Project Climate Twin Phoenix - Resilience and Preparedness toward Inclusive Development (PCTP-RAPID) Project Terminal Evaluation

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2019-2023, Philippines
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
07/2019
Completion Date:
08/2019
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
No
Evaluation Budget(US $):
35,653

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document PCTP RAPID TE_TOR.pdf tor English 6798.42 KB Posted 26
Download document Final PCTP RAPID TE Report.pdf report English 1254.90 KB Posted 80
Title Project Climate Twin Phoenix - Resilience and Preparedness toward Inclusive Development (PCTP-RAPID) Project Terminal Evaluation
Atlas Project Number: 00065172
Evaluation Plan: 2019-2023, Philippines
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 08/2019
Planned End Date: 07/2019
Management Response: Yes
UNDP Signature Solution:
  • 1. Resilience
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021)
  • 1. Output 2.3.1 Data and risk-informed development policies, plans, systems and financing incorporate integrated and gender-responsive solutions to reduce disaster risks, enable climate change adaptation and mitigation, and prevent risk of conflict
SDG Goal
  • Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere
  • Goal 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable
SDG Target
  • 1.5 By 2030, build the resilience of the poor and those in vulnerable situations and reduce their exposure and vulnerability to climate-related extreme events and other economic, social and environmental shocks and disasters
  • 11.b By 2020, substantially increase the number of cities and human settlements adopting and implementing integrated policies and plans towards inclusion, resource efficiency, mitigation and adaptation to climate change, resilience to disasters, and develop and implement, in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, holistic disaster risk management at all levels
Evaluation Budget(US $): 35,653
Source of Funding: Project budget
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 40,051
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Johnson Mercader Evaluation Specialist kyjp1951@gmail.com
GEF Evaluation: No
Key Stakeholders: Climate Change Commission, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Australia
Countries: PHILIPPINES
Lessons
1.

Partnership and Ownership - Engaging the national agencies in program activities directly related to their mandates not only enhanced their capacities and improved their products and processes but also enhanced their ownership of the outputs/products. Similarly, engaging the LGUs in capacity building on products they have to comply with enhanced not only ownership but also the quality of their outputs that led to improved local policies, plans and regulations. Partnership with the academes in the program area enhanced their capacity and localized technical assistance for LGUs as well as individual clients.


2.

Building on existing initiatives/products - ClimEx.db started with the Exposure Database developed for Metro Manila. Using the exposure database framework, ClimEx.db improved the idea from the Metro Manila database by overlaying climate projections and capture agricultural livelihood at household level. The ClimEx.db is meant to provide LGUs a database that they can own and contribute to in terms of information and use in their planning and programming.  The development of the second version of ClimEx.db built on a similar existing system, CBMS, which was developed by the Angelo King Foundation of De La Salle University and being used by DILG, other international organizations and other countries primarily in tracking MDG and SDG performance. CBMS did not have elements related to DRRCC. The program integrated the CimEx.db and the CBMS systems resulting in a more comprehensive database with wider application. The integrated system also allows for wider functionalities and ease of use.


3.

Inclusivity at official level-While the MOAs of the program with LGUs required in particular the active participation of the PDMOs and DRRMOs, some municipal LGUs included the heads of all departments as part of the municipal TWG. This facilitated cooperation and collaboration in the activities of the program. Further, it generated awareness and deeper understanding of DRRCC by officials such as budget officers, treasurers, social development officers, health officials and others whose tasks did not directly cover DRRCC. This inclusive involvement resulted into an informed and capacitated governance.


4.

Engaging retirees- The program engaged the retired regional officers of OCD as technical experts to assist municipal LGUs in formulating the Contingency Plans and BDRRM plans which are mandatory requirements. The use of retirees ensured that the outputs were compliant with OCD requirements. They also facilitated the revitalization and reorganization of BDRRMOs to comply with the requirements of the law and related instructions. The outputs are deemed superior compared to other BDRRM plans.


5.

Getting the message clear and straight- In disseminating information, it is important that the messages are clear, comprehensive and straight forward. In DRRCC information dissemination, although most community members are aware of the dangers and reacted appropriately, some have reportedly developed negative attitude. When storm signal #2 is announced through radio and bandillos (community public voice announcements), most community members rush to the designated evacuation centers for safety. On the other hand, LGU and community leaders noted that some would disregard the announcements and remain at home saying “If we survived super typhoon Yolanda/Sendong/Pablo, we can also withstand these weaker storms”


6.

Multisectoral approach and inclusivity- In conducting IEC at community level, a multi-sectoral approach is more effective and sustainable. The formulation of CBDRRM plans, due to limited resources (training cost was LGU counterpart), the participants (about 30 in each barangay) covered are the barangay officials, barangay volunteers (BNS, BHW and Bgy Midwifes), BDRRMO officers (mostly barangay officials) and leaders of community organizations. A multi-sectoral approach engaging and involving teachers, religious leaders and others could have a wider reach in disseminating information to students and religious members. Further, as the CBDRRM formulation provided training to participants, resources should have been provided for continuing information dissemination to other members of the communities. Barangay population range from 400 to 2,000 and there are more community members who need to know and benefit from DRRCC information.


7.

Commitments of LGUs- The program operated in LGUs and communities which have fresh memories on the ravages of the three typhoons and their enthusiasm, appreciation and commitment to the program are high. In cascading nation-wide, the enhanced outputs of the program, as some LGUs have yet to experience the ravages of disasters and climate change, the commitment of LGU leaders have to be sought. In future programs/projects the commitment of participating LGUs should be covered by council resolutions which also indicate their contributions in cash or in kind.  Disaster knows no political or geographic boundaries and LGU officials are elected every three years.


8.

Convergence of DRRCC Agencies- The program provided a platform for convergence of key DRRCC agencies by engaging them in a common ground and concerns on DRRCC. Working together provided an exposure and awareness for the need to synchronize policies, plans and operations related to DRRCC given the fact that the mandates on DRRCC are fragmented across agencies. A case in point is the need to agree on climate and hazard mapping policies and acceptable modelling modalities.


Findings

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

1 UN Plaza
DC1-20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel. +1 646 781 4200
Fax. +1 646 781 4213
erc.support@undp.org