- Evaluation Plan:
- 2021-2025, Uganda
- Evaluation Type:
- Mid Term Project
- Planned End Date:
- 08/2021
- Completion Date:
- 12/2021
- Status:
- Completed
- Management Response:
- No
- Evaluation Budget(US $):
- 50,000
Mid-Term Evaluation of Building Resilient Communities in Uganda Project
Share
Document | Type | Language | Size | Status | Downloads |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
tor | English | 216.31 KB | Posted | 460 |
![]() |
tor | English | 210.55 KB | Posted | 459 |
![]() |
summary | English | 26.03 KB | Posted | 432 |
![]() |
report | English | 3604.18 KB | Posted | 441 |
Title | Mid-Term Evaluation of Building Resilient Communities in Uganda Project | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Atlas Project Number: | 00104372 | ||||||||
Evaluation Plan: | 2021-2025, Uganda | ||||||||
Evaluation Type: | Mid Term Project | ||||||||
Status: | Completed | ||||||||
Completion Date: | 12/2021 | ||||||||
Planned End Date: | 08/2021 | ||||||||
Management Response: | Yes | ||||||||
Focus Area: |
|
||||||||
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021) |
|
||||||||
SDG Goal |
|
||||||||
SDG Target |
|
||||||||
Evaluation Budget(US $): | 50,000 | ||||||||
Source of Funding: | GCF | ||||||||
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): | 50,000 | ||||||||
Joint Programme: | No | ||||||||
Joint Evaluation: | No | ||||||||
Evaluation Team members: |
|
||||||||
GEF Evaluation: | No | ||||||||
Key Stakeholders: | Ministry of Water and Environment, ministries, departments and agencies | ||||||||
Countries: | UGANDA |
Lessons | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Findings | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1. | 1.1.IE Ratings & Achievement Summary Table
[1] Introduced by the IE team based on the GCF Impact, Outcome, and Output Indicators in the PRF. [2] Government of Uganda 2016. Uganda Wetlands Atlas. Volume 2. Popular Version; OAG 2018. A Value For Money Audit Report on the Management of Wetlands in Uganda by the Wetlands Management Department (WMD) under the Ministry of Water and Environment (MWE) [3] The IE team could not obtain estimates of wetlands area in the project regions in 2020: MWE has not provided any data for the IE mission in a response to UNDP request. |
Recommendations | ||
---|---|---|
1 | Evaluation Recommendation 1: The IE Team recommend making recommended edits to the project indicators and targets in the PRF in accordance with updated project ToC (Annex 2), if GCF approves the changes. Additionally, it is recommended to develop a set of indicators for each project Activity (2-4 indicators for each Activity) and define their end of the project values consistent with updated project Outputs values. In this way the PMU will have clear understanding how each project Activity contributes to the project Outputs. |
|
2 | Evaluation Recommendation 2.1: The PMU and UNDP should submit a request to the GCF for the project extension for 2 additional years (until 2027) without increasing the project budget due to COVID-19 pandemic and restrictions, and dramatic flooding in 2020-2021. |
|
3 | Evaluation Recommendation 2.2: The PMU, MWE, MAAIF, and UNMA should update the multi-year project plan until 2025 (or until 2027 if the project extension is granted) and downscale it to the project districts, which will strengthen achievement of coordinated project implementation by the districts sharing same wetlands. |
|
4 | Evaluation Recommendation 2.3: By 20th September 2021 and each following year UNDP CO should provide clear requirements/checklist to the PMU, MWE, MAAIF, and UNMA on annual planning and reporting based on analysis of previous issues in the APRs and AWPs.: |
|
5 | Evaluation Recommendation 2.4: By October 30 2021 and each following year the PMU should produce an AWP for next year based on UNDP CO requirements. Each AWP should be downscaled to the district level similar to the multi-year project plan, so that each district will have a plan for delivery of the project Activities and clear annual budget for the project implementation |
|
6 | Evaluation recommendation 2.5: By November 15 2021 and each following year the PMU and UNDP CO should have a technical in-person meeting (3-4 days) with all necessary staff present to review and if necessary correct the AWP and complete clearance process of AWP by UNDP CO, before the AWP is submitted to PSC for approval. By November 30 2021 and each following year the PMU should organize a PSC meeting and approve AWP cleared by UNDP CO. By December 5 2021 and each following year UNDP CO should submit the AWP to UNDP GSSU for review and clearance with expectation to receive funds form GSSU by January 15 2020 and each following year. By February 1 2022 and each following year UNDP CO should provide the funds to MWE, MAAIF, and UNMA or directly to the project partners for implementation of the Activities. |
|
7 | Evaluation Recommendation 2.6: To fast-track delivery of the project activities in 2021-2025 (or 2027 if the extension is approved) the PMU should fully involve working potential of NGOs and LDGs. |
|
8 |
|
|
9 | Recommendation 2.8. During delivery of the project Outputs the RPs – MWE, MAAIF, and UNMA should work as one team to ensure that wetland restoration and climate-smart livelihood activities are implemented simultaneously, and communities do not wait for a long time for alternative livelihood options after they have vacated the wetlands |
|
10 | Recommendation 2.9. For delivery of the Outcome 2 the IE team suggests a specific set of the following recommendations: prioritize quality over quantity of provided livelihood options to make sure they are sufficient, sustainable, and accompanied with enough capacity building; exercise a due diligence to select credible local private sector entities in the districts to supply inputs such as seeds, feeds, pesticides, fertilizers, beehives; multiply a few successful livelihood options and avoid unsuccessful ones; pay more attention for development of alternative livelihood options in Eastern Uganda where the main income of local communities is generated from rice farming in wetland; explore and use potential of existing vocational training centers in Uganda instead of establishment of new job training centers; develop partnerships with FAO, IUCN, World Vision and other organizations to fast track delivery of sustainable livelihood options to local communities. |
|
11 | Recommendation 3.1. Similarly to the project planning, project annual and quarterly reporting should be more detailed with explanation of what was achieved in each of the project districts and detailed description of the project expenses against each activity[1].
|
|
12 | Recommendation 3.2. To effectively fast-track the project implementation it is recommended that PMU employees seconded from the GoU should work full time for the project in 2021-2025 (or 2027) and should be freed from other responsibilities at their agencies. If this is not possible, consider hiring additional staff to the PMU to coordinate and ensure delivery of Outputs 1-3 on full time basis. |