Fact-sheet 26 - Serbia - 6526-00/2011
9.1.6
… ʺenhance the environmental awareness of the populationʺ
9.1.7
… ʺdevelop sustainable tourism conceptsʺ
Out of the 17 projects, tourism‐related project represent the largest share (6 projects) for which 3 reports were available. The goals and approaches vary (from
cylcing routes, festivals, capacity building). Therefore it is difficult to assess an overall impact. What becomes clear, however, is that the projects have had to
build up basic infrastrucure and prerequisites for sustainable management in terms of capacity building, cooperation between different actors, monitoring
systems etc. Therefore it is not yet possible to assess the impact, however it illustrates that these were some very much needed first steps for developing and
implementing sustainable tourism concepts.
There are various other initiatives regarding sustainable tourism concepts, including from Component 2 of the intervention which developed a sustainable
tourism marketing plan and territorial marketing strategy. It is not possible to assess the relative impact of the different initiatives based on the available
D108documents.
4 (x)
9.1.8
… ʺdevelop sustainable tourism management conceptsʺ
9.1.9
… ʺrisks and potentialsʺ
9.2
Sustainable chemicals and waste management
Assessme‐nt
1‐7[1]
Sources
9.3
Climate protection
Assessme‐nt
1‐7[1]
Sources
9.4
Water and sanitation
Assessme‐nt
1‐7[1]
Sources
10.
Assessment of the impact on the beneficiaries and the
institutions
Sources
10.1
How, and to what extent, did the intervention (positively and
negatively) plausibly contribute to change the beneficiariesʹ lives?
(x), own assessment
10.2
How, and to what extent, did the intervention contribute to the
beneficiaries’ change in attitude and behaviour?
10.3
What were the contributions of the beneficiaries to the main
observed changes?
x
10.4
How, and to what extent, did the intervention (positively and
negatively) plausibly contribute to changes in the institutions
involved?
Interviews
11.
Sustainability
Sources
11.1
To what extent did the benefits of the intervention continue after
the funding had ceased?
Interviews, own
assessment
11.2
What were the major factors which influenced the achievement
or non‐achievement of sustainability of the intervention?
Interviews, own
assessment
12.
Counterfactual question
Sources
12.1
What would the situation be like if there had been no
intervention?
13.
General assessment of the intervention
Sources
Explanation
Explanation
Through the successful implementation of the 17 projects funded by the grant scheme the intervention contributed to the creation of new employment, new
environment‐related businesses (e.g. biomass logistic and trade, beekeeping) new infrastructure (e.g. cycling paths), new concepts of sustainable tourism (e.g.
installation of new tourism infrastructure). While there is no overall assessment (yet) available of the impact on the beneficiaries, it is evident that there have
been many positive changes. Negative changes are not documented.
Cannot be assessed based on the documents available.
Explanation
Explanation
The projects funded under the grant scheme would not have taken place and therefore the impacts at local/regional level (in tourism, local employment,
climate change mitigation, irrigation etc.) would not have been achieved.
The implementation of the projects as well as the training provided by the intervention increased the capacity to implement projects for the socio‐economic
development in the Danube regions.
The implementing agencies (NGOs, governmental institutions) implemented the projects.
Explanation
While the projects funded have been implemented successfully, it is highly questionable whether the benefits continue after the funding ceases, as the local
structures, especially the governmental institutions involved, are still very weak.
There is currently no second funding scheme planned as the EUD and ADA have not committed any funds for a continuation of the component despite the
efforts by the project to secure funding for a second phase. There seems to be a lack of awareness for the need of continued assistance for a consilidation of the
structures created.
Explanation
Explanation
Page 7
Fact-sheet 26 - Serbia - 6526-00/2011
13.1
What is the evaluatorsʹ general assessment of the intervention?
14.
Lessons learnt
Sources
14.1
What are the three most important “lessons learnt” from this
intervention for the environmental sector in general
1) and 2) interviews,
3) own assessment
[1] assessment 1=no impact, 2=very weak impact, 3=weak impact, 4=moderate impact, 5=strong impact, 6=very strong impact, 7=extremely strong impact. 0=not relevant.
1) NGOs are better equipped to implement projects than local governmental institutions. The latter need more capacity building.
2) Financial requirements (co‐financing) are often difficult for implementing organisations to comply with. Having the declaration by co‐funders that they will
support them does not always translate into actual payments.
3) Failure to provide a longer term success can put in question positive impacts achieved. Local structures established need a longer perspective to be
consolidated.
Explanation
It seems to be a very good intervention which has a broader and more strategic approach as it is taking a regional approach, but implementing concrete local
measures. The project team also seems to have a good sense of what is needed in terms of capacity building before the application writing, accompaniment
and monitoring during implementation, designing the financial procedures so that small organisations can comply and implement the project as well as the
need for more capacity building. However, there are two negative aspects to be noted:
1) The project successes are put in question by the lack of continuation of the grant scheme by ADA and the EU.
2) The project did not undergo an Environmental Impacts Assessment (EIA) through ADA which might be due to the specific role for ADA as an
implementing entity.
Page 8
Dostları ilə paylaş: |