Disaster Mangement - Da Nang+Binh Dinh

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2006-2011, Viet Nam
Evaluation Type:
Project
Planned End Date:
09/2006
Completion Date:
06/2006
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
28,000

Share

Title Disaster Mangement - Da Nang+Binh Dinh
Atlas Project Number:
Evaluation Plan: 2006-2011, Viet Nam
Evaluation Type: Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 06/2006
Planned End Date: 09/2006
Management Response: Yes
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021)
Evaluation Budget(US $): 28,000
Source of Funding:
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Nationality
William Bourne, Bui Viet Hien and Bach Tan Sinh Team Leader
GEF Evaluation: No
Key Stakeholders:
Countries: VIET NAM
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1 1. Project preparation and design - Project document should be clearer with clearer Log frame, better description of the capacity building component and inclusion of TOR for the Project Management Boards, NGOs and implementation arrangements. - M&E specialist should be recruited to assist in project design
2 2. Project relevance - Identification of beneficiary groups, their intended involvement and how they would benefit should be clearly stated in the ProDoc. - Log frame should be updated to allow flexibility in project implementation - More focus on learning about how to build involvement of local institutions into a coordinated DRM approach at Provincial level and document and share experiences. - The Logical Framework Approach should be used to design projects to ensure that cross cutting issues are clearly incorporated into project design and appropriate indicators for monitoring purposes identified. - Specific pro-poor strategies should be elaborated in project design.
3 3. Project efficiency - The project was too ambitious in the timeframe. 2 years is sufficient for infra-structures but too short for capacity building - Insufficient budget allocation for capacity building to achieve outputs expected in the TOR. - Targeting should be better to not exclude equally vulnerable people outside the project areas - There should be clear delineation of and adherence to roles and functions of different parties involved in project management (i.e. donors vs UNDP)
4 4. Project effectiveness - More should be done to ensure that all Safer Community Plans (SCS) identified priority infra-structure projects and non-structural aspects are combined with every commune level annual plan - Very few farming models under the livelihoods for risk reduction activities will be sustained by those cooperating, and without reflow schemes in place or additional inputs for farmers, little adoption by new farmers will be achieved - Although institutional development has been relatively effective at ward and commune levels, there has been little progress in institutionalisation of the DRM planning and coordination processes at district and provincial levels - The project pilots should be documented in order to share knowledge gained.
5 5. Project Impact, Sustainability and Reliability - It is premature to expect this Evaluation to pronounce on impact although in its opinion, the ingredients for eventual impact are present. - Donor decision not to extend project will affect the degree of project impact and sustainability - Although mechanisms for sustainability are in place, without an institutional framework in which to embed the CBDRM process, the benefits of the piloting are likely to come and go with the project. - Until there is a change in heart in Community-based disaster risk reduction (CBDRM), finding funding from Government sources will be hard. Although the project achieved miracles with a small budget, the full CBDRM programme is still too expensive for Government to replicate elsewhere, unless other donors chip in. - For reasons of sustainability, the focus of the pilot should have been "institutional" - It is recommended that CECI's contract is extended for a period of 3 to 4 months, together wi
6 6. Findings and Recommendations for the NDM-P - The NDM-P should have more serious project co-ordination role in Central Vietnam and should be resourced and equipped to do so. The projects have also not contributed to progress in policy dialogue at the national level. Subsequently there is not much to build on in this regard from the implementation of the projects. - The NDM-P should have honed or sharpened its perceived role in networking, information sharing and donor co-ordination for DRM - It is recommended that the NDM-P undertake preliminary studies to assess the feasibility of supporting the GoVN in the establishment and operationalisation of a Central Regional NDM-P office in Da Nang with well defined functions
7 7. Contribution to the UNDP's DRR Programme 2001- 05 and Recommendations for 2006-2010 Programme - The two projects made only a slight or partial contribution to the 4 key outputs determined in the UNDP 2001-2005 DRR programme - The UNDP Programme 2006-2010 has already recognized the need for stronger commitment to develop a viable institutional framework for DM, address institutional gaps and improve the coordination of relevant DM agencies
1. Recommendation: 1. Project preparation and design - Project document should be clearer with clearer Log frame, better description of the capacity building component and inclusion of TOR for the Project Management Boards, NGOs and implementation arrangements. - M&E specialist should be recruited to assist in project design
Management Response: [Added: 2006/12/18]

Fully agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Improve in future project designs i.e. 2006-2010 programme cycle
[Added: 2006/12/18] [Last Updated: 2010/01/21]
Sustainable Development Cluster & Concerned Government agencies and provincial authorities 2010/01 Completed
2. Recommendation: 2. Project relevance - Identification of beneficiary groups, their intended involvement and how they would benefit should be clearly stated in the ProDoc. - Log frame should be updated to allow flexibility in project implementation - More focus on learning about how to build involvement of local institutions into a coordinated DRM approach at Provincial level and document and share experiences. - The Logical Framework Approach should be used to design projects to ensure that cross cutting issues are clearly incorporated into project design and appropriate indicators for monitoring purposes identified. - Specific pro-poor strategies should be elaborated in project design.
Management Response: [Added: 2006/12/18]

