Evaluation Detail

Mid-term Evaluation of the Support to the Development and Implementation of a Green Growth and Economy Approach to Rwanda?s Economic Transformation

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

Document	Type	Language	Size	Status	Downloads
TOR Evaluation Green economy.docx	tor	English	128.80 KB	Posted	1255
Final MTR Report on JPGreen Economy.pdf	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:

1. Others

Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021)

1. Output 1.1.2 Marginalised groups, particularly the poor, women, people with disabilities and displaced are empowered to gain universal access to basic services and financial and non-financial assets to build productive capacities and benefit from sustainable livelihoods and jobs

SDG Goal

Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts
Goal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss

SDG Target

13.2 Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning
15.2 By 2020, promote the implementation of sustainable management of all types of forests, halt deforestation, restore degraded forests and substantially increase afforestation and reforestation globally

Evaluation Budget(US $):

30,000

Source of Funding:

UNDP (project)

Evaluation Expenditure(US $):

15,525

Joint Programme:

Joint Evaluation:

Yes

Joint with UNDP, UNEP, UNHABITAT, UNIDO, ILO, ECA

Evaluation Team members:

Name	Title	Nationality
PhD Ibrahim C. Musobo	Consultant

GEF Evaluation:

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 The philosophy underpinning the concept, design and formation of the Joint Program (JP) was the desire to achieve institutional development in terms of support for policy development and reform, especially for Rwanda’s production sectors. This was intended to integrate considerations for a Green Economy in the country’s economic transformation especially in view of the challenges encountered during the implementation of EDPRS II hinging around among other things, increased pressure on renewable and non-renewable natural resources due to high population growth, and unsustainable agricultural practices; scattered rural settlements occupying large land reserved for agriculture; insufficient/limited investment in micro industry especially in the agricultural sector; weak strategic enabling tools and approaches for pro-poor environmentally sustainable use of natural resources for economic transformation; insufficient human and financial resources to enable urban policy and development planning; inadequate technical knowhow for integrating budgeting and expense management of green growth interventions into the national budget framework; high vulnerability to climate change; insufficient mainstreaming of poverty and environment objectives and climate change into different sectoral and local policies. Tag: Relevance Programme/Project Design UN Agencies Inclusive economic growth Institutional Strengthening National Institutions
2.	3.2.1. Project Governance i. Implementing Partners MoE and its agencies REMA and FONERWA were designated sector and institutional leaders respectively for the implementation of Priority 5 of EDPRS II, i.e. “pursuing a green economy approach for economic transformation”. The Green Economy Joint Program is hosted by MoE as the lead implementing partner. Tag: Relevance Implementation Modality Country Government UN Agencies
3.	ii. Steering Committee A Steering Committee was instituted to provide strategic guidance and overall oversight for the implementation of the Joint Program. The Steering Committee is comprised of senior managers from relevant sectoral ministries and is co-chaired by MoE on behalf of the Government of Rwanda and the UN Resident Coordinator on behalf of the UN. Key sector participants included development partners, MINECOFIN, MININFRA, MINEDUC, MINICOM and other partners like RNRA, UR, PSF, and RNP constitute Steering Committee members. Tag: Oversight Bilateral partners Country Government
4.	iii. Program Focal Points Each of the JP Implementing Partners designated focal points who are responsive for day-to-day management and decision making on activities under the program. Tag: Relevance Project and Programme management Bilateral partners
5.	iv. Program Support A Program Manager was recruited at MoE, the GoR coordinating work of different focal points in terms of financial and physical planning and performance reporting. The deployment of professional technical advisors including the short-term consultants was designed to develop and transfer tools and skills through variable methods as appropriate per target group. Tag: Relevance Human and Financial resources Project and Programme management
6.	Program Assurance Program Assurance was assigned to the Steering Committee, but for coordination purposes was delegated to the designated coordinating IP and UN Administrative Agent (UNDP). At this point MoE and UNDP have been the administratively responsible institutions. Due to the complex nature of the Joint Program, a technical team composed of participating UN agency specialists was constituted to support Program Assurance. The overall project governance is rated “Marginally Unsatisfactory” because the steering committee has not been able to firmly keep participating partners, especially the UN Agencies to deliver on their commitments signed up in the JP. Tag: Relevance Project and Programme management Quality Assurance Coordination
