End of Project Evaluation: Strenghthening the Resilience of Communities through Community-Based-Disaster Risk Management (CBDRM)

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2011-2019, DPR Korea
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
03/2020
Completion Date:
02/2020
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
20,000

See attached

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document IC_ToR_CBDRM_19Sep2019_Final_Ad.pdf tor English 330.55 KB Posted 114
Download document UNDP DPRK_CBDRM_Terminal Eval Report_Jan2020 FINAL clean version.pdf report English 1823.30 KB Posted 110
Download document UNDP DPRK_CBDRM_Terminal Eval Report_22Jan2020_Final_Summary.pdf summary English 249.77 KB Posted 86
Title End of Project Evaluation: Strenghthening the Resilience of Communities through Community-Based-Disaster Risk Management (CBDRM)
Atlas Project Number: 00096791
Evaluation Plan: 2011-2019, DPR Korea
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 02/2020
Planned End Date: 03/2020
Management Response: Yes
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021)
  • 1. Output 1.2.2 Enabling environment strengthened to expand public and private financing for the achievement of the SDGs
Evaluation Budget(US $): 20,000
Source of Funding: TRAC
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 20,000
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Dr Jeff Fang Evaluator jeff@icmac.asia
GEF Evaluation: No
Key Stakeholders:
Countries: DPRK -DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF KOREA
Comments:

The evaluation has been planned in the Project Document.

The extended period of 3 month will give the office ample time for completion of required actions per UNDP evaluation guidelines

Lessons
1.

5.1 Conclusions and Lessons Learned

Conclusion #1: Significant external factors/challenges severely affected the project

Significant external factors/challenges beyond the control of the UNDP DPRK CO were encountered throughout the entire CBDRM project implementation, and severely affected the timely delivery of structural interventions and eventual achievement of results for Output 1.2.

 

Table 9 below shows the timeline of how 6 significant external factors/challenges overlapped each other, hence the CBDRM Project Team would not be free of any constraints at any point of time between 2015 to 2019 to effectively and efficiently implement the project outputs to achieve the desired project outcome.

 

Table 9: Timeline of External Factors/Challenges Faced by UNDP DPRK CO

 

In particular, the evaluation highlights below the 2 external factors/challenges as the main constraints.

 

1. 6 Rounds of UN Sanctions on DPRK (2016-2017); and

2. Extended Period of Banking Channel Disruption/Closure

 

The UN Security Council imposed two UN Sanctions (UN Resolutions #2270 and #2321) in 2016 and another four UN Sanctions (UN Resolutions #2356, #2371, #2375 and #2397) in 2017 were imposed on DPRK which included (among many measures) import, financial and economic restrictions. As a result, the UNDP DPRK CO and CBDRM Project Team were severely constrained and negatively impacted the CBDRM project’s delivery as follow:

  • The complicated, lengthy and increasingly difficult process to obtain clearance or exemptions for international procurement from UN Sanctions Committee 1718 which oversees the implementation of the UN Sanctions on DPRK.
  • The recurred disruption/closure of the banking channel prevented funds transfer into DPRK for the UNDP DPRK CO to fully implement local activities and local procurement. This also led to the UNDP DPRK CO having to activate cash conservation mode and enforce stringent internal measures to sustain the office operations, which resulted in (1) restrictions for in-country/local procurement, and (2) increased complexity and time to implement the CBDRM project activities.

     

     

     

     

     

The evaluation noted that the CBDRM PRODOC did not include appropriate risk assessments which identified potential risks with impact and probability ratings. However, the CBDRM Project Team  subsequently incorporated risk assessments in the Quarterly Progress Reports and risk logs in the Annual Project Progress Report. The evaluation reviewed that the risk analysis should have been included in the CBDRM PRODOC so that the CBDRM Project could have prepared corresponding counter-measures and management responses which were appropriate at that point of time and during the project implementation (2015 to 2019).

 

The evaluation also determined that the implementation of the CBDRM Project’s counter-measures and management responses by the UNDP DPRK CO and CBDRM Project Team could not appropriately resolve the significant change of events caused by the UN Sanction measures and the extended banking channel disruption/closure over the project duration.

 

Lesson Learned:

  • Delayed efforts to complete structural interventions severely disrupted county and village community Ri development plans/activities, resulting in potential economic loss and hardship to village communities (Ris).
  • It is important to better manage village community (Ri) expectations to avoid/minimize potential economic loss and hardship to counties and village communities (Ris).
  • Long-term scenario planning together with annual reviews for change of direction should form part of risk assessment and mitigations in special country context projects.

     

Conclusion #2: The CBDRM model has potential for replication across DPRK but requires strong national ownership and commitment as the key to overcome any difficulties faced and achieve optimum results

 

An important result demonstrated in the CBDRM Project was how the intended project outputs addressed country priorities and also fit within the county development priorities with new strategies and initiatives being planned for sustainable living and livelihoods. This was further strengthened with strong support and commitment from National and Local Counterparts.

 

The high level of national and local ownership ensured sustainability and positive environmental impact, despite the CBDRM Project encountering external challenges that severely constrained the project beneficiaries.

 

The CBDRM model has the potential to be replicated across DPRK in close partnership collaboration with National and Local Counterparts. To ensure the continuity and also strengthening of national ownership, future projects in the area of disaster risk management and reduction should also be accompanied by appropriate capacity building activities in PRNA and DRMP at local county and village levels. However, this replication must be complemented with timely implementation of structural interventions as part of disaster risk reduction and mitigation measures to benefit the end-users at the county and village community (Ri) level.

 

Lesson Learned:

  • Strong national ownership combined with strong commitment/support and participation from CPCs and Ri village communities key to accelerate the CBDRM model and bear lasting results.
  • Knowledge/operational transfer in PRNA and DRMP, including the knowledge/operational capabilities and capacities of the CBDRM Project National Consultants and Experts,  should be carried out to extend the pool of national and local resources.

     

 

Conclusion #3: The UNDP CBDRM Project Team laid strong foundations of disaster risk management planning

 

Despite the challenging circumstances, the CBDRM Project Team has done their best and laid strong foundations of PRNA and DRMP through the CBDRM Project outputs and activities. In addition, the completed tasks align closely with the DPRK NSDRR. The CBDRM Project Team was able to implement the project, especially the non-structural interventions, despite encountering the significant external factors and challenges that are beyond the control of the UNDP DPRK CO throughout the entire CBDRM Project by:

 

  • displaying good project management abilities and effectively utilising appropriate project management tools to implement the CBDRM Project to the best of their abilities and resulted in:
  • community risk maps and disaster risk management plans including annual review of these plans, preparedness for response and early recovery in 15 communities in 2017.
  • annual review of Participatory Risk and Needs Assessment (PRNA) and Disaster Risk Management Planning (DRMP) in 15 village communities (Ris) during 2018 and 2019, where reports including DRM plans were finalised and translated into Korean which were subsequently handed over to the Ris.
  • PRNA and DRMP in 15 village communities (Ris) and also with Sloping Land User Groups (SLUGs) using a combination of DRM equipment, tools and techniques
  • training for 10,162 people (including 4,611 female), based on project reports, on coping strategies against a target of 450 through evacuation simulation, PRNA and DRM plan trainings across the 15 selected Ris.
  • procured resources and delivered supplies for community level preparedness measures for early warning and evacuation.
  • national workshops on discussing lessons learned, progress, challenges and opportunities for improving CBDRM practice.
  • promotion of south-south cooperation with other countries through organized study tours while implementing the CBDRM Project.
  • training materials on CBDRM functions to represent comprehensive guidelines and methodologies on CBDRM.
  • guidelines for local level EW systems and evacuation measure, protection of critical community assets focusing on local rainfall and weather parameters.
  • guidelines on local level preparedness and contingency planning process.
  • guidelines and technical training on disaster damage, loss and needs assessment and reporting.

     

    However, improvements could still be further strengthened in the following areas:

  1. communication of project results, information sharing and lessons learned among international agencies and organizations through a suitable communications platform.
  2. field data collection to measure effectiveness and impact on completed project activities.
  3. for improved financial accountability and transparency purposes as part of demonstrating the efficient use of funding on project output-based activities, future financial reporting processes and templates of UNDP DPRK projects should:
  • track and report consistent financial figures (budget and actual expenditure)
  • have consistent comparisons between budget and actual expenditure, as per project outputs, based on project CDRs, for submissions of all relevant project reports (including annual progress reports and submissions to PSC meetings)

 

 

 

 

Lesson Learned:

  • CBDRM is a multi-level and multi-sectoral effort. The communication of project results, sharing of information and lessons learned among international organizations/agencies would further strengthen and broaden efforts exponentially in emergency response, early warning, disaster management and planning, and appropriate disaster risk reduction and mitigation measures.
  • it is important to conduct an independent impact evaluation study as a future project output/activity component to measure impact effectiveness, final end-line indicators and actual benefits gained.

Findings
1.

3. findings

 

3.1 Project Design

 

3.1.1 Project Document (PRODOC) Formulation

 

The CBDRM PRODOC indicated that the earliest commencement of the CBDRM Project formulation was a UNDP fact-finding mission to validate the situation at community level in mid-April 2014. A detailed assessment and initial PRODOC was developed with the aim to support community-based disaster risk management at the local (Ri) level through an approach that entails the following 2 main outputs:

  • Output 1: Ri level rural communities are provided with skills and resources enabling them to implement community-based disaster risk management measures.
  • Output 2: Mechanisms, Guidelines and Procedures for promoting CBDRM are developed and implemented at local (Ri) level. Further, the project will strengthen selected communities’ capacities for participatory hazard mapping and disaster reduction. 

     

    The CBDRM PRODOC developed TORs to recruit suitable project team members to implement and manage the CBDRM Project. Due to the prolonged recruitment process, the SES Project Manager had been assigned by UNDP DPRK CO senior management to the role of becoming the incumbent CBDRM Project Manager[1]. The evaluation determined that the CBDRM Project Team (comprising one International Project Manager, one National Technical Coordinator and One National Administration Assistant) had the project management expertise, but with limited technical expertise to deliver the project which are technically complex and required specialised expertise and knowledge in DRM. 

