Mid-Term Evaluation of the Adaptation to Climate Change Project

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2011-2015, Zambia
Evaluation Type:
Mid Term Project
Planned End Date:
09/2012
Completion Date:
07/2013
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
40,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document ToR.doc tor English 168.50 KB Posted 514
Download document FINAL - MTR - Zambia LDCF - Agorecological zones I II - FINAL .docx report English 2878.82 KB Posted 1317
Title Mid-Term Evaluation of the Adaptation to Climate Change Project
Atlas Project Number: 00072197
Evaluation Plan: 2011-2015, Zambia
Evaluation Type: Mid Term Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 07/2013
Planned End Date: 09/2012
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Environment & Sustainable Development
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
  • 1. 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 $): 40,000
Source of Funding: GEF
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: Yes
  • Joint with GEF
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Juliane Zeidler (PhD) Dr j.zeidler@iecn-namibia.com
GEF Evaluation: Yes
Evaluation Type:
Focal Area: Climate Change
Project Type: EA
GEF Phase: GEF-1
PIMS Number: 3942
Key Stakeholders: Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, Other Government Ministries and National Institutions, Cooperating Partners & Beneficiary Groups/Communities
Countries: ZAMBIA
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1 1: UNDP should obtain the concurrence of the GEF for a no cost extension of the project, for a minimum of one year to one and half years to cover two additional growing seasons. The extension would also enable the project to utilize the unspent funds (about US$ 900,000) as at December 2013, and to ensure that a great deal of activities not yet achieved, but to some extent already started are accordingly implemented.
2 2: Financial adjustments for the 2013 plan at management response- Although there was a significant amount of funds not allocated by the end of the project as at December 2013 (over US$ 900,000), it was recommended to re-budget the 2013 allocations if the no-cost extension was requested. It should be revisited if the high costs of the water and irrigation infrastructure would be justified at this point of the project, where major the focus should be on generating adaptation learning.
3 3: MET Stations at the time of MTE- not functional: The 8 Automatic Weather Stations were not fully operational at the MTE stage. There was need to operationalize the AWSs so that the local farmers could see the direct value of the information coming through these stations. It should be a priority to ensure that these stations will feed continuous data into the national climate observation system, through direct data transfer to ZMD.
4 4: EWS- Need for a good concept: At MTE it was found that a good concept for farmer?s relevant Early Warning System (EWS) was lacking indicating that no meaningful EWS was in place. It was recommended to formulate an action plan on EWS and to seek Expert inputs from elsewhere (national and international) on EWS. The project should also seek to link into an umbrella proposal on EWS that had been established through ZMD.
5 5: For Outcome 1, climate knowledge- need to invest in more trainings and professional updating. At the MTE there was an overall lack of internalization of climate related knowledge into project actions and execution which emerged as a major concern. Systematic integration of Climate Risk (CR) information was not in place at all levels of project implementation.
6 6: For Outcome 2, Develop district level corrective action plans to incorporate gender equity, application, of national environmental Impact Assessment requirements and training needs. The MTE noted that there was need to screen the water infrastructure supported by the project for potential environmental and social impacts. This was in the context of climate adaptation where poorly sighted investments may lead to maladaptive practices.
7 7: For Outcome 2, Develop sustainability exit plans for the district level pilots (assisting farmers in sustainability planning, which will include marketing training and support). The MTE observed the need to continue supporting systems that will be self-running. These should include activities such as assisting farmers in sustainability planning, product development, market identification, pricing and others ? perhaps even in terms of supporting development plans.
8 8: For Outcome 3, Integrate climate change into the Agriculture Policy. The MTE observed that the Agriculture Policy was undergoing a review. It was recommended that the project should seek permission for a final screening of the revised agriculture policy to assess the extent to which adaptation issues have been incorporated in the policy- if possible with the engagement of relevant international expertise. If not acceptable it might be possible to organize one policy dialogue specifically on this policy.
