- Evaluation Plan:
- 2018-2023, Rwanda
- Evaluation Type:
- Mid Term Project
- Planned End Date:
- 06/2018
- Completion Date:
- 02/2018
- Status:
- Completed
- Management Response:
- Yes
- Evaluation Budget(US $):
- 30,000
Mid-term Evaluation of the Support to the Development and Implementation of a Green Growth and Economy Approach to Rwanda?s Economic Transformation
| Document | Type | Language | Size | Status | Downloads |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 TOR Evaluation Green economy.docx |
tor | English | 128.80 KB | Posted | 70 |
 Final MTR Report on JPGreen Economy.pdf |
report | English | 1045.99 KB | Posted | 83 |
| Title | Mid-term Evaluation of the Support to the Development and Implementation of a Green Growth and Economy Approach to Rwanda?s Economic Transformation | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atlas Project Number: | 00078102 | ||||||||
| Evaluation Plan: | 2018-2023, Rwanda | ||||||||
| Evaluation Type: | Mid Term Project | ||||||||
| Status: | Completed | ||||||||
| Completion Date: | 02/2018 | ||||||||
| Planned End Date: | 06/2018 | ||||||||
| Management Response: | Yes | ||||||||
| Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021) |
|
||||||||
| Evaluation Budget(US $): | 30,000 | ||||||||
| Source of Funding: | UNDP (project) | ||||||||
| Evaluation Expenditure(US $): | 15,525 | ||||||||
| Joint Programme: | No | ||||||||
| Mandatory Evaluation: | No | ||||||||
| Joint Evaluation: | Yes
|
||||||||
| Evaluation Team members: |
|
||||||||
| GEF Evaluation: | No | ||||||||
| Key Stakeholders: | Government, Development Partners, UN agencies, Civil Society | ||||||||
| Countries: | RWANDA | ||||||||
| Comments: | This evaluation of the Support to the Development and Implementation of a Green Growth and Economy Approach to Rwanda is still ongoing and requires the involvement of many stakeholders. So, we are requesting you to help in changing the end date till June 30th, 2018. |
| Lessons | |
|---|---|
| 1. | There has been very high GoR involvement and commitment at the highest levels of government which has led to recognition of the green week (the first of its kind and now to be made an annual event). |
| 2. | The JP arrangement has been able to galvanize various actors to recognize the importance and value of green economy which was already a constituent part of the GoR national development agenda. |
| 3. | The project has in many ways been catalytic to other development initiatives because it has brought on board many intervention areas (many approaches and innovations like green growth, establishment of Green villages in Rwanda, development of toolskits, etc) that would take GoR too long to establish and mainstream. |
| 4. | The successes so far registered are scalable with potential to be replicated in other parts of the country as well as other sectors. |
| 5. | There seemed to be more emphasis on mobilization of JP funds by participating UN Agencies and less on the expertise that they could bring to the implementation of the different aspects of the JP which made some Agencies to retreat to the back-seat. This has been a missed opportunity for transfer of knowledge and expertise to the IPs |
| 6. | The fact that many actors (UN Agencies and IPs) were involved in the JP caused coordination challenges and eventual weathering away of commitment by some actors. Perhaps fewer actors would have been more ideal |
| 7. | The assumption that resources would be made available by the One-UN caused some partners especially the UN Agencies to relax and abdicate their participation in the JP |
| 8. | Direct execution or funding by some UN agencies made the GoR loose control of monitoring of JP implementation progress of program execution. This arrangement also dislodged the GoR from the “driver’s seat” in the management and oversight of the JP implementation process. |
| 9. | Too much focus on resource mobilization lost sight of expertise that different UN agencies would bring on board and synergies thereof that could benefit the IPs |
| 10. | It proved very difficult to establish the financial and narrative status for most of the activities that are directly funded by UN agencies, moreover most of the UN agencies are not actively involved in the program though they signed up for its implementation |
| 11. | All IPs funded by UNDP have their activity and financial reports well done, together with those funded by UN-HABITAT and UNEP. However the above arrangement of direct financial execution made it difficult for the Project Coordinator at the MoE to solicit and consolidate reports for the entire JP especially from IPs that are being directly funded |
| 12. | The JP model has also been able to demonstrate that the approach can be pivotal in addressing cross-cutting themes like Gender, Environment, Governance, Human rights, etc. as were addressed during its implementation |
| 13. | About 50% of the people that attended the awareness training workshop conducted by the CoEB were women, while about 98% of the trainees on basket weaving were made up of women and 73% of the trainees on fodder processing and storage was made of women from Taba green village |