7.	3.2.2. Project management On project management, the MTR assessed the JP fund management modality, procurement as well as the Monitoring and Evaluation. i. Program planning The JP budget in the program document provides overall guidance to the IPs when planning either annually or quarterly. The IPs prepare quarterly and annual plans as well as progress reports in line with the funding UN Agency requirements. It was expected that the Program Manager at MoE would consolidate all plans and submit to UNDP but reports provided by the Program Manager indicate a challenge in this regard given the discrete nature of direct execution made by some UN Agencies supporting the JP. The rating for Project Planning is therefore “Marginally Satisfactory” since the UN Agencies and IPs that actively participate in the JP prepare annual and quarterly plans, they are approved and submitted. Tag: Relevance Human and Financial resources Monitoring and Evaluation Project and Programme management Country Government
8.	ii. Fund Management Modality The UN Parallel Fund Management modality is used in the implementation of the Joint Program. The UN Development Group (UNDG) recommended this option as the most effective and efficient to implement the GoR JP. Under this option, each organization manages its own activities within the common work plan and the related budget, whether from Regular or Other Resources. 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 The table below presents a summary of project disbursement of UNDP funds on Output 3 and 5. (At the point of MTR, no similar information was available on funding and disbursement from other UN Agencies. 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) The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between UN Agencies to implement the JP as One entity in the framework on One-UN on one hand and the Government of Rwanda (GoR) on the other was expected to guide the provision of support services by the designated UN Administrative Agent given the accumulated expertise in the respective domains of the JP implementation framework by the different UN agencies. Tag: Efficiency Human and Financial resources Procurement Bilateral partners Country Government
12.	3.2.3. Procurement management The project document stipulates that the the UN Administrative Agent was to provide support services at the request of IPs for some activities of the program and then recover the actual direct and indirect costs incurred in delivering such services according to stipulations including i) Payments, disbursements and other financial transactions; ii) Recruitment of staff (program personnel and consultants); iii) Procurement of services and equipment, including disposals; iv) Travel authorization, Government clearances ticketing, and travel arrangements; and v) Shipment and custom clearance. Tag: Efficiency Human and Financial resources Procurement Project and Programme management
13.	3.2.4. M&E and Reporting The Joint Program employed an M&E logical framework using the following parameters: (i) key actions, (ii) indicators, (iii) means and source of verification, (iv) timing and method of data collection, (v) responsibilities, and (vi) risks and assumptions. The data on indicators and baseline were aligned to those provided in national planning tools and in the UNDAP, and were disaggregated by gender where appropriate. Detailed monitoring frameworks linked to annual work plans were developed annually for standard close monitoring on program delivery. To assess JP’s use of the results framework, the MTR first reviewed the program design’s monitoring, evaluation and quality control arrangements as per the program document. The MTR then reviewed the actual implementation of these arrangements over the first half of the program. The IPs annual work plans provided the first basis of the monitoring of the program which consisted of clear milestones (targets). A jointly prepared annual monitoring plan was used to focus on key results and indicators that would be tracked throughout implementation of the program. 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 Audits of financial statements (activities funded by UNDP) have been conducted in accordance with the Rwandan law as well as Audit policies, procedures and norms of the UN and based on Harmonized Cash Transfer (HACT) policy framework adopted by the UN Development Groups (UNDGs). Overall the Audit reports were unqualified therefore, giving an overall rating of Satisfactory. Tag: Efficiency Oversight Policies & Procedures Project and Programme management
16.	3.4. Project Sustainability The MTR observed that UNDP demonstrated commitment to mobilize and disburse resources to its assigned outputs under the JP. It is however inconclusive to make any final assessment on the other participating UN Agencies given the reality that no detailed reports were provided for analysis like was the case for UNDP and Agencies implementing Output 3 and 5 of the JP. Based on the reports and interviews with the IPs, there is ownership, commitment and capacity to continue with the JP and sustainability of the JP outputs and outcomes since there are demonstrated efforts to mainstream the achievements so far registered in their routine engagements. In view of the aforementioned observations, the overall assessment of program results and actions sustainability is rated Marginally Satisfactory (MS). Tag: Sustainability Resource mobilization UN Agencies