9 9: For Outcome 3, Need to identify practical policy opportunities (to ensure sustainability). Although project staff have been actively involved in the review of the newly revised agriculture policy, it is not clear as to how far climate change resilience issues are covered by this national policy instrument. It is understandable that due to the delay in project implementation the timeline to incorporate project learning into the policy may have been missed. It also appears that other policy opportunities can be identified. For example best practices and demonstrations identified from the pilot sites may find their way into camp plans, and feed into provincial and national planning processes within MAL.
10 10: For Outcome 3, Using policy dialogues ? a good opportunity. Overall very limited actions have taken place under this outcome. The MTE recommended as a matter of priority to set up the Policy Dialogues included under the project design. Innovative concepts on how to conduct meaningful and high-impact policy dialogues with the leadership of MAL should be designed. It is critical to ensure such policy dialogues are conducted in a highly professional manner and outside expertise should be sought for, investing into high calibre facilitation. A schedule of debates should be set up, in line with policy opportunities but also addressing key issues of concern to Zambia. This is an excellent opportunity for the agriculture sector to provide leadership on climate related issues that clearly have affected the country- such as through prolonged droughts.The policy dialogues can additionally help build climate action leadership in Zambia- such leadership will- naturally- lead to policy changes, even if in the longer term.
11 11: For Outcome 3, Make stronger links with on-going Zambian climate change processes. At this point the LDCF project was mostly housed at MAL. Although MAL staff were seconded to national climate change policy processes a strategy was needed to better capitalize on policy influencing strategies in terms of building a more climate resilient agriculture sector. It was important that the lessons learnt from the agriculture sector found their way into national debates on climate change. The MTE recommended that the project team should develop a clear strategy on which policy messages emerge out of this LDCF project and where to engage strategically with national policy processes.
12 12: For Outcome 4, Mobilise the lessons-learnt and knowledge management component. To date limited activities have taken place under this outcome, mostly as project implementation was delayed and initial lessons learnt were only just emerging. The MTE emphasised the importance of this outcome and recommended the need to develop a more detailed plan of action of how to address the output underlying this outcome. It was indicated that NAIS should play a significant role in the processing of lessons learnt, as well as dissemination with a clear leadership by the project management.
13 13: Management ? M&E. The MTE proposed corrective measures in terms of M&E and reporting. Although the reports from the districts seemed to be rather well organized and executed, with reporting templates leading into the project M&E plan, this information had to date not been processed formally to respond to the set out indicators and targets. The collected information needed to be processed specifically to respond to the M&E framework in the project document.
14 14: Re-engagement of the Steering Committee. The Project Steering Committee which would potentially engage some of the relevant stakeholders at national level had not been very active and only met a few times. The MTE emphasised the need to re-engage the PSC as a matter of priority from this point on wards. This would also be a good opportunity to make progress on outcome 3. The sustainability of impacts were not likely to be positively affected if the PSC members were not engaged in the project processes and decision making. The MAL was advised to organize some of the PSC meetings at project site so that members could see first-hand the type of local level impacts that can be generated. This could be a powerful approach to building ownership.
1. Recommendation: 1: UNDP should obtain the concurrence of the GEF for a no cost extension of the project, for a minimum of one year to one and half years to cover two additional growing seasons. The extension would also enable the project to utilize the unspent funds (about US$ 900,000) as at December 2013, and to ensure that a great deal of activities not yet achieved, but to some extent already started are accordingly implemented.
Management Response: [Added: 2013/09/06]

