Evaluation on UNDP support for the UNDAF outcome (Disaster Risk Reduction, Adaptation to Climate Change, Environment)

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2012-2016, Mozambique
Evaluation Type:
Outcome
Planned End Date:
01/2017
Completion Date:
12/2016
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
30,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document UNDP Support to UNDAF Outcome 3 - ToRs Signed.pdf tor English 7333.71 KB Posted 211
Download document Evaluation of UNDP Support to UNDAF Outcome 3 - Final Evaluation Report.pdf report English 1284.03 KB Posted 228
Title Evaluation on UNDP support for the UNDAF outcome (Disaster Risk Reduction, Adaptation to Climate Change, Environment)
Atlas Project Number: 84563,63219,63225
Evaluation Plan: 2012-2016, Mozambique
Evaluation Type: Outcome
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 12/2016
Planned End Date: 01/2017
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Others
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
  • 1. Output 5.2. Effective institutional, legislative and policy frameworks in place to enhance the implementation of disaster and climate risk management measures at national and sub-national levels
  • 2. Output 6.2. National and local authorities /institutions enabled to lead the community engagement, planning, coordination, delivery and monitoring of early recovery efforts
  • 3. Output 7.3. National development plans to address poverty and inequality are sustainable and risk resilient
SDG Goal
  • Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere
  • Goal 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable
  • Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts
  • Goal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss
SDG Target
  • 1.5 By 2030, build the resilience of the poor and those in vulnerable situations and reduce their exposure and vulnerability to climate-related extreme events and other economic, social and environmental shocks and disasters
  • 11.5 By 2030, significantly reduce the number of deaths and the number of people affected and substantially decrease the direct economic losses relative to global gross domestic product caused by disasters, including water-related disasters, with a focus on protecting the poor and people in vulnerable situations
  • 13.1 Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries
  • 13.2 Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning
  • 15.2 By 2020, promote the implementation of sustainable management of all types of forests, halt deforestation, restore degraded forests and substantially increase afforestation and reforestation globally
Evaluation Budget(US $): 30,000
Source of Funding: TRAC 1; TRAC 3; Cost sharing
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 28,000
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
GEF Evaluation: No
Key Stakeholders: Government, UN agencies, academic institutions, development partners
Countries: MOZAMBIQUE
Lessons
1.

From a financial support perspective, UNDP provided substantial support to IPs although IPs desired additional support to cover nationwide interventions. The performance of financial support was influenced by the procurement processes and by the implementation capacity activities of the IPs. There were some initial delays related to the procurement processes, which were mitigated by the creation of new arrangements in procurement.


2.

There is a need to increase ´on the job trainings` and follow up on recommendations from previous consultancies using IPs staff as the main activity implementers. There are still many challenges coming from the critical needs in the country, in particular the ones related to DRR and Climate Change, and the limited capacity within the governmental institutions. There is still much needed support in technical and financial support to ensure capacity is created, and it is still premature to talk about sustainability in these areas.


3.

In terms of impacts, they have been felt mainly at the central level, where UNDP interventions are mostly implemented. At the local level, where needs are higher, impacts have been limited and linked to IPs capacity to implement at local level. There is a need to reverse this situation and put more emphasis in local actions and impacts.


Findings
1.

Overall the CPD 2012-2015 was relevant to the country and very much aligned with Mozambique priorities regarding DRR, Climate Change, Environment, and Demining Portfolio. This alignment was translated into UNDP support at policy level, access to finance lines, budget allocation and technical assistance.


2.

The allocation of CTAs was acknowledged to be very positive.


3.

One of the key aspects of UNDP support is sustainability to enable IPs to fulfil their role. Overall the analysis showed that concrete and effective steps have been taken in increasing the IPs capacity.


4.

Impacts have been felt mainly at the central level, where UNDP interventions are mostly implemented.


5.

The coordination approach through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation in some cases is not enough and sometimes is not effective when talking about activities at the local level with specific IPs and partners that requires faster dynamics. It was felt that there is a need to establish formal coordination bodies and mechanisms at different levels or tiers of planning within IPs, that would guarantee better implementation mechanisms and appropriate M&E at all levels, with decisions being made at the lowest possible level;


Recommendations
1

UNDP´s programs, outputs and targets, should contribute and be integrated within Government plans and monitoring procedures with clear responsibilities and implementation plans. To achieve that, those programs should include specific actions or steps to ensure that they are part of the normal monitoring and evaluation processes in the country, which would reinforce ownership and leadership from government institutions. To achieve that UNDPs planning and implementation cycles have to be integrated with the Government´s planning and implementation cycles.

2

There is a need to establish formal coordination bodies and mechanisms at different levels or tiers of planning within IPs, that would guarantee better implementation mechanisms and appropriate M&E at all levels, with decisions being made at the lowest possible level.

3

UNDP project managers and technical assistance should play a more effective role in fulfilling the IPs abilities to lead and coordinate, but also in building the capacity at the local level towards implementation. Their ToRs should include aspects related to capacity building, their role and integration within the IPs and its coordination bodies, and also their role in implementation at local level.

