Mid-term Evaluation of the Rapid Public Works Impact Emergency (RIEP) Project

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2009-2012, South Sudan
Evaluation Type:
Project
Planned End Date:
07/2009
Completion Date:
01/2009
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
50,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document Midterm Review TOR for PWPC of RIEP -Final 04Jul08.doc tor English 83.50 KB Posted 816
Download document RIEP FINAL Evaluation Report.pdf report English 2161.16 KB Posted 1005
Title Mid-term Evaluation of the Rapid Public Works Impact Emergency (RIEP) Project
Atlas Project Number:
Evaluation Plan: 2009-2012, South Sudan
Evaluation Type: Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 01/2009
Planned End Date: 07/2009
Management Response: Yes
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
Evaluation Budget(US $): 50,000
Source of Funding:
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: Yes
  • Joint with GOSS
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
challa Team Leader
GEF Evaluation: No
Key Stakeholders:
Countries: SOUTH SUDAN
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1 UNDP Sudan Key recommendations: RIEP Evaluation. Evaluation issue and Recommendation 1: Project Identification: Communities should have been involved beyond consultation to the degree of decision making as far as selection of appropriate technology and site identification is concerned.
2 Evaluation issue and Recommendation 2: Technology Choice: The state and communities should also participate in deciding the technology choices of the various facilities to be constructed.
3 Evaluation issue and Recommendation 3: Project Contracting and Contract administration: The choice and strategy of using experienced grants management agent (GMAs) working with local Community-Based Organizations and Non-Governmental Organisations are still recommended for future public works, in terms of contract management and administration. This has proved useful in building the local capacities.
4 Evaluation issue and Recommendation 4: Operation and Maintenance: Periodic project planning under Ministry of Public Infrastructure should include rehabilitation of failed facilities. The aim is the establishment of proper community based operation and maintenance system. To this end, there should be clear guidelines about rehabilitation project?s appraisal so that such projects will be implemented without creating communities dependency on external support. The state Engineers could oversee the operations and management aspects.
5 Evaluation issue and Recommendation 5: Output 2: There is need to put in place a robust communication strategy in order to increase awareness on the use and management of the facilities. The produced materials under this output should be widely disseminated but supported with other means of creating awareness as per the strategy.
6 Evaluation issue and Recommendation 6: Monitoring of Outputs and Programme Coordination: To enhance shared learning and use of RIEP projects results, UNDP should consider conducting Joint Evaluation and Monitoring of outcomes. This will be done through the existing stakeholders, donor CSOs and Government partnerships. For effective programme coordination both internally and externally, there should be an explicit strategy and initiative developed and implemented on knowledge and information sharing. This will go a long way in enhancing dialogue with other development partners and reduce the possibility of duplicative work among development partners.
1. Recommendation: UNDP Sudan Key recommendations: RIEP Evaluation. Evaluation issue and Recommendation 1: Project Identification: Communities should have been involved beyond consultation to the degree of decision making as far as selection of appropriate technology and site identification is concerned.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/02/25] [Last Updated: 2010/02/25]

Management response: Agree with this recommendation and management has taken up this lessons learnt. Since phase II of RIEP no longer applicable, management will factor this lessons learnt into other projects within the Crisis prevention and Recovery Unit. The SRF and CSAC projects typically will benefit from this important recommendation. The SRF and CSAC projects are community based projects where a rigorous bottom-up consultation approach has been instituted. This strategy allows the stakeholders voice and empower over their development opportunities and challenges.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
There are no key actions since the project has closed. But this will apply to new Public Works in future.
[Added: 2010/02/25] [Last Updated: 2010/12/31]
CPRU 2010/12 Completed The project has operationally closed and there is no Phase II. Status is updated as 'completed' because when ' No more applicable is selected, the system puts the status as 'ongoing with no due date', which is not the case for this project.
2. Recommendation: Evaluation issue and Recommendation 2: Technology Choice: The state and communities should also participate in deciding the technology choices of the various facilities to be constructed.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/02/25] [Last Updated: 2010/02/25]

