Evaluation of the Integrated Water Resources Management Project

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2011-2015, Maldives
Evaluation Type:
Mid Term Project
Planned End Date:
02/2014
Completion Date:
05/2014
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
16,811

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document MTE TOR AF.pdf tor English 968.76 KB Posted 1009
Download document Maldives_IWRM_MTE_DRAFT_14FEB14.docx report English 2966.04 KB Posted 1450
Title Evaluation of the Integrated Water Resources Management Project
Atlas Project Number: 00078494
Evaluation Plan: 2011-2015, Maldives
Evaluation Type: Mid Term Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 05/2014
Planned End Date: 02/2014
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Others
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
  • 1. Output 5.1. Mechanisms in place to assess natural and man-made risks at national and sub-national levels
  • 2. 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
  • 3. Output 5.4. Preparedness systems in place to effectively address the consequences of and response to natural hazards (e.g. geo-physical and climate related) and man-made crisis at all levels of government and community
Evaluation Budget(US $): 16,811
Source of Funding: Adaptation Fund
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Joshua Brann Mr. brann.evaluation@gmail.com
GEF Evaluation: Yes
Evaluation Type:
Focal Area: Climate Change
Project Type: EA
GEF Phase: GEF-5
PIMS Number:
Key Stakeholders: Government; Beneficiary Islands
Countries: MALDIVES
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1 To ensure that the water system handover process is as seamless as possible at this critical juncture for the sustainability of the system, the key stakeholders (UNOPS, UNDP, MEE and FENAKA) should by May 31, 2014 establish a detailed written agreement about handover processes and procedures, to ensure there is no miscommunication or misunderstanding, and ensure all relevant aspects of the handover process are considered and adequately covered. This would include clear and specific detailed roles and responsibilities and timing, including aspects such as transfer of staff, transfer of capital assets, maintenance and operations support agreements, etc
2 The MTE recommends that the Project Board (with planning support from the PMU and UNDP) re-allocate resources from Outputs 1.4, 3.2, and 3.3, and re-direct any cost-savings from Outputs 1.1-1.3, to ensure that the handover and initial year of system operation is supported to whatever extent necessary. The system handover and start-up phase is the most critical part of the project, as it is at this key juncture that any disruptions could have significant negative repercussions for project results and sustainability.
3 FENAKA and MEE need to immediately discuss and finalize a proposed tariff structure that can be communicated to the island communities at least a few months in advance of start-up of the system. This means that the tariff structure should be finalized by the end of April. The PMU is expected to facilitate this discussion, with UNDP?s support as necessary.
4 Conduct team-based risk assessment for remaining project period. Due to the significant delays in the design phase, there is no time or resources available to buffer further slippage in the start-up and trial phase for operation of the water systems in the three pilot islands. Thus, before planned closure of the project in October 2015 it is absolutely critical for the project to demonstrate that the planned results have been achieved and sustainability is likely. To ensure that no significant setbacks or delays are further encountered, the project coordination committee should sit-together to conduct a specific risk assessment to identify any potential issues that could arise, and identify back-up plans and alternative approaches as mitigation measures that can be rapidly implemented in case any problems occur. This should be a team exercise to ensure that the project is successful by completion; the PCC may consider asking FENAKA to participate in this exercise.
5 Immediate initiation of community information and awareness raising activities. Successful start-up and sustainable operation of the water management system in each of the three islands requires the beneficiary/client communities to be better informed - and informed in advance - about the planned construction, operations and tariff system. Furthermore, to meet the education and awareness objectives of the project, the planned community communication campaign must be implemented. Given that UNOPS is not well-positioned to undertake these activities, and the PMU?s limited resources are likely to be focused on continuing coordination with UNOPS for the completion of construction and start-up of the water system, the MTE recommends that responsibility for these project activities be devolved to UNDP. Further, to rapidly carry out these activities, the MTE recommends that UNDP collaborate with the community-based CSOs in the three islands (such as local NGOs and the women?s development councils) to disseminate information in the communities.
6 Strengthen results-based monitoring in the 2nd half of the project. The project applies multiple monitoring tools, such as the PPR, and quarterly progress reports and FACE forms. However there are not adequate linkages between the reporting on project activities, project expenditures, and achievement of project indicator targets. The PMU, UNDP, and UNOPS should work together to identify adjustments as necessary to strengthen the results-oriented view of reporting on project activities and expenditures
7 The MEE must plan to strengthen implementation capacity for future donor-funded climate change adaptation projects with budgets of greater than $1 million USD and timeframes of three years or longer. It is common international practice to have a dedicated PMU for such projects to ensure efficient and timely execution (and a dedicated PMU was foreseen for the IWRM project). There are, however, other models that could be followed, such as a cluster implementation unit, with multiple project managers, but shared support staff and infrastructure, such as in Armenia. Another approach employed by some projects is to secure external support, such as an international technical advisor on a part-time basis, to support key aspects of the project. Considering that international finance for climate change adaptation is expected to increase significantly in coming years, the Government of Maldives must demonstrate that the country is capable of absorbing the funds it urgently requires to adapt to climate change impacts. Further, it must ensure that the national implementation capacity is in place to support successful and timely implementation of such projects.