     

3.1.2 Analysis of Results and Resources Framework (Project Logic/Strategy and Indicators)

 

In reviewing the effectiveness and efficiency of the CBDRM Project in meeting its outcome, the evaluation reviewed the CBDRM Project’s Results and Resources Framework in relation to the UNDP DPRK CPD (2011 to 2015) and UNSF (2011 to 2016, 2017 to 2021) on the strategic priorities, outcomes, outputs and the primary applicable key environment and sustainable development key result areas (KRAs). The evaluation assessment also addressed the CBDRM Project’s strategy, indicators, baseline, end of project target, source of verification, and risk and assumptions.

 

The evaluation reviewed that the CBDRM Project’s Results and Resources Framework design was revised in Q2/2016 which was eventually approved in April 2016. This revision has taken careful consideration of the UNDP DPRK CPD and UNSF outcomes and was aligned to the key environment and sustainable development KRAs.  Furthermore, the CBDRM Project’s updated Results and Resources Framework had considered an in-depth analysis, accurately described the end of project goals, listed the sources of verification, and appropriately identified the risks and the assumptions.   

 

The Results and Resources Framework was clearly described with the indicative activities and end of project targets. There were 9 indicators in total which reflected against outputs and activities.

 

The project took extensive consideration to stakeholder participation in project design, decision making, planning, implementation and monitoring. For example, the National Counterparts and Local Counterparts were invited to contribute to designing of project interventions and technical discussions on the output activities. This translated to an increase in confidence and ownership of project activities in the CBDRM Project implementation.

 

The CBDRM Project’s outcome and outputs were consistent with the DPRK Government’s national priorities. A consultative approach with the National and Local Counterparts was followed in the development and design of project outputs and activities, resulting in strong project ownership and commitment. 

 

The CBDRM Project’s proposed outcomes and outputs individually addressed specific needs identified and collectively presented a comprehensive solution to strengthen local village community (Ri) capacity and increase resilience for DRM.

 

The CBDRM Project also aligned with local county development plans and reinforced stakeholders’ engagement and supported their achievement of priorities. The CBDRM Project design was also strategically aligned and consistent with the UN Millennium Development Goals and subsequent UN SDGs.

 

The evaluation further noted that the CBDRM Project’s expected results in the CBDMR PRODOC are more output-oriented (WHAT IS BEING PRODUCED - EFFICIENCY) than outcome-oriented (WHAT IS THE VALUE/BENEFIT/ CHANGE/IMPACT - EFFECTIVENESS). While this is not an assessment of the CBDRM Project Team’s performance, the evaluation is of a view that future PRODOC design should consider a balance of expected results with outcome-oriented targets and indicators to determine the effectiveness.

 

3.1.3 Risks and Assumptions                                                                       

 

The evaluation noted that the CBDRM PRODOC did not include appropriate risk assessments which identified potential risks with impact and probability ratings. However, these were subsequently included by the CBDRM Project Team in the Quarterly Progress Reports and risk logs in the Annual Project Progress Report.

 

The evaluation reviewed that a comprehensive risk analysis should have been included in the CBDRM PRODOC so that the Project could have prepared corresponding counter-measures/management responses which were appropriate at that point of time and for the project duration (2015 to 2019).

 

Furthermore, the evaluation reviewed that the risk assessments could be further extended to be part of the Results and Resources Framework to identify the key risks and appropriate counter-measures/management response for each of the 2 CBDRM Project outputs. Many of these activities would have governance, operational risks, strategic risks, financial/fiduciary and/or sustainability risks that would require appropriate counter-measures/management responses.

 

The evaluation also determined that the CBDRM PRODOC did not account for scenarios of extreme UN sanction measures and the extended banking channel disruption/closure Furthermore, the implementation of the CBDRM PRODOC’s counter-measures/management responses did not appropriately resolve the significant change of events caused by the UN Sanction measures and the extended banking channel disruption/closure over the project duration.

 

 

3.1.4 Lessons from Other Relevant Projects Incorporated into Project Design

The evaluation observed that the CBDRM Project Team took opportunity to have joint project sites with the SES Project to maximize the synergies (more details found in Section 3.3.8).

 

The CBDRM Project was built from the experience and lessons learned from one previous UNDP DPRK project, namely the “Strengthening Ecosystem Resilience and Community Adaptive Capacity in Climate Affected River Basins in DPRK” Project (SERCARB Project).

 

For example:

  • the CBDRM Project focused on a community-based approach for much larger impact at the Ri level, including Sloping Land User Groups (SLUGs), rather than an entire ecosystem approach followed under the SERCARB project.
  • the CBDRM project made use of lessons learned, existing guidelines and methodologies developed under the SERCARB project.
  • SERCARB-related interventions that are important in achieving the mutual objective with the CBDRM projects include: a) promotion of participatory hazard mapping; b) support to community based early warning system in pilot watershed and river basin areas; and c) improvement of forest management to reduce flood and landslide risks.

     

3.1.5 Planned Stakeholder Participation                                                    

The CBDRM Project generated strong stakeholder interest, especially at the DPRK national/central government ministries and Local Counterparts such as CPCs and other key stakeholders of Yonsan and Singye Counties (North Hwanghae Province) and Yangdok County (South Pyongan Province).

 

In terms of project design, the proxy indicators would be the number of stakeholders involved in planning and attendance during the project formulation/planning meetings. The evaluation interviews with National and Local Counterparts indicated sufficient evidence of direct involvement based on detailed accounts of the project outputs.

 

The minutes of the PSC meetings recorded perfect attendance and representations from the National Counterparts. The proxy indicators from M&E Field Monitoring Visits for participation at the project implementation stage indicated high project output ownership, perfect attendance at project field site meetings, capacity development/knowledge dissemination activities, and the visible evidence of CBDRM-related equipment and materials onsite. During the evaluation interviews, there were high levels of project output-ownership as the Local Counterparts and beneficiaries were able to participate and own project activities, such as evacuation simulation training, seedling and saplings being nurtured in tree nurseries, etc..

 

3.1.6 Replication Approach                                                                          

Replication and up-scaling are fundamental to the CBDRM Project as it provides the opportunity to build on best practices and lessons learned, and expand the reach and impact of its project outputs. As such UNDP, government agencies and international agencies/organizations would utilize these given opportunities to support the replication and up-scaling of the most successful results and practices through their networks and contacts.

 

The CBDRM Project has the potential for replication in other provinces and counties in DPRK through:

  • distribution and dissemination of Ri level PRNA and DRM planning, methodology and tool for assessment and planning, training materials, video product for flood simulation guidance, standard operation procedures (SOP), community based early warning protocol, DRM terminology and CBDRM framework document.
  • annual review and update of PRNA and DRM Planning by communities under overall guidance and coordination by SCEDM and line ministries as well as technical support by national experts.
  • national workshops on discussing lessons learned, progress, challenges and opportunities for improving CBDRM practice.
  • community risk maps and disaster risk management plans including annual review of these plans, preparedness for response and early recovery.
  • “Kor-Disaster”, currently included data for 15 Ris that integrated Sendai Framework monitoring. This database could accommodate data from all the counties and village communities (Ris).
  • beneficiaries finding usefulness of early warning and evacuation materials. Other village communities (Ris) may procure basic early warning and material used for evacuation as required.

     

3.1.7 Management Arrangements                                                               

 

Execution Modality: In accordance with the CBDRM PRODOC, the CBDRM Project modality was Direct Implementation Modality (DIM) which meant the project execution and implementation would be undertaken directly by UNDP DPRK in compliance with UNDP Programme and Operations Policies and Procedures (POPP). The overall decision, including financial accountability would rest with the UNDP DPRK CO and the CBDRM Project was to be executed in coordination with relevant partners, including at the local county level, with a view to ensuring that effective assistance flowed directly to targeted beneficiaries.

 

Project Steering Committee (PSC): The PSC was established to provide high-level oversight and to steer the CBDRM Project. The PSC is responsible for high-level management decisions and policy guidance required for implementation of the project, including recommendations and approval of project plans, budget and revision. The PSC membership comprised the following key stakeholders:

  • UNDP DPRK:
    • Deputy Resident Representative of UNDP DPRK (PSC Chairperson)
    • CBDRM Project Manager
    • Programme Analyst
    • M&E Specialist
  • Government of the DPRK:
    • Coordinator of National Coordinating Committee (NCC) for UNDP (PSC Co-Chairperson)
    • Representative of Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS)
    • Representative of State Committee for Emergency and Disaster Management (SCEDM)
    • Representative of Ministry of Land and Environment Protection (MOLEP)
    • Representative of State Hydro-Meteorological Administration (SHMA)

       

      The evaluation reviewed that PSC decisions in relation to the CBDRM Project were effective and adhered to standards that ensure efficiency, cost effectiveness, transparency, effective institutional coordination, and harmony with overall priorities of the Government of DPRK and UNDP.

       

      The PSC was first constituted in April 2016 and met regularly in every quarter. The meeting minutes for all meetings made available showed that the PSC effectively provided important directions and oversight. In addition, the PSC was also successful in advising on technical aspects of project implementation, discussions and deliberations on the external/environmental challenges faced in relation to procurement and prioritization of interventions keeping project cost considerations in view.

       

       

       

      UNDP: As the DIM agency, UNDP offered substantive support services to the CBDRM Project, which included project management/administration, financial reporting, procurement support, and technical advisory services. The CBDRM Project updates to the PSC, Project Annual Progress Reports, Programme and Project Field Monitoring Visits (FMV) Reports were comprehensive and timely produced. These reports covered many details and provided insights into project implementation, overall management, the many challenges faced in project implementation and mitigations/counter-measures to overcome the barriers.