Concurrence has already been received from the Project Steering Committee that met on 16th August 2013, among other things they endorsed the recommendation for a no- cost extension of the project up to June 2015. The PSC instructed the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock to write to UNDP to request for a no-cost extension of one year six months. Further, that the 2013 work plan and budget be revised to provide adequate resources for the one dam under construction and the balance would go for another dam that would be prioritized.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
1.1 MAL to formally request UNDP for a no-cost extension.
[Added: 2013/09/06] [Last Updated: 2017/11/01]
(a) Director of Agriculture 2013/09 Completed The no-cost extension was granted. History
1.2 UNDP to forward the request from the MAL to the Regional Service Centre requesting for a no-cost extension.
[Added: 2013/09/06] [Last Updated: 2017/11/01]
(b) UNDP- Environment Advisor 2013/09 Completed The no-cost extension was granted. History
2. Recommendation: 2: Financial adjustments for the 2013 plan at management response- Although there was a significant amount of funds not allocated by the end of the project as at December 2013 (over US$ 900,000), it was recommended to re-budget the 2013 allocations if the no-cost extension was requested. It should be revisited if the high costs of the water and irrigation infrastructure would be justified at this point of the project, where major the focus should be on generating adaptation learning.
Management Response: [Added: 2013/09/06]

The Project Steering Committee agreed to the budget revision to allocate sufficient funds for the Siankapu dam in Lusitu which is under construction and also endorsed the prioritisation of Chikowa as the other dam to be constructed under the project. Further, for the other prioritized/Irrigation schemes e.g. the Sioma irrigation scheme the Department of Agriculture would mobilize resources both internally and externally. MAL will also follow up with the Climate Resilience Infrastructure Development Facility (CRIDF) which has shown interest to support the construction of one dam with the view to conclude on the requirements for the support.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
2.1. Revise the workplan and budget to allocate sufficient resources for the 2 dams that have been prioritized to be supported under the project.
[Added: 2013/09/06] [Last Updated: 2017/11/01]
Project Officer UNDP And Environment Advisor: UNDP. 2013/09 Completed The funds were reallocated and two dams prioritized which were completed before project closure. History
2.2 The MAL to organize a meeting with CRIDF to agree on the way forward and requirements for partnering with CRIDF.
[Added: 2013/09/06] [Last Updated: 2017/11/01]
Director of Agriculture 2013/10 Completed The Ministry of Agriculture engaged CRIDF to access resources for dams. However, the funds could not be accessed due to resource constraints at CRIDF. History
3. Recommendation: 3: MET Stations at the time of MTE- not functional: The 8 Automatic Weather Stations were not fully operational at the MTE stage. There was need to operationalize the AWSs so that the local farmers could see the direct value of the information coming through these stations. It should be a priority to ensure that these stations will feed continuous data into the national climate observation system, through direct data transfer to ZMD.
Management Response: [Added: 2013/09/06]

Operationalizing the AWS is recognized as an important aspect in the development of an effective Early Warning System that will provide information to the farmers to support effective decision-making. The MAL will liaise with ZMD to pursue the various options to effectively operationalise and manage the AWS.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
3.1. Hold a meeting between MAL and ZMD to discuss the options for effective management of the AWSs.
[Added: 2013/09/06] [Last Updated: 2017/11/01]
a) Project Officer ? UNDP 2013/07 Completed The meeting was held and modems of Delta T Services procured from suppliers of the AWSs. History
3.2. Procure modems so that AWS can be transmitting data remotely to ZMD. Improved concept for linkages to data use (EWS) reviewed, weather stations made operational.
[Added: 2013/09/06] [Last Updated: 2017/11/01]
Director ZMD 2013/09 Completed The equipment was procured and received by the implementing partner History
4. Recommendation: 4: EWS- Need for a good concept: At MTE it was found that a good concept for farmer?s relevant Early Warning System (EWS) was lacking indicating that no meaningful EWS was in place. It was recommended to formulate an action plan on EWS and to seek Expert inputs from elsewhere (national and international) on EWS. The project should also seek to link into an umbrella proposal on EWS that had been established through ZMD.
Management Response: [Added: 2013/09/06] [Last Updated: 2013/09/06]

The Department of Agriculture has agreed with the observation of the MTE and it is developing a plan of action to move forward this activity with support from Experts.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
4.1. Finalize the concept note that was developed by the UNDP Regional Advisor on Climate Change Information
[Added: 2013/09/06] [Last Updated: 2017/11/01]
ZMD in collaboration with With the Secretariat 2013/09 Completed The concept was developed and submitted to ZMD by Mark Tedross and the proposed activities were integrated in the revised work plan for implementation. History
4.3. Integrate the proposed activities on EWS in the revised work plan.
[Added: 2013/09/06] [Last Updated: 2017/11/01]
Project Officer 2013/09 Completed As indicated in 4.1, the proposed activities were integrated into the revised workplan History
5. Recommendation: 5: For Outcome 1, climate knowledge- need to invest in more trainings and professional updating. At the MTE there was an overall lack of internalization of climate related knowledge into project actions and execution which emerged as a major concern. Systematic integration of Climate Risk (CR) information was not in place at all levels of project implementation.
Management Response: [Added: 2013/09/06]

Management has noted the low implementation of this activity which is critical to the enhanced information on climate change. To this effect the Department of Agriculture in collaboration with the Interim Climate Change Secretariat will develop a capacity building plan for integration of climate change issues (is it not specific to CR) in the agricultural sector.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
5.1. Recruit a consultant for mapping the training needs and developing the capacity strengthening plan.
[Added: 2013/09/06] [Last Updated: 2017/11/01]
Project Officer in collaboration with the Climate Change Interim Secretariat 2013/10 Completed The Interim Climate Change Secretariat developed general training materials and a training program on climate change for other sectors. History
5.2 Recruit a consult for developing/adapting training materials.
[Added: 2013/09/06] [Last Updated: 2017/11/01]
Project Officer in collaboration with the Climate Change Interim Secretariat 2013/11 Completed The Interim Climate Change Secretariat developed general training materials and a training program on climate change for other sectors. History
5.3 Orient the staff in integrating climate change issues in the agriculture sector.
[Added: 2013/09/06] [Last Updated: 2017/11/01]
Project Officer in collaboration with the Climate Change Interim Secretariat 2012/12 Completed The Interim Climate Change Secretariat developed general training materials and a training program on climate change for other sectors. History
6. Recommendation: 6: For Outcome 2, Develop district level corrective action plans to incorporate gender equity, application, of national environmental Impact Assessment requirements and training needs. The MTE noted that there was need to screen the water infrastructure supported by the project for potential environmental and social impacts. This was in the context of climate adaptation where poorly sighted investments may lead to maladaptive practices.
Management Response: [Added: 2013/09/06]

