Project Terminal Evaluation Report for the GMMA READY Project: Enhancing Greater Metro Manila's Institutional Capacities for Effective Disaster / Climate Risk Management towards Sustainable Development Project

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2012-2018, Philippines
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
07/2017
Completion Date:
06/2016
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
15,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document GMMA READY Project Terminal Eval Report - June 24.pdf report English 2449.16 KB Posted 465
Download document TOR_Terminal Evaluation_GMMA READY Project.pdf tor English 142.37 KB Posted 73
Title Project Terminal Evaluation Report for the GMMA READY Project: Enhancing Greater Metro Manila's Institutional Capacities for Effective Disaster / Climate Risk Management towards Sustainable Development Project
Atlas Project Number: 61036
Evaluation Plan: 2012-2018, Philippines
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 06/2016
Planned End Date: 07/2017
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Environment & Sustainable Development
  • 2. 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
Evaluation Budget(US $): 15,000
Source of Funding: Project funds
Joint Programme: No
Mandatory Evaluation: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Nicasio Angelo J. Agustin National Consultant nic_agustin@yahoo.com
GEF Evaluation: No
Key Stakeholders: PhiVolcs, DOST-PAGASA, DENR-MGB, DENR-NAMRIA, DND-OCD, HLURB, MMDA, LGUs
Countries: PHILIPPINES
Lessons
1.

Best and worst practices in addressing issues relating to relevance, performance and success

Some of the best practices that could be extracted from the implementation experiences of the project include:

  1. Output-based financing for project components. This allowed flexibility on the part of the responsible partners in adjusting and customizing activities that fit the requirements for the production or generation of intended outputs.

  2. Interdependence instead of compartmentalization of project components. Responsible partners worked closely together in all components of the project because their inputs were deemed important. It promotes functional effectiveness and cost-efficiency.

  3. Local manufacturer for CBEWS. This lessened the cost of production and manufacturing, installation of and the provision of after-sale services for CBEWS. This also allowed the development local innovators and scientists. The replication of these CBEWS in other parts of the country would be easier and less expensive.


Findings
1.
  • Some difficulties experienced by responsible partners and critical stakeholders during project implementation (e.g., limited political will, limited support, indifference and reluctance) are the function of IE&A. Given this, IE&A should be seen as major entry point for the project rather than a result of the various activities conducted and the outputs generated by the project. Gaining support for and promoting ownership of the project by agencies, local governments, communities, and residents should be a requisite, deliberate undertaking of this and similar projects; and
  • On monitoring and evaluation, adjustments to work plans, and approvals thereof, should be documented in a change log for easy tracking of changes and deviations. Hence, justification at the end line would be easier to formulate.
  • Further scrutiny of the project outputs and output indicators suggests that the intended or expected outputs are not to be seen as individual, separate, and independent outputs; neither could they be treated as linear in sequence. Rather, they are interrelated and interdependent outputs.
  • Critical to the implementation of the project was the involvement of other CSCAND agencies. Without the CSCAND agencies, the generation of outputs would have not been made possible. The CSCAND agencies were, however, very grateful to the project for providing opportunity for them to not only contribute to the success of the project but also to enhance their technical capacities and allow them to do more than what they could normally accomplish without the project.

Recommendations
1

Follow up the approval of some CLUPs and ZOs; Popularization of the Guidebook on the formulation of the CLUP

2

Continuous review and enhancement of contingency plans of local government units

1. Recommendation:

Follow up the approval of some CLUPs and ZOs; Popularization of the Guidebook on the formulation of the CLUP

Management Response: [Added: 2017/12/27] [Last Updated: 2017/12/27]

HLURB and MMDA assured the IP that they will continue to assist the LGUs in getting the approval of the CLUPs and ZOs. The popularization of the Guidebook on CLUP Formulation is a mandate of the HLURB and also their priority.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
OCD NDRRMS will conduct a meeting with RPs to include HLURB and MMDA. Update/feedback on the status of CLUP and ZO approval including popularization of the Guidebook will be one of the agenda. Staff of PMD will be invited and arrangements to follow up implementation of the evaluation recommendation will be discussed.
[Added: 2017/12/27]
OCD-NDRRMS 2016/08 Completed
2. Recommendation:

Continuous review and enhancement of contingency plans of local government units

Management Response: [Added: 2017/12/27]

PMO and representatives of concerned OCD Regional Offices (III, IVA, and NCR) discussed the continuing technical assistance to LGUs after the elections particularly in the finalization and approval of 20 more draft CPs including the replication of CP formulation in other LGUs not covered by the Project. Continuous review and updating of CPs is reflected in the CPs (individual and integrated) of LGUs and to be conducted annually or as the need arises especially when there are major protocols, resources that need to be adjusted/revised.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
OCD will reiterate and will get feedback from ICD III, IVA, and NCR during the August 2016 meeting. Future follow ups, CP review/enhancement and reporting will be discussed with PMD.
[Added: 2017/12/27]
OCD NDRRMS 2016/08 Completed

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

220 East 42nd Street
20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel. +1 646 781 4200
Fax. +1 646 781 4213
erc.support@undp.org