project will develop monitoring programmes that are sustainable, working with the local Environmental Protection Bureaux and nature reserve management bureaux on design and data collection and with the local governments and their sectoral agencies to share and use the data collected. Other partners will include local bird watching clubs, pulp mill operators, fishermen organizations, conservation NGO's and the general public. Local people will be involved through assisting with observations and reports.

By the end of the project it is expected that a focused monitoring programme for key species and habitats in the Dongting Lake will be in operation and producing coherent and standard data of

143

relevance to decision makers, on trends in biodiversity. The data will be shared with decision makers in local and provincial governments.

Sanjiang: emphasize biodiversity considerations in water management and international transboundary coordination

In 1975 wetlands accounted for 32.5% of the entire Sanjiang Plains area, and by 1995 this was reduced to only 16%. During that 20-year period many wetlands were drained for conversion to agriculture, and drainage, pollution and agricultural water management remain the biggest threats to wetland biodiversity and wetland function in the Sanjiang area. Development of the Sanjiang Plains, including implementation of the ADB Sanjiang Plains Wetland Protection Project, continues and further influences on the wetlands from water engineering projects and agricultural initiatives are expected.

The project will work to raise the capacity for sound decision making on wetland biodiversity conservation as it is affected through water management, including irrigation, drainage, dams, diversions and pollution control, reflecting the needs of local people in the long term and the obligations to conserve globally important biodiversity. There have been some recent initiatives to try and “restore” wetlands or manage them in isolation from the agricultural landscape and the natural hydrology – these have either failed due to technical difficulties or simply not been economically viable. Proposals for the “restoration” of wetlands in Honghe NNR are a case in point – they are limited in scope (focused only on one small wetland area) and involve heavy engineering (through construction of new channels, sluice gates, and other water control structures). These types of development often lead to more impacts on the environment and wetlands in particular – through the need to dig deeper drains and failure to look at the larger hydrological picture. There is an urgent need to look at the wider geographical scope in Sanjiang – rather than focusing on restoration of small, isolated wetlands like Honghe, it would be more effective to develop and demonstrate broad-level solutions to the effects of the drainage system on the wetlands of the region, including biodiversity and ecological services.

Rather than looking to heavy engineering for answers, low impact ecological solutions should be developed and promoted. This might include promotion of set-a-side areas for important biodiversity, restoration of wetlands in marginal agricultural areas and areas prone to frequent flooding, “no reclamation” policies in vulnerable flood plain areas, ecological buffer strips along rivers and streams to prevent excessive run-off from agro-fertilizers and other pollutants, etc. On a broader scale the use of water for agriculture needs to be carefully assessed – in particular the impacts of irrigated or non-irrigated crops on local hydrology – and the effects of these policies on the use of agricultural land by important biodiversity.

The project will work at several levels within the Sanjiang Plains. Through strong multi-sectoral involvement at the provincial level (see Outcome B) and close collaboration with the Provincial Development and Reform Commission (PDRC), the project will prepare recommendations for changes in long term development strategies and short term plans that reflect the considerations of wetland biodiversity conservation. The project will also work directly with the key government officials from relevant agencies (eg Environment Protection Bureau, Fisheries Department, Water Bureau, Agricultural Bureau, and the State Farm Bureaux).

No consideration of wetland biodiversity in decision making and action for Sanjiang would be complete without looking at the whole river system and this includes Russian territory. The Russian and Chinese governments are well aware of the need for cooperation on the environment, particularly as there are increasing mutual economic ties and trade links too in the region, and are

144

developing ties through a number of joint agreements. However, wetland biodiversity is not yet addressed from the ecosystem point of view so this project will have an important role in providing technical support on inclusion of wetland biodiversity considerations in decision making and action on transboundary issues and will assist with access to information and knowledge and recommendations on proposals for future collaboration.

The project will provide technical support and advice to local partner agencies during the development of proposed hydrological management schemes for the area. Technical advice will range from providing expert opinion and assessment of water management or agricultural reclamation schemes, predicting impacts on wetland biodiversity and wetland functioning and inputs to EIA reviews. At the same time the project will promote awareness of the natural functional values and benefits of wetlands amongst local partner agencies, and state farm personnel in particular. The project and local agencies will implement small-scale demonstrations of ecological solutions to water management and use around the Sanjiang Plains. Technical advice and support will also be co-opted through partners such as the Heilongjiang Agriculture Reclamation, Survey, Design and Research Institute (HARSDRI). Close collaboration with the ADB Sanjiang Wetlands Project will be maintained throughout, in particular to advise on impacts of proposed and approved interventions on ecological and hydrological processes and biodiversity. Technical advice (including expert studies and analysis) will support development of effective policy and coordination that will feed back into the activities under Outcome B at the provincial level.

Ruoergai Marshes: emphasize biodiversity considerations in pasture management and interprovincial transboundary coordination.

A limited research programme and a monitoring programme to follow trends in rangeland (dry grassland and wetland) health will provide basic information on the effects of various herding and water management regimes and development activities on the dry grasslands and wetlands.

Understanding of the complexities of ecosystems and their management, and the Ruoergai ecosystem in particular will be enhanced through workshops and a carefully planned study tour with local government staff. The project will also work, through consultations and workshops, to establish more effective interagency coordination on development and management actions affecting the Ruoergai Marshes environment and to improve dialogue with and involvement of local people in decisions on the economic development of the region. As with all the outcomes, one of the first tasks, during the inception phase, will be to make firm arrangements with major partners, but the adaptive management approach adopted by the project will allow formation of partnerships as required throughout the project. Partners that will be involved from the beginning include the Livestock and Agriculture Bureaux, the county and prefectural governments, the Water Resources Bureaux, and the Environmental Protection Bureaux.

The skills, knowledge and experience of Ruoergai herders will be taken into account in maintaining or re-establishing environmentally sustainable grazing systems for the whole area, and practical ways of changing herders’ practices to mitigate damaging effects on biodiversity conservation and ecological function will be identified, and demonstrated where possible through incentive based conservation schemes.

It has been suggested that alternative livelihoods may provide a way of reducing pressure on the grasslands. It may be that some herders will find employment in a well organized tourism business but the solutions to the problems resulting from overgrazing in some areas are more

145

likely to lie at present in modification of herding practices rather than taking large numbers of people out of herding.

Demonstrations of new management approaches will be arranged where appropriate, possibly in ecological approaches to zokor and pika management or in wetland reclamation. Pikas and zokors are still being poisoned on the Tibetan plateau in official government operations that are now discredited by scientists and rangeland managers both within and outside China. Blocking of drains with hay or straw bales is already being carried out in some places but the long term effects are not yet known.

By the end of the project it is expected that proposals for improved approaches to land use decisions and planning, including grazing management, will have been developed, with the support of local herders. It may be that fundamental changes in policy will have to be made in connection with grazing practices.

OUTCOME D

Improved processes of monitoring and evaluation, and collection, analysis, use and sharing of information, knowledge and experience in wetland biodiversity conservation

Project management in Beijing will oversee a comprehensive programme of exchange of information and experience both within the project for internal learning and for the general public. The general principle of operation of the project is for sectoral analyses and work on policy framework at the centre to form the basis for work at the provincial and site levels with feedback provided from the provincial and local levels for further refining of the policy at the centre. The GEFWPO will make sure that these exchanges take place, but many of them will be done by the staff and counterparts assigned to the other three outcomes (A, B,C).

There will be workshops throughout the project held specifically to report on experience to date at various levels, and in various aspects, to which representatives from Beijing and other project sites and provinces will be invited as appropriate. For example representatives from wetland sites will meet to exchange ideas and experiences on implementation, in particular on the aspects that were emphasized in implementation in one site only. And provincial and site representatives will be invited to take part in a provincial level workshop in Heilongjiang and to develop proposals for how to apply at home the lessons learned and the approaches used.

The project will prepare a wide range of materials for dissemination of results to other provinces and localities but it is the task of government outside the project to ensure that the results of the project are applied throughout China. The project will, under Outcome D, select one province and one wetland site late in the project for pilot dissemination of project results so that possible problems can be dealt with before the end of the project.

The project website will be simple yet effective in design and will serve an important linking role for the project and for informing the public. There will be efficient (ftp)facilities for downloading data for use within the project and by interested members of the public.

The public will be kept informed at each level through a variety of approaches, including newsletters and technical publications, television, radio, DVDs and meetings. There will be a

146

monthly seminar on Wetland Biodiversity Conservation in Beijing, to which the public will be invited, and similar seminars will be arranged in Harbin and at each project site.

The Technical Advisory Group that monitors project progress towards the objective and the outcomes will produce periodic reports to the PSC. The GEFWPO will deal with the follow up to reports and PSC decisions and will compile a record of the monitoring inputs and changes made so that it can be used as a resource for projects in preparation.

There will be an annual workshop at which the results of the whole project are presented and discussed, prior to the annual Tripartite Review meeting.

147

Appendix B2 Descriptions of project sites

Four sites representing a wide range of wetland ecosystems have been selected as pilot areas, and the lessons learned at those sites will be used at the provincial level (in Heilongjiang) and at the national level to build capacity and feed into policy and legislation review.

1. Yancheng coastal marshes

The Yancheng coastal marshes stretch for nearly 600km along the coast of Jiangsu province, northeast of Nanjing and originally consisted of intertidal mudflats, creeks, salt marshes and reed beds. Now much of the natural habitat has been enclosed by sea dykes and converted to other uses such as salt pans and aquaculture ponds, but the mudflats are still accreting as a result of the sediment carried down by the Yangtze and Yellow rivers.

The area provides important migration stopover or wintering sites for a wide range of shorebirds (including many threatened species, such as the Spotted Greenshank (Tringa guttifer)) traveling between breeding sites in northern China and Siberia and “wintering” sites in Australia and southern China, The threatened Red-crowned Crane (Grus japonensis) winters in Yancheng in large numbers (now the largest wintering population in the world) and the threatened Saunders' Gull (Larus saundersii) still breeds in Yancheng in small numbers.

Yancheng is the site of a captive breeding operation that has successfully brought the endangered Pere David’s Deer (Elaphurus davidianus) from a small population repatriated from UK in 1986 to a 600 strong herd that is now too large for its enclosure in the Dafeng National Nature Reserve. Releases of some animals have been arranged and are being monitored. Resolution of the problems associated with the steadily increasing captive herd of Pere David’s Deer at Dafeng NNR is required. The institutional irregularities that have allowed Dafeng NNR to be superimposed on the existing Yancheng NNR have also to be addressed.

The migratory and wintering birds feed extensively in the agricultural fields and the salt farms but many species depend on resources found only on the intertidal mudflats. Threats to this important habitat include enclosure by sea walls and colonization by the Common Cord-grass (Spartina anglica) an alien invasive species. Planting of trees and conversion of farms from irrigated rice to non-irrigated cotton and other crops pose threats to overall wetland cover and suitability for passage migrants and wintering birds. Human disturbance, and over-collection of marine invertebrates from the mudflats are also problems locally. Even within the core zone of the Yancheng NNR potentially damaging aquaculture projects continue because they provide revenue for the reserve. Pollution from local and distant sources is reported to be leading to a steady decline in the quality of the sea water. There are also potentially far reaching effects of declines in water flow and sediment from the rivers: although at present the mudflats are still expanding steadily.

Apart from the Pere David’s Deer programme, there are various captive breeding operations in the reserves, some of which merely divert effort and investment from more worthwhile activities. In the case of the Red-crowned Cranes, however, captive breeding could constitute a threat to the wild flocks, particularly if the scheme involves removing eggs from Zhalong Nature Reserve in Heilongjiang.

148

2 Dongting Lake

Dongting Lake, in north-eastern Hunan province is a huge lake of varying size that fills to about 3000 sq. km in summer and shrinks to form three separate lakes, (West, South, and East) with a total area of around 1000 sq. km in winter.

The lake has become steadily smaller over the past 70 years as a result of siltation from both the Yangtze and the Li, Yuan, Zi and Xiang rivers. This process has been augmented by the creation of dykes and polders to claim more and more of the former lake bed as farmland, and an accompanying enormous influx of farmers from surrounding areas. As a result the capacity of the lake to serve as a buffer when the Yangtze is in flood has been reduced. The pattern has been the same over the whole of the Lower Yangtze Basin: in Hubei province in particular there has been a massive reduction in number and area of lakes since the 1950’s. The severe floods of 1998 and, to a lesser extent, 2002, have led to an official reversal of policy. Low-lying farmland in Dongting will be returned to the lake by opening up dykes and polders and the aim is to restore the lake area to its 1949 size of 4,350 sq. km.

The global biodiversity importance of the lake lies mainly in two areas. First it is a home for a large number of Yangtze River aquatic endemic species including several fish, such as the Chinese sturgeon (Acipenser sinensis) and the almost extinct Chinese Paddlefish (Psephurus gladius), and several molluscs, crustaceans and other invertebrates. The Yangtze River Dolphin (Lipotes vexillifer) used to occur but this species is now reduced to fewer than 100 individuals and is unlikely to survive much longer. The only freshwater population of the Finless Porpoise (Neophocaena phocaenoides) is still seen regularly but is also severely threatened. Second, the open mudflats, grass and sedge marshes and surrounding wetlands are used as winter feeding areas by migratory shore birds such as the Wood Sandpiper (Tringa glareola) and Marsh Sandpiper (T. stagnatilis) and water birds, notably the threatened Lesser White fronted Goose (Anser albifrons), Swan Goose (Anser cygnoides) and Oriental White Stork (Ciconia boyciana), and also Baer’s Pochard (Aythya baeri), and some Siberian, White-naped and Hooded Cranes (Grus leucogeranus, G. vipio and G. monacha) and the Marsh Grassbird (Megalurus pryeri) . The birds are the best known of the fauna, but the less conspicuous species are no less important. Threats to the fish and other aquatic species are numerous and include pollution, overfishing, gravel dredging, alien species, aquaculture, changes in hydrology, disturbance by shipping, some reed (Miscanthus spp) farming practices, and separation of living area from breeding area by the construction of the Gezhouba and Three Gorges dams upstream. Reductions in the populations of migratory fish species have already been shown through fish catch data. None of the threats can be tackled simply through the construction of protected areas and none can be controlled solely under the mandate of the State Forestry Administration. There is a Dongting Lake wide “Ecological Function Reserve” being planned by the Hunan provincial Environmental Protection Bureau, but with little effective coordination with the provincial Forestry Bureau and the existing nature reserves. The lake is used by a vast number of people and economic enterprises and a wide range of agencies including the State Environmental Protection Bureau, the Fisheries Administration Bureau, the Water Bureau, The Reed Management Authority and the East Dongting Lake Management Bureau are involved in management, but coordination between these and other agencies requires considerable improvement.