       

      Project Counterparts: At the National/Central level, the DPRK government agencies involved in the project were:

  • National Coordinating Committee (NCC) for UNDP
  • Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS)
  • State Committee for Emergency and Disaster Management (SCEDM)
  • Ministry of Land and Environment Protection (MOLEP)
  • State Hydro-Meteorological Administration (SHMA)

     

    At the local level, the main project partners were CPCs and other key stakeholders of:

    • Yonsan County, North Hwanghae Province
    • Singye County, North Hwanghae Province
    • Yangdok County, South Pyongan Province

 

The CBDRM Project Team travelled to the respective county locations to hold regular and quarterly meetings with the project partners to review the project progress and initiate early corrective actions.

 

The CBDRM Project FMV reports indicated effective discussions to resolve project management and coordination issues, and also contained details of reviews and actions taken. The Programme FMV, led by the M&E Specialist and CO Management, validated the results achieved. All recommended actions were consistently followed up and presented by the M&E Specialist at PSC meetings and captured in the quarterly programme and oversight FMV reports. Those reports were subsequently sent to the UNDP Regional Bureau as required by the UNDP DPRK ICF. The evaluation reviewed that there was a focus on results and activity scheduling across activities and outputs. Progress was reviewed against the objectives and targets set in the CBDRM PRODOC’s Results and Resources Framework. The Project and Programme FMV reports were written to reflect the progress achieved against targets.

 

Project Management Unit (PMU): Being a DIM agency, the UNDP formed a PMU comprising one International Project Manager, one National Technical Coordinator and one National Administrative Assistant.

 

The PMU would be fully responsible for the coordination of National/Local Counterparts for project execution in a timely manner and within budget. The PMU facilitated effective project planning, that included preparation of annual work plans and project monitoring and reporting. The PMU was charged with coordinating and facilitating the procurements. As a curator, the evaluation reviewed that the PMU had effectively and efficiently held all the records, publications and minutes of meetings pertaining to the CBDRM Project.

 

 

3.2 Project Implementation                                                                         

 

3.2.1 Adaptive Management

 

The CBDRM Project was formally signed off on 8 October 2015. However, there were prolonged delays at the start of the project due to the:

 

  • extended period of banking channel closure/disruptions for funds transfer to the UNDP DPRK CO

Due to the early UN Sanctions on DPRK (UN Resolutions #2087 and #2094), the UNDP DPRK CO had to implement prolonged periods of organizational cash conservation mode due to the lack of funds being transferred into DPRK. Hence, there was minimal funds to implement any project activities and eventually slow progress in delivering project results.

 

  • lengthy recruitment process and eventual late recruitment of the CBDRM Project Team

 

The extended period of banking channel closures/disruptions created uncertainties for the UNDP DPRK CO and resulted in the lengthy recruitment process of the CBDRM Project Team. The Project Manager, National Technical Coordinator and Project Administrative Assistant were eventually on board in the 1st quarter of 2016.

 

Despite the early and recurring setbacks, the evaluation reviewed that the CBDRM Project Team displayed good project management abilities and effectively utilised appropriate project management tools to implement the CBDRM Project to the best of their abilities.  

 

The project implementation was delayed by 5 months from October 2015 to March 2016, with the first PSC Meeting involving the CBDRM Project Team on board held on 21 April 2016. The CBDRM Project Team effectively applied adaptive management in planning by having to reschedule the timelines for activities in order to accomplish the project outputs, with activities starting in 2016.

 

The UN Security Council imposed two UN Sanctions (UN Resolutions #2270 and #2321) in 2016 and another four UN Sanctions (UN Resolutions #2356, #2371, #2375 and #2397) in 2017 were imposed on DPRK which included (among many measures) import, financial and economic restrictions.

 

Table 1 below showed the implementation status of each CBDRM Project output as assessed by the evaluation. The evaluation noted that the CBDRM Project would have produced a significantly different implementation status if there were no UN Sanctions imposed on DPRK and there was no banking channel disruption/closure issue to deal with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1: CBDRM Project Implementation Status

 

CBDRM PRODOC

Implementation Status1

Outcome

Resilience to natural hazards of vulnerable communities are enhanced

Output 1

Ri level rural communities are provided with skills and resources enabling them to implement community-based disaster risk management measures.

 

Substantially Achieved

Output 2

Mechanisms, Guidelines and Procedures for promoting CBDRM are developed and implemented at local (Ri) levels

 

Substantially Achieved

Note:

  1. The implementation status is purely based on the desired results of the CBDRM PRODOC. It has not been moderated based on the implications and resultant consequences attributed to the 6 UN Sanctions imposed on DPRK in 2016 and 2017, and the extended period of banking channel disruption/closure which severely disrupted funds being transferred into DPRK to implement project activities.

     

    In the case of Output 1, structural mitigation measures were yet to be implemented, but procurement was put on hold (due to the UN sanctions and the extended banking channel disruption/closure), the evaluation reviewed that these implications and resultant consequences were beyond the control of the CBDRM Project Team and the UNDP DPRK CO. Furthermore, there were minimal or no alternative adaptive management measures that could have produced a better outcome.

     

    The evaluation further assessed that specific communication aspects of the CBDRM Project would need to be strengthened, particularly there is a need to manage village community (Ri) expectations on (1) UNDP’s “inconsistent” delivery of items (such as structural interventions) to different Ris to minimize the occurrence of unhealthy comparisons and unhealthy competitions between project Ris, and (2) prolonged delays in UNDP interventions to minimize/avoid potential economic loss and hardship to counties and village communities (Ris.

     

    UNDP DPRK has also gained a reputation among national and local counterparts as an organization that failed to deliver on its promises, specifically on structural interventions through procurement for disaster risk reduction mitigations/measures. Restoring UNDP’s reputation as an organization that can effectively deliver results would need to be a key priority. The evaluation would therefore find it beneficial for UNDP DPRK by:

  • continuing field visits, as practical and as relevant as required during the project implementation period, to maintain relationships and communications with village communities (Ris).
  • prescribing conditions and mechanisms to implement “Force Majeure” or early termination of projects if need to.

     

 

 

 

 

3.2.2 Partnership Arrangements

 

The CBDRM Project generated strong stakeholder interest and participation from National/Local Counterparts in DPRK. The stakeholders at the National/Central level were:

  • National Coordinating Committee (NCC) for UNDP
  • Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS)
  • State Committee for Emergency and Disaster Management (SCEDM)
  • Ministry of Land and Environment Protection (MOLEP)
  • State Hydro-Meteorological Administration (SHMA)

     

    At the local level, the main project partners were from Yonsan and Singye Counties (North Hwanghae Province) and Yangdok County (South Pyongan Province) comprising representatives from:

  • County People’s Committees (CPC)
  • Other key stakeholders

     

There was evidence of strong interest and commitment at the local county level through stakeholder contributions (both financial and in-kind), roles and responsibilities to implement the CBDRM Project activities.

 

Despite the external factors/challenges that were beyond the control of the UNDP DPRK CO, the partnership arrangement between CBDRM Project Team and the National and Local Counterparts endured the challenging just slightly over 4-year project period, and demonstrated great patience, understanding and resilience to overcome the difficulties faced. Based on project reports, the fruits of this partnership agreement in challenging circumstances were the successful completion of many CBDRM Project interventions as follow:

  • community risk maps and disaster risk management plans including annual review of these plans, preparedness for response and early recovery in 15 communities in 2017.
  • annual review of Participatory Risk and Needs Assessment (PRNA) and Disaster Risk Management Planning (DRMP) in 15 village communities (Ris) in 2018 and 2019, where reports including DRM plans were finalised and translated into Korean which were subsequently handed over to the Ris.
  • PRNA and DRMP in 15 Ris and also with Sloping Land User Groups (SLUGs) using a combination of DRM equipment, tools and techniques.
  • training for 10,162 people (including 4,611 female), based on project reports, on coping strategies against a target of 450 through evacuation simulation, PRNA and DRM plan trainings across the 15 selected Ris.
  • procured resources and delivered supplies for community level preparedness measures for early warning and evacuation.
  • national workshops on discussing lessons learned, progress, challenges and opportunities for improving CBDRM practice.
  • promotion of south-south cooperation with other countries through organized study tours while implementing the CBDRM Project.
  • training materials on CBDRM functions to represent comprehensive guidelines and methodologies on CBDRM.
  • guidelines for local level EWS and evacuation measure, protection of critical community assets focusing on local rainfall and weather parameters.
  • guidelines on local level preparedness and contingency planning process.
  • guidelines and technical training on disaster damage, loss and needs assessment and reporting.

     

     

3.2.3 Project Finance

 

The CBDRM Project had a duration of slightly over 4 years (October 2015 to December 2019) with an approved budget of US$2,204,200. The details of the planned financing allocation based on the CBDRM PRODOC are as follow:

 

Table 2: CBDRM Project – Original Planned Budget as per CBDRM PRODOC

 

CBDRM Project

2015

(US$)

2016

(US$)

2017

(US$)

2018

(US$)

2019 – As of 22 Nov 2019 (US$)

Output 1

368,500

426,500

422,600

368,600

Output 2

118,000

198,000

155,000

147,000

Total

486,500

624,500

577,600

515,600

 

In November 2016 when UNDP focused on ad-hoc intervention in flood affected areas in North Hamgyong Province, 1.6 million USD was added to CBDRM project (through TRAC 1,2,3) to expedite emergency response. The project further received unspent funds from “Strengthening Ecosystem Resilience and Community Adaptive Capacity in Climate Affected River Basins in DPRK” (SERCARB) project and transferred some portion of management budget of the SED Project towards the end of 2018, thus the project total budget became US$ 4,363,416.36.

 

While the CBDRM PRODOC did not include any co-financing from National and Local Counterparts, the evaluation reviewed that the Local Counterparts provided in-kind contributions (labour and construction-related materials) to assist the timely completion of CBDRM Project activities.