8 When the tariff structure is finalized, FENAKA, UNDP and the MEE should clearly explain to community stakeholders the basis for the tariff structure, the assumptions on which is it built, and any measures community stakeholders can take to support potentially reaching a lower tariff structure in the future. FENAKA understandably has a preference for a tariff structure based on conservative assumptions about the operation of the system, including the amount of rainwater collected for the system. At the same time, if the tariff system is significantly above the levels identified in the Willingness-to-Pay study, there is a risk that community members will understandably conserve their ?free? rainwater for their own use, and choose not to participate in the community rain water collection system ? which will in fact bring to fruition FENAKA?s conservative assumptions about rain water collection
9 Institute financial incentives for community members to participate in the rainwater collection system. FENAKA should strongly consider instituting a rebate system in the tariff structure, whereby community members whose householders are contributing rainwater to the centralized collection system receive an annual rebate on their water bill. Such a system would strengthen the likelihood of the financial, technical, and socio-political sustainability of the project results, and reduce the likelihood that government subsidies would be required in the long-run to ensure the continued operation of the system in the three islands
10 Institute financial incentives for community members to participate in the rainwater collection system. FENAKA should strongly consider instituting a rebate system in the tariff structure, whereby community members whose householders are contributing rainwater to the centralized collection system receive an annual rebate on their water bill. Such a system would strengthen the likelihood of the financial, technical, and socio-political sustainability of the project results, and reduce the likelihood that government subsidies would be required in the long-run to ensure the continued operation of the system in the three islands.
11 To support the community education and awareness component of the project the PMU and UNDP should consider a ?community liaison officer? model whereby one or two individuals are contracted on a part-time basis to serve as information dissemination channels, and organize community-related activities for education and awareness related to water security and climate change adaptation. Such a model can be seen in numerous other projects, and often engages individuals from local level community-based organizations.
12 : Refocusing of work on groundwater management. Many stakeholders have emphasized the importance of the groundwater related aspects of the project. However, at this point in time, little has been taken forward on this issue, as the widespread groundwater recharge pits have not been incorporated in the technical design, for multiple reasons. While there may have once been potential for the project to contribute to the development of technical knowledge on this issue, at this stage in the project the focus should primarily be on ensuring that the RO plant and rainwater capture systems are completed, fully operational, and are demonstrating the likelihood for sustainability by the end of the project. The resources and time remaining to address groundwater management issues are minimal, and the project is not likely to make a substantive contribution on this issue at this stage. As such, the focus of the project with respect to groundwater should be on identifying partners and potential funding sources for further work on this issue following project completion, while ensuring that there are adequate financial resources to support the handover and initial operations of the RO plant and rainwater collection systems.
13 Community stakeholders should be consulted well in advance of construction activities that may affect community life, such as pipe-laying in community streets. UNOPS and the PMU should ensure that communities (e.g. island councils) are immediately notified and consulted on pipe-laying, which is anticipated to begin in April 2014. Communication should be ongoing throughout the construction process, for example, through public-posting and regular updating of the construction work schedule.
14 UNOPS and FENAKA should ensure that all potential future revenue generating opportunities for the system are discussed (with the goal of increasing the likelihood of financial sustainability), and any necessary technical requirements should be incorporated in the construction and pipe laying for the water distribution system. For example, multiple stakeholders highlighted the opportunity to bottle and sell water to nearby islands, to sell water at the harbor to fishermen, and also the possibility of future ice making (as has been incorporated in the MWSC project in Dhuvaafaru Island).
15 According to the project document ATLAS budget and the UNOPS work package budget in the original PID, the UNOPS PMU has a budget of $21,000 in each of the last two years of the project (out of the total UNOPS PMU budget of $384,000). As of February 20, 2014, the UNOPS PMU budget spent was $252,532, leaving a balance of $131,468. From this balance it seems feasible for UNOPS to reserve the necessary funds to provide the required support during the operational phase of the project, from Q3 2014 to Q3 2015. This evaluation recommends that UNOPS ensure it has the financial resources available to provide any necessary support through the closure of the project, as planned in the project document.
16 To increase cost-effectiveness for the construction of RO plant-rainwater harvesting systems on islands in the Maldives in the future, this evaluation recommends that future donors consider investment approaches using innovative financial mechanisms to establish public-private partnerships and provide the financial incentives necessary to make the required capital investment attractive for these utility companies. This could be in the form of interest rate subsidies, capital investment subsidies, or any other financial approach for catalyzing such public-private partnerships
1. Recommendation: To ensure that the water system handover process is as seamless as possible at this critical juncture for the sustainability of the system, the key stakeholders (UNOPS, UNDP, MEE and FENAKA) should by May 31, 2014 establish a detailed written agreement about handover processes and procedures, to ensure there is no miscommunication or misunderstanding, and ensure all relevant aspects of the handover process are considered and adequately covered. This would include clear and specific detailed roles and responsibilities and timing, including aspects such as transfer of staff, transfer of capital assets, maintenance and operations support agreements, etc
Management Response: [Added: 2014/05/08]