The main threats to the migratory birds are pollution, illegal hunting (including by poisoning) and human disturbance. Lack of habitat is not a major threat at present: there is suitable feeding

149

habitat all around the lake but water levels vary between years and there are indications that siltation is resulting in reduction of the marsh habitat. The distribution of suitable habitat for both feeding and roosting changes from year to year. Agricultural land is an extremely important habitat for some species - birds often feed on crops during the late harvest period or take fish or prawns from aquaculture ponds, thus creating conflicts with the local people. However, cranes, geese and other species feed harmlessly after the harvest and can contribute to fertilization of the fields. Proper involvement of local people and agricultural enterprises, and provision of suitable incentives could do much to ensure conservation of biodiversity. Changes in cropping patterns have significant effects on the habitat suitability for various species: for example the conversion of paddies to lotus ponds, cotton fields and sugar cane inside (and outside) nature reserves, if done on a large scale can lead to substantial changes in numbers of wintering cranes and geese in particular. The effects of the Three Gorges Dam could also be far reaching: particularly as it is envisaged that water levels will be kept artificially low during the summer flood season and then raised substantially in the winter. There is a risk that the shallow wetlands that waterbirds require could be reduced in extent, but this needs continual assessment: there is already considerable annual variation in water levels.

Concentration on nature reserves alone will not be effective, particularly as the current reserves bear little or no resemblance to their legal status. Basin-wide restrictions on fishing have been enforced with moderate success, but the nature reserve experimental and buffer zones contain millions of people and none of the myriad of economic activities appears to be excluded. Even in the nature reserve core areas many of these activities occur. In order to tackle the threats at Dongting high levels of coordination are required at local, provincial, regional and national levels. Siltation levels are already being addressed by reforestation of upland watersheds: local measures to reduce bank erosion are also used. Control of pollution discharge from factories and agricultural land requires firmer action, and reducing the risk from alien invasive species requires constant vigilance and coordination between agencies. Programmes of biological monitoring, public involvement and awareness, and law enforcement are required over the whole area to support management.

3. Sanjiang Plain

The Sanjiang Plain in Heilongjiang Province is a ten million ha low lying alluvial flood plain situated between the Heilongjiang (Amur) and Wusuli (Ussuri) rivers on the Russian border. In its natural state the area consisted of a mosaic of sedge and reed marshes, meandering water courses and ox-bow lakes, wet grass meadows, riverine scrub and mixed woodlands. It is only during the last 40 years or so that the area has been drained and cleared for agriculture so that very little of the original habitat survives. The area of marshes has been reduced from an estimated 5.4 million ha in the 1950’s to less than 1.5 million ha today.

The global biodiversity importance of the area lies in the threatened species of birds that breed or migrate through there, including the White-naped Crane (Grus vipio), the Red-crowned Crane and the Oriental Stork. The Heilongjiang, Wusuli and Sanjing basins together support almost the entire global population of Oriental Stork. The area is also home to significant populations of Menzbier's Pipit (Anthus [gustavi] menzbieri), a bird (sub) species with a very restricted range, endemic to north-east China and adjacent Russia and probably supports a high proportion of the global population of Swinhoe’s Rail (Coturnicops exquisitus). Globally significant numbers of geese, including Lesser White-fronted Goose, Greater White-fronted Goose (Anser albifrons) and

150

the Bean Goose (Anser fabalis), roost and forage on the Sanjiang Plain during migration, and the area supports nesting populations of over 40 species of waterbirds, four of which are globally threatened. The birds are the best known of the fauna, but the less conspicuous species are no less important. There are over 80 species of fish recorded, including the globally endangered Amur Sturgeon (Acipenser schrenkii) and Kaluga Sturgeon (Huso daurica), and five species of salmonids, including Chum (Oncorhynchus keta), Taiman (Hucho taimen) and Lenok (Brachymystax lenok). The globally threatened Chinese Softshell (Pelodiscus sinensis) also occurs on the Sanjiang plains.

Annual catches of sturgeon have fallen from reported highs of 12,000 tonnes in the 1890’s to less than 1% of this level in recent years. Approaches to restoring sturgeon populations include release of captive reared fry but such programmes appear fundamentally flawed and are at best an ineffective diversion of resources that could be spent in more effective ways, for example in reducing fishing and protecting spawning beds.

Threats to biodiversity include drainage for agriculture (this has been banned officially for the last three years but still continues), pollution and eutrophication as a result of agrochemicals, large hydrological schemes that change water regimes without adequate consideration of the effects, and illegal taking of wildlife. Tree felling has removed important components of the ecosystem for certain birds such as the Oriental Stork, the Greater Spotted Eagle (Aquila clanga) and the Black Stork (Ciconia nigra).

There are over 20 nature reserves on the Sanjiang Plain, but as at other sites many of these reserves either do not or cannot exclude human activities to conform with the nature reserve regulations. Honghe National Nature Reserve is a Ramsar Site and the management does have significant authority over decisions within the reserves but a certain degree of farming is still permitted to continue for revenue raising purposes. Some farming, if properly assessed and managed, may even be acceptable subject to certain conditions. The key will be to develop policy that takes into account the overall hydrology of the region, is not too dogmatic, and results in rational and legal solutions. This may involve changes in nature reserve zonation and boundaries and in the categories of protected areas available to planners.

Various plans are being drawn up for economic activities on Sanjiang Plain under an Asian Development Bank (ADB) loan. It is likely that forestry plantations will take up much of the investment. It is important that new initiatives are well screened for potential effects on the environment and biodiversity.

The Sanjiang plains are part of the larger river ecosystem shared with Russia, and wetland biodiversity conservation in Sanjiang cannot be carried out adequately without good exchange of information and ideas with Russian organizations just the other side of the Heilong/Amur and Wusuli/Ussuri rivers. There is already an agreement for collaboration between the Sanjiang NNR and the Bolshekhekhtsirski Nature Reserve across the Wusuli River and at the regional scale there are various transboundary agreements on international waters and fisheries. The Environmental Commission between Russia and China has called for an increase in collaboration on transboundary ecosystem management and has just met again in Beijing (October 2004).

4. Ruoergai Marshes

The Ruoergai wetlands are a large plateau depression on the Gansu-Sichuan borders at about 3,600m a.m.s.l. where about 1 million ha of peatlands and marshes interspersed with low hills and dry grasslands act as important water sources for both the Yellow and Yangtze Rivers.

151

The Ruoergai marshes have for centuries been used for grazing of yaks, sheep and horses by transhumant herdsmen, and have also supported a number of species of wild mammals, many birds and a unique flora. Human population density is low, but there are still threats to the wetlands arising from drainage, peat mining and changes in agricultural practices.

The marshes are home to the threatened Pallas’s Fish Eagle (Haliaetus leucoryphus) and are a major breeding area of the threatened Black-necked Crane (Grus nigricollis).. As always with assessing threats to migratory species a broad perspective must be maintained: pressures on the Black Necked Crane may be greater in their lower lying wintering areas than in the higher breeding areas of Ruoergai.

Government policies in the past included drainage of the marshes to extend grassland pasture, settlement of herdsmen, fencing of land and introduction of alien species of grass. The results have been drying of the marshes, loss of wild mammals, and overgrazing and degradation of wetlands and grasslands in many places. The long established pattern of grazing rights has been disrupted by establishment of large nature reserves and a permit system based on blocks of pasture rather than on head of livestock. The result has been increased grazing pressure. Recent increases in mean annual temperature could be the result of local loss of vegetation and wetlands on the plateau. Drainage combined with overgrazing, appears to have led to the start of desertification on loose, sandy soils and to increased susceptibility to zokor (Myospalax fontanieri) and pika (Ochotona spp) population explosions in some areas. Poisoning and trapping campaigns against zokor and pika are now generally accepted to be counterproductive but are still advocated by some.

Recognition of the threat to the Yellow River water supply has led to reversal of the drainage policy, and a process of blocking drains has begun in many areas. Creation of more seasonally flooded grasslands could lead to the return of more seasonal transhumant livestock management and a decrease in the use of fenced units. From the perspective of global biodiversity the main threats are loss of wetland habitat, degradation of grasslands, fencing of grasslands, introduction of alien species, increased human disturbance, the poisoning of zokors and pikas, and insufficient mitigation of development initiatives such as new roads. Digging for rock, sand and gravel for upgrading of National Highway 213 through Gahai-Zecha NNR and along the eastern boundary of Rouergai NNR is already leaving scars on the landscape that will cause erosion in the future, and the improved transportation will bring increased tourism with possible negative environmental effects.

As in Dongting, there are relatively advanced Environmental Protection Bureau plans for an EFCA covering the whole of the Ruoergai Marshes and overlying the Forestry Bureau run nature reserves, but there appears to be insufficient coordination in planning it and setting it up. There has been insufficient consultation with scientists on this and on changes in the policies on land use for herding.

The problems are complex and the threats facing the wetlands are viewed in different ways by different groups of stakeholders: hydrologists, herdsmen, and biodiversity enthusiasts all have different priorities. Local herders feel sore if they see their ancestral resources wasted by poorly conceived management initiatives. Including the people most closely affected by the problems will be an essential part of the project’s approach to designing solutions.

152

Appendix B3 Project Logical Framework

Appendix B3 Project Logical Framework

Overall objective To begin establishing wetland biodiversity conservation as a routine consideration in national, provincial and local government decision making and action.

Indicator Baseline Target Means of verification AssumptionsEleventh National Five Year Plan incorporates specific actions to enhance wetland biodiversity conservation

Plan under preparation Specific actions included The plan A. Wetlands and wetland biodiversity conservation remain priorities of the Government of China

L Provincial and local governments apply the project results at provincial and local levels to their own decision making and action.

Eleventh National Five Year Plan is in conformity with criteria for wetland biodiversity conservation

Plan under preparation Meets at least 50% of the criteria for wetland biodiversity conservation prepared under the project

The planThe criteria

Number of provinces that hold routine cross-sectoral meetings on wetlands, including wetland biodiversity, under the relevant Provincial Vice Governor

To be determined during the inception phase

All five provinces with project demonstration sites, plus at least one other province hold such meetings routinely by June 2007

Minutes of meetings

Number of provinces that have passed wetland conservation regulations

Two (Heilongjiang and Gansu)

All five provinces with project demonstration sites, plus at least one other province by June 2007

Copies of regulations

Number of provinces that have wetland conservation regulations that are in conformity with criteria for wetland biodiversity conservation

To be determined during the inception phase

At least 80% of the provinces with wetland regulations

Copies of regulationsThe criteria

Percentage of natural wetlands under effective protection

Establishment of criteria for effectiveness of protection, and assessment for baseline to be made during inception phase

Increase to 60% by 2020 and to 90% by 2030 (current targets of the China National Wetland Conservation Programme 2002-2030).

Reports of China National Wetland Conservation Programme

Independent reportsScore for effectiveness in wetland biodiversity conservation, of the most recent revision of the China National Wetland Conservation Programme (2002-2030)

To be determined during the inception phase

100% conformity with criteria by June 2007

Periodic revisions of the programmeThe criteria

Number of the 192 wetland sites listed as of international importance under the criteria of the the Ramsar Convention (including the 21 registered sites) that are damaged or will be damaged by decisions and actions each year that do not satisfy the criteria for wetland biodiversity conservation

Number of development decisions and actions taken in 2004

Annual decreases Expert assessmentThe criteria

Outcome A Wetland biodiversity conservation is a routine consideration in government decision making and action at national level

Indicator Baseline Target Means of verification AssumptionsNumber of national level government agencies with policy that is in conformity with criteria for wetland biodiversity conservation

To be determined during inception phase through initial sectoral analyses

90% by end of project Annual Plans from each agencyAnnual Reports from each agency

D. Government authorities and commercial and not for profit organizations have the necessary will

154

to review and change fundamental policy, development plans, and management approaches in response to wetland biodiversity conservation considerations

E. Genuine involvement of all relevant government agencies in efforts to collaborate, build capacities and change processes that outlast the project

F. Implementing parties willing to recruit and commit good staff

H UNDP and SFA willing to work together smoothly to solve problems and to think beyond narrowly defined institutional targets

Number of examples per year of decisions and actions by national level government agencies that do not conform with criteria for wetland biodiversity conservation

To be determined during inception phase through initial sectoral analyses

Decrease each year Annual Plans from each agencyAnnual Reports from each agency

Percentage of relevant (ie with potential impact on wetland biodiversity) laws, regulations, rules circulars and “decisions” issued or amended each year that conform with criteria on wetland biodiversity conservation. Break down by class of legislation

To be determined during inception phase through initial sectoral analyses

90% by end of project Official lists of legislation from National Peoples Congress, State Council, and national level government agencies

Copies of the legislation

Percentage of all current laws, regulations, rules, “decisions”, and circulars that do not satisfy the criteria for wetland biodiversity conservation. Break down by sector

To be determined during inception phase through initial sectoral analyses

Decrease each year Official lists of legislation from National Peoples Congress, State Council, and national level government agencies

Copies of the legislation

Number of agencies with personnel specifically assigned to deal with wetland biodiversity conservation matters

To be determined during inception phase through initial sectoral analyses

80% by the end of the project

Sectoral Annual ReportsLetters from the agenciesMeetings with the people appointed

Steps >>>> Criteria developed and adopted Sectoral analyses prepared

155

Partnerships built Workshops to facilitate exchange of information and ideas Contact points built up in all major sectoral agencies Inaccurate data excluded and accurate data assembled and summarized well Data shared by relevant agencies Data used in decision making Public well informed about wetland biodiversity and willing and able to start to hold government to

account, so providing pressure for good decision making on behalf of government Use made of all existing mechanisms for government agencies to consult and coordinate activities

with potential effects on wetland biodiversity Technical advice and on-the-job and formal training Recommendations for policy framework and revisions of legislation to incorporate wetland

biodiversity conservation. Lessons from project at sites and provincial level applied to decision making at national level Periodic revisions to China National Wetland Conservation Programme (2002-2030)

Outcome B Heilongjiang provincial level government agencies routinely consider wetland biodiversity conservation in decision making and action.