| 14. | The activities implemented were non discriminative in a way that all the participants were equally involved in developmental activities. The executed activities did not involve people below 18 years of age. |
| 15. | Environmental conservation and climate change adaptation was considered during the planning and execution of JP activities |
| Findings | |
| Recommendations | |
|---|---|
| 1 | Reference should be made to Chapter 7 of the JP document that underpins the Monitoring framework in the JP document that should be consistently used as a “Dashboard” for all IPs and financing partners to reflect the UNDAP outcome, outcome indicator, baseline information, UNDP Strategic Area of Work, output, key actions, output indicator, means of verification, reporting period and responsible agencies. In addition, there should be desegregated data by gender where appropriate. For a program of this nature which has multiple actors, this could form a basis for a joint performance contract or its equivalent to ensure accountability and results of the JP, a framework which is already being used in the JPC for the National Employment Program which also has multiple actors. MINECOFIN National Planning Directorate can provide guidance on the design and use of the JPC or its equivalence that would be appropriate for the JP M&E as well as reporting. In addition, Rwanda is recognized as a leader in environment and climate change awareness and has taken important steps to recognize this, for example, the adoption of the National Green Growth and Climate Change. In this regard, it is imperative that the JP activities should be mainstreamed and given prominence during the environment and climate change Sector-wide planning, implementation, M&E and reporting. |
| 2 | It is evident that the workload of the JP coordination was underestimated and was assigned to a lean structure at the MoE on the assumption that focal persons in IP institutions would support the day today implementation of the JP activities. However, the MTR has noted that this approach is not working as highlighted in the progress reports and one on one interview with key informants. It is therefore, recommended that additional M&E staff be assignment to track and report on each of the outputs that have multiple actors. This would include more of field work and regular engagement with all the JP actors in government and in the UN using established channels |
| 3 | A program of this magnitude should have a longer implementation period given the very long-term gestation period of the planned outputs. Six to seven years would have been appropriate to enable sufficient lead time for all the actors to develop common plans, shared ownership and understanding of the implication of their involvement and demands for participation in the JP. The inevitable consequence has been surmounting coordination challenges and eventual weathering away of commitment by some actors |
| 4 | A basket fund approach is highly recommended to attract green economy financing especially for such a program that is cross cutting but has one coordinating entity responsible for planning, M&E and reporting. Lessons can be drawn from similar arrangements that have successfully worked with this funding arrangement e.g. FONERWA Green Fund which has multiple actors in GoR and DPs. This will ensure synergies and harmonization of support and facilitate tracking of progress of fund mobilization and utilization as well as accountability by different actors |
| 5 | The JP project team should put in place a Knowledge Management and Sharing platform specifically to document progress, success stories, lessons learnt, knowledge products developed and share good practices across the program. This initiative will realty inform the remaining implementation period of the JP as well as subsequent programs. |
1. Recommendation:
Reference should be made to Chapter 7 of the JP document that underpins the Monitoring framework in the JP document that should be consistently used as a “Dashboard” for all IPs and financing partners to reflect the UNDAP outcome, outcome indicator, baseline information, UNDP Strategic Area of Work, output, key actions, output indicator, means of verification, reporting period and responsible agencies. In addition, there should be desegregated data by gender where appropriate.
For a program of this nature which has multiple actors, this could form a basis for a joint performance contract or its equivalent to ensure accountability and results of the JP, a framework which is already being used in the JPC for the National Employment Program which also has multiple actors. MINECOFIN National Planning Directorate can provide guidance on the design and use of the JPC or its equivalence that would be appropriate for the JP M&E as well as reporting.
In addition, Rwanda is recognized as a leader in environment and climate change awareness and has taken important steps to recognize this, for example, the adoption of the National Green Growth and Climate Change. In this regard, it is imperative that the JP activities should be mainstreamed and given prominence during the environment and climate change Sector-wide planning, implementation, M&E and reporting.
