Terminal Evaluation of the Integrating Climate Change Risks into Resilient Maldives Project

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2011-2015, Maldives
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
05/2015
Completion Date:
02/2016
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
20,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document Terminal Evaluation of ICCR project.docx tor English 60.91 KB Posted 322
Download document ICCRRIP TE FINAL.docx report English 269.12 KB Posted 318
Title Terminal Evaluation of the Integrating Climate Change Risks into Resilient Maldives Project
Atlas Project Number: 00072423
Evaluation Plan: 2011-2015, Maldives
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 02/2016
Planned End Date: 05/2015
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
Evaluation Budget(US $): 20,000
Source of Funding: GEF
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Ivica Trumbic
GEF Evaluation: Yes
GEF Project Title:
Evaluation Type: Terminal Evaluation
Focal Area: Climate Change
Project Type: FSP
GEF Phase: GEF-4
GEF Project ID: 3847
PIMS Number: 4093
Key Stakeholders: Government; Beneficiary Islands
Countries: MALDIVES
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1

UNDP should close the project as planned on 31 December 2015 and no new contracts will be signed, while the existing contracts for project personnel, consultants and Executing Agency will be honoured within the limits of their stipulations. It should also initiate the financial closure of the project in collaboration with EA, for the purpose of GEF 

2

2: Establish procedures for the GOM to complete the ongoing activities such as CRIS and construction works on two islands, and keep alive the guidelines and regulatory framework. The GOM should also prepare briefs on lessons learned from the project, summaries of the project results, achievements and good practices, and on impacts of coastal protection measures implemented in the project.

3

3. In designing future projects of a related nature, adequate time should be allowed for the establishment of project implementation arrangements and undertaking all necessary initiation and preparatory activities. Outputs and activities have to be defined more precisely, clearly described and, where possible in the case of proposed construction works, preliminary design should be submitted in the preparatory stage. Project proposals should have better financial planning in terms of better matching financial resources to activities, and better identification of risks and mitigation measures. 

4

4.With regards to management arrangements it is important to have an independent PMU in order to avoid government policy changes from affecting projects as well as to retain institutional memory regarding the project. Project manager should be engaged full time and be better accountable to the implementing agency of the project.

5

5. Project activities should start as planned by the work plan. This particularly refers to the construction works, or other works on the ground that are costly to accommodate the procurement process if nationally executed.

6

Convergence among project activities should be better executed. Informing partners/stakeholders of other activities need to be improved. There should be more transparency between stakeholders in particular between national and local levels. 

7

The GEF National Operational Focal Point, together with UNDP, should organise a follow up meeting, eventually with the ICCRRIP Project Board and local stakeholders, to discuss this evaluation and reflect on experience at the national and local level and identify lessons learned that could inform the design and implementation for future national initiatives and projects in support of the climate adaptation efforts in Maldives.

1. Recommendation:

UNDP should close the project as planned on 31 December 2015 and no new contracts will be signed, while the existing contracts for project personnel, consultants and Executing Agency will be honoured within the limits of their stipulations. It should also initiate the financial closure of the project in collaboration with EA, for the purpose of GEF 

Management Response: [Added: 2017/01/17]

Partially agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The project is operationally closed in ATLAS system, however since there are monitoring work that are pending, some financial closure will be pending.
[Added: 2017/01/17] [Last Updated: 2018/09/16]
UNDP 2016/12 Completed The project has been financially closed History
2. Recommendation:

2: Establish procedures for the GOM to complete the ongoing activities such as CRIS and construction works on two islands, and keep alive the guidelines and regulatory framework. The GOM should also prepare briefs on lessons learned from the project, summaries of the project results, achievements and good practices, and on impacts of coastal protection measures implemented in the project.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/01/17]

Partially agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Guideline is completed however lagging in implementation
[Added: 2017/01/17] [Last Updated: 2018/09/16]
Ministry of Environment and Energy (MEE) 2016/12 Completed History
3. Recommendation:

3. In designing future projects of a related nature, adequate time should be allowed for the establishment of project implementation arrangements and undertaking all necessary initiation and preparatory activities. Outputs and activities have to be defined more precisely, clearly described and, where possible in the case of proposed construction works, preliminary design should be submitted in the preparatory stage. Project proposals should have better financial planning in terms of better matching financial resources to activities, and better identification of risks and mitigation measures. 

Management Response: [Added: 2017/01/17] [Last Updated: 2017/01/17]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Adequate time will be allocated for procurement and setting up a PMU during the
[Added: 2017/01/17] [Last Updated: 2018/09/16]
UNDP/MEE 2017/01 Completed Already being considered when implementing project. Example: GCF project History
4. Recommendation:

4.With regards to management arrangements it is important to have an independent PMU in order to avoid government policy changes from affecting projects as well as to retain institutional memory regarding the project. Project manager should be engaged full time and be better accountable to the implementing agency of the project.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/01/17] [Last Updated: 2017/01/17]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Adequate time will be allocated for procurement and setting up a PMU during the initiation of the project MEE has an established PMU within the ministry under relevant department
[Added: 2017/01/17] [Last Updated: 2018/09/16]
MEE 2016/12 Completed History
5. Recommendation:

5. Project activities should start as planned by the work plan. This particularly refers to the construction works, or other works on the ground that are costly to accommodate the procurement process if nationally executed.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/01/17]

Partially agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The project will ensure that this happens, however the implementation of construction work on time also depends on the availability of these companies which are stretched to implement many ongoing works of the government and private sector hence this should be taken as a risk
[Added: 2017/01/17] [Last Updated: 2018/09/16]
MEE 2016/12 Completed In future projects this was taken into consideration based on the contract values History
6. Recommendation:

Convergence among project activities should be better executed. Informing partners/stakeholders of other activities need to be improved. There should be more transparency between stakeholders in particular between national and local levels. 

Management Response: [Added: 2017/01/17]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
To regularly visit the sited, Contract our monitoring and quality assurance to third part to ensure and report on the ongoing work
[Added: 2017/01/17] [Last Updated: 2018/09/16]
MEE 2017/01 Completed Although some of the work of the project has not yielded the expected result, plans are in place to monitor the sites even after the project has ended History
7. Recommendation:

The GEF National Operational Focal Point, together with UNDP, should organise a follow up meeting, eventually with the ICCRRIP Project Board and local stakeholders, to discuss this evaluation and reflect on experience at the national and local level and identify lessons learned that could inform the design and implementation for future national initiatives and projects in support of the climate adaptation efforts in Maldives.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/01/17]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
MEE/UNDP has planned a joint monitoring trip to the sites to ensure that these are discussed
[Added: 2017/01/17] [Last Updated: 2018/09/16]
UNDP/MEE 2016/10 Completed Findings of monitoring trip was discussed with the State Minister of Environment overseeing the project History

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