Joint Programme on Environmental Mainstreaming and Adaptation to Climate Change in Mozambique - Final Evaluation

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2010-2011, Mozambique
Evaluation Type:
Others
Planned End Date:
12/2011
Completion Date:
08/2012
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
30,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document Mozambique - Environment Joint Programme - Final Evaluation Report.pdf report English 3201.96 KB Posted 741
Title Joint Programme on Environmental Mainstreaming and Adaptation to Climate Change in Mozambique - Final Evaluation
Atlas Project Number:
Evaluation Plan: 2010-2011, Mozambique
Evaluation Type: Others
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 08/2012
Planned End Date: 12/2011
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Environment & Sustainable Development
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
  • 1. Development plans and programmes integrate environmentally sustainable solutions in a manner that promotes poverty reduction, MDG achievement and low-emission climate-resilient development
  • 2. National and local governments and communities have the capacities to adapt to climate change and make inclusive and sustainable environment & energy decisions benefitting in particular under-served populations
Evaluation Budget(US $): 30,000
Source of Funding: N/A
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Dennis Eucker Team Leader
Blanca Reichel Consultant
GEF Evaluation: No
Key Stakeholders: Government institutions
Countries: MOZAMBIQUE
Comments: Partners - MINEC
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1 Joint programmes should be planned thoroughly, by ensuring participation of all levels into programme implementation. In the future, ways should be found to make best use of existing experiences. Planning should also be related to the existing strengths & weaknesses of agencies and their partners.
2 Make sure that participation and integration at all levels are guaranteed: in order to build national and local ownership, priorities of all actors and levels involved should be taken into account, and it should be made sure that the participation of target communities is guaranteed. The integration of interventions into (sub-)national structures, together with the involvement of government technicians and community members from the planning phase onwards will improve the follow-up and sustainability of the programme.
3 In the future, joint programmes should put an even stronger focus on enhancing adaptive capacity in a long-term. Especially in dry-land areas, viable option for improving livelihoods and low-cost adaptation practices need to be promoted. At the same time, activities should accompany communities on their way to reach higher levels of resilience, and allow for the consolidation of results.
4 To build complementary and flexible adaptation strategies: Joint programmes should build their activities on complementary approaches, and create opportunities for more flexible implementation approaches. This should not concern the 'what' (activities) of the implementation approach in the first place, but should rather create for more space on 'how' (process) results can be achieved. Consequently, strategies should involve the elaboration and a regular update of a monitoring framework, which should also include amendments whenever deemed necessary.
5 To build on longer time frames: In order to strive for greater effectiveness, future joint programmes should be implemented over a longer time frame, including an inception phase at the beginning and a consolidation phase at the end of the intervention.
6 To improve monitoring and evaluation approaches: In order to guarantee project effectiveness on the ground, it will be necessary that results on the local level can be measured. Future programmes should develop a monitoring framework with a structure that is more logical and comprehensive, including specific targets and oriented on impacts, in order to monitor and manage them in an effective way according to international standards (e.g. OECD).
7 The central recommendation to improve efficiency of joint programmes is to overcome given obstacles by better planning, by elaborating a joint monitoring process, and by putting a stronger focus on the impact level.
8 To limit the number of agencies involved, especially on the local level: Results from this evaluation show that, in many instances, inputs from one agency depended on the completion of activities by another agency. Ways should be found for preventing delays in one agency impinging upon the work of others.
9 To put a stronger focus on the impact level: For Joint Programmes to be efficient they need a joint, impact-oriented M&E approach. The Joint Programme would have benefitted from elaborating and applying a coherent framework for impact assessment that each agency takes as a basis for its operational planning and which includes indicators/ targets, or indicator categories for tracking and evaluating the success of their interventions.
1. Recommendation: Joint programmes should be planned thoroughly, by ensuring participation of all levels into programme implementation. In the future, ways should be found to make best use of existing experiences. Planning should also be related to the existing strengths & weaknesses of agencies and their partners.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/04/08]

Lessons learned are shared and UNDAF mid term review will be an excellent opportunity for agency capacity assessment and future programme design.

Key Actions:

2. Recommendation: Make sure that participation and integration at all levels are guaranteed: in order to build national and local ownership, priorities of all actors and levels involved should be taken into account, and it should be made sure that the participation of target communities is guaranteed. The integration of interventions into (sub-)national structures, together with the involvement of government technicians and community members from the planning phase onwards will improve the follow-up and sustainability of the programme.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/04/08]

Progress have been already made in ensuring effective participation at decentralized levels, with communities involved in local and district planning as well as gradual integration of CCA issues in planning process.

Key Actions:

3. Recommendation: In the future, joint programmes should put an even stronger focus on enhancing adaptive capacity in a long-term. Especially in dry-land areas, viable option for improving livelihoods and low-cost adaptation practices need to be promoted. At the same time, activities should accompany communities on their way to reach higher levels of resilience, and allow for the consolidation of results.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/04/08]

This continues to be a challenge; in finding low cost adaptation practices to improve livelihoods within a considerable short period, nevertheless current project are addressing it as much as possible.

Key Actions:

4. Recommendation: To build complementary and flexible adaptation strategies: Joint programmes should build their activities on complementary approaches, and create opportunities for more flexible implementation approaches. This should not concern the 'what' (activities) of the implementation approach in the first place, but should rather create for more space on 'how' (process) results can be achieved. Consequently, strategies should involve the elaboration and a regular update of a monitoring framework, which should also include amendments whenever deemed necessary.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/04/08]

The improvement on joint process, and better articulation on how promote complementarities is being considered in the design of new joint programmes and also on some mid term reviews.

Key Actions:

5. Recommendation: To build on longer time frames: In order to strive for greater effectiveness, future joint programmes should be implemented over a longer time frame, including an inception phase at the beginning and a consolidation phase at the end of the intervention.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/04/08]

The inception phase is very important for most of the UN agencies and should be meant to provide the right set up of management structures, although, not always this is programmatically possible due to donor and funds lifeline.

Key Actions:

6. Recommendation: To improve monitoring and evaluation approaches: In order to guarantee project effectiveness on the ground, it will be necessary that results on the local level can be measured. Future programmes should develop a monitoring framework with a structure that is more logical and comprehensive, including specific targets and oriented on impacts, in order to monitor and manage them in an effective way according to international standards (e.g. OECD).
Management Response: [Added: 2014/04/08]

Monitoring is currently being analyzed, considering the UNDAF mid term review and new indicators that GoM would be considering on strategic planning.

Key Actions:

7. Recommendation: The central recommendation to improve efficiency of joint programmes is to overcome given obstacles by better planning, by elaborating a joint monitoring process, and by putting a stronger focus on the impact level.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/04/08]

Efficiency is to be considered under the UNDAF mid term review.

Key Actions:

8. Recommendation: To limit the number of agencies involved, especially on the local level: Results from this evaluation show that, in many instances, inputs from one agency depended on the completion of activities by another agency. Ways should be found for preventing delays in one agency impinging upon the work of others.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/04/08]

Currently, joint programmes are mostly considering three to five agencies to improve efficiency.

Key Actions:

9. Recommendation: To put a stronger focus on the impact level: For Joint Programmes to be efficient they need a joint, impact-oriented M&E approach. The Joint Programme would have benefitted from elaborating and applying a coherent framework for impact assessment that each agency takes as a basis for its operational planning and which includes indicators/ targets, or indicator categories for tracking and evaluating the success of their interventions.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/04/08]

As above, efficiency is to be considered under the UNDAF mid term review.

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