Agreed

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Prepare detailed written agreement about handover processes and procedures to include clear and specific detailed roles and responsibilities and timing, including aspects such as transfer of staff, transfer of capital assets, maintenance and operations support agreements, etc
[Added: 2014/05/08] [Last Updated: 2018/09/16]
UNOPS Project Team 2014/05 Completed The handover period had been messy and protracted, however this was completed before the end of the project History
2. Recommendation: The MTE recommends that the Project Board (with planning support from the PMU and UNDP) re-allocate resources from Outputs 1.4, 3.2, and 3.3, and re-direct any cost-savings from Outputs 1.1-1.3, to ensure that the handover and initial year of system operation is supported to whatever extent necessary. The system handover and start-up phase is the most critical part of the project, as it is at this key juncture that any disruptions could have significant negative repercussions for project results and sustainability.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/05/08]

Partially Agree: Agree that system handover and start-up phase is the most critical part of the project and the handover need to be supported. Do not agree with the reallocation of funds from Outputs 1.4, 3.2 and 3.3 as they are critical to the Project objectives. No cost savings from Outputs 1.1-1.3 are anticipated at this stage

Key Actions:

3. Recommendation: FENAKA and MEE need to immediately discuss and finalize a proposed tariff structure that can be communicated to the island communities at least a few months in advance of start-up of the system. This means that the tariff structure should be finalized by the end of April. The PMU is expected to facilitate this discussion, with UNDP?s support as necessary.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/05/08]