 

The budget and actual expenditure of the CBDRM Project is provided below in Table 3.

 

Table 3: Summary of Budget and Actual Expenditure (CBDRM Project)

 

CBDRM Project

2015

(US$)

2016

(US$)

2017

(US$)

2018

(US$)

2019 – As of 22 Nov 2019 (US$)

Total AWP Budget

 

2,027,250.00

891,879.88

790,000.00

1,278,583.25

Output 1 (Actual)

610.56

1,592,984.30

594,671.22

311,663.57

245,685.27

Output 2 (Actual)

 

121,742.17

236,583.29

149,963.96

147,127.26

Total (Actual)1

610.56

1,714,726.47

831,254.51

461,627.53

392,812.53

 

 

 

 

 

 

Utilization Rate

(Actual/AWP Budget)

 

85%

93%

58%

31%

Note:

  1. Actual figures are based on financial system extracts provided by the UNDP DPRK CO
  2. Based on CBDRM Project Annual Work Plan (AWP)

     

    The evaluation noted that the CBDRM Project under-spent its allocated total project funds by about 32% and its utilization was an average of 67%. This was due to the extended banking channel disruption/closure, caused by the UN Sanctions, which disrupted funds from being transferred into DPRK. This further resulted in the CBDRM Project’s inability to obtain funds to implement the CBDRM Project activities.

     

    In considering the UN Sanction measures together with recurring and extended banking channel disruption/closure which led to the UNDP DPRK CO activating the cash conservation mode to sustain the office operations, the CBDRM Project Team displayed appropriate financial management processes to implement the relevant CBDRM Project activities which were not affected by the UN Sanction measures.

     

    However, the evaluation reviewed that there were inconsistencies (and inconsistent templates) in the CBDRM Project Team’s financial reporting processes due to different reporting requirements given.

     

    1. Inconsistent reporting of CBDRM Project actual expenditure figures

       

      The actual expenditure provided to the evaluation was based on actual expenditure according to project outputs. However, the actual expenditure in the CBDRM Project Annual Progress Reports were  based on actual expenditure, as per financial reporting templates being provided by UNDP DPRK CO, according to the categories of Project Activity, Management and Staff, General Operations Expenditure, and/or Common Services.

       

      2. Inconsistent reporting on comparison of CBDRM Project budget versus actual expenditure figures

       

      The CBDRM Project Team did not provide budget and actual expenditure figures in PSC meetings. However, the CBDRM Project Annual Progress Reports reported these comparisons for the calendar year period but not at output levels as the CBDRM Project Team followed the financial reporting templates being provided by UNDP DPRK CO. The evaluation further noted that only the CBDRM Project’s CDR run was attached at the time of the report submission.

       

      For improved financial accountability and transparency purposes as part of demonstrating the efficient use of funding on project output-based activities, future financial reporting processes and templates of UNDP DPRK projects should:

  • track and report consistent financial figures (budget and actual expenditure).
  • have consistent comparisons between budget and actual expenditure, as per project outputs, based on project CDRs, for submissions of all relevant project reports (including annual progress reports and submissions to PSC meetings).

 

3.2.4 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Activities Used for Adaptive Management

The M&E framework consisted of local monitoring and reporting as well as international independent evaluations. Both the CBDRM Project Team and the UNDP DPRK M&E Specialist were responsible for the preparation and submission of the M&E reports and evaluations at project and programme levels respectively, as stated in the CBDRM PRODOC. Table 4 below summarizes the achievement of monitoring actions as required by the CBDRM PRODOC.

 

 

Table 4: M&E Plan and Completion Status

 

Type of

M&E Activity/Report

Frequency/ Timing

Status

Comments

Detailed Quarterly Workplan

 

Every beginning of the quarter

Completed

Detailed workplans for 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 completed

Annual Workplan and Budget

 

Beginning of each year

Completed

Detailed workplans with budget for 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 completed

 

Quarterly Progress Report

 

Quarterly

Completed

Reports completed every quarter in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019

Annual Progress Report

 

Yearly

In progress

Reports completed in 2016, 2017 and 2018. The Annual Progress Report for 2019 is to be completed by the CBDRM Project Manager in December 2019

Mid-Term Review

 

End of Year 2

Completed

This M&E activity was delayed with one MTR report completed by an independent evaluator in August 2018

Terminal Report

 

End of the CBDRM Project

In progress

One Terminal Report to be completed by the CBDRM Project Manager in 2019

Independent Terminal Evaluation

 

End of the CBDRM Project (3 months prior to the terminal project steering committee meeting)

 

In progress

One Terminal Evaluation report to be completed by an independent evaluator in January 2020

Field Monitoring Visits/Reports

 

After each mission

Completed

Field Monitoring Visits/Reports  by CBDRM Project Team and UNDP DPRK Programme M&E Team completed

Mission reports

 

After each mission

Completed

Mission reports by individual experts (International and National) completed

Other Reports and Deliverables

 

After each TA or sub-contract

Completed

Reports and deliverable by individual experts (International and National) completed

Quarterly M&E Reports

 

Quarterly

Completed

Quarterly M&E reports by UNDP DPRK CO/Programme M&E Team completed

Financial records & reporting

 

Continuous

Completed

Financial records and reporting completed

 

The UNDP DPRK CO and the CBDRM Project Team proactively responded with specific adaptive management measures to recommendations from MTR as shown below in Table 5:

 

Table 5: Management Response to CBDRM Project MTR Recommendations

 

CBDRM Project MTR Recommendation

Management Response

Improved Monitoring. The MTR has frequently noted that limiting monitoring and data collection to quantitative approaches only undermines the ability of the project to capture the qualitative change created and the potential impact of the project in the short and medium term. While it is understood by the consultant that opportunities for qualitative monitoring are limited, it is nonetheless important that some qualitative output indicators be included in the RRF to improve analysis of progress and to communicate results. Providing analysis of qualitative change can also demonstrate the importance of the project despite the significant operational challenges, not least procurement challenges, which have caused delay in the implementation of some activities. The MTR recommends including the following indicators at the sub-output level:

 

  1. Extent to which target communities use risk maps and DRM Plans to support risk reduction in annual agricultural and infrastructure planning And Extent to which information on coping strategies reduces HH asset loss during crises
  2. Area of deforested land (including sloping land used for agriculture) replaced by agro-forestry And Extent to which agro-forestry has reduced the number of landslides during heavy rain in target communities
  3. Extent to which the CBDRM is used as a coordination tool by the government (assessed by proxy through other CBDRM actors such as IFRC, FAO, OCHA etc)
  • Agree. It is important some qualitative output indicators are considered to improve reporting on the qualitative changes. Providing analysis of qualitative change can also demonstrate the importance of the project despite the significant operational challenges, not least procurement challenges, which have caused delay in the implementation of some activities.

 

  1. In consultation with counterparts following indicators will be monitored by CBDRM project. These will be reported in the Quarterly Progress Reports/Annual Progress Reports.
  1. DRM Plans are reviewed annually by the communities and financially supported for implementation
  2. Usefulness of Disaster Loss and Damage Database (DLDD) reports for DRM planning at three counties
    1. At the programme level, Programme staff report qualitative changes of the projects in ROAR through captured qualitative results from projects

Revised Output Targets. Although initial project targets were set within the previous sanctions regime and were highly likely to be achieved, given the fluidity of the current international environment regarding DPRK in mid-2018, it is difficult to determine whether or not the project will be able to achieve its present targets by end 2019 when the project is scheduled to close. Moreover, current targets are entirely quantitative in nature and do not provide the necessary evidence that the activities implemented have resulted in any meaningful change. However, given that it is unlikely that the project will increase the number of target communities in which to implement activities, quantitative targets cannot easily be changed without completely revising all output indicators. With both issues in mind, and following from the suggested revised indicators in the previous recommendation, the MTR recommends sub-output targets for the supplementary indicators accordingly: 

 

  1. Risk maps inform agricultural and infrastructure planning to ensure that appropriate crops are planted in low risk areas and infrastructure is not built in immediate hazard areas.

And

Reduction in the number of HH experiencing complete asset and livelihood loss

  1. At least 10% of deforested land replaced by agro-forestry in target communities (by end 2019)

And

The number of landslides negatively impacting dwellings and agricultural productivity is reduced

  1. SCEDM and partners endorse the CBDRM Programme Framework as the main tool for the coordination of CBDRM activity implementation

 

N.A.

Standardized monitoring tools. Based on documents reviewed and discussions with project and programme staff, it is evident that although there are comprehensive guidelines for project and programme monitoring in the Country Office, the lack of appropriate tools for data collection and analysis severely impacts what type of data is being collected and by whom. It is recommended that instead of having joint reports following field visits, whether or implementation and monitoring purposes, team members should submit individual BTORs, with project and programme aspects kept separate. A standardized quarterly monitoring report should be used to consolidate data from the BTORs on a quarterly basis only, providing ease in data analysis. Other country offices in the Asia-Pacific region have implemented a similar tool, an example of which is attached as Annex 10. The report should be completed by the project team (lead by the Project Manager), with quality assurance of the data and analysis undertaken by M&E Specialist. This process would improve the storage and analysis of information, both at activity level, and at output level, where analysis to date is weak. This also provides a clear delineation between the role of the project and programme in monitoring and reporting at the project level. 

 

  • Agree It is recommended that instead of having joint reports following field visits, whether it is for implementation and/or monitoring purposes, team members should submit individual BTORs separately for project and programme.
    1. Projects and programme team will submit separate BTORs upon field missions.
    2. Quarterly Progress Reports (QPRs) should be completed by the project team (led by the Project Manager), with quality assurance of the data and analysis undertaken.
    3. Report qualitative changes of the projects in ROAR through captured qualitative results from projects.

