- Evaluation Plan:
- 2017-2021, Bangladesh
- Evaluation Type:
- Final Project
- Planned End Date:
- 03/2022
- Completion Date:
- 06/2022
- Status:
- Completed
- Management Response:
- No
- Evaluation Budget(US $):
- 30,000
Final Evaluation of National Resilience Programme (NRP)
Share
Document | Type | Language | Size | Status | Downloads |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
tor | English | 604.94 KB | Posted | 73 |
![]() |
related-document | English | 3923.38 KB | Posted | 3 |
![]() |
report | English | 2068.79 KB | Posted | 1 |
Title | Final Evaluation of National Resilience Programme (NRP) | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Atlas Project Number: | 00085969 | |||||||||
Evaluation Plan: | 2017-2021, Bangladesh | |||||||||
Evaluation Type: | Final Project | |||||||||
Status: | Completed | |||||||||
Completion Date: | 06/2022 | |||||||||
Planned End Date: | 03/2022 | |||||||||
Management Response: | No | |||||||||
Focus Area: |
|
|||||||||
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021) |
|
|||||||||
SDG Goal |
|
|||||||||
SDG Target |
|
|||||||||
Evaluation Budget(US $): | 30,000 | |||||||||
Source of Funding: | Project budget | |||||||||
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): | 80,874 | |||||||||
Joint Programme: | Yes | |||||||||
Joint Evaluation: | Yes
|
|||||||||
Evaluation Team members: |
|
|||||||||
GEF Evaluation: | No | |||||||||
Key Stakeholders: | ||||||||||
Countries: | BANGLADESH |
Lessons | |
---|---|
1. | A participatory approach in programme design and implementation ensures greater buy-in by government counterparts. NRP’s inclusive design approach followed by tailoring priorities in line with specific requirements of the nodal ministries has been a major contributing factor to its success. |
2. | The NRP’s flexible approach to responding to demand-driven initiatives was a key to success and increased both ownership and buy-in among national and sub-national counterparts. |
3. | A sub-project approach is indeed to leverage existing relationships with government counterparts. However, to be successful in achieving greater value for money, this approach requires a strong coordination mechanism among the IEs. |
4. | For a complex project like NRP, it is necessary to have a narrower focus as it is not practicable to try to address all resilience issues through one technical assistance project. |
5. | Technical and capacity-building support services need to be institutionalised within existing institutions with similar mandates. One-off training activities do not contribute significantly toward transformational changes. Targeting training and capacity building to either a ‘core group’ or ‘expert group’ within nodal departments comprising people at operational levels will have greater sustainability of policy actions. |
6. | A siloed approach is not the correct way for gender mainstreaming since gender is a cross-cutting issue which needs to be addressed by everybody. Gender mainstreaming and gender budgeting should be integrated into project designs right from the inception of the interventions. |
7. | Knowledge management of the NRP needs to be strengthened to establish the relevance of the project interventions in meeting the NRP goals. |
8. | Internal monitoring of the NRP needs significant strengthening to capture the success as well as failures of the NRP and for identifying process inefficiencies. |
9. | A technical assistance project should aim to work towards more strategic projects instead of smaller interventions. Smaller interventions should always be followed up either with policy directions, up-scaling or mechanisms for replication. Technical assistance programmes take a longer time to be adopted and demonstrate impact. |
Findings | |
1. | Relevance
|
2. | Effectiveness
|
3. | Efficiency
|
4. | Impact
|
5. | Value for Money
|
6. | Sustainability
|
7. | Gender
|