Management response. Agree with this recommendation 2. But since Phase II no longer applicable, management can only apply this recommendation to similar Public Works Projects in future.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
There are no key actions but will apply to other Public Works project in future.
[Added: 2010/02/25] [Last Updated: 2010/12/31]
CPRU 2010/12 Completed The Project is operationally closed. No phase II to this project. Status is updated as 'completed' because when ' No more applicable is selected, the system puts the status as 'ongoing with no due date', which is not the case for this project.
3. Recommendation: Evaluation issue and Recommendation 3: Project Contracting and Contract administration: The choice and strategy of using experienced grants management agent (GMAs) working with local Community-Based Organizations and Non-Governmental Organisations are still recommended for future public works, in terms of contract management and administration. This has proved useful in building the local capacities.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/02/25] [Last Updated: 2010/02/25]

Management response: Agree with this recommendation 3. This has worked well for the RIEP project. However some of the CBOs and local NGOs su-bcontracted by the GMAs lack capacity in certain competencies. There is need to thorough conduct as assessment on the capacity of these CBOs. In order to train and develop the capacity their capacity in areas of competency before being engaged in future contracting modalities by the GMAs or UNDP.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
There is no key actions since the project has closed. Management will use the lessons for future public works projects.
[Added: 2010/02/25] [Last Updated: 2010/12/31]
CPRU 2010/12 Completed RIEP is operationally closed. NO phase II of the project.Status is updated as 'completed' because when ' No more applicable is selected, the system puts the status as 'ongoing with no due date', which is not the case for this project.
4. Recommendation: Evaluation issue and Recommendation 4: Operation and Maintenance: Periodic project planning under Ministry of Public Infrastructure should include rehabilitation of failed facilities. The aim is the establishment of proper community based operation and maintenance system. To this end, there should be clear guidelines about rehabilitation project?s appraisal so that such projects will be implemented without creating communities dependency on external support. The state Engineers could oversee the operations and management aspects.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/02/25] [Last Updated: 2010/02/25]

Management response: Agree with evaluation recommendation 4. But no direct management response with apply since phase II of RIEP is not in place. However this recommendation is in place and will be given consideration for future and similar projects.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
There are no key action since the proect has closed. This will apply to future Public works projects.
[Added: 2010/02/25] [Last Updated: 2010/12/31]
CPRU 2010/12 Completed The project is operationally closed. There is no Phase II so that this will be used to improve it. Status is updated as 'completed' because when ' No more applicable is selected, the system puts the status as 'ongoing with no due date', which is not the case for this project.
5. Recommendation: Evaluation issue and Recommendation 5: Output 2: There is need to put in place a robust communication strategy in order to increase awareness on the use and management of the facilities. The produced materials under this output should be widely disseminated but supported with other means of creating awareness as per the strategy.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/02/25] [Last Updated: 2010/02/25]

Management response: Draft overall office communications strategy developed and this will have an impact, if there was a second phase of the RIEP. Nonetheless, the materials developed under this output 2, were widely distributed. This recommendation is relevant to future projects under the Crisis Prevention and Recovery Unit(CPRU.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
5.1 Distribution of materials produced under this output
[Added: 2010/02/25] [Last Updated: 2010/12/31]
Crisis prevention & Recovery Unit 2009/10 Completed Completed
6. Recommendation: Evaluation issue and Recommendation 6: Monitoring of Outputs and Programme Coordination: To enhance shared learning and use of RIEP projects results, UNDP should consider conducting Joint Evaluation and Monitoring of outcomes. This will be done through the existing stakeholders, donor CSOs and Government partnerships. For effective programme coordination both internally and externally, there should be an explicit strategy and initiative developed and implemented on knowledge and information sharing. This will go a long way in enhancing dialogue with other development partners and reduce the possibility of duplicative work among development partners.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/02/25] [Last Updated: 2010/02/25]

Agree evaluation recommendation No.6. But direct applicability response to RIEP is not possible since there is no phase II. However, this recommendation is very much relevant to other projects under the Crisis Prevention and Recovery Unit(CPRU) and already this is being initiated with projects such as CRMA and CSAC, on the one hand and Mine Action and DDR on the other hand that have synergies.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
There are no key action since the project has closed in 2009. Management will apply lessons to future Public Works projects.
[Added: 2010/02/25] [Last Updated: 2010/12/31]
CPRU 2010/12 Completed The RIEP project is operationally closed. NO phase II. Status is updated as 'completed' because when ' No more applicable is selected, the system puts the status as 'ongoing with no due date', which is not the case for this project.

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