Communication of project results. Geo-political issues surrounding the relevance of the project in terms of its humanitarian role have created challenges in terms of how to communicate the results of the project. If results are communicated at the activity level through purely quantitative data, it is difficult to understand the longer-term, life-saving impact that the project has and will have. With the inclusion of more qualitative indicators at the output level, it is hoped that more meaningful analysis of the humanitarian importance of the project will be capture, and it is recommended that the UNDP Country Office put significantly more effort into communicating these results within the wider UN system in order to reinforce why UNDP’s presence in DPRK is essential, as well as providing evidence for the need to ease some procurement challenges for more effective project implementation and the easing of the humanitarian burden on other agencies. 

 

  • Agree With the inclusion of more qualitative indicators at the output level, it is hoped that more meaningful analysis of the humanitarian importance of the project will be captured, bearing in mind the sensitivities in sharing project results publicly due to the complex geopolitical context under which UNDP operates in DPRK. Following are some of the key actions that will be taken to improve the reporting of qualitative changes that the project is leading on the ground.

 

  1. CBDRM project to share communication material (videos/brochures…) with relevant parties including BRH
  2. Conduct a painting competition for school children to deepen their awareness of DRM among people and select most innovative and creative ideas. 

 

Managing community expectations. The most frequent negative feedback received by beneficiaries during the MTR country mission was that procurement of materials for structural interventions was routinely delayed. While plans for structural interventions were agreed with target communities, delays in procurement undermine community commitment and ownership to the initiatives. For example, if seedlings for transplant of fast rotation crops are not soon provided, it would be unsurprising if the community priorities were to change and they reverted to using sloping land for agriculture despite the risks posed by landslides. The project needs to find a way to better manage community expectations related to structural interventions, perhaps by only discussing these plans once procurement is approved based on previous needs assessments. 

 

  • Agree The project needs to find a way to better manage community expectations related to structural interventions, perhaps by only discussing these plans once procurement is approved based on previous needs assessments.

 

  1. Until sanctions issue is resolved, CBDRM project is expected to be engaged in soft activities rather than hard/structural interventions
  2. If it comes to the point when procurement is no longer possible, exit strategy would be enforced as had been recommended
  3. Project team must be in constant touch with local communities and keep them updated of the project progress in procurement

 

Focus on soft interventions. Based on the on-going delays in procurement, it will be important for the CBDRM team to prepare a work plan which puts significant effort on soft-activities which consolidate knowledge transfer at the county level and aim to put in place tools or informal systems whereby knowledge transfer or organic roll-out of activities could take place in the medium-term. For example, identifying county individuals who could act as trainers for other counties, or provide tools and guidance on how counties can improve data collection and document lessons and problem-solving processes. The planning of these activities could be guided by UNDP’s Capacity Development toolkits/handbooks, particularly focusing on individuals and institutions, to understand where knowledge transfer gaps may take place, and target activities to address such gaps. Some examples include an annual review of the DRM Plans, continued simulation trainings, moving from training on preparedness and recovery to mitigation and response, in-country study tours, and continued refinement of the CBDRM Framework.

 

N.A.

Consolidating CBDRM commitment at the national level. Despite limitations in how UNDP can engage with national stakeholders, the sustainability of current results and possible future scale-up of CBDRM relies heavily on the capacity of SCEDM to take ownership of DRM coordination in the country. It is recommended that the project team facilitate more knowledge transfer and leadership skills to SCEDM, using the CBDRM Programme Framework as a launching point for improved coordination of the crosscutting sector. Potential avenues for communication are joint workshops with other agencies involved in (CB)DRM, as well as using the PSC meetings as a venue for one-on-one knowledge transfer and question/answer opportunities with SCEDM beyond issues of project implementation. 

 

 

 

 

  • Agree It is recommended that the project team facilitate more knowledge transfer and leadership skills to SCEDM, using the CBDRM Programme Framework as a launching point for improved coordination of the cross-cutting sector.

 

  1. SCEDM and partners endorse the CBDRM Programme Framework as the main tool for the coordination of DRM activities at community level. It’s included as part of DRR/DRM strategy of DPRK.

Exit Strategy. Considering the ongoing absence of a CPD for the Country Office, one option that UNDP may want to consider as a potential exit strategy for the project beyond 2019 is to coordinate with other UN agencies and IFRC to transfer the knowledge products, protocols and guidelines for roll-out to other communities where these agencies are doing CBDRM-related work. Moreover, it is recommended that UNDP identify an agency to take over the responsibility for coordinating the CBDRM Programme Framework after the project is complete as it is unlikely that SCEDM capacity to take on that role will be sufficient by the time the project ends, and it would be a waste of time and effort if the coordination of CBDRM programming was interrupted.  Further, UNDP should work closely with participating counties for the formal handover of products such as the DLDD and CBDRM for the improved ownership and continued learning of county officials related to risks, vulnerabilities and community-based disaster risk management.

 

  • Agree As the CBDRM project will end by December 2019 according to the Prodoc, it’s the right time to start deploying its exit strategy to meaningfully consolidate the results achieved till date and ensure, there is a sustainability in the project activities and results.

 

  1. CBDRM project shall organize a National Partners Meet to assess what was done better and what else need to be completed in fulfilling the needs of the communities.
  1. At this meet, CBDRM project must encourage the local communities to make in-kind contributions in the absence of procurement activities.
  2. Consolidating CBDRM project results till date

 

The evaluation reviewed that the M&E process at the project and programme level was very comprehensive. The UNDP DPRK Programme M&E showed high competency in:

  • conducting field monitoring visits every quarterly to assess the progress of the CBDRM Project outputs. This included the verification of delivered items and assets through the identification of UNDP item/asset identity tags at the field sites and monitoring the use of the delivered items and assets to ensure sustainable operations and productions. UNDP-delivered items were well-tagged and kept in all sites visited which showed UNDP’s visibility, recognition and support on the ground.
  • producing high quality quarterly programme monitoring and oversight reports, as required by the UNDP DPRK ICF and UNDP DPRK CO Guidelines for Field Monitoring Visits, with key findings and analysis of progress towards results, project performance and implementation issues.
  • providing key recommendations and corrective actions/measures to further improving the CBDRM Project, and monitoring the implementation of these key recommendations and corrective actions/measures until completion.
  • updating the M&E progresses at all PSC meetings.

     

    The CBDRM Project Team showed high competency in:

  • conducting project field monitoring visits every quarterly to assess the progress of the CBDRM Project outputs. This included the verification of delivered items and assets through the identification of UNDP item/asset identity tags at the field sites, the onsite testing of equipment delivered by UNDP. UNDP-delivered items were well-tagged and kept in all sites visited which showed UNDP’s visibility, recognition and support on the ground.
  • producing high quality quarterly and annual project progress reports and presenting them at all PSC meetings.
  • identifying key issues faced, and providing key recommendations and corrective actions/measures to address these key issues.
  • updating project implementation monitoring progress at all PSC meetings.

     

     

    However, the M&E process at the project level by the CBDRM Project Team could be further strengthened in the field data collection to measure effectiveness and impact on completed project activities. While the CBDRM Project has consistently reported the impact through significant increase in public awareness and knowledge/application in DRM, there is a need for the CBDRM Project Team to collect data to measure the effectiveness and impact on the village community beneficiaries.  

     

    Enabling the field data collection to measure effectiveness and impact on village communities would further strengthen the:

  • overall sustainability results of the CBDRM Project pilot activities.
  • case for future replication of the CBDRM model in other counties/village communities (Ris) in DPRK.

     

3.2.5 Implementing Agency

 

The CBDRM Project adopted the direct implementation modality (DIM) which meant that UNDP DPRK would be the Implementing Agency with a dedicated project team based in the UNDP DPRK CO. An International Project Manager would be recruited and be responsible for the daily management of the project with assistance from recruited national project staff (comprising one National Technical Coordinator and one National Administrative Assistant). The CBDRM Project Team would further engage International and/or National Consultants as required based on the CBDRM Project’s technical requirements.

 

The CBDRM Project also formed a Project Steering Committee (PSC) to guide the project direction and address any challenges. The PSC was co-chaired by the UNDP Deputy Resident Representative and the National Coordinator from the DPRK National Coordinating Committee (NCC) for UNDP, with participation of representatives from the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS), State Committee for Emergency and Disaster Management (SCEDM), Ministry of Land and Environment Protection (MOLEP), State Hydro-Meteorological Administration (SHMA) and other institutions as needed at the central level.

 

The CBDRM Project would also work closely with Local Counterparts such as CPCs and other key stakeholders from:

  • Yonsan County, North Hwanghae Province
  • Singye County, North Hwanghae Province
  • Yangdok County, South Pyongan Province

     

    The evaluation established that there were strong working relationships between the UNDP DPRK CO, the CBDRM Project Team, National and Local Counterparts and project beneficiaries at the county and village community (Ri) level. These working relationships were frequently tested by the slow progress of the CBDRM Project’s structural interventions in Output 1.2 such as procuring materials for constructing road, footbridges, river embankments, village community evacuation centers/shelters and water tanks.

     

    Key representatives of the National and Local Counterparts expressed disappointments at the prolonged delays and unsuccessful implementation of these procurement-related activities during the 4-year project duration. Many of these expressed disappointments were understandably justified as, in their views, structural measures for disaster risk reduction were not delivered. Despite these procurement setbacks, the National and Local Counterparts expressed deep gratitude and appreciation on the limited but successful implementation of the CBDRM Project non-structural interventions such as capacity building activities for DRMP and emergency response/preparations. The application of these non-structural interventions were being tested during Typhoon Ling Ling in early September 2019. More details could be found in Section 4 which features a key success story on how increased  public awareness, knowledge and the application of disaster risk management has strengthened village community resilience.

     

    The National and Local Counterparts expressed deep gratitude and appreciation for the CBDRM Project Team who had done their very best, in the midst of many external factors/challenges faced, to implement the project with some significant success.

     

    The National and Local Counterparts, while fully understanding that the external factors/challenges such as the UN Sanctions and the geo-political situation had severely affected the CBDRM Project, highlighted their disappointment in the UNDP as an organization for not being able to deliver the desired results.