Agreed

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
FENAKA to approve the tariff structure sent by MEE in May 2013 and obtain approval from the regulatory body (EPA)
[Added: 2014/05/08] [Last Updated: 2018/09/16]
MEE/FENAKA 2014/06 Completed MEE has shared the tariff structure developed by the project and is awaiting approval from FENAKA board. While a tariff structure was agreed at a policy level, it's implementation was difficult History
4. Recommendation: Conduct team-based risk assessment for remaining project period. Due to the significant delays in the design phase, there is no time or resources available to buffer further slippage in the start-up and trial phase for operation of the water systems in the three pilot islands. Thus, before planned closure of the project in October 2015 it is absolutely critical for the project to demonstrate that the planned results have been achieved and sustainability is likely. To ensure that no significant setbacks or delays are further encountered, the project coordination committee should sit-together to conduct a specific risk assessment to identify any potential issues that could arise, and identify back-up plans and alternative approaches as mitigation measures that can be rapidly implemented in case any problems occur. This should be a team exercise to ensure that the project is successful by completion; the PCC may consider asking FENAKA to participate in this exercise.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/05/08]

Partially Agree ? Risk of not finishing the infrastructure component of the project by the PB agreed date of July 2014 is higher and needs UNOPS to address in detail the immediate risks. Overall project risks are reviewed every 6 months by the PMU, UNDP, UNOPS.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
UNOPS to send detailed risks and mitigation measures for project by the newly agreed handover date in September 2014. The preparation of the handover agreement (Recommendation 1) will also have to address these risks.
[Added: 2014/05/08] [Last Updated: 2018/09/16]
UNOPS 2014/03 Completed While risks and mitigation measures were developed the project faced many hurdles in completion History
5. Recommendation: Immediate initiation of community information and awareness raising activities. Successful start-up and sustainable operation of the water management system in each of the three islands requires the beneficiary/client communities to be better informed - and informed in advance - about the planned construction, operations and tariff system. Furthermore, to meet the education and awareness objectives of the project, the planned community communication campaign must be implemented. Given that UNOPS is not well-positioned to undertake these activities, and the PMU?s limited resources are likely to be focused on continuing coordination with UNOPS for the completion of construction and start-up of the water system, the MTE recommends that responsibility for these project activities be devolved to UNDP. Further, to rapidly carry out these activities, the MTE recommends that UNDP collaborate with the community-based CSOs in the three islands (such as local NGOs and the women?s development councils) to disseminate information in the communities.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/05/08]

Agreed

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
MEE will communicate the information on planned construction and operations before construction begins. -UNDP to lead and start the IWRM awareness campaign
[Added: 2014/05/08] [Last Updated: 2018/09/16]
UNDP 2014/09 Completed Activity was not completed by due date but the awareness campaign was completed before project closure History
6. Recommendation: Strengthen results-based monitoring in the 2nd half of the project. The project applies multiple monitoring tools, such as the PPR, and quarterly progress reports and FACE forms. However there are not adequate linkages between the reporting on project activities, project expenditures, and achievement of project indicator targets. The PMU, UNDP, and UNOPS should work together to identify adjustments as necessary to strengthen the results-oriented view of reporting on project activities and expenditures
Management Response: [Added: 2014/05/08]

Agreed

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
UNDP to prepare a new Quarterly Progress Report format that will further strengthen results-based reporting by including linkages between activities, expenditures and achievement of project indicator targets
[Added: 2014/05/08] [Last Updated: 2018/09/16]
UNDP 2014/07 Completed New Quarterly Progress Report format was used History
7. Recommendation: The MEE must plan to strengthen implementation capacity for future donor-funded climate change adaptation projects with budgets of greater than $1 million USD and timeframes of three years or longer. It is common international practice to have a dedicated PMU for such projects to ensure efficient and timely execution (and a dedicated PMU was foreseen for the IWRM project). There are, however, other models that could be followed, such as a cluster implementation unit, with multiple project managers, but shared support staff and infrastructure, such as in Armenia. Another approach employed by some projects is to secure external support, such as an international technical advisor on a part-time basis, to support key aspects of the project. Considering that international finance for climate change adaptation is expected to increase significantly in coming years, the Government of Maldives must demonstrate that the country is capable of absorbing the funds it urgently requires to adapt to climate change impacts. Further, it must ensure that the national implementation capacity is in place to support successful and timely implementation of such projects.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/05/08]

