- Evaluation Plan:
- 2016-2020, Georgia
- Evaluation Type:
- Final Project
- Planned End Date:
- 02/2017
- Completion Date:
- 04/2017
- Status:
- Completed
- Management Response:
- Yes
- Evaluation Budget(US $):
- 27,000
Final evaluation_PIMS 4583 Flood Prevention Project
| Document | Type | Language | Size | Status | Downloads |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 4583_final evaluation report 200217.docx |
report | English | 116.29 KB | Posted | 1291 |
| TOR-TE-International_Flood Prevention.docx |
tor | English | 40.58 KB | Posted | 1358 |
 4583_TE_Annexes_compiled.pdf |
related-document | English | 854.49 KB | Posted | 1265 |
| Title | Final evaluation_PIMS 4583 Flood Prevention Project | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atlas Project Number: | 00060698 | ||||||||||||||
| Evaluation Plan: | 2016-2020, Georgia | ||||||||||||||
| Evaluation Type: | Final Project | ||||||||||||||
| Status: | Completed | ||||||||||||||
| Completion Date: | 04/2017 | ||||||||||||||
| Planned End Date: | 02/2017 | ||||||||||||||
| Management Response: | Yes | ||||||||||||||
| Focus Area: |
|
||||||||||||||
| Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021) |
|
||||||||||||||
| Evaluation Budget(US $): | 27,000 | ||||||||||||||
| Source of Funding: | AF | ||||||||||||||
| Evaluation Expenditure(US $): | 22,200 | ||||||||||||||
| Joint Programme: | No | ||||||||||||||
| Joint Evaluation: | No | ||||||||||||||
| Evaluation Team members: |
|
||||||||||||||
| GEF Evaluation: | Yes
|
||||||||||||||
| Key Stakeholders: | Ministry of Environment Protection | ||||||||||||||
| Countries: | GEORGIA, REPUBLIC OF |
| Lessons | |
|---|---|
| Findings |
| Recommendations | |
|---|---|
| 1 | The project should be replicated and scaled up to cover the entire country, ensuring coverage the entire river basins (upper and lower parts) |
| 2 | The good practices identified and the inclusive and partnership approach used for implementation should be maintained. |
| 3 | Ensure the quality and capacity of the project management team as they are a critical factor of success. |
| 4 | Focus more the technical reports on priority actions to be taken, to avoid overwhelming the institutions with too many changes and innovations that they have limited absorption capacity to integrate. |
| 5 | EWS should be developed and implemented all the way down to the communities and villages so that proper preventive action is undertaken in a timely fashion. A logical next step would be to ensure that a Community Based EWS is put in place, something which was not part of the project but should certainly be covered in any project expansion. |
| 6 | FFEWS is a very valuable mechanism that now enables NEA to improve its monitoring and forecasting capacity. Nonetheless, at present EMA has indicated it needed more refined information from NEA to service its needs, so further consultation and collaboration between NEA and EMA is warranted. |
| 7 | It may be possible to integrate the villages and communities more directly in some of the activities through organizing Community Based Organisations that would both profit and learn from livelihood opportunities linked to the adaptation measures undertaken at local level by the project and their monitoring, as demonstrative evidence of success. |
| 8 | The project should either be placed in the Prime Minister’s Office (SSCMC) to facilitate inter-ministerial coordination and government ownership considering the fractured institutional set-up in Georgia, or ensure that SSCMC is chairing or a member of the project board. |
| 9 | Allocate 3% of the project budget as recommended and invest more seriously into M&E training and RBM quality assurance in project design and setting up of the M&E system including the monitoring plan, and budgeting for evaluations and the preparation of the TOR for the evaluation. |
1. Recommendation:
The project should be replicated and scaled up to cover the entire country, ensuring coverage the entire river basins (upper and lower parts)
Management Response: [Added: 2017/07/14]
UNDP Georgia and the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources Protection of Georgia (MENRP) agree to this recommendation and thus have already started programming for the upscaling of the project. The new project proposal preparation is underway for the submission to the Green Climate Fund on “Scaling-up Multi-Hazard Early Warning System and the Use of Climate Information in Georgia” to cover the entire country and all 11 river basins in Georgia. It is intended to submit the project to Green Climate Fund. Now the project proposal and feasibility study is under preparation. The new GCF project will scale up adaptation solutions and technologies piloted by the Rioni project, in particular: nation-wide scale up of the risk mapping and socio-economic vulnerability assessment methodology, flood risk monitoring and forecasting, EWS, structural and non-structural community based flood protection measures, flood plain zoning, etc..