 

3.3 Achievement of Project Results

 

The TE assessed four broad categories:

  • Project Design/Formulation
  • Project Implementation and Adaptive Management
  • Achievement of Project Results in the categories of Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Basic Human Needs, Gender Equality, Synergy, Overall Results/Impact, National Ownership (using Evaluation Ratings)
  • Sustainability (using Sustainability Ratings)

     

    The evaluation rated the CBDRM Project’s project results according to the evaluation ratings table listed below in Table 6.

     

    Table 6: Evaluation Overall Results/Impact Rating

     

Evaluation Ratings for Overall Results/Impact, Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Basic Human Needs, Gender Equality, National Ownership

Sustainability Ratings:

 

6. Highly Satisfactory (HS): no shortcomings

5. Satisfactory (S): minor shortcomings

4. Moderately Satisfactory (MS): moderate shortcomings

3. Moderately Unsatisfactory (MU): significant shortcomings

2. Unsatisfactory (U): major shortcomings

1. Highly Unsatisfactory (HU): severe shortcomings

 

4. Likely (L): negligible risks to sustainability

3. Moderately Likely (ML): moderate risks

2. Moderately Unlikely (MU): significant risks

1. Unlikely (U): severe risks

Additional ratings where relevant:

Not Applicable (N/A)

Unable to Assess (U/A)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.3.1 Overall Results/Impact

 

The evaluation rated the CBDRM Project’s overall results/impact with reference to its overall project outcome and 4 project outputs (1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2) as per stated in the CBDRM PRODOC. The overall results/impact are presented below in Table 7.

 

Table 7: Overall Results/Impact – CBDRM Project

CBDRM PRODOC

Achievement Rating

Comments

Outcome

Resilience to natural hazards of vulnerable communities are enhanced

 

Output 1

Ri level rural communities are provided with skills and resources enabling them to implement community based disaster risk management measures.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Output 1

Ri level rural communities are provided with skills and resources enabling them to implement community based disaster risk management measures. 

 

 

 

Output 1.1

Communities in high risk areas with access to severe weather warning information, with involvement in local and indigenous early warning system and in community preparedness measures to undertake emergency response and early recovery

5/6

 

(Satisfactory)

Minor shortcomings

  • Conducted Participatory Risk and Needs Assessment (PRNA) and Disaster Risk Management Planning (DRMP) in 15 Ris, including completion of annual review and update of PRNAs and DRMPs of 8 Ris in 2018 while remaining 7 Ris were completed in 2019. Ris are expected to review these plans annually.
  • PRNAs seem to identify structural interventions as the top priority for disaster risk reduction and mitigation measures (also the commonly expressed views from the field mission trip) but CBDRM Project went ahead with non-structural interventions first (UN Sanction Resolution #2397 not yet passed).
  • Trained on coping strategies conducted through evacuation simulation, PRNA and DRMP trainings across the 15 selected Ris.
  • Procured resources and delivered supplies for community level preparedness in emergency response, early warning and evacuation.
  • Early warning and evacuation materials were provided to all 15 communities for emergency response and preparedness. Visual aids/placards suggested for practical purposes.
  • Fit-for-purpose local/indigenous early warning system needed.

 

Output 1.2

Communities in high risk areas have skills in hazard and vulnerability assessment, and involved in planning and implementing risk resilient agro forestry and rural livelihood

 

 

Output 1.2

Communities in high risk areas have skills in hazard and vulnerability assessment, and involved in planning and implementing risk resilient agro forestry and rural livelihood

 

(CONTINUED)

Non-structural interventions

 

5/6

 

(Satisfactory)

Minor shortcomings

  • Significant increase in public awareness and knowledge in DRM.
  • Required early warning and evacuation material were provided to Ris.
  • Conducted PRNA and DRMP for Ris in close combination with SLUGs, which benefited from improved skills in hazard and vulnerability assessments.
  • Communities in 9 Ris were provided with seeds for improved livelihoods and saplings to prevent soil erosion using soil bioengineering, while other remaining 6 Ris did not receive seed and saplings,  possibly due to staggered distribution schedule affected by sanctions and banking channel closure.
  • Established a pool of women trainers with capacity to teach other grassroots women on planning and implementing risk resilient agro-forestry and rural livelihood.

Structural interventions

 

2/6

 

(Unsatisfactory)

Major shortcomings

  • Excellent ownership  and participation in agro-forestry activities by village communities (Ris) through in-kind contribution which included management of tree nursery, transplantation of fast-growing trees.
  • Implemented structural interventions (check dams and landslide protection structures) in Chuma Ri (2016).
  • Remaining structural interventions (such as construction of footbridges, river embankments, village community evacuation centers/shelters, water tanks) for other Ris yet to be completed.
    • need to manage Ri community’s comparisons, disappointments and frustrations
    • due to sanctions and banking channel disruption/ closure (beyond the control of the UNDP DPRK CO)

 

Output 2

Mechanisms, Guidelines and Procedures for promoting CBDRM are developed and implemented at local (Ri) levels

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Output 2

Mechanisms, Guidelines and Procedures for promoting CBDRM are developed and implemented at local (Ri) levels

 

(CONTINUED)

 

 

 

Output 2.1 Stakeholders CBDRM Programme Framework is developed and agreed with elements of strategy, priorities, targeting, roles and responsibilities, resource allocation and resources and partnership including possible joint activities in training and project implementation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/6

(Highly Satisfactory)

No shortcomings

National counterparts

  • Fully socialized and familiar with the CBDRM Programme Framework since workshop in April/May 2018.
  • NSDRR was developed by DPRK Government in June 2019. CBDRM Programme Framework aligns and informed the NSDRR with potential contribution such as implementing the CBDRM model (one county per province) if estimated adoptable.

 

3/6

(Moderately Unsatisfactory)

Significant shortcomings

International agencies/organizations

  • CBDRM Programme Framework developed with the aim of “promoting CBDRM, identifying strategic objectives, sub objectives, priority actions, resources, lead organization/s and partnerships with UN agencies and IFRC/DPRK Red Cross”.
  • International agencies/organizations were not fully socialized, and not familiar with the CBDRM Programme Framework and CBDRM results.
  • CBDRM Programme Framework did not specify the partnership roles, responsibilities and required actions/resources attributed directly to international agencies/organizations.
  • Synergies and communications with international agencies/organizations could be further improved.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Output 2.2 Comprehensive guidelines on CBDRM including training methodologies, materials, knowledge product.

5/6

 

(Satisfactory)

Minor shortcomings

  • Strong evidence of CBDRM guidelines and materials at village community (Ri) level.
  • Disaster Loss and Damage Database (DLDD) developed at Central/County Level
  • Some challenges encountered in collection of data at county/village community level to filling up the DLDD data cards.
  • local counties/communities need further training in collecting accurate and meaningful data.
  • CBDRM EW Protocol developed.
  • guidelines and principles incorporated into the PRNA and DRMP of 15 Ris.
  • Socialization and application at National Level appropriate. This is the first EW protocol in DPRK but need improvements and updating.

 

Output 2.3a

 2,666 housing units covered with semi-permanent shelter solutions (as emergency response to flooding in North Hamgyong province in October-November 2016)

 

 

 

U/A

 

(The Evaluator did not visit the project site to verify and confirm the actual results)

  • New ad-hoc output incorporated in 2016/2017 to assist in flood emergency response and coordination support in North Hamgyong Province (based on reports)
  • 200,437.56m2 of CGI sheets, roof ridges and nails procured and delivered à 145,309 m2 of UNDP supported CGI was used directly or indirectly, through swap, for roofing of dwelling houses, benefitting 2,750 households, the rest being used for roofing of public institutions delivering essential social services (85 buildings) throughout most affected counties (based on reports)
  • Operational challenges encountered in the midst of challenging circumstances: (based on reports)
    • Unreliable communications in remote areas with little/no telecommunication signals
    • Discrepancies on actual onsite-receipt of CGI sheets and contractor schedule/recordings
    • Delayed deliveries due to unfavorable weather conditions
  • Early recovery assessments were not conducted. Budget re-allocated to soil bioengineering to strengthen 3 gullies in Tokso Ri (based on reports)

 

Note:

a.  Although not originally planned, an additional Output 2.3 was added in late 2016 with the approval of the Project Steering Committee (PSC) to channel emergency support for communities affected by flooding in the North Hamgyong Province.

 

The evaluation further noted that the CBDRM Project Team and UNDP DPRK CO  had done their best to deliver and achieve the desired project results despite encountering significant external factors/challenges, mainly due to the 6 UN Sanctions in 2016 and 2017 and the recurring banking channel disruption/closure that prevented funds transfer into DPRK) during the CBDRM Project duration.

 

 

 

 

 

3.3.2 Relevance

 

 

Achievement Rating: 5/6 (Satisfactory - Minor Shortcomings)

 

 

The CBDRM Project was highly relevant and aligned with the DPRK national strategies and priorities. The CBDRM Project was designed with humanitarian-oriented outputs and activities which were aimed to address the humanitarian needs of intended beneficiaries.

 

The CBDRM Project’s relevance was further strengthened with National and Local Counterparts being involved and consulted during the project design and also during project implementation. The CBDRM Project Team, particularly the Project Manager, also had suitable technical skillsets and competencies to deliver most of the project outputs which are technically complex and required specialised expertise and knowledge in DRM.

 

Challenges in procurement due to UN Sanctions and banking channel disruption/closure severely disrupted the ability to procure internationally and in-country, which is beyond the control of the UNDP DPRK Project Team and CO. Hence the CBDRM Project could not fully deliver the required procurement of equipment and materials for structural interventions, which were perceived as the key need and priority by project beneficiaries.

