Final evaluation for the Building Adaptive Capacity and resilience to climate change in water sector in Cape Verde

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2012-2017, Cape Verde
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
12/2014
Completion Date:
11/2014
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
30,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document TE_PIMS4091FinalReport.pdf report English 3132.66 KB Posted 664
Download document TOR_FinalEvaluation__NAPA_final.pdf tor English 807.45 KB Posted 495
Title Final evaluation for the Building Adaptive Capacity and resilience to climate change in water sector in Cape Verde
Atlas Project Number: 00058253
Evaluation Plan: 2012-2017, Cape Verde
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 11/2014
Planned End Date: 12/2014
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Others
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
  • 1. Output 1.3. Solutions developed at national and sub-national levels for sustainable management of natural resources, ecosystem services, chemicals and waste
Evaluation Budget(US $): 30,000
Source of Funding: GEF
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
CABO BUJAN José António Team leader antonio.cabo@yahoo.es
MONTEIRO Carlos National Consultant Carlos.Monteiro@mdr.gov.cv
GEF Evaluation: Yes
Evaluation Type:
Focal Area: Climate Change
Project Type: FSP
GEF Phase: GEF-4
PIMS Number: 4091
Key Stakeholders:
Countries: CAPE VERDE
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1

Project design should remain concrete enough without constraining project implementation by setting too specific activity level targets, especially when the budget is calculated based on these targets. Instead, more flexible targets could be established, such as range of hectares to be afforested or cubic meter of dams to be constructed in function of known effects on water balances, including infiltration, runoff, evaporation and peak flows, and erosion. Moreover, budgets should include a provision for changes in prices as typically at least two years elapse between project design and implementation.

2

The project management unit, with the support of the steering committee must verify the validity of the indicator framework immediately after start of project implementation. Quality issues, i.e. relevance, specificity, baseline, targets etc. must prompt an agile response by both management and steering committee to introduce modifications of the indicator framework. For GEF funded projects, the figure of the UNDP-GEF regional technical advisor is of crucial importance to support justified modifications of the project logical framework, including indicator variables, baselines and targets. The responsibility for the collection and analysis of the data for monitoring of the impact and performance indicators must lie with the project coordinator or the monitoring and evaluation officer, should one be recruited. Although overall responsibility of collecting, organizing and reporting data lies with the national project coordinator, other members of the project coordination unit in charge of implementation or supervising project activities (project specialists, regional coordinators, etc.) should keep proper records and documentation, not only of data to feed the project’s indicator framework but also data on cost per unit installed/ constructed, as well as on specific location of the activities. The availability of such data, including georeferred data (i.e. geographical location and extent of interventions and effects), as well as specific financial data (i.e. cost per unit constructed/ installed) would be crucial in avoiding halts in project implementation in the case of staff turnover or delays in the process of evaluation.

3

Specific data on costs and water balance effects of the project interventions, as well as future projections based on climate change models, such as future water deficits contained in the project documentation and/ or collected by INIDA must be disseminated to provide the basis for an effective integration of climate risks into the policy framework. Special attention must be given to the risk classification for infrastructure developed by LEC. This information could be packaged and addressed to the specific target audiences within key institutions, particularly the National Planning Directorate, Directorate of Agriculture of the Ministry of Rural Development, as well as the Ministry of Finance and Planning and others as deemed appropriate.

1. Recommendation:

Project design should remain concrete enough without constraining project implementation by setting too specific activity level targets, especially when the budget is calculated based on these targets. Instead, more flexible targets could be established, such as range of hectares to be afforested or cubic meter of dams to be constructed in function of known effects on water balances, including infiltration, runoff, evaporation and peak flows, and erosion. Moreover, budgets should include a provision for changes in prices as typically at least two years elapse between project design and implementation.

Management Response: [Added: 2016/12/15] [Last Updated: 2016/12/15]

UNDP recognizes that some of the indicators retained on the Prodoc are not sufficiently attributable to project activities. Recommendation accepted and included in the Climate Change Project funded with Canada Funds.

Key Actions:

2. Recommendation:

The project management unit, with the support of the steering committee must verify the validity of the indicator framework immediately after start of project implementation. Quality issues, i.e. relevance, specificity, baseline, targets etc. must prompt an agile response by both management and steering committee to introduce modifications of the indicator framework. For GEF funded projects, the figure of the UNDP-GEF regional technical advisor is of crucial importance to support justified modifications of the project logical framework, including indicator variables, baselines and targets. The responsibility for the collection and analysis of the data for monitoring of the impact and performance indicators must lie with the project coordinator or the monitoring and evaluation officer, should one be recruited. Although overall responsibility of collecting, organizing and reporting data lies with the national project coordinator, other members of the project coordination unit in charge of implementation or supervising project activities (project specialists, regional coordinators, etc.) should keep proper records and documentation, not only of data to feed the project’s indicator framework but also data on cost per unit installed/ constructed, as well as on specific location of the activities. The availability of such data, including georeferred data (i.e. geographical location and extent of interventions and effects), as well as specific financial data (i.e. cost per unit constructed/ installed) would be crucial in avoiding halts in project implementation in the case of staff turnover or delays in the process of evaluation.

Management Response: [Added: 2016/12/15]

This was done at project inception workshop.Mechanism and timing for revision on the project framework are only possible at inception and mid-term review. 

Key Actions:

3. Recommendation:

Specific data on costs and water balance effects of the project interventions, as well as future projections based on climate change models, such as future water deficits contained in the project documentation and/ or collected by INIDA must be disseminated to provide the basis for an effective integration of climate risks into the policy framework. Special attention must be given to the risk classification for infrastructure developed by LEC. This information could be packaged and addressed to the specific target audiences within key institutions, particularly the National Planning Directorate, Directorate of Agriculture of the Ministry of Rural Development, as well as the Ministry of Finance and Planning and others as deemed appropriate.

Management Response: [Added: 2016/12/15]

Recommendation accepted and was identified as an intervention for the Canada funded project on climate change.

Key Actions:

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