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preparation of new project proposal
[Added: 2017/07/14] |
MENRP, UNDP | 2017/06 | Completed | ||
| Finalization of the feasibility study for this new project
[Added: 2017/07/14] |
MENRP, UNDP | 2017/06 | Completed |
2. Recommendation:
The good practices identified and the inclusive and partnership approach used for implementation should be maintained.
Management Response: [Added: 2017/07/14]
Agree. It is planned that all good practices gained from implementation of the project, like good partnership with key stakeholders (Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure, Emergency Management Agency, National Environmental Agency, pilot municipalities), as well as working on different levels (Municipal, inter-agency and governmental/legislative level) will be used in new project.
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ensure incorporation of all the good practices and inclusive and partnership approach in the new project proposal
[Added: 2017/07/14] |
UNDP, MENRP, Project Management, NEA, MOA, EMA | 2017/06 | Completed | Some of the best practices include: upgrading of hydro-meteorology network; structural and non-structural adaptation measures; risk modelling and socio-economic vulnerability assessments, forecasting and early warning system | |
| Carry out wide stakeholder consultations with existing and potential partners during the development of the new GCF proposal to maintain and secure strong partnerships with government and non-government partners.
[Added: 2017/07/14] |
UNDP, MENRP, Project Management, NEA, MOA, EMA | 2017/06 | Completed |
3. Recommendation:
Ensure the quality and capacity of the project management team as they are a critical factor of success.
Management Response: [Added: 2017/07/14]
Agree. UNDP will make efforts to sustain the highly qualified project team for engaging them in the new project and initiatives (subject to UNDP selection and recruitment procedures). For any new adaptation projects and initiatives to come in future, resources will be planned for capacity building, technical training and professional coaching of the Project Team.
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Allocate budget resources for training and coaching of the project management team in any future project and initiatives.
[Added: 2017/07/14] [Last Updated: 2018/07/19] |
UNDP CO | 2023/12 | Completed | Depends on the approval of the new project/s Three newly approved projects with the total funding exceeding 30 million USD have capacity building components included. History |
4. Recommendation:
Focus more the technical reports on priority actions to be taken, to avoid overwhelming the institutions with too many changes and innovations that they have limited absorption capacity to integrate.
Management Response: [Added: 2017/07/14]
Agree; the ToR for such technical reports will consider this recommendation to ensure most practical and realistic changes should be applied
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ensure ToRs for technical surveys/assignments include focus on priority area for change/amendments
[Added: 2017/07/14] [Last Updated: 2018/07/19] |
UNDP | 2018/04 | Completed | Depends on the timeframe of the new project/s development and approval History |
5. Recommendation:
EWS should be developed and implemented all the way down to the communities and villages so that proper preventive action is undertaken in a timely fashion. A logical next step would be to ensure that a Community Based EWS is put in place, something which was not part of the project but should certainly be covered in any project expansion.
Management Response: [Added: 2017/07/14]
UNDP Georgia with MENRP already included community base early warning system in the GCF project proposal. Particularly, it is under Output 3 of the proposed project, Activity 3.1: Implementation of community-based early warning schemes and community-based climate risk management. Community-based EWS and CBCRM schemes will be implemented with at least 100 communities across Georgia based on full community engagement and participation
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ensure integration of community-based EWS in the new project proposal
[Added: 2017/07/14] [Last Updated: 2018/07/19] |
NEA, UNDP, EMA, Project Management, Local Municipalities | 2018/04 | Completed | Depends on the approval by GCF and actual start of the project when/if approved. The recommendation has been fully taken into consideration in the GCF project proposal which was approved and will start shortly. History |
6. Recommendation:
FFEWS is a very valuable mechanism that now enables NEA to improve its monitoring and forecasting capacity. Nonetheless, at present EMA has indicated it needed more refined information from NEA to service its needs, so further consultation and collaboration between NEA and EMA is warranted.
Management Response: [Added: 2017/07/14]
Agree. Prospective project includes close cooperation between NEA and EMA as well as development of a detailed information portal for forecasting and early warning system. The project envisages such collaboration under Outputs 1 and 2. Under these outputs the project will address gaps in national coordination and institutional set up for effective EWS resulting in a functioning coordination mechanism and communication protocols for early warning, whereby the format and type of information received from NEA will be in line with the requirements of the FEWS
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ensure integration of this recommendation in the new project proposal
[Added: 2017/07/14] [Last Updated: 2018/07/19] |
NEA, UNDP, EMA | 2018/04 | Completed | Depends on the approval by GCF and actual start of the project when/if approved. The recommendation has been fully taken into consideration in the GCF project proposal which was approved and will start shortly. History |
7. Recommendation:
It may be possible to integrate the villages and communities more directly in some of the activities through organizing Community Based Organisations that would both profit and learn from livelihood opportunities linked to the adaptation measures undertaken at local level by the project and their monitoring, as demonstrative evidence of success.
Management Response: [Added: 2017/07/14]
Agree. The recommendation is envisaged in the GCF project design, under Output 3. The project will ensure active engagement of local communities in risk assessment, planning, implementing and monitoring of adaptation measures; these will ensure stronger ownership of communities, develop their capacities and more importantly have positive impact on livelihoods.
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ensure integration of this recommendation in the new project proposal
[Added: 2017/07/14] |
UNDP | 2017/06 | Completed | Depends on the approval by GCF and actual start of the project when/if approved |
8. Recommendation:
The project should either be placed in the Prime Minister’s Office (SSCMC) to facilitate inter-ministerial coordination and government ownership considering the fractured institutional set-up in Georgia, or ensure that SSCMC is chairing or a member of the project board.
Management Response: [Added: 2017/07/14]
Close contacts were established with representatives of State Security and Crisis Management Council (SSCMC) and its Crisis Management Center under the Prime Minister’s Office to exchange background and project related information, identify the SSCMC role in the GCF project and explore the latter’s willingness to engage in the project. The SSCMC expressed its interest and readiness to participate in the Board of the new Project, however the ultimate responsibility for project implementation should remain with the executive government bodies while SSCMC will ensure inter-ministerial
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consider the role of SSCMC as coordinating body in the Project Executive Board for the new project proposal
[Added: 2017/07/14] |
UNDP | 2017/06 | Completed |
9. Recommendation:
Allocate 3% of the project budget as recommended and invest more seriously into M&E training and RBM quality assurance in project design and setting up of the M&E system including the monitoring plan, and budgeting for evaluations and the preparation of the TOR for the evaluation.
Management Response: [Added: 2017/07/14]
Agree. The new project proposal includes chapter on Oversight and monitoring responsibilities: The UNDP Country Office and UNDP-GEF are responsible for complying with UNDP project-level M&E requirements as outlined in the UNDP POPP. Besides, the new project budget will include adequate allocation on various M&E activities, including impact evaluation.
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ensure the dedicated M&E budget and actions are well reflected in the new project proposal
[Added: 2017/07/14] [Last Updated: 2018/07/19] |
UNDP | 2018/04 | Completed | Depends on the approval by GCF and actual start of the project when/if approve. The recommendation has been fully taken into consideration in the GCF project proposal which was approved and will start shortly. History |