Fully agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Improve in future project designs i.e. 2006-2010 programme cycle
[Added: 2006/12/18] [Last Updated: 2010/01/21]
Sustainable Development Cluster & Concerned Government agencies and provincial authorities 2010/01 Completed
3. Recommendation: 3. Project efficiency - The project was too ambitious in the timeframe. 2 years is sufficient for infra-structures but too short for capacity building - Insufficient budget allocation for capacity building to achieve outputs expected in the TOR. - Targeting should be better to not exclude equally vulnerable people outside the project areas - There should be clear delineation of and adherence to roles and functions of different parties involved in project management (i.e. donors vs UNDP)
Management Response: [Added: 2006/12/18]

Fully agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Improve in future project designs and donor relations
[Added: 2006/12/18] [Last Updated: 2010/01/21]
Sustainable Development Cluster & Concerned Government agencies and provincial authorities 2010/01 Completed
4. Recommendation: 4. Project effectiveness - More should be done to ensure that all Safer Community Plans (SCS) identified priority infra-structure projects and non-structural aspects are combined with every commune level annual plan - Very few farming models under the livelihoods for risk reduction activities will be sustained by those cooperating, and without reflow schemes in place or additional inputs for farmers, little adoption by new farmers will be achieved - Although institutional development has been relatively effective at ward and commune levels, there has been little progress in institutionalisation of the DRM planning and coordination processes at district and provincial levels - The project pilots should be documented in order to share knowledge gained.
Management Response: [Added: 2006/12/18]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Improve in future project designs and implementation. A workshop on the two pilot projects will be organized under the NDM-P framework to share and document the experiences
[Added: 2006/12/18] [Last Updated: 2010/01/21]
Sustainable Development Cluster; Concerned Government agencies and provincial authorities; NDM-P Secretariat 2010/01 Completed
5. Recommendation: 5. Project Impact, Sustainability and Reliability - It is premature to expect this Evaluation to pronounce on impact although in its opinion, the ingredients for eventual impact are present. - Donor decision not to extend project will affect the degree of project impact and sustainability - Although mechanisms for sustainability are in place, without an institutional framework in which to embed the CBDRM process, the benefits of the piloting are likely to come and go with the project. - Until there is a change in heart in Community-based disaster risk reduction (CBDRM), finding funding from Government sources will be hard. Although the project achieved miracles with a small budget, the full CBDRM programme is still too expensive for Government to replicate elsewhere, unless other donors chip in. - For reasons of sustainability, the focus of the pilot should have been "institutional" - It is recommended that CECI's contract is extended for a period of 3 to 4 months, together wi
Management Response: [Added: 2006/12/18]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Agree with CECI on extended timeframe to complete activities as recommended. A joint review of CBDRM approaches/practices has been planned under a new project in the UNDP DRR programme 2006-2010 together with NDM-P and other agencies actively working in CBDRM
[Added: 2006/12/18] [Last Updated: 2010/01/21]
Sustainable Development Cluster; Concerned Government agencies and provincial authorities; NDM-P partners; NGOs- members of the Disaster Management Working Group (DMWG) 2010/01 Completed
6. Recommendation: 6. Findings and Recommendations for the NDM-P - The NDM-P should have more serious project co-ordination role in Central Vietnam and should be resourced and equipped to do so. The projects have also not contributed to progress in policy dialogue at the national level. Subsequently there is not much to build on in this regard from the implementation of the projects. - The NDM-P should have honed or sharpened its perceived role in networking, information sharing and donor co-ordination for DRM - It is recommended that the NDM-P undertake preliminary studies to assess the feasibility of supporting the GoVN in the establishment and operationalisation of a Central Regional NDM-P office in Da Nang with well defined functions
Management Response: [Added: 2006/12/18]

Agree. However, the establishment of an NDM-P office in Da Nang is still under discussion/consideration by Gov and Donors given the nation-wide focus of the Partnership during this phase

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Incorporate lessons learned and recommendations into NDM-P Action Plan 2006-08
[Added: 2006/12/18]
NDM-P, MARD 2006/12 Completed
7. Recommendation: 7. Contribution to the UNDP's DRR Programme 2001- 05 and Recommendations for 2006-2010 Programme - The two projects made only a slight or partial contribution to the 4 key outputs determined in the UNDP 2001-2005 DRR programme - The UNDP Programme 2006-2010 has already recognized the need for stronger commitment to develop a viable institutional framework for DM, address institutional gaps and improve the coordination of relevant DM agencies
Management Response: [Added: 2006/12/18]

Not fully agree with the assessments on the projects' contribution to UNDP outcome on DRR in 2001-05. This may result from lack of time due to main focus of the evaluation on the projects.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Final comment is already taken into consideration during the formulation of the 2006-10 DRR programme/projects
[Added: 2006/12/18] [Last Updated: 2010/01/21]
NDM-P, MARD 2010/01 Completed

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