- Evaluation Plan:
- 2022-2026, Barbados
- Evaluation Type:
- Mid Term Project
- Planned End Date:
- 01/2022
- Completion Date:
- 03/2022
- Status:
- Completed
- Management Response:
- No
- Evaluation Budget(US $):
- 20,000
Climate Resilient Agriculture for Integrated Landscape Management
| Document | Type | Language | Size | Status | Downloads |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 IC_RLA ToR for ExpRes- CRA Grenada.pdf |
tor | English | 337.96 KB | Posted | 49 |
| Final Report CRA project - March 2022.pdf |
report | English | 3202.26 KB | Posted | 50 |
| Title | Climate Resilient Agriculture for Integrated Landscape Management | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atlas Project Number: | 00097452 | ||||||||||||||
| Evaluation Plan: | 2022-2026, Barbados | ||||||||||||||
| Evaluation Type: | Mid Term Project | ||||||||||||||
| Status: | Completed | ||||||||||||||
| Completion Date: | 03/2022 | ||||||||||||||
| Planned End Date: | 01/2022 | ||||||||||||||
| Management Response: | Yes | ||||||||||||||
| UNDP Signature Solution: |
|
||||||||||||||
| Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2022-2025) |
|
||||||||||||||
| SDG Target |
|
||||||||||||||
| Evaluation Budget(US $): | 20,000 | ||||||||||||||
| Source of Funding: | UNDP project budget | ||||||||||||||
| Evaluation Expenditure(US $): | 26,000 | ||||||||||||||
| Joint Programme: | No | ||||||||||||||
| Joint Evaluation: | No | ||||||||||||||
| Evaluation Team members: |
|
||||||||||||||
| GEF Evaluation: | Yes
|
||||||||||||||
| Key Stakeholders: | Ministries of Climate; Physical Planning; Communication; Works; Social Development; Housing and Community Development; Gender Affairs; Economic Planning; Emergency Management agencies; Health and Well-being; Sustainable Development; Tourism; Energy | ||||||||||||||
| Countries: | BARBADOS |
| Lessons | |
|---|---|
| Findings |
| Recommendations | |
|---|---|
| 1 | Review the log frame and simplify several outputs including at least deleting certification related activities. |
| 2 | Push for quick-win SLM/CSA techniques or long-term land improvement with a high return on investments within a conventional farming system. |
| 3 | Consider watershed management interventions decentralisation with the support of on-site non-State actors for both watershed management plan formulation and (future) implementation |
| 4 | Make PMU more effective with either team removal or CTA additional support |
| 5 | Prioritise the finalisation of agreement with complementary interventions (please refer to the MTR description of this recommendation) |
| 6 | Consider NGO/non-State actors for CSA/SLM demonstration sites and farmers’ follow-up (adoption)- refer to stakeholder engagement plan. |
| 7 | Create a project Technical Committee to facilitate project’s activities’ operationalisation and ensuring project’s outputs quality control |
| 8 | Review and amend the stakeholder’s engagement plan following up Government’s institutional changes |
| 9 | Enlarge PSC membership (observatory role) with non-State actors to boost local ownership |
| 10 | Reassess the role of civil society with a view to more project inclusion (PSC, Technical Committee, activity delivery) |
| 11 | Make use of existing Ministry of Agriculture’s expertise with closer collaboration with division for specific activities (e.g., on bamboo control and Forestry Division) |
| 12 | Support the (re-)designing of an SLM database with GIS information with a stronger alignment with the Physical Planning Unit |
| 13 | Reconvene within 6 months an extraordinary PSC session to assess progress made on A, B, C recommendations and decide whether to close or not the project |