4

In the formulation of the new programme, more attention should be given to the operational detail and to the institutional analysis that includes the individuals and the organization at different levels of implementation. This will allow to pinpoint key weaknesses at different levels that can be dealt properly when designing the programme.

5

The new programme should aim for quality and effectiveness and not just for quantity. UNDP´s activities have to be aligned with the country´s programs and priorities, but also have to implement UNDP´s strategic plan, and be aligned with the SDGs. The five key development issues for UNDP are: poverty eradication as the greatest global challenge, sustainable development, gender equality and women’s empowerment, transitions from relief to development, and resilience. The last one (resilience), is particularly relevant to disaster risk reduction, climate change adaptation and mitigation, and sustainable development, and for that, it should constitute the main objective and focus of Outcome 3 in the future, including methodologies to measure resilience, and effectiveness of measures related to either risk management, adaptation or mitigation, or to environment and sustainable development.

6

UNDP Programs should have a clear formulation of the goals in this area (capacity building) with clear indicators and targets. Different forms including in job training, tailor made short-courses, and others, should be explored more effectively. The program has no clear indicators, targets or activities related specifically to building the needed capacity within IPs, and once this is one of the main focus and justification of UNDP´s involvement, it is suggested to look into more detail to these aspects when formulating new programs, exploring more options for training directly linked to the IPs mandate and weaknesses;

7

It is critical to define the capacity that is needed in the country to formulate key indicators that should measure development in the areas of DRR ad CC. Those initiatives should establish appropriate links (formal and informal) to the national official system of data collection (INE).

8

UNDPs definition of provinces of intervention (Gaza, Nampula and Cabo Delgado) should be revised. Emphasis should be given to most vulnerable groups and most vulnerable places that are defined based on clear criteria´s and that pose the most challenge to development, and also should be linked to IPs weaknesses or limitations for intervention.

9

UNDP´s activities have to aim specifically towards higher quality programs, greater organizational openness, agility and adaptability, and improved management of financial and human resources. New partner institutions have to be explored at national level, in particular with national and local Mozambican institutions that have a clear advantage/mandate and have not been involved. At the international level the South-South and triangular cooperation that has not been fully explored but has already shown many advantages in Mozambique and abroad should also be explored more.

1. Recommendation:

UNDP´s programs, outputs and targets, should contribute and be integrated within Government plans and monitoring procedures with clear responsibilities and implementation plans. To achieve that, those programs should include specific actions or steps to ensure that they are part of the normal monitoring and evaluation processes in the country, which would reinforce ownership and leadership from government institutions. To achieve that UNDPs planning and implementation cycles have to be integrated with the Government´s planning and implementation cycles.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/05/23]

UNDP Mozambique will ensure that the next CPD Results Framework is closely linked to national M&E Systems. In addition, the CO will work within UNDAF to align the planning cycle with national counterparts' process.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Align CPD 2017-2020 results framework to national M&E systems.
[Added: 2017/05/23]
Programme Unit 2016/09 Completed The Results Framework of the CPD 2017-2020 is aligned as much as possible with national M&E systems. The same applies to UNDAF Results Framework.
2. Recommendation:

There is a need to establish formal coordination bodies and mechanisms at different levels or tiers of planning within IPs, that would guarantee better implementation mechanisms and appropriate M&E at all levels, with decisions being made at the lowest possible level.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/05/23] [Last Updated: 2017/05/24]

The CO will assess possibilities to implement the recommendation and discuss management arrangements with the IPs as new prodocs are developed.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Ensure relevant and effective management arrangements are agreed with IPs for each prodoc at LPAC meetings.
[Added: 2017/05/24] [Last Updated: 2018/01/12]
Environment and CPR Unit 2017/12 Completed The LPAC meeting of the DRR project for the new cycle was held in December 2017 and management arrangements were discussed and agreed upon with all involved stakeholders. Minutes of the LPAC meeting will be available as soon as they will be finalized and signed by all relevant stakeholders. History
3. Recommendation:

UNDP project managers and technical assistance should play a more effective role in fulfilling the IPs abilities to lead and coordinate, but also in building the capacity at the local level towards implementation. Their ToRs should include aspects related to capacity building, their role and integration within the IPs and its coordination bodies, and also their role in implementation at local level.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/05/23]

The CO will ensure these aspects of capacity building are reflected in the next CPD 2017-2020 interventions under the resilience and sustainable mangement of natural resources pillars.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Capacity building approach to be included in the CPD under the Resilience and Natural Resources Management pillar.
[Added: 2017/05/23]
Programme Unit 2016/09 Completed Done during the CPD formulation process.
4. Recommendation:

In the formulation of the new programme, more attention should be given to the operational detail and to the institutional analysis that includes the individuals and the organization at different levels of implementation. This will allow to pinpoint key weaknesses at different levels that can be dealt properly when designing the programme.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/05/23]