Indicator Baseline Target Means of verification AssumptionsNumber of Heilongjiang provincial level government agencies with policy that is in conformity with criteria for wetland biodiversity conservation

To be determined during inception phase through initial sectoral analyses

90% by end of project Sectoral and Multisectoral Five Year Plans

Sectoral and Multisectoral Annual Plans

Sectoral and Multisectoral Annual Reports

D. Government authorities and commercial and not for profit organizations have the necessary will to review and change fundamental policy, development plans, and management approaches in response to wetland biodiversity

156

conservation considerations

E. Genuine involvement of all relevant government agencies in efforts to collaborate, build capacities and change processes that outlast the project

F. Implementing parties willing to recruit and commit good staff

G. Maps and other information required for project implementation are obtained on time

H UNDP and SFA willing to work

Number of examples per year of decisions and actions by Heilongjiang provincial level government agencies that do not conform with criteria for wetland biodiversity conservation

To be determined during inception phase through initial sectoral analyses

Annual decreases Sectoral and Multisectoral Annual Plans

Sectoral and Multisectoral Annual Reports

Percentage of relevant (ie with potential impact on wetland biodiversity) provincial laws, regulations, rules circulars and “decisions” issued or amended each year that conform with criteria on wetland biodiversity. Break down by class of legislation

To be determined during inception phase through initial sectoral analyses

90% by end of project Official lists of legislation from Provincial Peoples Congress, and provincial level government agencies

Copies of the legislation

Percentage of all current regulations, rules, “decisions” and circulars that do not satisfy the criteria for wetland biodiversity conservation. Break down by sector

To be determined during inception phase through initial sectoral analyses

Annual decreases Official lists of legislation from Provincial Peoples Congress, and provincial level government agencies

Copies of the legislation

157

together smoothly to solve problems and to think beyond narrowly defined institutional targets

J Achieving necessary cooperation with Russian agencies does not delay project progress

Number of agencies with personnel specifically assigned to deal with wetland biodiversity conservation matters

To be determined during inception phase through initial sectoral analyses

90% by end of project Sectoral Annual ReportsLetters from the agenciesMeetings with the people appointed

Steps >>>> Criteria developed and adopted Sectoral analyses prepared Partnerships built Contact points built up in all major sectoral agencies Inaccurate data excluded and accurate data assembled and summarized well Data shared by relevant agencies Data used in decision making Public well informed about wetland biodiversity and willing and able to start to hold government to

account, so providing pressure for good decision making on behalf of government Use made of all existing mechanisms for government agencies to consult and coordinate activities

with potential effects on wetland biodiversity Technical advice and on-the-job and formal training Recommendations for policy framework and revisions of legislation to incorporate wetland

biodiversity conservation. Lessons from project at sites and provincial level applied to decision making at national level Periodic revisions to China National Wetland Conservation Programme (2002-2030)Criteria adopted Workshops to facilitate exchange of information and ideas Demonstrations of wetland biodiversity conservation considerations in international transboundary

decisions and action Lessons from project at sites and national level applied to decision making at provincial level

Outcome C Government agencies at local levels routinely take into account wetland biodiversity conservation in decision

158

making and action at four wetland sitesIndicator Baseline Target Means of verification AssumptionsFor each site, the number of local (municipal, prefectural and county) level government agencies with policy that is in conformity with criteria for wetland biodiversity conservation

To be determined during inception phase through initial sectoral analyses

90% by end of project Sectoral and Multisectoral Five Year Plans

Sectoral and Multisectoral Annual Plans

Sectoral and Multisectoral Annual Reports

B. National funds available for routine activities during the project, and for later recurrent costs (eg for surveys, monitoring, consultations, visits, equipment maintenance, database services, public information displays, outreach programmes and newsletter publication)

C Joint work planning for expenditure of government and GEF funds so as to complement each other well and not to cause any delays or conflicting actions

D. Government authorities and commercial and not for profit organizations have the necessary will

Number of examples per year of decisions and actions by local (municipal, prefectural and county) level government agencies that do not conform with criteria for wetland biodiversity conservation

To be determined during inception phase through initial sectoral analyses and land use audits

Annual decrease Sectoral and Multisectoral Annual Plans

Sectoral and Multisectoral Annual Reports

Percentage of relevant (ie with potential impact on wetland biodiversity) local (municipal/prefectural and county) laws, regulations, rules circulars and “decisions” issued or amended each year that conform with criteria on wetland biodiversity. Break down by class of legislation and level of administration

To be determined during inception phase through initial sectoral analyses

90% by end of project Official lists of legislation from local Peoples Congresses, , and local level government agencies

Copies of the legislation

159

to review and change fundamental policy, development plans, and management approaches in response to wetland biodiversity conservation considerations

E. Genuine involvement of all relevant government agencies in efforts to collaborate, build capacities and change processes that outlast the project

F. Implementing parties willing to recruit and commit good staff

G. Maps and other information required for project implementation are obtained on time

H UNDP and SFA willing to work together smoothly to solve problems and to think beyond narrowly

Percentage of all current local (municipal/prefectural and county) regulations, rules, “decisions” and circulars that do not satisfy the criteria for wetland biodiversity conservation. Break down by sector

To be determined during inception phase through initial sectoral analyses

Annual decreases Official lists of legislation from local Peoples Congresses, , and local level government agencies

Copies of the legislation

Number of agencies with personnel specifically assigned to deal with wetland biodiversity conservation matters

To be determined during inception phase through initial sectoral analyses

90% by end of project Sectoral Annual ReportsInterviews and official documents

Number of people or local economic entities contributing data used in nature reserve based environmental education displays at the Yancheng Coastal Marshes site

None Begun by June 2005 and at least 10 examples showing cumulative data collection by January 2007

Original reports from the public

Displays

Expert opinionNumber of nature reserves and local government environmental protection departments with staff able to design and implement appropriate public involvement and environmental education programmes based on new themes at the Yancheng Coastal Marshes site

Zero Two nature reserves and two government departments by June 2006

InterviewsProject reportsDemonstrations of work

Number of government agencies at the Dongting Lake site routinely sharing data on wetland biodiversity collected under monitoring programme

Relevant agencies, and criteria for routine sharing of data to be defined during the inception phase

To increase to 100% of relevant agencies by January 2007

Distribution lists

Interviews

Website records

160

defined institutional targets

J Achieving necessary cooperation with Russian agencies does not delay project progress

K Achieving necessary cooperation between Gansu and Sichuan authorities does not delay project progress

Routine use of maps and information on wetland biodiversity in day to day planning work in government offices at the Ruoergai Marshes site

To be established by observation within three months of the restart of the project

All government offices in the Ruoergai Marshes have useful maps on the wall and planners and decision makers use maps on daily basis and information on wetland biodiversity when required

Project reports

The maps and observations of use

Number of examples per year of poisoning programmes for pikas and zokors at the Ruoergai Marshes site

Low alreadyTo be determined during inception phase

Zero Official documentsInterviews

Percentage of farms under the Jiansanjiang State Farm Bureau with personnel appointed, and trained, as wetland biodiversity conservation officers (probably in addition to normal duties)

Zero 90% by June 2007 Official documentsMeetings with the officers

Steps >>>> Develop site specific approaches Criteria developed and adopted Sectoral analyses prepared Economic frameworks for wetland conservation produced Partnerships built Contact points built up in all major sectoral agencies including nature reserves Inaccurate data excluded and accurate data assembled and summarized well (simple systems built up

slowly as demand develops) Data shared by relevant agencies Data used in decision making Public well informed about wetland biodiversity and willing and able to start to hold government to

account, so providing pressure for good decision making on behalf of government Use made of all existing mechanisms for government agencies to consult and coordinate activities

with potential effects on wetland biodiversity

161

Technical advice and on-the-job and formal training Recommendations for policy framework and revisions of legislation to incorporate wetland

biodiversity conservation. Workshops to facilitate exchange of information and ideas Demonstrations of wetland biodiversity conservation considerations in transboundary interactions

(intercounty, interprefectural, interprovincial and international) Lessons from project at provincial and national levels applied to decision making at site level and at

site provinces too

Outcome D Improved processes of monitoring and evaluation, and the collection, analysis, use and sharing of information, knowledge and experience in wetland biodiversity conservation

Indicator Baseline Target Means of verification AssumptionsPercentage of project activities (as defined in annual work plans) for which useful (for dissemination) summaries and analyses of performance are produced

Zero Annual increases to 70% by June 2007

Expert assessments F. Implementing parties willing to recruit and commit good staff

Percentage of TAG recommendations used to increase effectiveness of project

Zero Annual increases to 80% by June 2007

Subsequent TAG reports

Percentage of partners at each project site with good knowledge of project activities at the other sites

To be determined during inception phase

Annual increases to 80% by June 2007

SurveysExpert assessments

Number of examples per year of project results used at another level or at another project site

Zero Annual increases TAG reports

Score on assessment of project website by expert

To be determined during the inception phase

Reach 95% by June 2007 Expert assessmentThe website

Public opinion on seminar series held in Beijing, Harbin and at project sites

Zero Increase to high by June 2007 at all levels

Attendance figuresOpinion surveys

162

Score on content of seminar series Zero Increase to high by June 2007

Expert opinion

Steps >>>> Reports from TAG used to improve project performance Strong technical oversight of project plans, inputs and results Communication within the project through exchanges of experience between sites, between sites and

province, between provinces and between sites, provinces and national level: meetings, website, project newsletters, distribution of progress reports, feedback to project planning, intranet for downloading data

International exchange of information, particularly with neighbours Monthly seminars related to wetland biodiversity conservation in Beijing, Harbin, and at project sites

163

Appendix B4 Institutional Responsibilities

The roles of each of the major partners in project management are detailed below:

The SFA’s responsibilities as the Implementing Partner will include:

1. Planning for and monitoring of the technical aspects of the project, including regular project visits and monitoring progress benchmarks and outputs, preparation and submission of periodic progress and technical reports, and regular consultations with beneficiaries and contractors;

2. Chairing the Project Steering Committee and annual Tripartite Review meetings;3. Developing and reviewing work plans;4. Procuring goods and services on a transparent and competitive basis, e.g., review and

approval of TOR/specifications for personnel/contractors/vendors and required bidding documentation, and awarding and entering into contracts of recruitment or procurement;

5. Ensuring advanced funds are used in accordance with agreed work plans and project budget;

6. Preparing, authorizing and adjusting commitments and expenditures; ensuring timely disbursements, financial recording and reporting against budgets and work plans (in English);

7. Managing and maintaining budgets, including tracking commitments, expenditures and planned expenditures against budget and work plan

8. Coordinating the financing from UNDP with that from other sources, including GOC cofinance;

9. Resource mobilization of baseline and co-finance.10. Maintaining productive, regular and professional communication with UNDP and other

project stakeholders to ensure the smooth progress of project implementation.11. Organizing post project evaluations to track the success of the project in meeting targets

due after the end of the project

The UNDP will be responsible for the following:

1. Implementation oversight: The UNDP Country Office, working with the UNDP GEF Regional Coordinator, will provide technical and administrative support and monitor project implementation in order to ensure results-oriented project implementation and achievement of the project outputs. This will include participation in project work-planning exercises, including monitoring missions, recruiting and managing the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) which will monitor project progress towards the delivery of expected GEF outcomes and impacts (see below).

2. Supporting SFA and the WPMO to fulfill their responsibilities by assessing management capacity needs and providing necessary training and capacity support measures (i.e. introduction and sensitization to UNDP work-planning, adaptive management and financial reporting requirements, formats and processes)

3. Financial oversight. UNDP will make available approved project funds. It will maintain a reasonable level of due diligence with respect to the project’s expenditures of GEF funds in order to ensure the proper administration of UNDP GEF funds and that a proper project

China Wetland Biodiversity Oct 27 2004 Appendix B9 GEF M&E Standard Text Page165

budget and accounting of project expenditures are maintained. UNDP will monitor resource mobilization of baseline and co-finance to ensure use of funds is in-line with project objectives and is coordinated with the project workplan.

4. Organizing the final evaluation of the project.5. UNDP may provide other assistance upon request of the SFA, through Letters of Agreement

for Support Services (as per the UNDP Programming Manual). Financial transactions and reporting will be subject to annual audits undertaken by accredited auditors in compliance with national regulations and UNDP rules and procedures for national execution.

6. Ensuring that GEF funds are used in accordance with GEF eligibility rules, policies and norms in order to achieve the expected outcomes approved by the GEF Council. Fulfilling all other duties and obligations as a GEF Implementing Agency.

Project Steering Committee

1. Provide overall guidance, direction and support to the project, taking into account the reports and recommendations of the TAG.

2. Meet at least twice per year and at other times when necessary3. Approve project annual work plans.4. Help disseminate project findings and outputs.5. Ensure that the general approach developed under this project can be applied to other

wetlands.6. Facilitate good linkage between project outputs and government wetland policies and

legislation.7. Ensure coordination of cross-agency project activities

GEF Wetland Project Office (GEFWPO)

1. Carry out the daily management and operation of the project to ensure local work-planning is consistent with project objectives and that the project activities are of high technical quality and contribute towards outcomes and objectives.

2. Participate in preparation of annual and semiannual workplans at provincial, site and nature reserve levels, approve advance payments and certify financial reports.

3. Transfer funds for activities approved at national, provincial, site and nature reserve levels4. Submit quarterly work plans and financial reports for the whole project, covering nature

reserve, site, provincial and state levels, including all project funds (GEF, government co-financing, and funds from any other third party donors) to UNDP Country Office at the end of each quarter.

5. Coordinate all discussions and decisions on government co-funding and be responsible for ensuring that all government cofunding is applied to activities that contribute to achievement of project objectives.

6. Monitor implementation of the work plans.7. Training in planning, implementation and monitoring.8. Links with other relevant organizations and projects both in China and abroad.9. Technical support - references, printed materials, contacts, information, ideas.10. Operational support - procurement of equipment, recruitment of consultants, trainers and

sub-contractors.11. Sharing and dissemination of information across provinces and sites and linking the field

with the national level.

China Wetland Biodiversity Oct 27 2004 Appendix B9 GEF M&E Standard Text Page166

12. Main oversight for Outcome D

Department of Wildlife Conservation (Divisions of Wetland Conservation, Nature Reserves and Wild Animal and Plant Conservation).1. Assign counterparts to work with project staff.2. Collaborate on regular basis in planning and implementation of project activities.3. Assist with coordination of project activities with other agencies where necessary.4. Help establish linkages between project and other government initiatives.5. Make arrangements to allow project staff to visit the SFA offices whenever required for

project activities and consultation.

Provincial Vice Governors (one in each of five provinces: Sichuan, Heilongjiang, Hunan, Jiangsu, Gansu)1. Facilitate links with provincial development and reform commissions2. Arrange for nomination of personnel as contact points in all relevant sectoral agencies at

provincial and site levels and coordinate activities where necessary3. Participate in joint work planning meetings, and coordinate allocation of government co-

funding4. Ensure that promised cofunding from provincial sources is provided on time5. Help disseminate project findings and outputs within each province.

UNOPS1. Recruitment of international consultants.2. Submit quarterly financial reports to SFA.

Other partners including line agenciesTo be determined during the inception phase

05/08/23167

Appendix B5 Tasks for project staff, consultants, subcontractors, civil society organizations, and the technical advisory group

National Project Director (30 months)

The National Project Director is ultimately responsible and accountable to UNDP for the implementation of the project on behalf of the State Forestry Administration, the Implementing Partner. S/he will act as the focal point and responsible party for implementation of the project and will ensure that all Government inputs committed to the project are available to the project in a timely manner. S/he will also act as the approving authority for staff appointments and for advances and expenditure.

In particular the National Project Director will:

1. Take overall responsibility for all project activities and for coordination with related activities by other governmental and non-governmental organizations.

2. Discuss project implementation with the National Project Coordinator (NPC) and the Chief Technical Adviser (CTA) at least once per month, and assist with solution of any problems

3. Assist the NPC and CTA in making necessary contacts for pursuing policy and legislation aspects of the project at the central government level

4. Certify the annual and quarterly work plans for the project and request quarterly advance payments from UNDP CO according to the approved National Execution (NEX) procedures

5. Be responsible and accountable for advance funds received and submit required financial reports to UNDP CO

6. Represent the State Forestry Administration in official meetings regarding the project7. Ensure that there is a clear and unambiguous decision-making process for project implementation

so that project activities are planned well in advance and necessary funds, personnel and equipment are provided in good time for implementation of project activities at provincial, site and national levels.

Deputy National Project Director (30 months)

The Deputy National Project Director will assist the National Project Director in the execution of all his responsibilities and will represent the National Project Director when he is not available for project activities.

National Project Coordinator (NPC) (30 months)

The National Project Coordinator is responsible for administrative and financial management of the project. Working closely with the CTA and other GEFWPO staff, the NPC will also coordinate with relevant organizations to ensure successful implementation of the project. S/he will be responsible with the CTA for developing an atmosphere of competence in and enthusiasm for wetland conservation in the project office.

Specifically, the NPC will:

05/08/23168

1. Ensure smooth implementation of the project in accordance with the project document and the NEX procedures. In particular, establish good administrative procedures for coordination of the work of the provincial and site level project staff and ensure that the different parts of the project work well towards a common goal.

2. Report regularly to the NPD and the project desk-officer at UNDP CO on project progress, and request help when required

3. Receive, collate, and analyse SMO and HPMO quarterly work plans and financial reports and prepare, with assistance from the CTA, the combined project quarterly work plans and requests for financial advances for submission by the NPD to UNDP CO according to the schedule shown in the Project Revision Document.

4. Prepare TOR for project staff, consultants and subcontractors.5. Review and assess project expenditure against the advance requests and work plans.6. Oversee maintenance of a “shadow budget” and preparation of budget revisions by the accountant7. Assist CTA with preparation of detailed annual reports (PIR/APR)8. Assist UNDP CO with organization of the annual tripartite review (TPR).9. Facilitate the work of International and National Consultants and United Nations Volunteers.10. Supervise project personnel, certify attendance sheets, and oversee the establishment and

operation of a project personnel performance assessment scheme.11. Maintain good communication with SFA and other agencies with which the project works and

interacts and advise the CTA of any relevant activities or events. 12. Assist project staff to gain effective cooperation with central and local government institutions

and with civil society organizations and educational institutions.

Chief Technical Adviser (CTA) (18 months)

Working closely with the NPC, OCs, PPCs, UNVs and consultants the Chief Technical Adviser will provide technical advice leading to common understanding of the project’s direction and the scope of project activities, will oversee the recruitment of project staff, consultants and subcontractors, the development of coherent work plans, the implementation of project activities, and the required monitoring and reporting. The CTA will report to both the National Project Director, and the UNDP CO's desk officer for the project through quarterly CTA reports, and informally, as required. S/he will also report as an employee to UNOPS. S/he will be responsible with the NPC for developing an atmosphere of competence in and enthusiasm for wetland conservation in the project office.

Specifically the CTA will have the following tasks:

1. Provide technical advice to all project staff and partners, on wetland biodiversity conservation, capacity development, project design, project implementation and management.

2. Contribute directly in areas of his/her expertise to training courses, workshops and other technical meetings.

3. Provide on-the-job training, guidance and mentoring to project staff and counterparts 4. Oversee and participate in preparation of project and individual work plans and progress reports,

undertaking field missions for this purpose at his/her discretion5. Participate in annual joint missions with UNDP staff as part of the project’s adaptive

management approach. 6. Oversee the preparation of the quarterly advance requests and work plans submitted to UNDP

CO.

05/08/23169

7. Oversee the process of recruitment of project staff, consultants and subcontractors, the preparation of their Terms of Reference and subsequent supervision and assessment of performance.

8. Facilitate proper communication and coordination between project initiatives in different places and between project staff, counterparts, consultants and subcontractors where appropriate.

9. Provide specific technical assistance with respect to arrangements for training courses, study tours and internships.

10. Provide written assessments of major project reports and other products.11. Establish contacts and links with relevant organizations, research and educational institutions,

networks and individuals outside the project and encourage project staff and partners to follow up where required

12. Facilitate smooth links between the project office and UNDP CO, UNDP GEF, UNOPS and any third party donors to the project, and communicate with them as required both formally and informally.

13. Communicate with UNDP GEF senior personnel and project staff in other countries, in particular to exchange information, ideas, experiences, lessons learned and information.

14. Participate, where appropriate, in meetings and working groups relevant to the project's objectives.

15. Oversee a series of technical seminars organized by the project in Beijing 16. Draft the annual Project Implementation Review/Annual Project Report and oversee its

completion.17. Prepare quarterly reports on project implementation with details of activities, a brief summary of

project progress, identification of any problems in project implementation, and recommendations for any responses required.

18. Convene quarterly meetings between UNDP CO and SFA with additional participants as thought necessary, to discuss and respond to the CTA’s Quarterly Reports.

Biodiversity Information Officer

Working under the supervision of the NPC the Biodiversity Information Officer will be responsible for internal and external publicity about the project and the field of wetland conservation in general.

In particular the Biodiversity Information Officer will:

1. Take charge of project extension and publicity including but not limited to the following: Be responsible for the project website design and operation, organize necessary changes

to the current design, and ensure that the website is kept up to date with recent developments on the project and in related fields and that it is easily accessible in China and worldwide

Edit a monthly internal project news sheet for distribution by email Edit a printed quarterly project newsletter including contributions solicited and gathered

from project staff, consultants and partners and others Develop knowledge sharing practices between national, provincial and site levels within

the project, between SFA and other relevant agencies (including commercial, governmental and civil service) and relevant donor-funded and government-funded projects.

2. Be responsible for collection of news and documents relevant to the project by using the internet and a network of contacts, including government agencies and national programmes. Ensure mutual exchange of information between the project and relevant government agencies.

3. Act as liaison for the project with the press, including newspapers, TV and radio and ensure that the project gains appropriate publicity in the media

05/08/23170

4. Assist the project in gaining a reputation as an excellent and valued centre for exchange of information on wetlands in China in the broadest sense. Assess this reputation by the number of enquiries and visits received from specialists and others.

Administrative Officer/Translator

Working under the supervision of the NPC the Administrative Officer will be responsible for routine administrative procedures and daily management of the project office, the paper and computer archiving systems and day to day interpretation and translation.

In particular, the Administrative Officer/Translator will:

1. Maintain daily communication with the provincial project offices and respond promptly to requests for information, equipment and assistance, and for passing on of messages to other project staff.

2. Draw up and maintain up to date the project staffing table, including consultants, and prepare monthly travel plans.

3. Keep current list of addresses and home and office telephone numbers for all consultants and project staff members.

4. Carry out copy typing/word processing when required5. Keep copies of the current versions of the UNDP General Administration Manual and the NEX

Manual and amend according to lists of revisions sent out by UNDP.6. Record and file incoming and outgoing memos, letters, faxes and e-mails, including attached

documents, ensuring adequate back-up facilities for electronic archives and reasonable balance between paper and electronic archiving practices.

7. Maintain administrative files of the project in an orderly fashion8. Update and maintain the office computer network and database so that files are backed up

regularly and all project reports and other documents are easy to locate and can be produced quickly in paper and electronic versions on demand.

9. Keep minutes of project meetings and write them up afterwards.10. Translate written materials from English to Chinese and from Chinese to English and submit the

translations in printed and/or electronic form as required11. Interpret for project staff and consultants and for visitors to the project, as required12. Review translated documents received from translators working for the project on contract and

either return for revision or revise in house as appropriate

Project Accountant

Working under the supervision of the National Project Coordinator,

The Project Accountant will:

1. Maintain financial records and monitoring systems to record and reconcile expenditures, balances, payments, statements and other data.

2. Prepare recurring reports as scheduled and special reports as required for budget preparation, audits and other reasons.

3. Maintain the office inventory (expendable and non expendable items) and prepare the annual inventory report.

4. Prepare budget revisions to reflect previous and planned expenditure.

05/08/23171

5. Be responsible for payments and supervise the Administrative Assistant in his/her duties as cashier

6. Advise and assist project staff on their allowances, salaries, travel claims and other financial matters.

7. Ensure good collaboration on budgets and accounting between the GEFWPO, UNDP CO, UNDP GEF, the National Project Director, the project field offices (provincial and site level), and UNOPS

8. Maintain liaison with banks in Beijing and the provinces to ensure smooth operation of the project bank accounts.

9. Give basic instruction in accounting procedures to consultants and recipients of small grants and subcontracts.

10. Facilitate the annual audit.

Administrative Assistant/Cashier

Working under the supervision of the Administrative Officer/Translator and the Accountant, the Administrative Assistant will take charge of the following aspects of office administration:

1. Keep control of stationery and office supplies and distribute to office staff as necessary.2. Assist consultants and staff members to arrange their accommodation and travel3. Coordinate use of the office vehicle, monitor drivers' log sheets, and maintain vehicle records.4. Make practical arrangements for all seminars and other meetings.5. Carry out all required duties as cashier, under the supervision of the Accountant.6. Arrange for the periodic maintenance of office equipment (photocopiers, telephones, telex and

fax machines); keep control of the maintenance system for office equipment; organize and keep catalogues, guarantees, operating instructions and manuals for all project equipment.

7. Plan and arrange with the relevant authorities for the maintenance of the office, including heating, hot water, electricity and telephone service.

8. Arrange for and supervise an office cleaner and ensure that the premises are at all times in good order.

Provincial Project Coordinators

A. Jiangsu

The Jiangsu Provincial Project Coordinator (PPC) will, under the supervision of the NPC:

1. Establish working arrangements at or under the auspices of the municipal government of Yancheng and make arrangements for funds to be advanced to Yancheng to cover expenditure approved under quarterly workplans.

2. Liaise with the Outcome Coordinator (OC) for Outcome C (Yancheng Coastal Marshes component) on a day-to-day basis and ensure that adequate facilities and support are provided for the implementation of project activities.

3. Prepare, with the OC annual and quarterly work plans and requests for quarterly advances of funds for site and provincial level activities. Ensure the coordination of government financial and in kind contributions through joint work planning with the agencies controlling government cofinance.

05/08/23172

4. Prepare, with the OC, quarterly progress reports including financial reports, detailing progress against the quarterly work plans.

5. Liaise with the Provincial Vice Governor responsible for wetlands, on project work with different government agencies

6. Report to and liaise with the GEFWPO on matters pertaining to reporting, finance, logistics and support for consultants, subcontractors, joint working partners, and United Nations Volunteers.

7. If requested, make arrangements for visits to project sites by consultants, monitoring missions and GEFWPO staff

B. Hunan

The Hunan Provincial Project Coordinator (PPC) will, under the supervision of the NPC:

1. Establish working arrangements at or under the auspices of the municipal government of Yueyang and make arrangements for funds to be advanced to Yancheng to cover expenditure approved under quarterly workplans.

2. Liaise with the Outcome Coordinator (OC) for Outcome C (Dongting Lake component) on a day-to-day basis and ensure that adequate facilities and support are provided for the implementation of project activities.

3. Prepare, with the OC annual and quarterly work plans and requests for quarterly advances of funds for site and provincial level activities. Ensure the coordination of government financial and in kind contributions through joint work planning with the agencies controlling government cofinance.

4. Prepare, with the OC, quarterly progress reports including financial reports, detailing progress against the quarterly work plans.

5. Liaise with the Provincial Vice Governor responsible for wetlands, on project work with different government agencies

6. Report to and liaise with the GEFWPO on matters pertaining to reporting, finance, logistics and support for consultants, subcontractors, joint working partners, and United Nations Volunteers.

7. If requested, make arrangements for visits to project sites by consultants, monitoring missions and GEFWPO staff

C. Sichuan

The Sichuan Provincial Project Coordinator (PPC) will, under the supervision of the NPC:

1. Establish working arrangements at or under the auspices of the county government of Ruoergai and make arrangements for funds to be advanced to Ruoergai Marshes to cover expenditure approved under quarterly workplans.

05/08/23173

2. Liaise with the Outcome Coordinator (OC) for Outcome C (Ruoergai Marshes component – Sichuan) on a day-to-day basis and ensure that adequate facilities and support are provided for the implementation of project activities.

3. Prepare, with the OC annual and quarterly work plans and requests for quarterly advances of funds for site and provincial level activities. Ensure the coordination of government financial and in kind contributions through joint work planning with the agencies controlling government cofinance.

4. Prepare, with the OC, quarterly progress reports including financial reports, detailing progress against the quarterly work plans.

5. Liaise with the Provincial Vice Governor responsible for wetlands, on project work with different government agencies

6. Liase with the Gansu PPC and the OC for Outcome C in Gansu with respect to joint activities

7. Report to and liaise with the GEFWPO on matters pertaining to reporting, finance, logistics and support for consultants, subcontractors, joint working partners, and United Nations Volunteers.

8. If requested, make arrangements for visits to project sites by consultants, monitoring missions and GEFWPO staff

D. Gansu

The Gansu Provincial Project Coordinator (PPC) will, under the supervision of the NPC:

1. Establish working arrangements at or under the auspices of the county government of Maqu and make arrangements for funds to be advanced to Ruoergai Marshes to cover expenditure approved under quarterly workplans.

2. Liaise with the Outcome Coordinator (OC) for Outcome C (Ruoergai Marshes component – Gansu) on a day-to-day basis and ensure that adequate facilities and support are provided for the implementation of project activities.

3. Prepare, with the OC annual and quarterly work plans and requests for quarterly advances of funds for site and provincial level activities. Ensure the coordination of government financial and in kind contributions through joint work planning with the agencies controlling government cofinance.

4. Prepare, with the OC, quarterly progress reports including financial reports, detailing progress against the quarterly work plans.

5. Liaise with the Provincial Vice Governor responsible for wetlands, on project work with different government agencies

6. Liase with the Sichuan PPC and the OC for Outcome C in Sichuan with respect to joint activities

7. Report to and liaise with the GEFWPO on matters pertaining to reporting, finance, logistics and support for consultants, subcontractors, joint working partners, and United Nations Volunteers.