 

Field mission observation:

  • Non-structural interventions were highly relevant, well-received and successfully implemented at village community (Ri) level. These would include the following:
  • Conduct of Participatory Risk and Needs Assessment (PRNA) and Disaster Risk Management Planning (DRMP) in 15 Ris, including completion of annual review and update of PRNAs and DRMPs.
  • Trained on coping strategies conducted through evacuation simulation, PRNA and DRMP trainings across the 15 selected Ris.
  • Procured resources and delivered supplies for community level preparedness in emergency response, early warning and evacuation.
  • Early warning and evacuation materials to increase public awareness and knowledge in DRM
  • Structural interventions (such as construction of footbridges, river embankments, village community evacuation centers/shelters, water tanks) were regarded at village community (Ri) level as a higher priority need than non-structural interventions but the CBDRM project plan schedule proceeded with non-structural interventions first.
  • The needs and priorities at village community Ri level possibly changed and were also affected by geo-political context but the CBDRM Project Output 1.2 could not accommodate and adapt appropriately.

     

 

 

 

 

 

3.3.3 Effectiveness

 

Non-Structural Interventions

 

 

Achievement Rating: 5/6 (Satisfactory – Minor Shortcomings)

 

 

There were surprising unintended results ie. the innovative creativity, solutions, resilience and unity of the village community (Ri) beneficiaries:

  • Yonsan County: The county produced a video of its countywide evacuation simulation exercise involving the community Ri, county staff, DPRK emergency services personnel (fire brigade, ambulance). There were also sighting of UNDP-delivered well-tagged items that were used for emergency preparedness and response. Other counties were invited to witness the simulation exercise.
  • Sagi Ri (Yangdok County): The county demonstrated perseverance to complete the structural interventions in the absence of UNDP support. Despite the challenges, the county remained hopeful and positive.
  • Singye County: The county potentially introduced and replicated the CBDRM model to 20 non-project Ris.

     

    Output activities (specifically, non-structural interventions) met the intended needs of the target beneficiaries at the village community (Ri) level. However, an independent impact evaluation study would be required as a future project output/activity component to measure the impact effectiveness, final end-line indicators and actual benefits gained.

     

    Structural Interventions

     

 

Achievement Rating: 2/6 (Unsatisfactory – Major Shortcomings)

 

 

External factors/environment beyond the control of the CBDRM Project Team and UNDP DPRK CO have affected the desired Output 1.2 results to be fully achieved, particularly the procurement of equipment and materials for structural interventions (such as construction of footbridges, river embankments, village community evacuation centers/shelters, water tanks).

 

These were perceived as the key needs and priorities by project beneficiaries, who expressed disappointments at the prolonged delays and unsuccessful implementation of the CBDRM Project procurement-related activities.

 

The evaluation determined that PRNAs seemed to identify structural interventions as the top priority for disaster risk reduction and mitigation measures (also the commonly expressed views from the field mission trip) but the CBDRM Project went ahead with non-structural interventions first (UN Sanction Resolution #2397 was not yet passed at this stage).

 

 

3.3.4 Efficiency

 

 

Achievement Rating: 4/6 (Moderately Satisfactory – Moderate Shortcomings)

 

 

The project achieved the intended outcome (but only for non-structural interventions). Out of the 4 outputs:

  • Outputs 1.1 and 2.2 were considered almost fully achieved
  • Outputs 1.2 and 2.1 were considered partially achieved

     

    As of 22 November 2019, the CBDRM Project under-spent allocated total project funds by about 32%. This is mainly due to the inability to obtain project funds for procurement of equipment and materials for structural interventions, which is caused by the delayed UN sanctions exemptions/clearance process and the extended banking channel disruption/closure. The CBDRM Project Team displayed appropriate financial management processes to implement the relevant project activities which were not affected by the UN sanction measures.

     

    Financial reporting processes and templates should be further strengthened for consistencies, financial accountability and transparency purposes in financial budgeting and accounting:

  • tracking progress of budget vs expenditure at output level for submissions of all relevant project reports (including APPRs), to demonstrate the efficient management and use of funding on project output-based activities, and align activity/output impact and results to the corresponding financial budgets
  • reporting these budget vs expenditure comparisons at output levels at PSC meetings

 

3.3.5 National Ownership

 

 

Achievement Rating: 5/6 (Satisfactory – Minor Shortcomings)

 

 

While the CBDRM PRODOC did not include any DPRK counterparts to lead in implementing any project outputs, strong national ownership was achieved at the National/Central level through perfect attendance by DPRK counterpart representatives (CBS, SCEDM, MOLEP, and SHMA) of all PSC meetings.

 

The evaluation also found a high degree of national ownership through strong commitment and interest at the local county level with sustained results of initiation, knowledge/operational transfer and innovative creativity from the CBDRM Project, as follow: 

  • Excellent application of CBDRM SOPs, guidelines and materials:
  • Significant increase in public awareness and knowledge of DRM
  • Overcoming Typhoon Ling Ling in early September 2019
  • Sighting of PRNAs, DRMP, risk maps, selection of public buildings as evacuation centers and evacuation route maps
  • High degree of national ownership at county and village community (Ri) level:
  • Yonsan County: The county produced a video of its countywide evacuation simulation exercise involving the community Ri, county staff, DPRK emergency services personnel (fire brigade, ambulance). There were also sighting of UNDP-delivered well-tagged items that were used for emergency preparedness and response. Other counties were invited to witness the simulation exercise.
  • Sagi Ri (Yangdok County): The county demonstrated perseverance to complete the structural interventions in the absence of UNDP support. Despite the challenges, the county remained hopeful and positive.
  • Singye County: The county potentially introduced/replicated the CBDRM model to 20 non-project Ris.

     

    However, the evaluation observed that county stakeholders still encountered some challenges in the collection of data to filling up the DLDD data cards. This indicated that local counties and communities still needed to be trained in data collection. Due to the incomplete procurement activities, much needed structural interventions have yet to be completed for affected Ris. As such, local abilities for disaster risk management and disaster risk reduction could not yet be fully realized/achieved to their full potential.

     

3.3.6 Sustainability

 

 

Sustainability Rating: 3/4 (Moderately Likely - Moderate Risks)

 

 

The CBDRM PRODOC did not conduct any risk analysis and furthermore did not account for external environments such as the UN sanctions and the extended banking channel disruption/closure. The CBDRM Project Team identified and implemented risk assessments, and mitigation strategies and action plans. However, it did not resolve the external environments. This resulted in unanticipated sustainability issues (incomplete structural interventions for strengthening disaster prevention/mitigation measures) emerging during project implementation and the project outcome could not be fully realized/implemented.

 

The CBDRM model should be replicated (in close cooperation with national and local counterparts) to other counties/Ris but needs to be complemented with appropriate and timely structural interventions to maximize effectiveness and impact.

 

The evaluation observed that National Consultants/Experts received extensive capacity building and knowledge in DRM and DRMP. This is a commendable effort and there is a need to conduct knowledge/operational transfer to have extended pool of national resources for future CBDRM model roll-out.

 

The CBDRM Project appropriately developed an exit strategy and took into account the following:

  • Political factors - there is strong support and commitment from the DPRK Government and CPCs to continue as emphasized in the NSDRR.
  • Financial factors - there is financial stability to operate on its own without further financial support.
  • Technical factors - skills and expertise needed were suitably assessed and with capacity building activities organized to up-skill the beneficiaries.
  • Environmental factors - the CBDRM model can be replicated (in close cooperation with national and local counterparts) to other counties and village communities (Ris) but this needs to be complemented with appropriate and timely structural interventions to maximize effectiveness and impact. It is also critically important to continue implementing the CBDRM model as part of the DPRK NSDRR to enhance resilience to natural hazards in all the vulnerable village communities (Ris) in DPRK, led by SCEDM in close cooperation with international agencies and organizations.

     

     

3.3.7 Basic Human Needs / Gender Equality

 

 

Achievement Rating: 5/6 (Satisfactory – Minor Shortcomings)

 

 

The CBDRM PRODOC did not include specific gender mainstreaming/social inclusion strategy. However the CBDRM Project has factored these into its activities. Basic human needs and gender equality were potentially achieved based on anecdotal and proxy indicator evidence through concrete examples of:

  • Children and families receiving the calendar and understanding better on the different types of seasonal disasters.
  • DRMP and evacuation simulations providing inclusiveness by prioritizing vulnerable groups such as elderly, pregnant women, children, the sick, people with disabilities.
  • Women from SLUGs receiving training in the CBDRM project.

     

    While the reported benefits by project reports could be perceived as immense, the evaluation could not fully verify the actual benefits at ground level. This could be further realized if an impact evaluation study at project output/activity level could be externally conducted by an independent party.

     

    Future CBDRM-related projects in DPRK should continue to prioritise gender mainstreaming activities to assess the capacity needs according to gender requirements, and develop capacity development activities specifically relating to enhancing gender equality and improving the women’s living and livelihood standards. 

     

3.3.8 Synergy

 

 

Achievement Rating: 4/6 (Moderately Satisfactory – Moderate Shortcomings)

 

 

The evaluation assessed that there were strong synergy effects between the CBDRM Project and SES Project as follow:

  • Strengthening of river embankment concept from CBDRM project was implemented with SES Project activities to enable and strengthen the implementation of renewable energy technologies.
  • as part of the SES Project, public buildings such as kindergartens and schools were retrofitted with energy efficiency measures. Some of these public buildings were also selected as evacuation centers in the  CBDRM Project. This would result in a positive impact to the well-being and safety of beneficiaries during emergency situations such as floods and typhoons. However, this was not highlighted by the project beneficiaries or sighted in the 5 Ris visited.
  • the SES Project implemented energy efficiency measures to improve the indoor heating system (Ondol floor heating). This would also increase indoor thermal comfort and also increase the protection of village communities from extreme cold conditions as part of CBDRM Project interventions in disaster risk management. However, this was not highlighted by the project beneficiaries in the 5 Ris visited.
  • EE stoves and solar PV panels were installed as part of the SES Project which helped to improve the heat insulation, improve cooking efficiency and maintain the warm indoor environment. This would result in less timber being collected by SLUG groups and used by village communities (Ris) for firewood which would be required for cooking and also for keeping the indoor environment warm during winter season. The lessened use of timber meant that more trees would be preserved on mountain slopes to strengthen  prevention of soil erosion and landslides as part of CBDRM Project interventions in disaster risk management.
  • CBDRM project provided seeds (pinus koreansis, larix leptolepis, and castanata crenata) for improving livelihoods and saplings (aronia melanocarpa, and bamboo willow) to prevent soil erosion using soil bioengineering. Communities have further used firewood species such as poplar to enhance biomass resources availability.

