- Evaluation Plan:
- 2012-2016, Mozambique
- Evaluation Type:
- Project
- Planned End Date:
- 01/2014
- Completion Date:
- 01/2014
- Status:
- Completed
- Management Response:
- Yes
- Evaluation Budget(US $):
- 12,655
Terminal Evaluation of Coping with Drought and Climate Change
| Document | Type | Language | Size | Status | Downloads |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Terminal Evaluation of Coping with Drought and Climate Change - PIMS3786.pdf |
report | English | 2734.72 KB | Posted | 2028 |
| ToRs_ProcNotice.pdf |
tor | English | 3328.76 KB | Posted | 470 |
| TE_PIMS3786_Evaluation_Question_Matrix.pdf |
related-document | English | 412.77 KB | Posted | 508 |
| TE_PIMS3786_RatingTable.pdf |
related-document | English | 245.03 KB | Posted | 842 |
 CWD Interview list.xlsx |
related-document | English | 11.82 KB | Posted | 821 |
| Title | Terminal Evaluation of Coping with Drought and Climate Change | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atlas Project Number: | 00057849 | ||||||||||||||
| Evaluation Plan: | 2012-2016, Mozambique | ||||||||||||||
| Evaluation Type: | Project | ||||||||||||||
| Status: | Completed | ||||||||||||||
| Completion Date: | 01/2014 | ||||||||||||||
| Planned End Date: | 01/2014 | ||||||||||||||
| Management Response: | Yes | ||||||||||||||
| Focus Area: |
|
||||||||||||||
| Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017) |
|
||||||||||||||
| Evaluation Budget(US $): | 12,655 | ||||||||||||||
| Source of Funding: | GEF/SCCF | ||||||||||||||
| Evaluation Expenditure(US $): | 15,000 | ||||||||||||||
| Joint Programme: | No | ||||||||||||||
| Joint Evaluation: | No | ||||||||||||||
| Evaluation Team members: |
|
||||||||||||||
| GEF Evaluation: | Yes
|
||||||||||||||
| Key Stakeholders: | Government, Minstry of Environment, National Institute of Meteorologymicro-finance institutions, UNCDF, CSOs | ||||||||||||||
| Countries: | MOZAMBIQUE |
| Lessons | |
|---|---|
| Findings |
| Recommendations | |
|---|---|
| 1 | The quality of the risk and assumptions must be reviewed by the implementing agency, the executing agency and the GEF to ensure that the risks and assumptions are plausible and correctly formulated and that the risks mitigation strategies are adequately developed and feasible within the projects context. |
| 2 | The indicator framework should be reviewed by the stakeholders, particularly the implementing agency to ensure that they respond to SMART standards. The newly developed Adaptation Monitoring Tool should guide the indicator framework of future adaptation interventions. Even if it counts with robust and SMART indicators, the indicator framework, would not produce the information needed for efficient adaptive management if the indicators are not made operational, i.e. quantitative scales developed to ensure their measurability, proper information sources and collection responsibilities and frequencies, as well as analysis methodology of monitoring data identified. |
| 3 | The project management arrangements should be based in a more solid and participative analysis of the institutional stakeholders, i.e. their mandates and capacities should be properly taken into consideration. Thus, the implementing agency must facilitate an exhaustive consultation at mid and high level (technical and political officials) and update the capacity assessments of potential implementing partners, particularly in terms of capacity to administer and manage funds and coordinate field actions. |
| 4 | Mid-level governance structures should have been set-up for effective project management: for instance, a project technical management committee that would meet on a monthly basis with presence of the district and provincial services, as well as representatives from the implementing and executing agencies. In that way, synergies would have been created between the proximity to field realities, capacity and mandate of local (district and provincial) institutions and the coordinating, technical knowledge, administrative support and political leverage of the executing and implementing agencies. |
| 5 | The vulnerability of the project outputs to climate factors should be carefully analyzed including all plausible hazards. Failing to do this would mean investing in maladaptation. In the case of this project, structures and plots were set in flood prone areas assuming flooding would not occur. Reconstruction or rehabilitation in the same location will guarantee the loss of the investment eventually in the absence of mitigating measures. |
| 6 | The NIM modality of implementation is intended to strengthen the capacities of the executing agency, including organizational and individual capacities, as well as leadership. To maximize the potential benefits of the NIM implementation modality, the project governance should have been exerted at the district and/ or provincial level, ideally with the project management unit immersed within the district government to: a) Enable a more efficient implementation responding to local circumstances (economic and environmental cycles73) and demands (project site location, local needs etc.) b) Enable a transfer of capacity in terms of technical capacities, leadership, and institutional arrangements and procedures to the institution (district government) that would warrant the sustainability of results |
| 7 | Climate change should be mainstreamed into the district planning instruments, i.e. the districts strategic development plan to help better understand the potential impacts of climate change and variability and quantify the incremental financial needs. This would need the involvement of the appropriate institutions to support the mainstreaming process i.e. the Ministry of Planning and Development and would facilitate the alignment of future funds with the district development and adaptation priorities. |
| 8 | Regardless of the metrics and indicators chosen to determine vulnerability and the contribution of the project to its reduction, an indicator (or set of indicators) for the project objective would have needed a baseline, provided by a vulnerability study or survey against which to measure the vulnerability at project end or at a later time point. This vulnerability study could have been done in a participatory manner, using methodologies such as the ones described in UNDP?s Vulnerability Reduction Assessment (2008), CARE?s Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment (2009) or the CRISTAL screening tool (2007) to assess exposure (number of people, livestock, parcels affected by different climate and non-climatic hazards), sensitivity (rain fed crop area, access to water, animal health, drought related losses) and adaptive capacity (income, education level, health indicators, level of awareness) |
1. Recommendation: The quality of the risk and assumptions must be reviewed by the implementing agency, the executing agency and the GEF to ensure that the risks and assumptions are plausible and correctly formulated and that the risks mitigation strategies are adequately developed and feasible within the projects context.