The Management is in agreement with the observations and the recommendations of the MTE. In this regard, the Project Secretariat will undertake the following: 1. Integration of the recommendation of the gender study into the work plan and commence implementation, 2, the agriculture department will recruit a consultant to undertake an assessment of environment and social safeguards and the proposed mitigation measures will be followed up.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
6.1. Hold a technical working group meeting and prioritize the recommendations of the gender study for implementation.
[Added: 2013/09/06] [Last Updated: 2017/11/01]
Project Secretariat 2013/10 Completed The project ensured that environmental screening of proposed dams was done and the information from the screening informed design. Gender aspects were also taken on board in all project activities. History
6.2 Recruit a consult to undertake the environment and social safe guards and commence implementation of mitigation measures.
[Added: 2013/09/06] [Last Updated: 2017/11/01]
Project Secretariat 2013/09 Completed The project ensured that environmental screening of proposed dams was done and the information from the screening informed design. Gender aspects were also taken on board in all project activities. The project completed an environmental screening process and developed a mitigation which was developed as part of the project document and was implemented throughout and followed up through out the life of the project History
7. Recommendation: 7: For Outcome 2, Develop sustainability exit plans for the district level pilots (assisting farmers in sustainability planning, which will include marketing training and support). The MTE observed the need to continue supporting systems that will be self-running. These should include activities such as assisting farmers in sustainability planning, product development, market identification, pricing and others ? perhaps even in terms of supporting development plans.
Management Response: [Added: 2013/09/06]

Management agrees with the recommendation. Farmer training in product development and marketing has started. Sustainability exit action plans will be developed and implemented.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
7.1 Recruit a consultant to review the effectiveness of the farmer training and update the training materials in product development and marketing.
[Added: 2013/09/06] [Last Updated: 2017/11/01]
Project Secretariat 2013/10 Completed This was accomplished through the exercise to document best practices and was achieved through the terminal evaluation of the project. This process identified value chains which are the focus on the scale up through GEF 6 LCDF and GCF proposals. History
7.2 Recruit a consultant to develop the sustainability exit action plans for 8 districts.
[Added: 2013/09/06] [Last Updated: 2017/11/01]
Project Secretariat 2013/10 Completed This was accomplished through internal project review meetings and consolidated during the final evaluation of the project. History
7.3. Implement the action plans
[Added: 2013/09/06]
Project Secretariat No due date No deadline established
8. Recommendation: 8: For Outcome 3, Integrate climate change into the Agriculture Policy. The MTE observed that the Agriculture Policy was undergoing a review. It was recommended that the project should seek permission for a final screening of the revised agriculture policy to assess the extent to which adaptation issues have been incorporated in the policy- if possible with the engagement of relevant international expertise. If not acceptable it might be possible to organize one policy dialogue specifically on this policy.
Management Response: [Added: 2013/09/06]

The management is agreable with the observation, however the Department of Agriculture has already taken the following actions: 1. A concept note to integrate adaptation measures in the agriculture and climate change policies has been prepared and shared with respective institutions for integration. 2. A workshop was organized to harmonize the agriculture and climate change policies.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
8.1. Organize a validation workshop for the final review of the agriculture and climate change policies.
[Added: 2013/09/06] [Last Updated: 2017/11/01]
The Policy and Planning Department (PID), MAL. 2013/12 Completed The two policies have been completed and implementation has commenced. Inputs from UNDP supported validation meetings and policy guidance have been taken on board. History
8.2 Organize policy dialogue on climate change in the agriculture sector with relevant stakeholders with a view of disseminating information contained in the agriculture and climate change policies.
[Added: 2013/09/06] [Last Updated: 2017/11/01]
The Policy and Planning Department (PID), MAL. 2014/03 Completed The two policies have been completed and implementation has commenced. Inputs from UNDP supported validation meetings and policy guidance have been taken on board. History
9. Recommendation: 9: For Outcome 3, Need to identify practical policy opportunities (to ensure sustainability). Although project staff have been actively involved in the review of the newly revised agriculture policy, it is not clear as to how far climate change resilience issues are covered by this national policy instrument. It is understandable that due to the delay in project implementation the timeline to incorporate project learning into the policy may have been missed. It also appears that other policy opportunities can be identified. For example best practices and demonstrations identified from the pilot sites may find their way into camp plans, and feed into provincial and national planning processes within MAL.
Management Response: [Added: 2013/09/18]

The Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock is in agreement with the recommendation and some districts have started revising their district development plans to incorporate climate change issues. These district plans would provide inputs into the regional (provincial) and national plans. The project will ensure that the remaining districts alsointegrate climate change issues into their district plans.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
9.1. The consultant to be recruited under 5.1 would also prepare materials for integration of climate change in planning
[Added: 2013/09/18] [Last Updated: 2017/11/01]
Project Secretariat in collaboration with the Climate Change Interim Secretariat 2013/10 Completed Implementing District Offices of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock integrated climate change issues into their plans. History
9.2. Training of staff in climate change planning.
[Added: 2013/09/18] [Last Updated: 2017/11/01]
Project Secretariat in collaboration with the Climate Change Interim Secretariat 2013/12 Completed The training of staff on climate change planning was undertaken and Implementing District Offices of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock integrated climate change issues into their plans. History
10. Recommendation: 10: For Outcome 3, Using policy dialogues ? a good opportunity. Overall very limited actions have taken place under this outcome. The MTE recommended as a matter of priority to set up the Policy Dialogues included under the project design. Innovative concepts on how to conduct meaningful and high-impact policy dialogues with the leadership of MAL should be designed. It is critical to ensure such policy dialogues are conducted in a highly professional manner and outside expertise should be sought for, investing into high calibre facilitation. A schedule of debates should be set up, in line with policy opportunities but also addressing key issues of concern to Zambia. This is an excellent opportunity for the agriculture sector to provide leadership on climate related issues that clearly have affected the country- such as through prolonged droughts.The policy dialogues can additionally help build climate action leadership in Zambia- such leadership will- naturally- lead to policy changes, even if in the longer term.
Management Response: [Added: 2013/09/18]

The Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock is in agreement with the recommendation and notes that policy dialogues were mainly taking place at district and provincial levels but this will be enhanced at national level as well.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
10.1. Recruit a consultant to prepare materials for policy dialogues.
[Added: 2013/09/18] [Last Updated: 2017/11/01]
Project Secretariat in collaboration with the Interim Climate change secretariat. 2013/11 Completed Policy dialogues were organised at district and provincial levels but this was scaled up at national level culminating into national dialogue on climate change and agriculture in 2014 working closely with the UNREDD Programme.. History
10.2. Organize a meeting to orient MPs on climate change adaptation in agriculture.
[Added: 2013/09/18] [Last Updated: 2017/11/01]
Project Secretariat in collaboration with the Interim Climate change secretariat. 2013/12 No Longer Applicable [Justification: The meeting was not held due to limited time during the period parliament is sitting and challenges in subsequent years due to the presidential by-election in 2015 and the 2016 General elections. The Members of Parliament were however engaged at district and constituency level in implementation sites.]
The meeting was not held due to limited time during the period parliament is sitting and challenges in subsequent years due to the presidential by-election in 2015 and the 2016 General elections. The Members of Parliament were however engaged at district and constituency level in implementation sites. History
11. Recommendation: 11: For Outcome 3, Make stronger links with on-going Zambian climate change processes. At this point the LDCF project was mostly housed at MAL. Although MAL staff were seconded to national climate change policy processes a strategy was needed to better capitalize on policy influencing strategies in terms of building a more climate resilient agriculture sector. It was important that the lessons learnt from the agriculture sector found their way into national debates on climate change. The MTE recommended that the project team should develop a clear strategy on which policy messages emerge out of this LDCF project and where to engage strategically with national policy processes.
Management Response: [Added: 2013/09/18]