Agreed

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Key Action(s) No action taken as the recommendation is beyond the project?s scope. No problems associated with the current project management have been identified by the MTE.
[Added: 2014/05/08] [Last Updated: 2018/09/16]
N/A 2011/01 No Longer Applicable [Justification: No action taken as the recommendation is beyond the projects scope. ]
History
8. Recommendation: When the tariff structure is finalized, FENAKA, UNDP and the MEE should clearly explain to community stakeholders the basis for the tariff structure, the assumptions on which is it built, and any measures community stakeholders can take to support potentially reaching a lower tariff structure in the future. FENAKA understandably has a preference for a tariff structure based on conservative assumptions about the operation of the system, including the amount of rainwater collected for the system. At the same time, if the tariff system is significantly above the levels identified in the Willingness-to-Pay study, there is a risk that community members will understandably conserve their ?free? rainwater for their own use, and choose not to participate in the community rain water collection system ? which will in fact bring to fruition FENAKA?s conservative assumptions about rain water collection
Management Response: [Added: 2014/05/08] [Last Updated: 2014/05/08]

Partially Agree.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Project has already agreed that the staff trained for operation and maintenance of the system will be absorbed into FENAKA to ensure the sustainability of the plant operation. Training of trainers is beyond the scope and fund availability of the project. Staff handover time to be decided from the actions under Recommendation 1.
[Added: 2014/05/08] [Last Updated: 2018/09/16]
MEE 2014/11 Completed Trainings were conducted to operators, however not all staff initially recruited continued History
9. Recommendation: Institute financial incentives for community members to participate in the rainwater collection system. FENAKA should strongly consider instituting a rebate system in the tariff structure, whereby community members whose householders are contributing rainwater to the centralized collection system receive an annual rebate on their water bill. Such a system would strengthen the likelihood of the financial, technical, and socio-political sustainability of the project results, and reduce the likelihood that government subsidies would be required in the long-run to ensure the continued operation of the system in the three islands
Management Response: [Added: 2014/05/08] [Last Updated: 2014/05/08]

Partially Agree. Households have limited capacity to store rainwater. The understanding is that households will store rainwater to their full capacity regardless of the tariff amount. Therefore the amount of rainwater that the community will contribute to the water supply system is already estimated based on this understanding

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
MEE will advocate with FENAKA on what needs to be done in order for such a rebate can be established within the tariff system and whether there is anything that can be done through the project to establish
[Added: 2014/05/08] [Last Updated: 2018/09/16]
MEE 2014/06 Completed Tariffs was IWRM systems was established through a policy decision History
10. Recommendation: Institute financial incentives for community members to participate in the rainwater collection system. FENAKA should strongly consider instituting a rebate system in the tariff structure, whereby community members whose householders are contributing rainwater to the centralized collection system receive an annual rebate on their water bill. Such a system would strengthen the likelihood of the financial, technical, and socio-political sustainability of the project results, and reduce the likelihood that government subsidies would be required in the long-run to ensure the continued operation of the system in the three islands.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/05/08]

Agreed

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
MEE will advocate with FENAKA on what needs to be done in order for such a rebate can be established within the tariff system and whether there is anything that can be done through the project to establish
[Added: 2014/05/08] [Last Updated: 2018/09/16]
MEE 2014/06 Completed Initial dialogue has already been undertaken History
11. Recommendation: To support the community education and awareness component of the project the PMU and UNDP should consider a ?community liaison officer? model whereby one or two individuals are contracted on a part-time basis to serve as information dissemination channels, and organize community-related activities for education and awareness related to water security and climate change adaptation. Such a model can be seen in numerous other projects, and often engages individuals from local level community-based organizations.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/05/08]

Partially Agree. Project already has three staff stationed in the islands who are playing the role of communications and liaising with the community with the assistance of the PMU

