SECTION II: STRATEGIC RESULTS FRAMEWORK (SRF) AND GEF INCREMENT PART I: STRATEGIC RESULTS FRAMEWORK SRF PART Objective/ Source of Indicator Baseline End of Project target Risks and assumptions Outcome Information Objective To GEF Management Average score of the Average of the 41 METT Scorecards Risks: – strengthen the Effectiveness Tracking 41 protected areas in protected areas in the from Slow and/or incomplete sub-system of Tool (METT) scores of the the six provincial six project provinces Projects delivery of METTs. wetland protected six Provincial Projects of projects of the MSL METT increasing to a Assumptions: areas to respond the MSL Program Program is 47 score of 64 Stakeholders are properly to existing and (Annex 7) trained to fill-out and emerging threats understand METTs. Level of adoption of the Currently no At the end of the METT Scorecards to their globally Strong central-level GEF Management systematic use of the project, 20% of the and statistics significant coordination and Effectiveness Tracking METT country's wetland PAs collected and biodiversity. communication functions Tool (METT) at the will have adopted the collated by the SFA at SFA. wetland PA sub-system use of the METT as a METTs deliver added level regular monitoring tool. value to management. UNDP Capacity SFA (50%) An Increase of 25 UNDP Capacity Risks: Assessment Scorecard for MEP (55%) percentage point for Assessment Slow and/or incomplete selected agencies involved SOA (54%) each Agency, i.e., Scorecards (Annex delivery of the or impacting upon wetland Additional agencies SFA to 75%, 6) Scorecards. management (annex 6) to be added at MEP to 80%, Assumptions: Project Inception SOA to 79%, others Staff at SFA is properly (Annex 6) TBD trained to fill-out and understand the
SECTION II: STRATEGIC RESULTS FRAMEWORK (SRF) AND GEF INCREMENT PART I: STRATEGIC RESULTS FRAMEWORK SRF Objective/ Outcome Indicator Baseline End of Project target Source of Information Risks and assumptions Objective – To strengthen the sub-system of wetland protected areas to respond to existing and emerging threats to their globally significant biodiversity. GEF Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) scores of the six Provincial Projects of the MSL Program Average score of the 41 protected areas in the six provincial projects of the MSL Program is 47 (Annex 7) Average of the 41 protected areas in the six project provinces METT increasing to a score of 64 METT Scorecards from Projects Risks: Slow and/or incomplete delivery of METTs. Assumptions: Stakeholders are properly trained to fill-out and understand METTs. Strong central-level coordination and communication functions at SFA. METTs deliver added value to management. Level of adoption of the GEF Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) at the wetland PA sub-system level Currently no systematic use of the METT At the end of the project, 20% of the country's wetland PAs will have adopted the use of the METT as a regular monitoring tool. METT Scorecards and statistics collected and collated by the SFA UNDP Capacity Assessment Scorecard for selected agencies involved or impacting upon wetland management (annex 6) SFA (50%) MEP (55%) SOA (54%) Additional agencies to be added at Project Inception (Annex 6) An Increase of 25 percentage point for each Agency, i.e., SFA to 75%, MEP to 80%, SOA to 79%, others TBD UNDP Capacity Assessment Scorecards (Annex 6) Risks: Slow and/or incomplete delivery of the Scorecards. Assumptions: Staff at SFA is properly trained to fill-out and understand the PART
PIMS%25204391_MSL%2520National%2520Level%2520Project%2520PRODOC_04282013%2520for%2520resubmission_0.docx