05/08/23174

8. If requested, make arrangements for visits to project sites by consultants, monitoring missions and GEFWPO staff

E. Heilongjiang

The Heilongjiang Provincial Project Coordinator (PPC) will, under the supervision of the NPC:

1. Establish working arrangements (a) under the provincial government of Heilongjiang in Harbin, and (b) at or under the auspices of the county government of Fuyuan and make arrangements for funds to be advanced to Harbin and Sanjiang Plain to cover expenditure approved under quarterly workplans.

2. Arrange also for the project to work regularly with the Jiansanjiang State Farm Bureau in Jiansanjiang.

3. Liaise with the Outcome Coordinators (OC) for Outcome B and Outcome C (Sanjiang Plain component) on a day-to-day basis and ensure that adequate facilities and support are provided for the implementation of project activities.

4. Prepare, with the OC annual and quarterly work plans and requests for quarterly advances of funds for site and provincial level activities. Ensure the coordination of government financial and in kind contributions through joint work planning with the agencies controlling government cofinance.

5. Prepare, with the OC, quarterly progress reports including financial reports, detailing progress against the quarterly work plans.

6. Liaise with the Provincial Vice Governor responsible for wetlands, on project work with different government agencies

7. Report to and liaise with the GEFWPO on matters pertaining to reporting, finance, logistics and support for consultants, subcontractors, joint working partners, and United Nations Volunteers.

8. If requested, make arrangements for visits to project sites by consultants, monitoring missions and GEFWPO staff

United Nations Volunteers (9) (24 months each)

Four International United Nations Volunteers (UNV) (one per site) and five national United Nations Volunteers (NUNV) (one per province) will be assigned to each site to provide technical assistance and on-the-job training in wetland management under Outcome C.

International UNVs - Reporting and Management:

All International UNVs will be under the immediate supervision of the Outcome Coordinators for their site and the Provincial Project Coordinators for their province, and the overall supervision of the NPC and

05/08/23175

the CTA. On a day-to-day basis International UNVs will be working at the local level of project implementation, occasional visits to provincial offices and the GEFWPO in Beijing may be necessary.

Main duties include:

1. Provide advice and on-the-job training in wetland management, including protected area management, and related skills through work-planning and day to day operations of relevant local government and nature reserve bureaux

2. Assist the PPC and the OC for Outcome C with work planning and reporting

3. Coordinate with the local OC the implementation of activities under Outcome C and where appropriate take a leading role on some activities

4. Provide the CTA with recommendations relating to improved project implementation and design, through submission of brief monthly work reports to the GEFWPO.

5. The International UNVs and the OCs, as full time project staff at the demonstration sites, will be responsible for continuous dialogue with local people and the exposure of local people to new ideas relating to wetland management, natural resource conservation and rural development

6. Liaise with local community and stakeholder groups on project activities and support needs.

7. Organise, together with the OC, meetings with these groups to ensure that they are at least informed about project activities, and where possible involved.

8. Provide, with the OC a focal point for cross-fertilisation and linkage between managers and staff of scattered nature reserves within each general project so that they are informed about project activities, lessons learned and outputs.

9. Duties will be adjusted to take advantage of skills each particular International UNV possesses. Detailed "post description" forms will be completed prior to recruitment and these will clearly identify responsibilities and tasks under the programme. International UNVs with appropriate additional specialist skills for the project site will be given responsibility for components and/or sub-projects relating to that skill (to be finalised by the CTA in association with the UNV).

International UNVs - Qualifications:

International UNVs should have project management experience, and specialist technical skills (BSc, MSc or PhD) in one or more of the following fields:-

Technical training and/or public awareness and education (applicable to all project sites)Water resource management and agricultural development (Sanjiang Plain)Grassland/grazing management and/or community development (Ruoergai Marshes)Integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) and/or aquaculture development (Yancheng Coastal Marshes)Fisheries management and/or integrated river basin management (Dongting Lakes)Protected Areas System management (applicable to all project sites)Field survey techniques and sampling theoryEnvironmental law in relation to wetlands and water

05/08/23176

Reasonable knowledge of the Chinese language and previous experience of working in China are advantageous.

National UNVs - Reporting and Management:

All National UNVs will be under the immediate supervision of the Outcome Coordinators for their site and the Provincial Project Coordinators for their province, and the overall supervision of the NPC and the CTA. On a day-to-day basis National UNVs will be working at the local level of project implementation, occasional visits to provincial offices and the GEFWPO in Beijing may be necessary.

Main duties include:

1. As a counterpart to the International UNVs, the National UNVs will work closely with their counterparts in all aspects of project implementation on site. Whilst they will not be expected to provide translation for International UNVs (or visiting international experts) it may be necessary to work in a close partnership to ensure that language and culturally sensitive issues do not provide a barrier to effective project implementation.

2. Provide advice and on-the-job training in wetland management, including protected area management and related skills through work-planning and day to day operations of relevant local government and nature reserve bureaux

3. As a part of the UNV team, assist the PPC and the OC for Outcome C with work planning and reporting

4. Coordinate with the local OC the implementation of activities under Outcome C and where appropriate take a leading role on some activities

5. Provide the CTA with recommendations relating to improved project implementation and design, through submission of brief monthly work reports to the GEFWPO.

6. The UNV’s and the OCs, as full time project staff at the demonstration sites, will be responsible for continuous dialogue with local people and the exposure of local people to ideas from elsewhere – of particular relevance here will be each National UNVs capability to provide experiences from elsewhere within China and the use such examples in relation to local situation and needs.

7. Liaise with local community and stakeholder groups on project activities and support needs.

8. Organise, together with the OC, meetings with these groups to ensure that they are at least informed about project activities, and where possible involved.

9. Duties will be adjusted to take advantage of skills each particular National UNV possesses. Detailed "post description" forms will be completed prior to recruitment and these will clearly identify responsibilities and tasks under the programme. National UNVs with appropriate additional specialist skills for the project site will be given responsibility for components and/or sub-projects relating to that skill (to be finalised by the CTA in association with the UNV).

05/08/23177

SHORT TERM EXPERTS

A. Outcome specific (7) (24 months each)

National consultants will be recruited as Outcome Coordinators to guide implementation of each project outcome over the whole duration of the project. Outcomes A and B will require one coordinator each, Outcome C will require a site-based coordinator within each of the five provinces. Detailed TOR will be prepared during the Inception Phase and a generic TOR is presented below:

Reporting and Management:

Outcome Coordinators will be under the immediate supervision of the Provincial Project Coordinators for their province (for those under Outcome C), and the overall supervision of the NPC and the CTA (for Outcomes A and B). On a day-to-day basis Outcome Coordinators will be responsible for working at the local level of project implementation to ensure that activities are well coordinated and focused towards meeting each specific outcome. The Outcome Coordinators at each site will have specific daily management responsibility for all UNVs working at their sites. Site based outcome coordinators will require regular visits to provincial offices and the GEF Wetland Project Office in Beijing as and when necessary.

Main duties include:

1. Assist the GEFWPO (for Outcome A Coordinator) and the PPCs (for Outcome B and C coordinators) to develop regular work plans and project reporting.

2. Provide the day-to-day focal point for local coordination of project activities on site – in close conjunction with site visits by the PPC and GEFWPO staff.

3. Liaise with sectoral agencies, nature reserves and other individuals at the site level to facilitate their involvement in the project in a pro-active manner.

4. Provide advice and on-the-job training in wetland management, including protected area management, and related skills through work-planning and day to day operations of relevant local government and nature reserve bureaux

5. Coordinate the implementation of activities under specific outcome and where appropriate take a leading role on some activities.

6. Provide the GEFWPO and the CTA with recommendations relating to improved project implementation and design, through submission of brief monthly work reports to the GEFWPO.

Qualifications of Outcome Coordinators:

Outcome Coordinators will have a broad range of project management experience (more than 10 years) and / or specialist technical skills (preferably to MSc level or above) in an area relating to the specific requirements for each of the seven coordinators. This may include a mix of the following skills:

Environmental policy, legislation development and reform (Outcome A) Environmental Policy, legislation reform, and agricultural and water resource policies (Outcome

B)

05/08/23178

Multi sector involvement in development projects (Outcome C: all project sites) Environmental awareness and education (Outcome C: all project sites) Water resource management and agricultural development (Outcome C: Sanjiang Plain) Grassland/grazing management and/or community development (Outcome C: Ruoergai Marshes) Integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) and/or aquaculture development (Outcome C:

Yancheng Coastal Marshes) Fisheries management and/or integrated river basin management (Outcome C: Dongting Lakes)

B. Other specialists

Other short term national consultants to be recruited under the project are (full TORs will be developed as and when necessary during project implementation):

Environmental policy and legislation specialist(s) (18 months)

Environmental Economist(s) (14 months)

Integrated Conservation and Development Specialist(s) (14 months)

Wetland ecologist(s) (9 months)

Wetland hydrologist(s) (17 months)

GIS and Data management specialist(s) (17 months)

Research and monitoring specialist(s) (17 months)

Transboundary conservation specialist (3 months)

International Consultants (Total 38 person months, with each consultant making between one and three visits to China)

Wetland Policy and Legislation Expert (5 months)Provide technical support to the national wetland policy and legislation experts at intervals during the project, with emphasis at the beginning on a sweeping analysis of the gaps in consideration of wetlands in sectoral policies and practices. In particular, provide guidance to the project in ways of addressing policy requirements that fit in with government initiatives but add value by considering additional approaches and links.

Expert in natural resource economics and application in policy (3 months)Provide technical support to the national wetland policy and legislation experts, in particular on potential for innovative “green taxation” measures that could be taken to improve wetland protection

Research Design and data analysis expert (6 months)Natural resources monitoring and research programmes are often fatally flawed by poor design and sampling regimes. This is a common problem in China (and elsewhere), and research design and appropriate sampling protocols is an area in which international expertise will be sought both for assistance in designing work to be done under the project and in carrying out training through the design

05/08/23179

work. Each of the outcomes requires input in this field. The international expert will work mainly with the national consultants and national project staff to develop the best approaches to research and monitoring under the project.

Biodiversity and ecology expert (8 months) An expert with sound knowledge of East Asian biodiversity and ecology and preferably with experience in China, and with experience on biodiversity conservation projects, will be recruited to provide technical advice on assessment of the likely effects of development and conservation initiatives on the ecology and biodiversity of wetlands both at the project sites and in general.

Eminent Ecologist (2 months)The project will invite from outside China a charismatic, high profile figure in the field of ecology to make presentations at events and on television in support of the goals of the project – Heilongjiang and Beijing.

Wetland hydrologist (4 months)Hydrologists have been little involved so far in this wetland project, and where they have been involved they have often concentrated on the detail while neglecting the big picture. International expertise will be recruited in this field specifically to provide overall assessments of the major problems in wetland conservation that could be combated through changes in water management measures. Main duties will be at the Sanjiang Plains site, but will also advise on project initiatives at all project sites and in general.

Rangeland management and transhumant herding systems specialist (5 months)A good rational approach to rangeland management is required in Ruoergai by someone with wide experience of the field in East Asia.

Expert in application of Geographic Information Systems to wetland and biodiversity conservation (5 months)The project has invested in GIS base maps but little is being done with them. There is a danger that the systems being set up are too complex and not appropriate for the rather simple monitoring activities that will be taking place at many of the sites. What is needed is not more expertise in GIS, but the skills to step away from the technical detail and establish simple approaches to databases and GIS that are useful, applicable and practical in everyday operations, and that can be built up as the needs are demonstrated. The project will recruit an expert with appropriate experience and working approach to advise under all outcomes in coordination with the national expert on GIS and data management.

Subcontracts and joint working agreements A number of subcontracts or joint working agreements will be drawn up for specific tasks to be undertaken by teams rather than individual consultants. Terms of Reference of these subcontracts or joint working agreements will be developed during the Inception Period. Joint working agreements will be the preferred modality for civil society organizations.

The following are provisional subcontracts:

Communication with the public on wetland and biodiversity conservation - (US$150,000) Yancheng Coastal Marshes, under Outcome C (Outputs C2). Main tasks will be on design of displays and production of publicity materials and approaches to dialogue with local people and commercial companies on conservation. High technical input.

05/08/23180

Design and implementation of rangeland/wetland monitoring programme for Ruoergai (US$160,000) Under Outcome C (Output C5) carry out the programmes using local staff to collect data.

Public involvement in conservation at each of three sites (US$25,000 per province –three subcontracts, two of US$25,000 (for Heilongjiang and Hunan) and one (for Ruoergai) of US$50,000) Total: US$100,000 Develop innovative ways of involving local residents in conservation.

TOR for Technical Advisory Group (TAG)

The TAG is an independent team which will provide technical advice to the Project Steering Committee on project implementation and impact over the duration of the project. Additional experts will be recruited if and when necessary, for specific missions. The TAG will report to the Project Steering Committee which will decide how the project will respond.

The TAG will consist of four consultants: one international consultant and three national consultants. The team leader will take overall responsibility for the quality and timely submission of TAG reports in English. Specifically, the team leader will perform the following tasks:

1. Design the detailed scope and methodology (including the methods for data collection and analysis to verify indicators);

2. Consult with UNDP and SFA before missions to field sites, or consultations with project personnel in Beijing

3. Keep informed about project progress between field missions4. Lead field missions;5. Allocate tasks within the TAG;6. Prepare the periodic TAG reports;

The TAG will maintain dialogue with all the key stakeholders. Although it should feel free to discuss with stakeholders any matters relevant to its assignments, the TAG is not authorised to make any commitment on behalf of UNDP or SFA. The TAG will:

1. Develop a monitoring framework with time bound indicators to track Project implementation according to the Project Logframe, which will be finalized with all indicators by the time of the Inception Workshop

2. Assess whether the assumptions implicit within the design are still holding and if not assess the impact on expected project outcomes and objectives and the goal

3. Assess, quantitatively and qualitatively the achievements of the project in terms of outputs and the contribution of the outputs to outcomes including:

4. Review Project implementation including 5. site level assessments6. consultant inputs

05/08/23181

7. workplanning, including planning of the use of government cofinance8. Determine the ability of the Project to achieve the objectives and the goal and recommend

changes, if necessary in project implementation 9. Assess the extent to which lessons learned are being captured, and provide forecasts on the

likelihood of sustainability of project outcomes10. Act as a sounding board for new ideas developed by the project team or partners; 11. Provide independent advice to the PSC on project results; 12. Provide new insights on project direction

The TAG will determine an appropriate mix of monitoring tools and approaches for the project, and the goal, ensuring that the monitoring contains an appropriate balance between:Reporting/analysis, which entails obtaining and analyzing documentation from the project that provides information on progress and assessment against indicators;Validation, which entails checking or verifying whether or not the reported progress is accurate;Participation, which entails obtaining feedback from partners and beneficiaries on progress and proposed actions.