Management Response: [Added: 2018/02/28] [Last Updated: 2018/05/17]
Accepted
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Produce a “Dashboard” for all IPs and financing partners to reflect the UNDAP outcome, indicator, baseline information, UNDP Strategic Area of Work, output, key actions, output indicator, means of verification, reporting period and responsible agencies.
[Added: 2018/05/17] |
UNDP | 2018/06 | Overdue-Initiated | In lieu of a “dashboard,” UNDP is standardizing the reporting template to be used by IPs for the new cycle of projects under the new CPD. All IPs are required to produce narrative quarterly reports which are shared to ensure that everyone is up-to-date and aligned. |
2. Recommendation:
It is evident that the workload of the JP coordination was underestimated and was assigned to a lean structure at the MoE on the assumption that focal persons in IP institutions would support the day today implementation of the JP activities. However, the MTR has noted that this approach is not working as highlighted in the progress reports and one on one interview with key informants. It is therefore, recommended that additional M&E staff be assignment to track and report on each of the outputs that have multiple actors. This would include more of field work and regular engagement with all the JP actors in government and in the UN using established channels
Management Response: [Added: 2018/02/28] [Last Updated: 2018/05/17]
Accepted
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Additional M&E staff to be assigned to track and report on project and activities
[Added: 2018/05/17] |
UNDP | 2018/06 | Completed | Although there are no additional full-time M&E staff dedicated solely to Green Economy, the CO is developing an office wide M&E plan for all programmes. In addition, the program is overseen by multiple UNDP staff to ensure effective follow-up and reporting of activities. It should also be noted that the Implementing Ministry has established a Single Project Implementation Unit to ensure better coordination and management of programmes. UNDP will continue to invest in strengthening the capacities of the SPIU to monitor project performance. |
3. Recommendation:
A program of this magnitude should have a longer implementation period given the very long-term gestation period of the planned outputs. Six to seven years would have been appropriate to enable sufficient lead time for all the actors to develop common plans, shared ownership and understanding of the implication of their involvement and demands for participation in the JP. The inevitable consequence has been surmounting coordination challenges and eventual weathering away of commitment by some actors
Management Response: [Added: 2018/02/28] [Last Updated: 2018/05/17]
Accepted
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Provide longer implementation period for future program to enable sufficient lead time and better coordination
[Added: 2018/05/17] |
UNDP | 2018/06 | Overdue-Initiated | While most programmes will be designed to be aligned with the 5-year cycle of the CPD, UNDP will seek opportunities to extend programmes across CPD cycles as necessary. This is often done to build on foundations laid and consolidate progress and achievements. |
4. Recommendation:
A basket fund approach is highly recommended to attract green economy financing especially for such a program that is cross cutting but has one coordinating entity responsible for planning, M&E and reporting. Lessons can be drawn from similar arrangements that have successfully worked with this funding arrangement e.g. FONERWA Green Fund which has multiple actors in GoR and DPs. This will ensure synergies and harmonization of support and facilitate tracking of progress of fund mobilization and utilization as well as accountability by different actors
Management Response: [Added: 2018/02/28] [Last Updated: 2018/05/17]
Accepted
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Implement a basket fund approach and establish one coordination entity responsible for planning, M&E, and reporting
[Added: 2018/05/17] |
UNDP | 2018/06 | Completed | Many donors currently provide direct budget support in Rwanda, and few will support basket funds. However, the UN has a One UN Fund which UNDP administers and participates in. This could potentially serve as a platform for attracting multi-donor support for work in the ENR sector. The SPIUs established by the GoR are expected to be the coordinating entities for planning, M&E and reporting on project performance. UNDP provides technical and financial support and training to SPIUs to perform these roles. |
5. Recommendation:
The JP project team should put in place a Knowledge Management and Sharing platform specifically to document progress, success stories, lessons learnt, knowledge products developed and share good practices across the program. This initiative will realty inform the remaining implementation period of the JP as well as subsequent programs.
Management Response: [Added: 2018/02/28] [Last Updated: 2018/05/17]
Accepted
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Put in place a knowledge management and sharing platform to document progress, success stories, lessons learnt, and knowledge products developed to share best practices across the program.
[Added: 2018/05/17] |
UNDP | 2018/06 | Overdue-Initiated | This recommendation will be considered for future program planning and implementation. UNDP is also enhancing its knowledge management practices through a multi-year policy research agenda coordinated by the internal Strategy and Policy Unit working with the programme teams. |