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Knowledge products created through the project will be implemented via the existing staff stationed in the islands.
[Added: 2014/05/08] [Last Updated: 2018/09/16]
PMU/UNDP 2015/10 Completed Throughout the lifespan of the project History
12. Recommendation: : Refocusing of work on groundwater management. Many stakeholders have emphasized the importance of the groundwater related aspects of the project. However, at this point in time, little has been taken forward on this issue, as the widespread groundwater recharge pits have not been incorporated in the technical design, for multiple reasons. While there may have once been potential for the project to contribute to the development of technical knowledge on this issue, at this stage in the project the focus should primarily be on ensuring that the RO plant and rainwater capture systems are completed, fully operational, and are demonstrating the likelihood for sustainability by the end of the project. The resources and time remaining to address groundwater management issues are minimal, and the project is not likely to make a substantive contribution on this issue at this stage. As such, the focus of the project with respect to groundwater should be on identifying partners and potential funding sources for further work on this issue following project completion, while ensuring that there are adequate financial resources to support the handover and initial operations of the RO plant and rainwater collection systems.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/05/08]

DISAGREE. The groundwater management aspect of the project remains a crucial element of IWRM and therefore this project. The project aims to demonstrate a pilot mechanism for groundwater recharge in at least one island. There is sufficient funding and time to do this.

Key Actions:

13. Recommendation: Community stakeholders should be consulted well in advance of construction activities that may affect community life, such as pipe-laying in community streets. UNOPS and the PMU should ensure that communities (e.g. island councils) are immediately notified and consulted on pipe-laying, which is anticipated to begin in April 2014. Communication should be ongoing throughout the construction process, for example, through public-posting and regular updating of the construction work schedule.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/05/08]

Agreed

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Already addressed in Recommendation 4
[Added: 2014/05/08] [Last Updated: 2018/09/16]
N/A 2011/01 Completed History
14. Recommendation: UNOPS and FENAKA should ensure that all potential future revenue generating opportunities for the system are discussed (with the goal of increasing the likelihood of financial sustainability), and any necessary technical requirements should be incorporated in the construction and pipe laying for the water distribution system. For example, multiple stakeholders highlighted the opportunity to bottle and sell water to nearby islands, to sell water at the harbor to fishermen, and also the possibility of future ice making (as has been incorporated in the MWSC project in Dhuvaafaru Island).
Management Response: [Added: 2014/05/08]

Partially Agree. Agree that future revenue generating opportunities are necessary for the sustainability of the system. However, determining what these activities will be is outside the scope of this project. System was designed with the involvement of all stakeholders including utilities company and private sector

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
No action required as the recommendation is beyond the scope of the project.
[Added: 2014/05/08]
2014/03 Completed
15. Recommendation: According to the project document ATLAS budget and the UNOPS work package budget in the original PID, the UNOPS PMU has a budget of $21,000 in each of the last two years of the project (out of the total UNOPS PMU budget of $384,000). As of February 20, 2014, the UNOPS PMU budget spent was $252,532, leaving a balance of $131,468. From this balance it seems feasible for UNOPS to reserve the necessary funds to provide the required support during the operational phase of the project, from Q3 2014 to Q3 2015. This evaluation recommends that UNOPS ensure it has the financial resources available to provide any necessary support through the closure of the project, as planned in the project document.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/05/08]

Agreed

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
UNOPS PMU taper the staff to ensure that the required technical support is available until project end in 2015. This includes engineering based technical support as well as project management support.
[Added: 2014/05/08] [Last Updated: 2018/09/16]
UNOPS 2014/06 Completed History
16. Recommendation: To increase cost-effectiveness for the construction of RO plant-rainwater harvesting systems on islands in the Maldives in the future, this evaluation recommends that future donors consider investment approaches using innovative financial mechanisms to establish public-private partnerships and provide the financial incentives necessary to make the required capital investment attractive for these utility companies. This could be in the form of interest rate subsidies, capital investment subsidies, or any other financial approach for catalyzing such public-private partnerships
Management Response: [Added: 2014/05/08]

Partially Agree. The project undertook a Willingness-to-pay study where a 10 year financial forecasting was undertaken. This information will be available for future donors and other projects to use in order to explore options

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
No action since the recommendation applies to future donor projects and is beyond the scope of this project
[Added: 2014/05/08]
2014/05 Completed

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