UNDP Mozambique will ensure that the new Country Programme takes into account aspects related to risks and institutional capacities to promote smooth implementation and sustainability of the interventions.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Include strong analysis of risks and institutional capacities in the new CPD 2017-2020.
[Added: 2017/05/23]
Programme Unit 2016/09 Completed The CPD 2017-2020 was approved in September 2016 and includes the required considerations in terms of risk analysis and mitigation as well as institutional capacities using HACT framework.
5. Recommendation:

The new programme should aim for quality and effectiveness and not just for quantity. UNDP´s activities have to be aligned with the country´s programs and priorities, but also have to implement UNDP´s strategic plan, and be aligned with the SDGs. The five key development issues for UNDP are: poverty eradication as the greatest global challenge, sustainable development, gender equality and women’s empowerment, transitions from relief to development, and resilience. The last one (resilience), is particularly relevant to disaster risk reduction, climate change adaptation and mitigation, and sustainable development, and for that, it should constitute the main objective and focus of Outcome 3 in the future, including methodologies to measure resilience, and effectiveness of measures related to either risk management, adaptation or mitigation, or to environment and sustainable development.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/05/23]

The CO will ensure resilience and natural resources management are prioritized and an in-depth approach is embedded in the next CPD.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Prioritize resilience and natural resources management in the next programme cycle.
[Added: 2017/05/23]
Programme Unit 2016/09 Completed The new CPD 2017-2020 has a pillar which includes 2 outcomes with emphasis on resilience and natural resources management.
6. Recommendation:

UNDP Programs should have a clear formulation of the goals in this area (capacity building) with clear indicators and targets. Different forms including in job training, tailor made short-courses, and others, should be explored more effectively. The program has no clear indicators, targets or activities related specifically to building the needed capacity within IPs, and once this is one of the main focus and justification of UNDP´s involvement, it is suggested to look into more detail to these aspects when formulating new programs, exploring more options for training directly linked to the IPs mandate and weaknesses;

Management Response: [Added: 2017/05/23] [Last Updated: 2017/05/23]

The CO will ensure capacity building will be part of its next CPD 2017-2020 approach and adopt specific combined methodologies at project level to be more effective.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The CO will ensure capacity building continues to be central in UNDP's interventions and that relevant capacity building approaches are planned for each prodoc based on the most appropriate type of methodologies.
[Added: 2017/05/24] [Last Updated: 2018/01/12]
Environment and CPR Unit 2017/12 Completed The new prodoc takes into account relevant capacity building needs and approaches. History
7. Recommendation:

It is critical to define the capacity that is needed in the country to formulate key indicators that should measure development in the areas of DRR ad CC. Those initiatives should establish appropriate links (formal and informal) to the national official system of data collection (INE).

Management Response: [Added: 2017/05/23] [Last Updated: 2017/05/23]

The CO will take into consideration the recommendation and ensure that interventions to improve information systems, data collection and M&E frameworks on CC and DRR are included in the next cycle programme.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The new CPD 2017-2020 will specifically address information management, data collection and M&E systems issues.
[Added: 2017/05/23]
Programme Unit 2016/09 Completed The new CPD approved in September 2016 includes specific references to strengthening of data collection and national M&E systems.
8. Recommendation:

UNDPs definition of provinces of intervention (Gaza, Nampula and Cabo Delgado) should be revised. Emphasis should be given to most vulnerable groups and most vulnerable places that are defined based on clear criteria´s and that pose the most challenge to development, and also should be linked to IPs weaknesses or limitations for intervention.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/05/23] [Last Updated: 2017/05/23]

UNDP Mozambique will ensure the new Country Programme will be flexible enough to allow targeting geographical areas beyond the 3 priority provinces.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Promote flexibility in the selection of the geographical target of the next CPD interventions.
[Added: 2017/05/23]
Programme Unit 2016/09 Completed The new CPD focuses on the 3 priority provinces but includes statements showing that flexibility is allowed whenever applicable and more specifically in the Resilience and Natural Resources Management pillar. .
9. Recommendation:

UNDP´s activities have to aim specifically towards higher quality programs, greater organizational openness, agility and adaptability, and improved management of financial and human resources. New partner institutions have to be explored at national level, in particular with national and local Mozambican institutions that have a clear advantage/mandate and have not been involved. At the international level the South-South and triangular cooperation that has not been fully explored but has already shown many advantages in Mozambique and abroad should also be explored more.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/05/23] [Last Updated: 2017/05/23]

The CO will analyze the possibility of diversifying the partnerships (including through South-South Cooperation) for the next cycle interventions under Resilience and Natural Resources Management thematic areas.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
UNDP Mozambique will ensure the new CPD 2017-2020 foresees specific partnership opportunities (including SSC).
[Added: 2017/05/24]
Programme Unit 2016/09 Completed The new CPD 2017-2020 approved in September 2016 makes specific reference to opportunities and new partnerships.

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