     

    The evaluation also observed that synergy effect between the SES Project and CBDRM Project have undesirable implications such as:

  • village communities (Ri) who were not the beneficiaries of both SES and CBDRM Projects would perceive as receiving less “benefits”. Proposed “compensation” with more structural interventions (such as construction of roads, bridges, river embankments, village community evacuation centers/shelters, water tanks) were not realized due to the UN sanctions and extended period of banking channel disruption/closure.
  • unhealthy comparisons and competitions between the projects village communities (Ris) observed. For example some Ris received such as tree seeds and saplings while other Ris did not receive these items.

     

    The evaluation further noted that the CBDRM Project Team justified its response to the needs on ground based on the project objective whereby:

  • the SES and CBDRM projects have responded to the needs on ground considering availability of budget, prioritisation at the community level in order to balance its overall support.
  • procurement plans 2018 and 2019 were not materialised under SES and CBDRM. This is beyond the CBDRM Project Team’s control.

     

    The evaluation also observed that synergies and communications with other UN agencies and international organizations could be improved in relation to the CBDRM Programme Framework:

  • international agencies and organizations were not fully socialized and not familiar with the CBDRM Programme Framework and CBDRM results.
  • the CBDRM Programme Framework did not specify the partnership roles, responsibilities and required actions/resources attributed directly to international agencies and organizations.

     

    Hence the evaluation assessed that the CBDRM Project needed to improve its weak synergies with other UN agencies and international organizations with similar project/programme outputs and results.

     

    In particular, any future CBDRM should strengthen its information sharing, communication of project results and valuable lessons learned as part of multi-level and multi-sectoral DRM and DRR in DPRK.

     

 


[1] The evaluation understands that in 2019 with the closure of the SED Project, the SED Project Manager was assigned to be the CBDRM Project Manager but delegated full responsibilities to the current incumbent CBDRM Project Manager.


Recommendations
1

Strengthen financial reporting processes

2

Extensively review and update the UNDP DPRK CO policies and procedures

3

Should UNDP DPRK be authorized to proceed, all remaining project activities (specifically relating to the CBDRM Project’s structural interventions) as part of disaster prevention/mitigation strengthening measures should be completed.

4

Roll out/replicate the CBDRM project in DPRK at village community (Ri) level

5

Incorporate future UNDP DPRK CBDRM activities to align with/support the implementation of the DPRK National Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction (NSDRR)

6

Communicate and share the CBDRM model and results with international organizations/ agencies for enhanced synergies and learnings

1. Recommendation:

Strengthen financial reporting processes

Management Response: [Added: 2020/05/22]

Agreed 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
1.1 For improved financial accountability and transparency purposes, UNDP DPRK project financial reporting processes and templates should track and report progress of consistent financial figures i.e. budget and actual expenditure for consistent comparisons between budget and actual expenditure, as per project outputs, based on project CDRs, for submissions of all relevant project reports (including annual project progress reports), to demonstrate the efficient use of funding on project output-based activities.
[Added: 2020/05/22]
Project team 2020/02 No Longer Applicable [Justification: Project closed]
History
2. Recommendation:

Extensively review and update the UNDP DPRK CO policies and procedures

Management Response: [Added: 2020/05/22]

Accepted

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
2.4 UNDP DPRK CO should strengthen its relationship management processes with project beneficiaries such as continued field visits, as practical and as relevant as required during the project implementation period, to better manage stakeholder expectations. By doing so, this would avoid/minimize potential economic and productivity losses to counties/village communities (Ris)
[Added: 2020/05/22]
CO, Program and project team 2020/02 No Longer Applicable [Justification: Project closed]
Project closed
2.5 UNDP DPRK CO should minimize and/or avoid unequal distribution of delivered assets/items to avoid unhealthy comparisons between project beneficiaries and across any projects that have synergies.
[Added: 2020/05/22]
CO, Program and project team 2020/02 No Longer Applicable [Justification: Project closed]
Project closed
2.1 UNDP DPRK CO should work with UNDP Regional HQ to extensively review and update all operational, procurement and financial management policies and procedures to account for all that happened within the 2015-2019 period and appropriately mitigate any future constraints.
[Added: 2020/05/22]
CO, BRH 2020/12 Not Initiated New program/project yet to be formulated as of February 2020
2.2 UNDP DPRK CO should incorporate extensive long-term scenario planning processes with appropriate and specific risk assessments and counter-measures.
[Added: 2020/05/22]
CO 2020/12 Not Initiated New program/project yet to be formulated
2.3 UNDP DPRK CO should set conditions and mechanisms to implement “Force Majeure” or early termination of projects if need to.
[Added: 2020/05/22]
CO, Program and project team 2020/12 Not Initiated New program/project yet to be formulated
3. Recommendation:

Should UNDP DPRK be authorized to proceed, all remaining project activities (specifically relating to the CBDRM Project’s structural interventions) as part of disaster prevention/mitigation strengthening measures should be completed.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/05/22]

Agreed

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
3.1 UNDP DPRK CO, if authorized to proceed, complete all planned procurement of equipment/ materials relating to structural interventions, while strictly adhering to relevant UNDP Policies and Procedures and UNDP DPRK Guidelines for Field Monitoring Visits to: ? Monitor and report on the use of the assets and delivered items, after handover to project beneficiaries, at minimum during project implementation. ? Ensure successful delivery onsite and the use of the delivered items for their intended purpose to achieve the desired project results, particularly paying attention to monitoring the delivery of the structural interventions to ensure their intended purpose after the CBDRM Project closure.
[Added: 2020/05/22]
CO Program and Project team 2020/02 No Longer Applicable [Justification: Project closed]
Project closed
3.2 Conduct an independent impact evaluation study, as a future project output/activity component, to measure the impact effectiveness, final end-line indicators and actual benefits gained.
[Added: 2020/05/22]
CBDRM Project 2020/02 No Longer Applicable [Justification: Project closed]
Project closed
4. Recommendation:

Roll out/replicate the CBDRM project in DPRK at village community (Ri) level

Management Response: [Added: 2020/05/22]

Agreed

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
4.1 UNDP DPRK CO should work in close partnership with DPRK national counterparts to facilitate knowledge/operational transfer of the CBDRM Project with procedural, operational and hands-on training manuals, guidelines, SOPs, DRM plans and other related DRM equipment/materials.
[Added: 2020/05/22]
CO program/ project team and national counterparts 2020/02 No Longer Applicable [Justification: Project closed]
4.2 UNDP DPRK CO should work in close partnership with DPRK national counterparts to implement suitable, cost-effective and timely structural interventions to strengthen disaster mitigation/prevention measures for identified disaster high-risk areas.
[Added: 2020/05/22]
CO program/ Project team and national counterparts 2020/02 No Longer Applicable [Justification: Project closed]
4.3 UNDP DPRK CO should work in close partnership with DPRK national counterparts to fully establish a fit-for-purpose Early Warning System at local village community (Ri) level to better inform emergency response/preparedness.
[Added: 2020/05/22]
CO program & project team and national counterparts 2020/02 No Longer Applicable [Justification: Project closed]
4.4 UNDP DPRK CO should work in close partnership with DPRK national counterparts to organize study tours, in other countries of similar context and/or culture to DPRK, for increased exposure to acquiring knowledge/application of best practices in DRM/DRR/EW Systems.
[Added: 2020/05/22]
CO program team and national counterparts 2020/02 No Longer Applicable [Justification: Project closed]
5. Recommendation:

Incorporate future UNDP DPRK CBDRM activities to align with/support the implementation of the DPRK National Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction (NSDRR)

Management Response: [Added: 2020/05/22]

Agreed

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
5.1 UNDP DPRK CO should work closely with SCEDM to strengthen and integrate infrastructure, systems and processes for disaster risk reduction, early warning and emergency response purposes at county level.
[Added: 2020/05/22]
CO program/ project team, SCEDM 2020/12 Not Initiated From 2020, through DRR SWG meetings
5.2 UNDP DPRK CO should work closely with SCEDM to develop fully-automated measurements at local village community (Ri) level for accurate forecasting of climatic hazards.
[Added: 2020/05/22]
CO program team, SCEDM 2020/12 Not Initiated From 2020 through DRR SWG meetings
5.3 UNDP DPRK CO should work closely with SCEDM to improve watershed management to reduce/eliminate disaster risk factors such as floods, landslides and soil erosion.
[Added: 2020/05/22]
CO program team, SCEDM 2020/12 Not Initiated From 2020 through DRR SWG meetings
5.4 UNDP DPRK CO should work closely with SCEDM to establish a fully-integrated fit-for-purpose national disaster management system, incorporating a standardized nation-wide village community (Ri) reporting on disaster loss and damage information that complies with international standards such as the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction.
[Added: 2020/05/22]
CO program team, SCEDM 2020/12 Not Initiated From 2020 through DRR SWG meetings History
6. Recommendation:

Communicate and share the CBDRM model and results with international organizations/ agencies for enhanced synergies and learnings

Management Response: [Added: 2020/05/22]

Agreed

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
6.1 Future CBDRM-related projects should strengthen its communication/sharing platforms to engage in closer collaboration/synergies with international organizations/agencies on future CBDRM activities.
[Added: 2020/05/22]
CO 2020/12 Not Initiated From 2020 through DRR SWG meetings

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