REPORTING AND ANALYSISAnnual project report (APR), Project Implementation Review (PIR)Progress and/or quarterly reportsWork plansProject delivery (expenditure) reports and combined delivery reportsSubstantive project documentation

VALIDATIONField visitsSpot-check visitsExternal assessments/monitoringClient surveys and interviewsEvaluations

PARTICIPATIONCoordination mechanism to monitor the national outcomeSteering committees/mechanismsStakeholder meetingsFocus group meetingsAnnual review

05/08/23182

Appendix B6 Partners in implementation

Appendix B6 Partners and complementary initiatives

1. Stakeholder involvement

Annex 11 of the original Project Document (see Appendix A1) summarizes major stakeholders. The project will involve stakeholders in project planning and implementation, and where necessary will allocate funds for disbursement by stakeholders. Project redesign workshops have been held in Beijing, Yueyang, Nanjing, Chengdu and Harbin, attended by representatives from a wide range of government agencies who are crucial stakeholders in any consideration of water and wetland management. Representatives of civil society conservation organizations, including World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Conservation International (CI) and Wetlands International (WI) attended many of these meetings, and took a leading role on some occasions. Stakeholders have provided constructive comments on the proposed activities and have expressed support for the project. Arrangements for involvement of partners mentioned below, in project implementation, will be finalized during the inception phase.

Project activities at the site, provincial and national levels include consideration of the general public’s “stake” in water, wetlands and biodiversity and ways of increasing civil society participation in wetland management and decision making. Each of the site level “demonstrations” has specific components on public involvement, including simple increase in knowledge, assistance with data collection, consultations, and, participation in policy development. The process for development of new policy and implementation mechanisms at the provincial and national levels will include public consultation. Policy recommendations on environmental governance will emphasize the importance of public participation and accountability of government to the public.

It is difficult to persuade certain stakeholders of the aesthetic and cultural value of China’s globally significant wetland biodiversity: economic arguments often hold greater sway. The water resources and functioning wetlands that support wetland biodiversity also provide ecological services and resources that support livelihoods for millions of people. Sound economic valuations of wetland services and the returns on management investment can be persuasive arguments for improved environmental conservation. Many have a stake in developing and implementing policy that will ensure wetland function and avoid or mitigate deleterious effects on the environment now or in the future, nearby or far downstream, but unless there are wide consultations and professional environmental and social assessments there is a danger that certain stakeholders will act in their own short term interests and against the long term interests of the wider population.

The project will emphasize inter-agency coordination and cooperation on policy and policy implementation and will explore mechanisms for more incentive based conservation measures. Close collaboration will be maintained with task forces working under CCICED: through this work additional stakeholders are already being identified and involved in the project. There are a number of other large conservation projects (see below) with stakes in training and environmental management with which the project is already in contact or working, and such contacts and collaboration will continue.

2. Partners

05/08/23183

The project will be based in the State Forestry Administration (see main Project Redesign Document Section 1 Part lllA) and will work closely with the Wetlands Division and the Nature Reserve Division of the Department of Wildlife and Plant Conservation, the Department of International Cooperation, and the Academy of Forest Inventory and Planning (AFIP). Additional partnerships are being developed and will be formalized during the inception phase..

2.1 Government agenciesMuch of the work of the project requires consultations with government. This will take place at three main levels – central, provincial and local (county and municipality/prefecture).

At the central level the Ministry of Water Resources (MWR), the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA), including the Department of Fisheries, the State Ocean Administration (SOA), the State Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) and the EPNRCC of the National People’s Congress are vital partners in the project’s work towards an ecosystem approach to wetland management. They are already represented at the Director General level or above on the Project Steering Committee. A ‘point of contact’ staff member on wetland issues has been appointed within each of the PSC member agencies and where appropriate the project will also set up small working groups within these agencies as and when necessary to make recommendations on incorporation of wetland considerations into national policy and legislation. The project will also work with other sectoral agencies (see description of Outcome A in Appendix B1) such as the Ministry of Land and Resources (MLR), the Ministry of Construction (MOC) and the Ministry of Communication, when and where appropriate and it is possible that other agencies will be coopted on to the Steering Committee in the future.

The project will work on laws and regulations with the Legislative Office of the State Council and the Environment Protection and Natural Resources Conservation Committee (EPNRCC) of the National People’s Congress (NPC). There will also be activities that involve working with the various river basin organizations (Songliao, Changjiang and Yellow River). When necessary for achievement of project objectives operating funds will be advanced to government agencies other than the Implementing Partner and other partners listed on the signature page of the project redesign document. Much of this liaison work will only be finalised during the first three months of project re-start.

There will be a similarly wide range of agencies involved in the project at provincial and municipal/prefectural and county levels.

Establishment of effective collaboration with the full range of agencies that have jurisdiction over or effects on wetlands, inside and outside protected areas, at each project site will be one of the keys to project success aa the local level. County and municipal/prefecture level government planning departments in particular, will have to be involved. The project already has well established links with the State Environmental Protection Agency and the Ministry of Agriculture regarding management of individual nature reserves that fall under the remit of those agencies (Honghe NNR, Yancheng NNR and Shouqu PNR). County and prefecture governments have already been consulted at project planning meetings at all levels and formal agreements with relevant agencies will be drawn up during the three month inception period. Allocation of specific responsibilities will also be done during the inception period.

The project will also work with other relevant organizations, such as the Jiansanjiang State Farm, the Yancheng Salt Bureau, the East Dongting Lake Management Bureau, including the Reed Management Bureau,, the Jiangsu Province Mudlflat Development Bureau, and the Aba Prefecture Minority Affairs Bureau. Various research institutes of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and some provincial universities and other places of learning, education and research will be involved as required.

05/08/23184

2.2 China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development (CCICED) CCICED has task forces working in areas of direct relevance to the project. Close links, with representation on relevant task forces where possible, will be maintained with CCICED. The project is already working closely with the task forces on Integrated River Basin Management, on Protected Areas, and on Natural Resources Pricing and Taxation.

2.3. Academic institutionsGood policy development includes consideration of accurate and unbiased information. The project includes substantial research and monitoring components that will require collaboration, mainly through subcontracts, at each of the four project sites. This will be conducted through linkages with provincial, national, and international research organizations on specific research and monitoring components.The aims are first to collect data and second to demonstrate the use of data in policy development.

2.4. The mediaThe project operates a website that will be improved considerably in scope and ease of access. Apart from a film based on the project that was produced for BBC World Television’s Earth Report in 2002, and interviews given by project staff to television and radio on occasions there has been relatively little attention to publicity. The redesigned project will be proactive in seeking media outlets for publicizing results, descriptions of activity, discussions of the important problems and possible solutions in policy and practices that affect wetlands and protected areas. Television, radio and print media will all be involved at international, national, provincial, municipal, prefectural and county levels.

2.5. Civil Society OrganizationsThere are a number of civil society conservation organizations with interests that overlap with those of the project. Some of these organizations have been involved with project planning or on project subcontracts already. The project plans to work together with some or all of the following organizations on various aspects of project implementation. In some cases this will involve advancing funds to the organizations for specific activities: in other cases the project and the civil society organization will prepare joint work plans to achieve common results, with funds contributed by both..

Conservation International:The Ruoergai Marshes are included in one of the target areas for the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund managed in China by Conservation International, and the project aims to collaborate closely with the CEPF in involving Ruoergai herders in environmental planning and in demonstrations of mitigation of wetland and grassland degradation (Outcome C – Ruoergai Marshes Component).

World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF):An international organization with offices worldwide, WWF are already active in Dongting (and the whole of the Yangtze), the Yellow Sea “Ecoregion”, and Sanjiang (jointly with Russia). They have a wetlands office in Wuhan just downstream from Dongting Lake on the Yangtze River, and are familiar with the project, having bid successfully for the Alternative Livelihoods subcontract that was later canceled. There are plans being formed for jointly funded activities on transboundary conservation at the Sanjiang site, and there will certainly be many opportunities for joint activities and consultations regarding the Dongting Lake and the Yancheng Coastal Marshes sites in particular, and environmental governance regarding wetlands, including public participation, in general. WWF have taken a lead role in the CCICED task force on Integrated River Basin Management of which the current CTA is a member, and this work will lead to production of a technical report on what is effectively the ecosystem approach to river basin management which will provide useful support for the work of the project on wetlands.

The Nature Conservancy (TNC):

05/08/23185

TNC have already contributed significantly to a project planning training workshop in Beijing in July 2003. In the future there is a potential role for TNC in work on environmental governance at the local level, building on TNC’s experience in NW Yunnan.

Environmental Education Media Project for China (EEMPC):EEMPC have great expertise in producing and distributing high quality films on environmental topics, and their personnel have already worked with the project on a wetlands film for BBC World's Earth Report first broadcast globally in 2002 and again in 2004.

Wetlands International-China (WI-C):WI-C have wide involvement in wetlands conservation throughout China, and are implementing a UNEP/GEF project on Integrated Management of Peatlands for Biodiversity and Climate Change, with case studies in the Ruoergai and Sanjiang sites. WI-C carried out part of one of the project subcontracts (on Public Awareness) until the subcontract was cancelled in 2003. WI-C also coordinated the GEF Project Brief development between 1997-98.

The project aims to maintain links with a number of other organizations such as Fauna and Flora International (FFI), the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), The World Conservation Union (IUCN), Friends of Nature, Green Earth Volunteers, Beijing Global Village, and Friends of Khingansky who are active in areas relevant to the project. UNESCO manage the Biosphere Reserve system, of which Yancheng NNR is a member.

2.6. General publicThe main focus for public involvement will be through the local level initiatives – especially those relating to nature reserve interpretation and education. The project will fund activities related to public participation as capacity is demonstrated. Commercial entities will be included in such outreach and participatory activities.

3 Related projects

There are a number of relevant projects with which the project is already linked. Further links will be built so that training opportunities are planned jointly, knowledge and experience are exchanged, and policy workshops and research are coordinated. They include:

The Inner Mongolia Grassland Conservation Project (funded with AusAID) which has experience in Inner Mongolia with grazing management, the effects of fencing, and ecologically based rodent and pika management, all of relevance at the Ruoergai site. Exchanges will be arranged with this project.

Biodiversity Protection And Community Development In Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region (funded with Canadian Aid). Useful experience in grazing management and working with herders and local county (banner) level steering groups. The two projects have exchanged information on a regular basis and have already collaborated on GIS training, with wetland project nominees attending training organized by the Inner Mongolia project.

Natural Forest Management Project (funded with the European Union). Overlap on training needs and policy

Sustainable Forestry Development Project: Protected Area Component (funded with World Bank/GEF). Overlap on training needs, particularly on protected area management, and on policy regarding protected areas. The Sustainable Forestry project is establishing rangeland health monitoring in Sichuan (also planned under the wetland project for Ruoergai) and there have been discussions and exchanges of information and ideas already on this.

05/08/23186

Yunnan Community Forestry Project (funded with Netherlands Aid). Useful experience in project planning and logframes at local level. The two projects have had contacts already through employment Community Forestry Project staff on Participatory Rapid Appraisal training

Sanjiang Wetlands Protection Project (loan funding from ADB, and proposal for ADB/GEF grant component). The ADB Sanjiang Wetlands project has not started yet. The UNDP/GEF project has contributed and will continue to contribute through technical comments on the project formulation documents. There is a substantial component on forestry plantations.

Dongting Lake Environmental Policy Coordination Project (funded with Norway). Under formulation in consultation with this project

A UNEP/GEF funded project on Conservation of the Globally Significant Wetlands and Migration Corridors required by Siberian Cranes and Other Globally Significant Migratory Waterbirds in Asia. Close links formed with project staff from SFA and the International Crane Foundation, with attendance of wetland project staff at Siberian Crane project steering committee meetings. The two projects have prepared a joint technical statement on the 2003/2004 avian flu outbreak

Biodiversity Management in the Coastal Area of China’s South Sea (UNDP/GEF/NOAA): a project that will help to ensure long-term conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in China’s South Sea coastal area. Also working at protected areas at demonstration sites within five different provinces but seeking applications to policy and governance.

In addition there are internationally funded projects on aquaculture development and river basin legislation (eg an ADB funded project on a proposed Yellow River Law), a forthcoming project to provide support for environmental legislation, including a nature reserve zone law (ADB, with EPNRCC), and proposals for (a) a major project based on a China Biodiversity Partnership Framework involving the Government of China, GEF, UNDP, European Union (EU), Conservation International (CI), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Italian Government, and (b) an EU funded River Basin Strategic Environmental Planning Programme. There are useful lessons to be learned from the experience of the ADB funded project on legislation to support transjurisdictional water pollution management.

05/08/23187

Appendix B7 Sustainability of project results

Management of wetland ecosystems, in China as in many countries, is shared by a number of different organizations and split up in ways that encourage individual agencies to maximize economic returns from different ecological components and land holdings, particularly as the same agencies are often responsible for both regulation and exploitation. The success of the project will depend on introduction of changes in policy, decision-making processes and management approaches. Such changes will only be effective if they persist after the project ends.

The project will stress slow, measured, on the job training at the local level, so that material assistance is provided only as the needs arise and the capacity is developed. Through this strategy changes in techniques and approaches will be instilled sufficiently well to be continued after the end of the project. There will also be a momentum built up through contacts with other organizations that will facilitate continued development of sound management practices. Coordination at the local levels will be enhanced by using experienced UNVs and national outcome coordinators full-time over two years at each site. In Heilongjiang the project will demonstrate new approaches to policy formulation and decision making at the provincial level under the leadership of the Vice-Governor (Outcome B). .

All five provincial governments have provided guarantees, including financial commitments that training, monitoring activities, data sharing, website maintenance and newsletter publication introduced under the project will be continued after the project ends.

The China National Wetland Action Programme (2002-2030) has been approved by GOC and will be an important framework for defining future priorities as it goes through periodic revisions over the next 25 years. Recommendations for revisions to the Programme resulting directly from project outcomes will also ensure sustainability of the project’s results. An important recommendation made by both the Integrated River Basin Management and Protected Area Task Forces of CCICED – one that will be reinforced by the project – is the formation of high level advisory bodies to the State Council. Establishment of such a body to advise on environmental governance in general, and inclusive of wetland issues, river basin management, grasslands, protected areas and others, would ensure sustainability of project results

Close collaboration with the Wetlands Division of SFA on a daily basis will allow project and Wetland Division staff to respond to wetland management problems together and to strengthen their performance in implementing the Ramsar Convention in China. Such collaboration will have an important impact on the capacity of the Wetlands Division and will facilitate the sustained application of the project’s approaches and philosophy after the project ends. In addition, “point of contact” staff for wetlands issues will be identified and supported in the key sectoral ministries and administrations – the project will be working closely with these point of contact staff in such a way that capacity will be gradually developed within the partner agencies also. The likelihood of these staff playing an expanded role in multi-sectoral cooperation on wetlands after the project is high.