Management is agreeable with the recommendation and will endeavour to develop a concept of key policy points to be used at various fora so that climate resilience building in the agriculture sector could be achieved.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
11.1. The consultant to be recruited under 10.1 will also develop the key messages for climate resilience building in the agriculture sector and action plan for dissemination..
[Added: 2013/09/18] [Last Updated: 2017/11/01]
Project Secretariat in collaboration with the Interim Climate change secretariat. 2013/11 Completed Policy dialogues undertaken. Details provided under 10.1 above. History
12. Recommendation: 12: For Outcome 4, Mobilise the lessons-learnt and knowledge management component. To date limited activities have taken place under this outcome, mostly as project implementation was delayed and initial lessons learnt were only just emerging. The MTE emphasised the importance of this outcome and recommended the need to develop a more detailed plan of action of how to address the output underlying this outcome. It was indicated that NAIS should play a significant role in the processing of lessons learnt, as well as dissemination with a clear leadership by the project management.
Management Response: [Added: 2013/09/18]

Management is agreeable with the recommendation and have started engaging NAIS in the collection of lessons learnt and dissemination. The Project Secretariat will continue providing leadership to ensure that this outcome is achieved.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
12.1. Recruit a consultant to document the lessons learnt and a strategy for dissemination.
[Added: 2013/09/18] [Last Updated: 2017/11/01]
Project Secretariat. 2013/11 Completed The National Agriculture Information Service (NAIS) started producing some materials on project activities such as newsletters and documentaries. This process continued in a more structured manner after the development of the strategy. History
12.2. Engage NAIS and other stakeholders to implement the strategy with project support.
[Added: 2013/09/18] [Last Updated: 2017/11/01]
Project Secretariat 2014/03 Completed The National Agriculture Information Service (NAIS) started producing some materials on project activities such as newsletters and documentaries. This process continued in a more structured manner after the development of the strategy. History
13. Recommendation: 13: Management ? M&E. The MTE proposed corrective measures in terms of M&E and reporting. Although the reports from the districts seemed to be rather well organized and executed, with reporting templates leading into the project M&E plan, this information had to date not been processed formally to respond to the set out indicators and targets. The collected information needed to be processed specifically to respond to the M&E framework in the project document.
Management Response: [Added: 2013/09/18]

Management is agreeable with the recommendation and will ensure that the Project Secretariat undertakes this as part of the next reporting cycle.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
13.1. Review M&E framework and develop reporting guidelines that more clearly track impact indicators set out.
[Added: 2013/09/18] [Last Updated: 2017/11/01]
Project Secretariat in collaboration with the Technical group. 2013/09 Completed At the project financial management training for district staff that took place from 21st to 23rd August 2013, a session on reporting on the indicators was introduced to the participants. this was followed up during review meetings and was also a key area of focus for the final evaluation. History
14.2. Develop first M&E report according to plan for October 2013.
[Added: 2013/09/18] [Last Updated: 2017/11/01]
Project Secretariat in collaboration with the Technical group. 2013/12 Completed The Project secretariat developed a report talking into account the reviews of the the M&E framework from the third quarter of 2013 which was due on 15th October 2013 on-wards including the terminal report developed at the end of the project. History
14. Recommendation: 14: Re-engagement of the Steering Committee. The Project Steering Committee which would potentially engage some of the relevant stakeholders at national level had not been very active and only met a few times. The MTE emphasised the need to re-engage the PSC as a matter of priority from this point on wards. This would also be a good opportunity to make progress on outcome 3. The sustainability of impacts were not likely to be positively affected if the PSC members were not engaged in the project processes and decision making. The MAL was advised to organize some of the PSC meetings at project site so that members could see first-hand the type of local level impacts that can be generated. This could be a powerful approach to building ownership.
Management Response: [Added: 2013/09/18]

Management has noted the observation and recommendation of the MTE to hold regular PSC meetings for sharing information, engaging the members on project activities that would contribute to the sustainability and ownership of the project. As an implementation to this recommendation, the PSC was organized for the 16th August 2013 to review and endorse the MTE recommendations and the proposed follow-up action plans. The next PSC will be held in first week of October to approve the revised work plan and budget.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
14.1. Organize regular PSC meetings at least once a quarter.
[Added: 2013/09/18] [Last Updated: 2017/11/01]
Project Secretariat 2013/09 Completed A Project Steering Committee (PSC) meeting was held on 16th August to discuss the MTE recommendations.The follow up PSC meetings were also help to provide policy guidance to the project secretariat. History
14.2 Develop the monitoring plan with field visits that would involve the PSC members.
[Added: 2013/09/18] [Last Updated: 2017/11/01]
Project Secretariat 2013/09 Completed The monitoring plan was reviewed and endorsed at PSC meeting held in October 2013. 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