- Evaluation Plan:
- 2013-2018, 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
Share
Document | Type | Language | Size | Status | Downloads |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
tor | English | 128.80 KB | Posted | 1255 |
![]() |
report | English | 1045.99 KB | Posted | 1410 |
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: | 2013-2018, Rwanda | ||||||
Evaluation Type: | Mid Term Project | ||||||
Status: | Completed | ||||||
Completion Date: | 02/2018 | ||||||
Planned End Date: | 06/2018 | ||||||
Management Response: | Yes | ||||||
Focus Area: |
|
||||||
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021) |
|
||||||
SDG Goal |
|
||||||
SDG Target |
|
||||||
Evaluation Budget(US $): | 30,000 | ||||||
Source of Funding: | UNDP (project) | ||||||
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): | 15,525 | ||||||
Joint Programme: | 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 | |
1. | 3.1. Project Concept, Design and Formulation Tag: Relevance Programme/Project Design UN Agencies Inclusive economic growth Institutional Strengthening National Institutions |
2. | 3.2.1. Project Governance Tag: Relevance Implementation Modality Country Government UN Agencies |
3. | ii. Steering Committee Tag: Oversight Bilateral partners Country Government |
4. | iii. Program Focal Points Tag: Relevance Project and Programme management Bilateral partners |
5. | iv. Program Support Tag: Relevance Human and Financial resources Project and Programme management |
6. | Program Assurance Tag: Relevance Project and Programme management Quality Assurance Coordination |
7. | 3.2.2. Project management Tag: Relevance Human and Financial resources Monitoring and Evaluation Project and Programme management Country Government |
8. | ii. Fund Management Modality Tag: Efficiency Relevance Human and Financial resources UN Agencies |
9. | The implementing partners advance disbursements are used to fund quarterly activities after which accountability is done through FACE forms, cashbooks and bank reconciliations. Also adoption of the GoR’s Integrated Financial Management Information System (IFMIS) to account for program funds alongside ordinary budget funds has eased the financial management and accounting processes in the IPs. Following accountability of expenditures at the end of one quarter, in case of any remaining balances, UNDP disburses funds for the next quarter, minus balances from the previous quarter. Tag: Efficiency Human and Financial resources Implementation Modality Procurement Project and Programme management |
10. | b. Financial expenditure With the exception of 2016 output 3 where the disbursement rate was relatively low at 37%, the average disbursement of UNDP funds has been at 99% which is Highly Satisfactory. If this is a reflection of the aggregate project disbursement to execute the other JP outputs (outputs 1,2 and 4), it would demonstrate that the JP is on track with disbursement and absorption however, during the MTR, information was not readily available from other UN Agencies that are directing funding the JP activities thereby a making it a missed opportunity to track progress on JP outputs 1,2 and 4. Tag: Efficiency Human and Financial resources Project and Programme management |
11. | c. Co-Financing (counterpart funding) Tag: Efficiency Human and Financial resources Procurement Bilateral partners Country Government |
12. | 3.2.3. Procurement management Tag: Efficiency Human and Financial resources Procurement Project and Programme management |
13. | 3.2.4. M&E and Reporting Tag: Effectiveness Sustainability Monitoring and Evaluation Project and Programme management UN Agencies |
14. | Monitoring was implemented through quarterly structured joint field visits with each of the IPs, formal and informal meetings with IPs and attending of IPs activities and interactions with beneficiaries. Also annual reviews were conducted to report progress against outputs and outcomes, annual targets and take stock of lessons learned. Which were all documented in the programs annual report. Tag: Monitoring and Evaluation Project and Programme management UN Agencies |
15. | 3.3. Audit Arrangements Tag: Efficiency Oversight Policies & Procedures Project and Programme management |
16. | 3.4. Project Sustainability Tag: Sustainability Resource mobilization UN Agencies |
17. | 3.5. Risk management Tag: Efficiency Sustainability Monitoring and Evaluation Project and Programme management Risk Management |
18. | 3.6. Country ownership and stakeholder engagement One-UN Overall Assessment of Stakeholder Engagement Tag: Sustainability Ownership Bilateral partners UN Agencies |
19. | PROGRAM ACHIEVEMENTS The JP has made various accomplishments from the first half of the program implementation which are documented in the program’s annual report and IP’s quarterly reports. The MTR only provides a summary of the notable achievements in the following narrative section and a summary of performance in the results matrix below with the overall performance of the program with outputs rated as Marginally Satisfactory. It also presents a summary of planned resources as well as the actual expenditures on the JP as of July 2017. Status of JP resource mobilization and expenditure Tag: Effectiveness Sustainability Resource mobilization |
20. | CHALLENGES Despite the progress so far registered in the implementation of the JP, there are challenges that still impede the realization of planned results as discussed below; Tag: Challenges Sustainability Implementation Modality Monitoring and Evaluation Project and Programme management Coordination |
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. |
6 | It is strongly recommended that the JP Steering Committee that is chaired by MoE on behalf of the GoR and Co-chaired by ONE UN should exercise their authority as prescribed in the program document and empower the JP coordinator at MoE to consolidate plans, budgets and reports for accountability and ease of tracking implementation progress. The rules of engagement should be that all activities whether funded by UNDP or any other concerned UN Agency should be jointly planned and reported to the steering committee for review and approval as a safeguard for the JP governance arrangement (as articulated in Chapter 5b of the JP document). |
Key Action Update History
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: 2021/01/13]
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] [Last Updated: 2021/12/12] |
UNDP | 2018/06 | Completed | Monitoring Frameworks have been made for all ongoing projects which has revised the project indicators, specified the means of verification, reporting period and responsible agencies and has aligned the project indicators to the UNDAP outcome and output indicators. The framework/dashboard will be added in all project quarterly reports to track achievements in all project indicators. History |
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: 2021/01/13]
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. |
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: 2021/01/13]
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] [Last Updated: 2021/12/13] |
UNDP | 2018/06 | Completed | All new projects were designed to be aligned with the 5-year cycle of the CPD and UNDP requirements. History |
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: 2021/01/13]
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. |
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: 2021/01/13]
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] [Last Updated: 2021/12/13] |
UNDP | 2018/06 | Completed | A template has been developed and continuously been updated on the progress, success stories, lessons learnt, and knowledge products of ongoing projects. The document is shared on Share Point. History |
It is strongly recommended that the JP Steering Committee that is chaired by MoE on behalf of the GoR and Co-chaired by ONE UN should exercise their authority as prescribed in the program document and empower the JP coordinator at MoE to consolidate plans, budgets and reports for accountability and ease of tracking implementation progress. The rules of engagement should be that all activities whether funded by UNDP or any other concerned UN Agency should be jointly planned and reported to the steering committee for review and approval as a safeguard for the JP governance arrangement (as articulated in Chapter 5b of the JP document).
Management Response: [Added: 2021/01/13] [Last Updated: 2021/01/13]
Key Actions: