Evaluation of Landmine and Ordnance Clearance in Cyprus Phase V

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2008-2012, Cyprus
Evaluation Type:
Outcome
Planned End Date:
10/2011
Completion Date:
11/2011
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
20,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document Cyprus Demining Phase V Final Evaluation 2011-11-23.doc report English 1751.00 KB Posted 1701
Title Evaluation of Landmine and Ordnance Clearance in Cyprus Phase V
Atlas Project Number:
Evaluation Plan: 2008-2012, Cyprus
Evaluation Type: Outcome
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 11/2011
Planned End Date: 10/2011
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Environment & Sustainable Development
  • 2. Cross-cutting Development Issue
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021)
  • 1. UNDP country programmes are clearly and explicitly linked with and in support of national development plans and priorities
  • 2. Clear the Buffer Zone from all Landmines and UXOs
Evaluation Budget(US $): 20,000
Source of Funding:
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Nationality
Roderick Ackerman, Robert Keeley Team Leader
GEF Evaluation: No
Key Stakeholders:
Countries: CYPRUS
Comments: The outcome evaluation of the clearance of buffer project was rescheduled for October 2011 due funding issues and later decision to carry the exercise at the closing of the project.
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1 There is a continuing need for mine action in Cyprus in support of the goal of a mine free Cyprus, as enunciated in the project?s ProDoc as its ?expected outcome,? and then re-emphasised in the latest Security Council Resolution (Resolution 1986 (2011)). Work should be undertaken to design and implement a new mine action program as soon as possible to make best advantage of the favourable momentum build up by the project.
2 The planned UNMAS support to short and medium solutions for emergency requirements and immediate technical advice is supported by the evaluation team and should be encouraged and facilitated.
3 The potential for support to possible CMP requirements in the future using the UNMAS quick reaction capacity should be investigated. If this is not available, then a standby contract should be considered, to cover such tasks, including support to UNFICYP civil affairs needs.
4 A project scoping exercise should be done to establish the approximate size of the remaining problem. This should be regarded as an iterative process that can ? and should- be continually refined as more data becomes available. The possible need for dedicated MRE and EOD requirements should be quantified at this stage.
5 A consultative process amongst a wide group of stakeholders , including representatives from both communities, should be undertaken to investigate possible project modalities for future work, understanding local complexities but with the intent to become more inclusive and also as a means of actively promoting confidence building.
6 A simpler institutional framework should be identified and the responsibilities, particularly in terms of monitoring and reporting, more clearly identified.
7 More attention should be taken on drafting of the ProDoc and logframe/resources and results framework for the new project. It should make sure they reflect the intended outcomes of the project and include more objectively verifiable indicators for confidence building and other development outcomes.
8 The new project design should include a comprehensive risk analysis.
9 The new project should ensure that the ProDoc and results frameworks are reviewed and updated as different phases of the project occur.
10 There should be quarterly and annual reporting on the project as a whole; if the reports are comprehensive enough there should be no need to issue separate reports for different donors. These should be supported by periodic and robust project evaluation.
11 There should be improved dissemination of the positive impacts of the project, with closer engagement of civil society and local media.
1. Recommendation: There is a continuing need for mine action in Cyprus in support of the goal of a mine free Cyprus, as enunciated in the project?s ProDoc as its ?expected outcome,? and then re-emphasised in the latest Security Council Resolution (Resolution 1986 (2011)). Work should be undertaken to design and implement a new mine action program as soon as possible to make best advantage of the favourable momentum build up by the project.
Management Response: [Added: 2012/09/27]

The recommendation is noted however, the decision not to continue with mine clearance strictly depends upon the donor and the two Cypriot representatives. RBEC is ready to further this collaboration once the two sides agree to resume mine clearance in the island.

Key Actions:

2. Recommendation: The planned UNMAS support to short and medium solutions for emergency requirements and immediate technical advice is supported by the evaluation team and should be encouraged and facilitated.
Management Response: [Added: 2012/09/27]

These recommendations will be taken into account in the event that the project continues. For the moment, the project has ended.

Key Actions:

3. Recommendation: The potential for support to possible CMP requirements in the future using the UNMAS quick reaction capacity should be investigated. If this is not available, then a standby contract should be considered, to cover such tasks, including support to UNFICYP civil affairs needs.
Management Response: [Added: 2012/09/27]

Since the UNMASS is no longer operational, it is not possible to ascertain this possibility at the moment but it will be taken into consideration in future phases.

Key Actions:

4. Recommendation: A project scoping exercise should be done to establish the approximate size of the remaining problem. This should be regarded as an iterative process that can ? and should- be continually refined as more data becomes available. The possible need for dedicated MRE and EOD requirements should be quantified at this stage.
Management Response: [Added: 2012/09/27]

The recommendation is valid and will be fully implemented in the event that there is a new phase of the project aiming at resuming mine clearance activities.

Key Actions:

5. Recommendation: A consultative process amongst a wide group of stakeholders , including representatives from both communities, should be undertaken to investigate possible project modalities for future work, understanding local complexities but with the intent to become more inclusive and also as a means of actively promoting confidence building.
Management Response: [Added: 2012/09/27]

We have had regular consultations with all stakeholders including the two sides as well as the donors. However, we take good note of the recommendations for the future.

Key Actions:

6. Recommendation: A simpler institutional framework should be identified and the responsibilities, particularly in terms of monitoring and reporting, more clearly identified.
Management Response: [Added: 2012/09/27]

This concern has been addressed and steps were taken prior to project closure to streamline responsibilities to avoid fragmentation.

Key Actions:

7. Recommendation: More attention should be taken on drafting of the ProDoc and logframe/resources and results framework for the new project. It should make sure they reflect the intended outcomes of the project and include more objectively verifiable indicators for confidence building and other development outcomes.
Management Response: [Added: 2012/09/27]

Since the project is funded by the European Union, the EU prodoc format was adopted as expected by the EU. However for compliance with UNDP?s guidelines, we will in the future include the logframe and results framework in new projects.

Key Actions:

8. Recommendation: The new project design should include a comprehensive risk analysis.
Management Response: [Added: 2012/09/27]

Recommendation is noted and accepted.

Key Actions:

9. Recommendation: The new project should ensure that the ProDoc and results frameworks are reviewed and updated as different phases of the project occur.
Management Response: [Added: 2012/09/27]

Recommendation is noted and accepted.

Key Actions:

10. Recommendation: There should be quarterly and annual reporting on the project as a whole; if the reports are comprehensive enough there should be no need to issue separate reports for different donors. These should be supported by periodic and robust project evaluation.
Management Response: [Added: 2012/09/27]

The annual reports are established based on a signed agreement with the donor. Additionally, monthly progress reports were produced systematically. The project was not evaluated in the previous phases due to budget constraints but it was negotiated with the donor for the last phase. We will ensure that all future projects do have an evaluation component.

Key Actions:

11. Recommendation: There should be improved dissemination of the positive impacts of the project, with closer engagement of civil society and local media.
Management Response: [Added: 2012/09/27]

Prior to the evaluation, visibility events were organized involving the media as well as civil society. A brochure and a video featuring the work that has been done were broadcasted.

Key Actions:

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