17.	3.5. Risk management At the time of the JP formulation, various assumptions were made and risks identified which include among others, potential delay in the start and implementation of the project because of the need to build relationships and consensus with some institutions on activities they were tasked to undertake; limited consensus on joint programming among UN country team; Insufficient initial funding due to unreliable funding sources and resource mobilization challenges as well as inadequate human resources. Based on the issues mentioned earlier under planning, finance, M&E, reporting and the challenges of coordinating the JP with multiple stakeholders on the side of UN Agencies and IPs, the overall risk management rating is “Marginally Unsatisfactory”. Tag: Efficiency Sustainability Monitoring and Evaluation Project and Programme management Risk Management
18.	3.6. Country ownership and stakeholder engagement The following table describes the roles of JP stakeholders and assessment of their engagement. One-UN The designated UN Administrative Agent has been managing technical assistance and funding required for program implementation. Other third-party (non-core) resources were mobilized to support the unfunded activities or components of the program. The following table presents the UN Agencies participating in the JP with their respective roles. Overall Assessment of Stakeholder Engagement There was full engagement by the GoR agencies while on the side of the UN agencies, there was participation by UNDP, UNEP, FAO and UNESCO in regard to delivering on the JP activities although it was difficult to confirm the financial commitment signed up in the JP project documents. This was made difficult because of direct disbursement by some UN agencies. Based on the information provided, the overall rating for stakeholder engagement is Marginally Satisfactory (MS) because of the identified moderate shortcomings in 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 The following table presents the status of planned resources on the JP project document and what was realized and spent on implementation. 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; i. It was evident from reports and one on one interviews during the MTR exercise that the JP M&E reports do not clearly reflect implementation progress of the whole JP especially of outputs 1, 2 and 4. ii. The JP funding arrangement has been problematic as manifested by delays in disbursement by some UN Agencies at the best and complete failure to disburse for execution of assigned activities in the JP at the worst. The model of direct execution also made coordination of funding more complicated. iii. Weak coordination between the and among the UN Agencies and the GoR Implementing Agencies a situation that has exacerbated weak or a breakdown in communication between and among the JP stakeholders. This has been further compounded by continuously declining participation of project representatives in quarterly meetings, an indication of weaning interest. iv. Inconsistent reporting formats that are not in line with the monitoring framework in the JP document for example, it is difficult for an independent evaluator to track progress for planned activities vis-à-vis realized activities and the budget. v. The MTR also found out that the JP implementation process has suffered delays mostly attributed to strict procurement processes and on some instances, lack of respect for established deadlines. This has been exacerbated by the fact that no penalties or safeguards are provided for in the JP document. vi. Whereas it was envisaged that the JP would facilitate the IPs to gain from experience and goods practices of the participating UN Agencies, it was difficult for the MTR to establish the impact of JP implementation on capacity development in the IPs partly because of the high staff turnover. vii. It also emerged during the MTR that variations in planning and budgeting cycle between UN agencies and the GoR inevitably led to double annual planning of the joint program which consequentially increased staff workload. viii. The fact that some of the UN Agencies involved in the JP are non-resident made it rather difficult to smoothly build partnership with new IPs during implementation of the JP. This created a new dimension of challenges which further compromised anticipated synergies and cross pollination of good practices.. 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).

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: 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.

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: 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.

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: 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.

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: 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.

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: 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.

6. Recommendation:

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).

Mid-term Evaluation of the Support to the Development and Implementation of a Green Growth and Economy Approach to Rwanda?s Economic Transformation

Share

Management Response: [Added: 2018/02/28] [Last Updated: 2021/01/13]

Key Actions:

Management Response: [Added: 2018/02/28] [Last Updated: 2021/01/13]

Key Actions:

Management Response: [Added: 2018/02/28] [Last Updated: 2021/01/13]

Key Actions:

Management Response: [Added: 2018/02/28] [Last Updated: 2021/01/13]

Key Actions:

Management Response: [Added: 2018/02/28] [Last Updated: 2021/01/13]

Key Actions:

Management Response: [Added: 2021/01/13] [Last Updated: 2021/01/13]

Key Actions:

Evaluations by Unit

Latest Evaluations

Evaluation Snap Shot

Contact us