The Technical Advisory Group (TAG) will monitor progress towards the conditions that need to be set for sustainability. All problems identified by the TAG will be reported back to both the UNDP and the whole Project Steering Committee and the TAG reports will form the basis for the changes in the programme when required, whether to adapt to changes on the ground or the failures of initial approaches.

In order to achieve improvements in institutional coordination and policy, and policy implementation it will be necessary to work closely with the key agencies that have influence over wetlands. The costs of

05/08/23188

related meetings, consultations and exchange of information will be covered by project funds during the project. GOC already places a high priority on wetland conservation and the modification of existing land and water use practices to meet ecologically acceptable criteria, and will allocate funds to continue programmes initiated under the project. GOC has provided assurance that such costs as are required to continue the processes of consultation and joint policy development after the project ends will be covered. The project aims to convince planners and financial decision makers of the economic values of wetlands and the need to look at the long term effects of management decisions and their implications for future costs: in this way the results of the project would be sustained with no further inputs.

Wider applicability

The project is specifically designed to provide demonstrations and to learn from those demonstrations and apply the results and experience in other areas. The project’s work at four wetland sites at the local level, for example, will be fully documented and the results analysed, summarized and communicated to other local governments, under Outcome D. Both during and after the project selected staff from project wetland sites will travel to other wetland sites to introduce new concepts of wetland management and ways of working, that they have learned and put into practice (see description of Outcome D in Appendix B1). The results will also be used at the national level for refining policy on wetlands.

Fourteen wetland sites (the four project sites plus an additional ten) have been identified by SFA under the National Wetland Conservation Programme as demonstration areas for wetland management. The project is already planning links with these sites to begin the process of wider application of project results.

The project demonstration components for each of the four wetland sites cover a range of topics, including monitoring to detect trends in biodiversity, informing the public and involving them in policy development and strengthening of capacity in sound management of wetlands with respect to water use and livestock management. Reports of results and experience will form the basis for development of wetland management interventions at other wetland sites, initially in the same province but eventually nationwide. The mechanism for application of results nationwide will be through reporting to the GEFWPO and then via the Wetlands Division of the SFA and other partners to other wetland managers and specific projects and to policy makers working with the project in a range of different agencies.

Apart from written reports, there are various methods provided for in the project for communication of project conclusions: they include access to literature, websites, seminars, site visits, newsletters, technical advisory groups and simply putting people in touch with each other (see Appendix B1).

It is not only through communication with government agencies and wetland managers at the local level that the results of the project will be used more widely. Results will also be shared with other conservation practitioners, both individuals and organizations, including managers of current projects, designers of new projects and staff of civil society conservation organizations who are engaged in work with similar objectives in China and elsewhere. Dissemination of project results, ideas and approaches will be carried out by some organizations themselves, without further input from the project itself, if those results and approaches are of sufficient interest and value. Results already produced, and the experience of the project to date have been of interest to several organizations which have come to the project for advice on how to avoid the problems that the project faced early on.

05/08/23189

Appendix B8 Assumptions and risk analysis

This is an ambitious project because it aims to change attitudes and practice in coordination between a range of different agencies when it is not necessarily within the interests of those agencies to work together closely. However, it is certainly in both the short and long term interests of China and the Chinese people as a whole that coordination be improved. The success of the project depends on these agencies’ agreement to collaborate effectively and then their actions to facilitate such collaboration. And this is required both for activities organized by the project and normal activities outside the project and after the project finishes. The project requires genuine involvement of the partners listed in Appendix B6. These partners have already been consulted and in principle support the project but there is a risk that the participation will be superficial, perhaps only for training activities, and that changes in practices and approaches will not outlive the project.

The original project document identified the risks pretty accurately, and effectively made the following assumptions:

That it would be possible to establish integrated wetland management approaches covering wetlands both inside and outside protected areas and involving many agencies working together

That Provincial Wetland Management Authorities under the leadership of a high ranking official would be an effective way to get different agencies working together

That it would prove beyond the capacities of government partners, due to technical weaknesses and narrowness of outlook and experience, to adopt new approaches to grassland and wetland management and to take into account the needs of groups not represented in existing authority structures (e.g., nomadic pastoralists)

That the demonstration and extension approach adopted in the project would ensure that the results provide lasting benefits after the end of the project

The following were listed as risk management or mitigation measures or conditions:

The Government’s strong commitment at all levels to wetland conservation, demonstrated by a very high level of co-financing including for recurrent activities after the end of the project and support for the creation of permanent new institutional arrangements for wetland management (WMAs)

Strong training element for implementing partner staff in relevant new technical approaches and outlooks

Creation of “biodiversity overlays” and integration into development plans for the sites Links with implementation of the Naional Wetland Conservation Action Plan and the National

Biodiversity Conservation Action Plan

The Mid Term Evaluation concluded in effect that these assumptions had failed to hold good: that it had proved beyond the capacity of the appointed management team to establish integrated wetland management approaches, useful “biodiversity overlays” and effective Provincial Wetland Management Authorities and indeed to manage the project in a coherent and coordinated way that could provide benefits through demonstrations and extension.

The Mid Term Evaluation concluded that although many activities had been carried out there had been insufficient assessment of those activities’ contributions towards the objectives of the project. The MTE team concluded that failure had arisen as a result of flaws in both project design and project management. They recommended:

05/08/23190

a reduction in emphasis on nature reserves and increased attention to integrated wetland management

more learning by doing as opposed to formal training site specific approaches as opposed to generic approaches switching style from “supply driven” to “demand driven” so that inputs are targeted more

effectively the project does not try to establish new institutions – rather use existing planning processes to

influence decision making reduction in management complexity decentralization of management linking cofinancing and GEF funding tightly through joint work planning strengthening project management capacity – supervision, strategic direction, financial and

quality control, links between administrative and technical work, office systems and procedures, links with SFA policy development and provincial and nature reserve personnel, links with agencies outside SFA

concentration on results rather than inputs, and strengthened monitoring and supervision by UNDP CO

ensuring that all partners understand the vision of the project and GEF fostering goodwill and trust among all partners keeping project planning adaptive, so that activities are defined precisely only at the work

planning stage, not in the project document formation of strong partnerships outside SFA and with other units within SFA use of short term international TA to provide ecological thinking and outside approaches, in

support of longer term national TA keen attention to quality of national TA review of consultancy rates for both national and international TA a new programme (see Appendix A4)

This new project document takes into account the MTE recommendations in both management and design, but the risk of project management deficiencies remains because the new design requires significantly strengthened management and coordination. To reduce and manage risk significant improvements in project implementation and management have been or will be made in the following areas:

UNDP CO allocate sufficient staff time to manage and monitor the project outcomes. The UNDP Resident Representative and the SFA Vice Administrator have agreed on a strategy for this.

SFA keep to the project objectives and use the technical assistance and other resources available more efficiently.

The PSC be expanded to incorporate all the key sectoral agencies, have high-level representation and the will to meet and make decisions on the project at least twice each year.

The TAG which will be put in place for this project because of the project’s past record and relatively high risk, will provide early warning of potential problems that might stop the project reaching its objectives.

The CTA reports quarterly on bottlenecks in project implementation and the project quarterly review meetings are aimed at freeing such bottlenecks.

05/08/23191

Decentralisation of the project activities will be strengthened through the deployment of more long-term and full time project staff at each demonstration site. This will be achieved through the UNV programme and by employing national “outcome coordinators” to track and manage each project outcome.

“Point of contact staff” within all partner agencies at the national level will be identified and supported through the project – this will allow more direct access to partner agency initiatives and ensure better coordination and collaboration on a day-to-day basis.

Based upon a redesigned system of project reporting and funds control, project funds will be transferred directly to project sites

The table on the next page summarizes the assumptions made in the Logical Framework and the measures taken or to be taken as part of the project’s risk management strategy.

05/08/23192

TABLE 1 ASSUMPTIONS MADE IN PROJECT PLANNING, AND MEASURES TO MANAGE THE RISK THAT THEY WILL NOT HOLD

Assumptions Risk management measuresA. Wetlands and wetland biodiversity conservation remain priorities of the Government of China

Clear and persistent lobbying at high levels concerning the importance of wetland conservation. Information dissemination and exchange with the Ramsar Convention Bureau.

B. National funds available for routine activities during the project, and for later recurrent costs (eg for surveys, monitoring, consultations, visits, equipment maintenance, database services, public information displays, outreach programmes and newsletter publication)

The national cofunding commitments included in this project document will be subject to close monitoring

C Joint work planning for expenditure of government and GEF funds so as to complement each other well and not to cause any delays or conflicting actionsD. Government authorities and commercial and not for profit organizations have the necessary will to review and change fundamental policy, development plans, and management approaches in response to wetland biodiversity conservation considerations

The TAG will monitor willingness to change in all organizations with which the project is active, and project activities may have to modified as a result

E. Genuine involvement of all relevant government agencies in efforts to collaborate, build capacities and change processes that outlast the project

The State Council Circular No. 50 (2004) and the Wetland Conservation Action Programme provide a good basis for the project to work with multiple agenciesAdditional measures include further expansion of the PSC, more frequent PSC meetings

F. Implementing parties willing to recruit and commit good staff

See procedures detailed in Section l Part llI of Project Redesign document.

G. Maps and other information required for project implementation are obtained on time

High level agreements at start of work planning, with all relevant agencies

H UNDP and SFA willing to work together smoothly to solve problems and to think beyond narrowly defined institutional targets

Training for project staff in UNDP procedures early onUNDP and SFA staff ensure that adequate time allocated to the project

J Achieving necessary cooperation with Russian agencies does not delay project progress

There is already considerable political will here.Existing contacts will be used to facilitate the necessary cooperation with Russian agencies. Work will start early.

K Achieving necessary cooperation between Gansu and Sichuan authorities does not delay project progress

Already a joint provincial mechanism exists for combating and managing forest fires between Sichuan and Gansu. This will be used as an example. Work will start early

L Provincial and local governments apply the project results at provincial and local levels to their own decision making and action.

One test dissemination target province and one county will be selected and the materials and methods proposed will be demonstrated before the end of the project

05/08/23193

Appendix B9 Standard GEF Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

Appendix B9: Standard M&E Plan and Budget for FSP and MSP

Please note that some parts of this Annex reads as an explanation of the purpose of certain events or reports (e.g., "the purpose and objective of the Inception Workshop . . ."), and go into the UNDP-GEF M&E manual (duly referenced) or into the Project Management Manual (produced for each project as an input to the Project Inception Workshop, and adapted from standard UNDP-GEF text and format).

PART IV - MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN

Project monitoring and evaluation will be conducted in accordance with established UNDP and GEF procedures and will be provided by the project team and the UNDP Country Office (UNDP-CO) with support from UNDP/GEF. The Logical Framework Matrix in Annex 1 provides performance and impact indicators for project implementation along with their corresponding means of verification. These will form the basis on which the project's Monitoring and Evaluation system will be built.

The following sections outline the principle components of the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and indicative cost estimates related to M&E activities. The project's Monitoring and Evaluation Plan will be presented and finalized at the Project's Inception Report following a collective fine-tuning of indicators, means of verification, and the full definition of project staff M&E responsibilities.

1. MONITORING AND REPORTING

1.1. Project Inception Phase

A Project Inception Workshop will be conducted with the full project team, relevant government counterparts, co-financing partners, the UNDP-CO and representation from the UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating Unit, as well as UNDP-GEF (HQs) as appropriate.

A fundamental objective of this Inception Workshop will be to assist the project team to understand and take ownership of the project’s goals and objectives, as well as finalize preparation of the project's first annual workplan on the basis of the project's logframe matrix. This will include reviewing the logframe (indicators, means of verification, assumptions), imparting additional detail as needed, and on the basis of this exercise finalize the Annual Work Plan (AWP) with precise and measurable performance indicators, and in a manner consistent with the expected outcomes for the project.

Additionally, the purpose and objective of the Inception Workshop (IW) will be to: (i) introduce project staff with the UNDP-GEF expanded team which will support the project during its implementation, namely the CO and responsible Regional Coordinating Unit staff; (ii) detail the

05/08/23194

roles, support services and complementary responsibilities of UNDP-CO and RCU staff vis a vis the project team; (iii) provide a detailed overview of UNDP-GEF reporting and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) requirements, with particular emphasis on the Annual Project Implementation Reviews (PIRs) and related documentation, the Annual Project Report (APR), Tripartite Review Meetings, as well as mid-term and final evaluations. Equally, the IW will provide an opportunity to inform the project team on UNDP project related budgetary planning, budget reviews, and mandatory budget rephasings.

The IW will also provide an opportunity for all parties to understand their roles, functions, and responsibilities within the project's decision-making structures, including reporting and communication lines, and conflict resolution mechanisms. The Terms of Reference for project staff and decision-making structures will be discussed again, as needed, in order to clarify for all each parties responsibilities during the project's implementation phase.

1.2. Monitoring responsibilities and events

A detailed schedule of project reviews meetings will be developed by the project management, in consultation with project implementation partners and stakeholder representatives and incorporated in the Project Inception Report. Such a schedule will include: (i) tentative time frames for Tripartite Reviews, Steering Committee Meetings, (or relevant advisory and/or coordination mechanisms) and (ii) project related Monitoring and Evaluation activities.

Day to day monitoring of implementation progress will be the responsibility of the Project Coordinator, Director or CTA (depending on the established project structure) based on the project's Annual Workplan and its indicators. The Project Team will inform the UNDP-CO of any delays or difficulties faced during implementation so that the appropriate support or corrective measures can be adopted in a timely and remedial fashion.

The Project Coordinator and the Project GEF Technical Advisor will fine-tune the progress and performance/impact indicators of the project in consultation with the full project team at the Inception Workshop with support from UNDP-CO and assisted by the UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating Unit.. Specific targets for the first year implementation progress indicators together with their means of verification will be developed at this Workshop. These will be used to assess whether implementation is proceeding at the intended pace and in the right direction and will form part of the Annual Workplan. The local implementing agencies will also take part in the Inception Workshop in which a common vision of overall project goals will be established. Targets and indicators for subsequent years would be defined annually as part of the internal evaluation and planning processes undertaken by the project team.

Measurement of impact indicators related to global benefits will occur according to the schedules defined in the Inception Workshop and tentatively outlined in the indicative Impact Measurement Template at the end of this Annex. The measurement, of these will be undertaken through subcontracts or retainers with relevant institutions (e.g. vegetation cover via analysis of satellite imagery, or populations of key species through inventories) or through specific studies that are to form part of the projects activities (e.g. measurement carbon benefits from improved efficiency of ovens or through surveys for capacity building efforts) or periodic sampling such as with sedimentation.

05/08/23195

Periodic monitoring of implementation progress will be undertaken by the UNDP-CO through quarterly meetings with the project proponent, or more frequently as deemed necessary. This will allow parties to take stock and to troubleshoot any problems pertaining to the project in a timely fashion to ensure smooth implementation of project activities.

UNDP Country Offices and UNDP-GEF RCUs as appropriate, will conduct yearly visits to projects that have field sites, or more often based on an agreed upon scheduled to be detailed in the project's Inception Report / Annual Workplan. to assess first hand project progress. Any other member of the Steering Committee can also accompany, as decided by the SC. A Field Visit Report will be prepared by the CO and circulated no less than one month after the visit to the project team, all SC members, and UNDP-GEF.

Annual Monitoring will occur through the Tripartite Review (TPR). This is the highest policy-level meeting of the parties directly involved in the implementation of a project. The project will be subject to Tripartite Review (TPR) at least once every year. The first such meeting will be held within the first twelve months of the start of full implementation. The project proponent will prepare an Annual Project Report (APR) and submit it to UNDP-CO and the UNDP-GEF regional office at least two weeks prior to the TPR for review and comments.

The APR will be used as one of the basic documents for discussions in the TPR meeting. The project proponent will present the APR to the TPR, highlighting policy issues and recommendations for the decision of the TPR participants. The project proponent also informs the participants of any agreement reached by stakeholders during the APR preparation on how to resolve operational issues. Separate reviews of each project component may also be conducted if necessary.

Terminal Tripartite Review (TTR)

The terminal tripartite review is held in the last month of project operations. The project proponent is responsible for preparing the Terminal Report and submitting it to UNDP-CO and LAC-GEF's Regional Coordinating Unit. It shall be prepared in draft at least two months in advance of the TTR in order to allow review, and will serve as the basis for discussions in the TTR. The terminal tripartite review considers the implementation of the project as a whole, paying particular attention to whether the project has achieved its stated objectives and contributed to the broader environmental objective. It decides whether any actions are still necessary, particularly in relation to sustainability of project results, and acts as a vehicle through which lessons learnt can be captured to feed into other projects under implementation of formulation.

The TPR has the authority to suspend disbursement if project performance benchmarks are not met. Benchmarks are provided in Annex …/will be developed at the Inception Workshop, based on delivery rates, and qualitative assessments of achievements of outputs.

1.3. Project Monitoring Reporting

05/08/23196

The Project Coordinator in conjunction with the UNDP-GEF extended team will be responsible for the preparation and submission of the following reports that form part of the monitoring process. Items (a) through (f) are mandatory and strictly related to monitoring, while (g) through (h) have a broader function and the frequency and nature is project specific to be defined throughout implementation.

(a) Inception Report (IR)

A Project Inception Report will be prepared immediately following the Inception Workshop. It will include a detailed Firs Year/ Annual Work Plan divided in quarterly time-frames detailing the activities and progress indicators that will guide implementation during the first year of the project. This Work Plan would include the dates of specific field visits, support missions from the UNDP-CO or the Regional Coordinating Unit (RCU) or consultants, as well as time-frames for meetings of the project's decision making structures. The Report will also include the detailed project budget for the first full year of implementation, prepared on the basis of the Annual Work Plan, and including any monitoring and evaluation requirements to effectively measure project performance during the targeted 12 months time-frame.

The Inception Report will include a more detailed narrative on the institutional roles, responsibilities, coordinating actions and feedback mechanisms of project related partners. In addition, a section will be included on progress to date on project establishment and start-up activities and an update of any changed external conditions that may effect project implementation.

When finalized the report will be circulated to project counterparts who will be given a period of one calendar month in which to respond with comments or queries. Prior to this circulation of the IR, the UNDP Country Office and UNDP-GEF’s Regional Coordinating Unit will review the document.

(b) Annual Project Report (APR)

The APR is a UNDP requirement and part of UNDP’s Country Office central oversight, monitoring and project management. It is a self -assessment report by project management to the CO and provides input to the country office reporting process and the ROAR, as well as forming a key input to the Tripartite Project Review. An APR will be prepared on an annual basis prior to the Tripartite Project Review, to reflect progress achieved in meeting the project's Annual Work Plan and assess performance of the project in contributing to intended outcomes through outputs and partnership work.

The format of the APR is flexible but should include the following: An analysis of project performance over the reporting period, including outputs produced

and, where possible, information on the status of the outcome The constraints experienced in the progress towards results and the reasons for these The three (at most) major constraints to achievement of results AWP, CAE and other expenditure reports (ERP generated) Lessons learned

05/08/23197

Clear recommendations for future orientation in addressing key problems in lack of progress

(c) Project Implementation Review (PIR)

The PIR is an annual monitoring process mandated by the GEF. It has become an essential management and monitoring tool for project managers and offers the main vehicle for extracting lessons from ongoing projects. Once the project has been under implementation for a year, a Project Implementation Report must be completed by the CO together with the project. The PIR can be prepared any time during the year (July-June) and ideally prior to the TPR. The PIR should then be discussed in the TPR so that the result would be a PIR that has been agreed upon by the project, the executing agency, UNDP CO and the concerned RC.

The individual PIRs are collected, reviewed and analysed by the RCs prior to sending them to the focal area clusters at the UNDP/GEF headquarters. The focal area clusters supported by the UNDP/GEF M&E Unit analyse the PIRs by focal area, theme and region for common issues/results and lessons. The TAs and PTAs play a key role in this consolidating analysis.

The focal area PIRs are then discussed in the GEF Interagency Focal Area Task Forces in or around November each year and consolidated reports by focal area are collated by the GEF Independent M&E Unit based on the Task Force findings.

The GEF M&E Unit provides the scope and content of the PIR. In light of the similarities of both APR and PIR, UNDP/GEF has prepared a harmonized format for reference. Please refer to Annex H-3.

(d) Quarterly Progress Reports

Short reports outlining main updates in project progress will be provided quarterly to the local UNDP Country Office and the UNDP-GEF regional office by the project team. See format attached.

(e) Periodic Thematic Reports

As and when called for by UNDP, UNDP-GEF or the Implementing Partner, the project team will prepare Specific Thematic Reports, focusing on specific issues or areas of activity. The request for a Thematic Report will be provided to the project team in written form by UNDP and will clearly state the issue or activities that need to be reported on. These reports can be used as a form of lessons learnt exercise, specific oversight in key areas, or as troubleshooting exercises to evaluate and overcome obstacles and difficulties encountered. UNDP is requested to minimize its requests for Thematic Reports, and when such are necessary will allow reasonable timeframes for their preparation by the project team.

(f) Project Terminal Report

During the last three months of the project the project team will prepare the Project Terminal Report. This comprehensive report will summarize all activities, achievements and outputs of the Project, lessons learnt, objectives met, or not achieved, structures and systems implemented,

05/08/23198

etc. and will be the definitive statement of the Project’s activities during its lifetime. It will also lay out recommendations for any further steps that may need to be taken to ensure sustainability and replicability of the Project’s activities.

(g) Technical Reports (project specific- optional)

Technical Reports are detailed documents covering specific areas of analysis or scientific specializations within the overall project. As part of the Inception Report, the project team will prepare a draft Reports List, detailing the technical reports that are expected to be prepared on key areas of activity during the course of the Project, and tentative due dates. Where necessary this Reports List will be revised and updated, and included in subsequent APRs. Technical Reports may also be prepared by external consultants and should be comprehensive, specialized analyses of clearly defined areas of research within the framework of the project and its sites. These technical reports will represent, as appropriate, the project's substantive contribution to specific areas, and will be used in efforts to disseminate relevant information and best practices at local, national and international levels.

(h) Project Publications (project specific- optional)

Project Publications will form a key method of crystallizing and disseminating the results and achievements of the Project. These publications may be scientific or informational texts on the activities and achievements of the Project, in the form of journal articles, multimedia publications, etc. These publications can be based on Technical Reports, depending upon the relevance, scientific worth, etc. of these Reports, or may be summaries or compilations of a series of Technical Reports and other research. The project team will determine if any of the Technical Reports merit formal publication, and will also (in consultation with UNDP, the government and other relevant stakeholder groups) plan and produce these Publications in a consistent and recognizable format. Project resources will need to be defined and allocated for these activities as appropriate and in a manner commensurate with the project's budget.

2. INDEPENDENT EVALUATION

The project will be subjected to at least two independent external evaluations as follows:-

(i) Mid-term Evaluation

An independent Mid-Term Evaluation will be undertaken at the end of the second year of implementation. The Mid-Term Evaluation will determine progress being made towards the achievement of outcomes and will identify course correction if needed. It will focus on the effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness of project implementation; will highlight issues requiring decisions and actions; and will present initial lessons learned about project design, implementation and management. Findings of this review will be incorporated as recommendations for enhanced implementation during the final half of the project’s term. The organization, terms of reference and timing of the mid-term evaluation will be decided after consultation between the parties to the project document. The Terms of Reference for this Mid-

05/08/23199

term evaluation will be prepared by the UNDP CO based on guidance from the Regional Coordinating Unit and UNDP-GEF.

(ii) Final Evaluation

An independent Final Evaluation will take place three months prior to the terminal tripartite review meeting, and will focus on the same issues as the mid-term evaluation. The final evaluation will also look at impact and sustainability of results, including the contribution to capacity development and the achievement of global environmental goals. The Final Evaluation should also provide recommendations for follow-up activities. The Terms of Reference for this evaluation will be prepared by the UNDP CO based on guidance from the Regional Coordinating Unit and UNDP-GEF.

Audit Clause

The Government will provide the Resident Representative with certified periodic financial statements, and with an annual audit of the financial statements relating to the status of UNDP (including GEF) funds according to the established procedures set out in the Programming and Finance manuals. The Audit will be conducted by the legally recognized auditor of the Government, or by a commercial auditor engaged by the Government.

3. LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE SHARING

Results from the project will be disseminated within and beyond the project intervention zone through a number of existing information sharing networks and forums. In addition:

The project will participate, as relevant and appropriate, in UNDP/GEF sponsored networks, organized for Senior Personnel working on projects that share common characteristics. UNDP/GEF shall establish a number of networks, such as Integrated Ecosystem Management, eco-tourism, co-management, etc, that will largely function on the basis of an electronic platform.

The project will identify and participate, as relevant and appropriate, in scientific, policy-based and/or any other networks, which may be of benefit to project implementation though lessons learned.

The project will identify, analyze, and share lessons learned that might be beneficial in the design and implementation of similar future projects. Identify and analyzing lessons learned is an on- going process, and the need to communicate such lessons as one of the project's central contributions is a requirement to be delivered not less frequently than once every 12 months. UNDP/GEF shall provide a format and assist the project team in categorizing, documenting and reporting on lessons learned. To this end a percentage of project resources will need to be allocated for these activities.

05/08/23200

TABLE G-1 : INDICATIVE MONITORING AND EVALUATION WORK PLAN AND CORRESPONDING BUDGET

Type of M&E activity Responsible Parties Budget US$Excluding project team

Staff time

Time frame

Inception Workshop Project Coordinator UNDP CO UNDP GEF

Within first two months of project start up

Inception Report Project Team UNDP CO None Immediately

following IWMeasurement of Means of Verification for Project Purpose Indicators

Project Coordinator will oversee the hiring of specific studies and institutions, and delegate responsibilities to relevant team members

To be finalized in Inception Phase and Workshop. Indicative cost XXXX

Start, mid and end of project

Measurement of Means of Verification for Project Progress and Performance ( measured on an annual basis )

Oversight by Project GEF Technical Advisor and Project Coordinator

Measurements by regional field officers and local IAs

To be determined as part of the Annual Work Plan's preparation. Indicative cost xxxx

Annually prior to APR/PIR and to the definition of annual work plans

APR and PIR Project Team UNDP-CO UNDP-GEF

None Annually

TPR and TPR report Government Counterparts UNDP CO Project team UNDP-GEF Regional

Coordinating Unit

None Every year, upon receipt of APR

Steering Committee Meetings

Project Coordinator UNDP CO

None Following Project IW and subsequently at least once a year

Periodic status reports Project team 5,000 To be determined by Project team and UNDP CO

Technical reports Project team Hired consultants as needed

15,000 To be determined by Project Team and UNDP-CO

Mid-term External Evaluation

Project team UNDP- CO UNDP-GEF Regional

Coordinating Unit External Consultants (i.e.

evaluation team)

20,000 At the mid-point of project implementation.

Final External Evaluation

Project team, UNDP-CO UNDP-GEF Regional

Coordinating Unit External Consultants (i.e.

evaluation team)

30,000 At the end of project implementation

Terminal Report Project team UNDP-CO External Consultant

NoneAt least one month before the end of the project

Lessons learned Project team UNDP-GEF Regional

15,000 (average 3,000 per year)

Yearly

05/08/23201

Coordinating Unit (suggested formats for documenting best practices, etc)

Audit UNDP-CO Project team

4,000 (average $1000 per year)

Yearly

Visits to field sites (UNDP staff travel costs to be charged to IA fees)

UNDP Country Office UNDP-GEF Regional

Coordinating Unit (as appropriate)

Government representatives

15,000 (average one visit per year)

Yearly

TOTAL INDICATIVE COST Excluding project team staff time and UNDP staff and travel expenses

US$ 250,00036

Annex G-2: IMPACT MEASUREMENT TEMPLATE (These indicators will be drawn from the Logframe Matrix and are related to the measurement of global benefits achieved by the project rather than project implementation progress. They will to be fine tuned and detailed in the Inception Workshop). The table below is an example.

Key ImpactIndicator

Target(Year 4)

Means of Verification

Sampling

frequency

Location

Km2 of stable xxx forest cover

xxxx forest cover in 86,289 km 2 has not decreased since project start

Satellite imagery

Start, mid,end All PAs

% decrease of energy derived from unmanaged forest

The percentage of the energy derived from unmanaged Caatinga forest in areas covering 86,289 km2 of the biome has been reduced 25%

Survey of forest product consumption

Start, mid,end All PAs

xx Hectares of xxx forest under sustainable wood production

3,143 km2 of xxxx forest are under sustainable wood production

register of sustainable production plans

Start, mid,end xxxxx

Number hectares under protection

An additional 7,000 hectares of xxx have been placed under protection in Private Reserves and Biological Reserves

reports Annually xxxxxx

Populations of Indicator species

Populations of fauna indicator species in corridors remain stable or have increased. These species will be selected during the inception phase

Fauna inventories

Start, mid,end xxxxx

Carbon sequestration

Tons of carbon sequestered per hectare in xxx hectares of project zone

Ground sampling

Start, mid,end

Target zone

36

05/08/23202

Key ImpactIndicator

Target(Year 4)

Means of Verification

Sampling

frequency

Location

and satellite imagery

Soil erosion on xxx hectares

Tons of reduction in sedimentation of key waterways; hectares of land restored

Ground sampling; reports

Start, mid,end

Target zone

05/08/23203