Mid-Term Evaluation of the project Enhancing Resilience to Climate Change by Mainstreaming Adaption Concerns into Agricultural Sector Development in Liberia”

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2013-2019, Liberia
Evaluation Type:
Mid Term Project
Planned End Date:
10/2015
Completion Date:
11/2016
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
25,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document CCAAP MTR report - Final - JT.doc report English 1292.17 KB Posted 249
Download document TOR-Int'l-CONSULTANT-CCAAP Mid-term Eval..doc tor English 92.50 KB Posted 149
Title Mid-Term Evaluation of the project Enhancing Resilience to Climate Change by Mainstreaming Adaption Concerns into Agricultural Sector Development in Liberia”
Atlas Project Number: 62109
Evaluation Plan: 2013-2019, Liberia
Evaluation Type: Mid Term Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 11/2016
Planned End Date: 10/2015
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Environment & Sustainable Development
  • 2. Others
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
  • 1. Output 1.4. Scaled up action on climate change adaptation and mitigation across sectors which is funded and implemented
Evaluation Budget(US $): 25,000
Source of Funding: GEF
Joint Programme: No
Mandatory Evaluation: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Joana Talafre Consultant
Susanna Pykala Consultant
Emmanuel Johnson Nimbuen Consultant
Clara Champalle Consultant
GEF Evaluation: Yes
GEF Project Title: Mid-Term Evaluation of the project Enhancing Resilience to Climate Change by Mainstreaming Adaption Concerns into Agricultural Sector Development in Liberia”
Evaluation Type: Mid-term Review
Focal Area: Climate Change
Project Type: EA
GEF Phase: GEF-1
GEF Project ID: 00079407
PIMS Number: 4439
Key Stakeholders: EPA, Ministry of Lands, Mines & Energy, University of Liberia, Cuttington University, Stella Maris Polytechnic.
Countries: LIBERIA
Lessons
Findings
1.

In summary CCAAP performed Moderately Satisfactory (3,5) despite of number of significant technical and managerial challenges that prevented it from achieving its full potential.

Key Findings

  1. Overall, the evaluation has found that the project performed Moderately Satisfactory. This is due to various reasons, including a high level of political buy-in and country ownership, as well as a high level of enthusiasm and commitment of different stakeholders, some of whom have implemented and continued to support project activities out of their own initiative and with their own resources.

 

  1. These positive aspects were however offset by lengthy delays, which could be partially attributed to unclear lines of accountability, and to shortcomings in the decision-making processes of the project. The evaluation also noted serious issues with due diligence processes and mechanisms, which led to a lower level of efficiency and effectiveness. Finally, there was a significant disconnect between the intended and implemented outputs, in particular in Component 2, that could be partially attributed to  the lack of local technical capacity, the inadequate level of agro-ecological advisory services, and to a potential lack of interest to participate on behalf of certain stakeholders.
  1. Conclusion 1: The lines of accountability, management requirements and reporting mechanisms were unclear. This resulted in the project being divided into two separate, disconnected, components, with no clear link between them. It also resulted in some concerns regarding the overall management and distribution of funds among the components. This could jeopardize the finalization of the project, achievement of outcomes, and upscaling strategy.

     

  2. Conclusion 2: The project may not achieve the full scope of intended results within available time and resources. Delays in implementation and execution, along with problems related to the uncertainties regarding fund availability, may prevent the project for achieving all the intended results. Focusing on readily achievable targets may help alleviate this risk.

     

    4. Conclusion 3: It is unclear whether the piloted technologies can all be considered adequate adaptation technologies. The selection of technologies, and the lack of observable rationalization or prioritization for these technologies, combined with the need for increased management capacity to implement them, makes for a difficult argument. As assessment on technical grounds may be required before upscaling.

    4. Conclusion 4: The project achieved good levels of awareness raising, and some important achievements in terms of capacity development among certain stakeholders. The high  level  of political and institutional buy-in visible in this project, along with the dedication of project staff and the MoA, will assist in maintaining the project’s positive outcomes in the long term.


Recommendations
1

The PCU to prepare a report that gives an integrated picture of what exactly the status is of each of the project`s outputs as they relate to activities, budget allocated to each output, and the results, deliverables and outcomes that have been achieved.

2

The PCU to improve its documentation and filing system. In particular this should contain all of the M&E documentation that the project prescribes.

3

The PSC and the PCU to prepare a project completion plan and also designate, and name, individual(s) to be accountable for ensuring the completion of each of the project outputs.

4

The leadership, and staffing structure of the PCU needs urgent attention. It is vital that a NPC, and others, be put in place as soon as possible.

1. Recommendation:

The PCU to prepare a report that gives an integrated picture of what exactly the status is of each of the project`s outputs as they relate to activities, budget allocated to each output, and the results, deliverables and outcomes that have been achieved.

Management Response: [Added: 2016/12/20] [Last Updated: 2016/12/21]

An integrated  report has now been preprared and submitted and shared with stakeholders capaturing key deliverbales under this project.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
1.1. description activities, then specifics as needed a.The integrated report that reflects key outputs, activites of the Ministry of Agricultutre and FAO have been done and available. b. All activities as enshrined in the approved workplans during the period under review were implemented with some challenges which have been addressed.
[Added: 2016/12/21]
Ministry of Agriculture and FAO 2016/03 Completed
2. Recommendation:

The PCU to improve its documentation and filing system. In particular this should contain all of the M&E documentation that the project prescribes.

Management Response: [Added: 2016/12/20] [Last Updated: 2016/12/21]

There is central reposistory in place for all key project documents.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
2.1. description activities, then specifics as needed a.The documentations with regards to this project have been placed in a more orderly manner for ease of reference. b. All box folders that have documents like M & E, Field reports, Board meeting minutes etc all been labelled and reviewed on a Quarterly basis. c. This process was also enhanced by a spot check by UNDP on a qaureterly basis to ensure that these recommendations are adhere to as per the Evaluation report.
[Added: 2016/12/21]
Ministry of Agriculture and UNDP. 2016/04 Completed Quarterly Spot checks will continue until the project is Operationally and financially closed.
3. Recommendation:

The PSC and the PCU to prepare a project completion plan and also designate, and name, individual(s) to be accountable for ensuring the completion of each of the project outputs.

Management Response: [Added: 2016/12/20] [Last Updated: 2016/12/21]

A completion plan is now in place for the project closure and roll out plan has been approved by both the PSC and PCU. A designated staff of the Ministry of Agriculture who is the Focal Person is fully in charge.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
3.1 description activities, then specifics as needed a. Within the framework of the project, component I which is the Ministry of Agriculture has designated a staff to absorbe full responsibility to ensure full accountability for the successful completion of the project. b. Component II which is under the auspeics of FAO has designated a staff to absorbe full responsibility to ensure full accountability for the successful completion of the project
[Added: 2016/12/21]
The Ministry of Agriculture and FAO. 2016/12 Completed
4. Recommendation:

The leadership, and staffing structure of the PCU needs urgent attention. It is vital that a NPC, and others, be put in place as soon as possible.

Management Response: [Added: 2016/12/20] [Last Updated: 2016/12/21]

The staffing at the PCU is now in place for the full management of the project and other delegated tasks to be perfprmed have been assigned and full action.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
4.1 description activities, then specifics as needed a. The staff structure for the effective management of the project have been put in place with full responsibility shouldered by every designated.
[Added: 2016/12/21]
The Ministry of Agriculture and FAO. 2016/12 Completed

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

220 East 42nd Street
20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel. +1 646 781 4200
Fax. +1 646 781 4213
erc.support@undp.org