Management Response: [Added: 2015/04/10]
For future projects, the CO will ensure risk and assumptions issues are duly taken into consideration and relevant mitigation strategies are developed.
Key Actions:
2. Recommendation: The indicator framework should be reviewed by the stakeholders, particularly the implementing agency to ensure that they respond to SMART standards. The newly developed Adaptation Monitoring Tool should guide the indicator framework of future adaptation interventions.
Even if it counts with robust and SMART indicators, the indicator framework, would not produce the information needed for efficient adaptive management if the indicators are not made operational, i.e. quantitative scales developed to ensure their measurability, proper information sources and collection responsibilities and frequencies, as well as analysis methodology of monitoring data identified.
Management Response: [Added: 2015/04/10]
For future projects, the CO will ensure that the indicator frameworks are jointly reviewed and agreed upon. In addition technical notes will be prepared to ensure SMART indicators are formulated using the Adaptation Monitoring Tool recently developed.
Key Actions:
3. Recommendation: The project management arrangements should be based in a more solid and participative analysis of the institutional stakeholders, i.e. their mandates and capacities should be properly taken into consideration. Thus, the implementing agency must facilitate an exhaustive consultation at mid and high level (technical and political officials) and update the capacity assessments of potential implementing partners, particularly in terms of capacity to administer and manage funds and coordinate field actions.
Management Response: [Added: 2015/04/10]
For future projects, the CO will closely work with all the stakeholders to assess capacities building needs for all parties involved in the project management arrangements.
Key Actions:
4. Recommendation: Mid-level governance structures should have been set-up for effective project management: for instance, a project technical management committee that would meet on a monthly basis with presence of the district and provincial services, as well as representatives from the implementing and executing agencies. In that way, synergies would have been created between the proximity to field realities, capacity and mandate of local (district and provincial) institutions and the coordinating, technical knowledge, administrative support and political leverage of the executing and implementing agencies.
Management Response: [Added: 2015/04/10]
For future projects, a mid-level technical management committee will be established to guide the daily work of the project.
Key Actions:
5. Recommendation: The vulnerability of the project outputs to climate factors should be carefully analyzed including all plausible hazards. Failing to do this would mean investing in maladaptation. In the case of this project, structures and plots were set in flood prone areas assuming flooding would not occur. Reconstruction or rehabilitation in the same location will guarantee the loss of the investment eventually in the absence of mitigating measures.
Management Response: [Added: 2015/04/10]
Climate risk assessments will be conducted for future projects to avoid investing in locations prone to floods or other disasters.
Key Actions:
6. Recommendation: The NIM modality of implementation is intended to strengthen the capacities of the executing agency, including organizational and individual capacities, as well as leadership. To maximize the potential benefits of the NIM implementation modality, the project governance should have been exerted at the district and/ or provincial level, ideally with the project management unit immersed within the district government to:
a) Enable a more efficient implementation responding to local circumstances (economic and environmental cycles73) and demands (project site location, local needs etc.)
b) Enable a transfer of capacity in terms of technical capacities, leadership, and institutional arrangements and procedures to the institution (district government) that would warrant the sustainability of results
Management Response: [Added: 2015/04/10]
In upcoming months, the CO will conduct NIM procedures trainings for all IPs to ensure capacity is built to allow sustainability of results.
Key Actions:
7. Recommendation: Climate change should be mainstreamed into the district planning instruments, i.e. the districts strategic development plan to help better understand the potential impacts of climate change and variability and quantify the incremental financial needs. This would need the involvement of the appropriate institutions to support the mainstreaming process i.e. the Ministry of Planning and Development and would facilitate the alignment of future funds with the district development and adaptation priorities.
Management Response: [Added: 2015/04/10]
Mainstreaming of climate change issues into district planning processes will be further reinforced through integrated efforts of Country Programme interventions. A stronger linkage with other CO portfolios (decentralized planning) will be promoted.
Key Actions:
8. Recommendation: Regardless of the metrics and indicators chosen to determine vulnerability and the contribution of the project to its reduction, an indicator (or set of indicators) for the project objective would have needed a baseline, provided by a vulnerability study or survey against which to measure the vulnerability at project end or at a later time point. This vulnerability study could have been done in a participatory manner, using methodologies such as the ones described in UNDP?s Vulnerability Reduction Assessment (2008), CARE?s Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment (2009) or the CRISTAL screening tool (2007) to assess exposure (number of people, livestock, parcels affected by different climate and non-climatic hazards), sensitivity (rain fed crop area, access to water, animal health, drought related losses) and adaptive capacity (income, education level, health indicators, level of awareness)
Management Response: [Added: 2015/04/10]
For future projects, the CO will foresee, whenever applicable and possible, the conduct of baseline studies to be able to measure progress made. The studies will be conducted using a participative approach.
Key Actions: