Evaluation Detail

Mid Term Evaluation of the AFB Project – Ecosystem-Based Adaptation to Climate Change in Seychelles

Evaluation Plan:: 2017-2023, Seychelles
Evaluation Type:: Mid Term Project
Planned End Date:: 04/2018
Completion Date:: 05/2018
Status:: Completed
Management Response:: Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):: 38,000

Document	Type	Language	Size	Status	Downloads
UNDP-AF Midterm Evaluation ToR _EBA_ International (MA) FV MA2 31.10.2017.docx	tor	English	147.35 KB	Posted	1399
UNDP-AF Midterm Evaluation ToR _EBA_ National FV 31.10.2017.docx	tor	English	144.29 KB	Posted	1197
REVISED SEZ EbA MTE Report 25.04.18.docx	report	English	558.28 KB	Posted	1598

Title

Mid Term Evaluation of the AFB Project – Ecosystem-Based Adaptation to Climate Change in Seychelles

Atlas Project Number:

00080054

Evaluation Plan:

2017-2023, Seychelles

Evaluation Type:

Mid Term Project

Status:

Completed

Completion Date:

05/2018

Planned End Date:

04/2018

Management Response:

Yes

Focus Area:

1. Others

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

1. Output 1.4. Scaled up action on climate change adaptation and mitigation across sectors which is funded and implemented

SDG Goal

Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere
Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts
Goal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss

SDG Target

1.3 Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all, including floors, and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable
13.2 Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning
15.1 By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services, in particular forests, wetlands, mountains and drylands, in line with obligations under international agreements

Evaluation Budget(US $):

38,000

Source of Funding:

Adaptations Fund

Evaluation Expenditure(US $):

38,000

Joint Programme:

Joint Evaluation:

Evaluation Team members:

Name	Title	Nationality
Tine Rossing	Dr.
Cliff Gonzalves	Mr

GEF Evaluation:

Key Stakeholders:

National Stakeholders, Public Utilities Corporation, UNDP, PCU, Ministry of Environment

Countries:

SEYCHELLES

Comments:

Dear Sophie, We would be grateful if the planned completion date could be adjusted to April 2018. The main reason was that we had delays in recruitment and had to redo the process. then with end of year the evaluation will start Mid January. We had delays a swell in getting the 3rd tranche from AF so we had to delays some of our acivities in last Quarter of 2017. We have already completed selection and will be signing contracts early january. Thanks and best regards

Lessons
1.	Progress Towards Results The project is making steady progress to meet its overall objective. Various phases of forest rehabilitation have started in the watersheds to facilitate the progressive restoration and capacity of degraded forestland to deliver forest services to the communities. The activities undertaken as part of the wetland enhancement program are improving the water quality and flow in the upland wetlands of the targeted watersheds. Concerning Praslin, the project tree nursery was completed on time and on budget. The first rehabilitation contract by TRASS was finalized by the end of 2017. Tree tubes and other equipment were sent to Praslin to facilitate growth of planted out saplings. Two teams of field workers and additional forestry operators worked to clear invasive vegetation to facilitate the rehabilitation works being conducted.
2.	OUTCOME 1: EbA approach to enhancing freshwater security and flood control in Mahe and Praslin under conditions of climate change The MTE team was impressed with the preliminary results of the project interventions related to both forest and wetland rehabilitation. For example, it is now evident that the construction of the gabion wall barrage and forest rehabilitation in the Baie Lazare wetland will lead to significant enhancement of the natural habitat and water storage, which water storage capacity equals that of the second largest reservoir in Seychelles. It is therefore very likely that both water shortages and flooded areas will be reduced.
3.	OUTCOME 2: EbA approaches along the shorelines of the Granitic Islands reduce the risk of climate change induced coastal flooding The project has done the studies to look at feasibility of the planned reef measures. However, it seems that small scale EBA reef rehabilitation measures are not feasible due to the surge. Large scale engineering would be required which is not within the mandate of the EBA project. However, World Bank is now looking at the project studies as part of an overall assessment of opportunities for coastal resilience measures. There is ongoing collaboration between the Seychelles Agricultural Agency (SSA) and the EBA project to reduce the impact of salinity on agriculture. GIS licenses and GPS equipment were donated to the Agency to facilitate the mapping of the agricultural zone of Anse Royale to determine where salinity levels are rising and where interventions are needed. Spatial Analysis of the data will be used to design interventions. This collaboration is between several agencies and other EBA projects.
4.	OUTCOME 3: EbA mainstreamed into development planning and financing. While the Rivers Committee were dormant from 2015-early 2017, it has been reactivated through the appointment of an officer in the PUC. The committee has met once in 2017; the project hydrologist is a member of the committee. A national monitoring system has not yet been developed, but a system is in place for Baie Lazare watershed (acting as a pilot for possible adoption at a wider level). Six permanent water-sampling points at Val d’Endor in Baie Lazare watershed have been regularly visited by students of the Environmental Science Department of University of Seychelles to collect water samples and monitor the water discharge (water flow) (above). A scientific methodology has been developed to set technical standards for forest rehabilitation and monitoring. A range of knowledge products has been prepared to date: A Project facebook page and 2 videos are in preparation (one related to forest management, the other to water management), showing the work done by the project in respect to component 1. Moreover, write-ups, articles and spots have been prepared for newspaper and radio programmes A water management policy framework has been developed. Following stakeholder consultation and collaboration led by an Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) project, a Water Policy was submitted and approved by the Cabinet of Ministers in July 2017. Watershed management will be regulated through drafting of legislation that will follow, based on the Policy. The Environment Protection Bill 2016 has been approved, which also provides background for watershed management. Land Use Plans (LUPs) for Seychelles' main islands are being revised, but these provide the basic regulatory framework for the protection of water catchments in Seychelles. Well-received trainings have been carried out in plant identification, stream flow monitoring, soil and salinity management and forest management work, including safe use of chainsaws.
5.	Management Arrangements: Changes made to the initial project management arrangements have made them more in line with the standard setup generally applied to UNDP-executed project than the initially proposed one. In addition, the MTE team considers it a clear advantage that the project has been physically housed in the PCU and in the same building as UNDP, as there is a direct and easy access to the PCU Programme Coordinator, project financial management system, other PCU-implemented projects and UNDP.
6.	Work Planning: It proved very challenging for the MTE to understand and assess the status quo and delivery rate of project implementation, mainly due to problematic work planning. The Annual Work Plans (AWP) do not sufficiently specify actual activities for a significant amount of the project interventions. The Project has no additional work planning tool that outlines well-defined key tasks, step-wise activities and related benchmarks/milestones linked to the established Project outcomes. The individual team members also do not have their own individual activities-based work plans. The logframe is not actively used as a management tool.
7.	Finance and Co-finance: Financial management is carried out in line with UNDP and Government of Seychelles guidelines. Two project audit reports show that financial management is in accordance with agreed upon accounting policies. Financial management of the project is managed well by the PCU and UNDP. The PCU is handling the day-to-day financial management complemented by Requests for Direct Payments processed by UNDP.
8.	Project Monitoring and Evaluation Systems: The project has followed the standard M&E Plan generally applied to UNDP-executed projects, e.g. the project held an Inception Workshop, prepare Quarterly Progress Reports and PPRs. The Project team has also diligently monitored the project risks and assumptions and regularly regularly updated the risk log in ATLAS. It is also not clear who is responsible for data collection, compilation and reporting. The shortcoming pertains to the quality of reporting, i.e. what is being reported and how. Reporting reflects that the Project lacks a systematic approach to data collection and monitoring of these indicators. Additionally, many of the indicators themselves are difficult to measure, as they are not SMART.
9.	Stakeholder Engagement: The project has engaged a wide set of stakeholders, in keeping with a holistic, cross-sectoral EbA approach. A broad range of national and local stakeholders was consulted during the project preparation process. The Project has made significant efforts to involve a wide range of both government and NGO stakeholders across different sectors in project implementation. Several existing partners (e.g. PUC and SSA) have expressed a keen interest in even further collaboration, based on positive project results to date.
10.	Reporting and Communications: All project team members make sincere efforts to communicate with project stakeholders regularly The effectiveness could be improved. Activities under the different Project components are at times implemented in parallel rather than as an integrated approach, causing confusion and delays in project implementation. The Project has not yet formulated a Communications Strategy to guide its overall communication and dissemination of information. The project team therefore does not have a clear and joint understanding of what key information and messages to generate and share, to whom to convey these (i.e. target audiences) and how to most effectively do that (i.e. what means to use). Key project staff turnover has played a significant role (changes in both Project Manager and Community Engagement Specialist). Also, it has proven challenging for the Community Engagement Specialist to obtain much-needed inputs from PIT colleagues for articles and other written communications
11.	Sustainability The project is facing moderate risks (low – medium), but based on an assessment of these, it should be expected that at least some outcomes will be sustained due to the progress towards results and outcomes at mid-point.
Findings
1.	The MTE team finds the target of 4,000 ha very high and may have been too ambitious, especially in light of lessons from the Praslin interventions showing that those local targets will need to be lowered. Additionally, as interventions in Mare aux Cochons are on hold for now, all depending on what is decided on how to proceed (a Go or No Go or an alternative site), this target may become even more unrealistic. Finally, there is an issue of sustainability of project interventions. The Project will need to ensure that the removed invasive species do grow back. If so, repeat efforts to remove them again will be required to meet the objective of encouraging re-growth of native species.
2.	OUTCOME 1: EbA approach to enhancing freshwater security and flood control in Mahe and Praslin under conditions of climate change While the results to date in Baie Lazare are very promising, the project still has not started on rehabilitation work in Mare aux Cochons. The End of Project target for this location is therefore not likely to occur. PUC also has not been forthcoming with the data necessary for monitoring due in part to lack of monitoring devices in the project watershed. The project has so far mapped out watersheds on both Mahe and Praslin. However, no site-based management plan has been developed at mid-term. Removal of invasive alien species and planting of native species have been carried out on Mahe and Praslin. However, the work on Praslin has been very difficult due to harsh work conditions. Progress has therefore been slower than anticipated. Also, breakdown in the relationship between the main partner (TRASS) and the project team is a serious threat to achieving the target.
3.	OUTCOME 2: EbA approaches along the shorelines of the Granitic Islands reduce the risk of climate change induced coastal flooding The MTE team found it very difficult to assess progress made towards area of rehabilitated coastal ecosystems, as the indicator covers so many different kinds of interventions, all at different stages in terms of intervention. This scope of this indicator is too broad for any meaningful monitoring and measurement. The MTE team therefore finds that it is very likely that the Project will not be able to reach all these different individual End of Project targets under this one indicator. This is more an issue of poor indicator design than an issue of the project not being able to deliver. The MTE team could not obtain detailed information to verify whether the End of Project target (i.e. 1,000 ha of coastal ecosystems) is realistic. Moreover, while the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan was supposed to be drafted during Year 1 (2015) of project implementation, it is not done yet. Instead this task and the revision of the plan for Anse Royale will be done in 2018.
4.	OUTCOME 3: EbA mainstreamed into development planning and financing. It is not clear what the project is doing towards mainstreaming EbA into development financing. The ground work for a watershed monitoring system seems to have been carried out through an extensive mapping of watershed and rivers, the reactivation of the rivers committee and the establishment of watershed committees as carried out by the project. However this falls short of a national watershed monitoring system. The absence of a finalised Communications Strategy and a detailed project work plan, combined with insufficient internal team collaboration towards these products, have hindered the smooth planning and delivery of activities. At present there is no clear work plan for which specific knowledge products to produce. This can be relatively easy addressed, but it needs to be made a priority.
5.	Management Arrangements: The new Project Steering Committee has failed to play the envisioned important strategic role in project implementation, due to very poor meeting attendance by members and as of 2016 failure to convene the agreed to two annual meetings annually by the PCU. This poor level of active involvement of the Project Steering Committee in project implementation is a serious cause for concern, especially as some important strategic challenges have not been addressed in a timely manner
6.	Work Planning: There is no standard progress reporting for all project team members in place. There is no longer regular weekly team meetings. As a result, there is not enough team coordination. There is no centralized project information system. The project files are fragmented and scattered with different people. Delays in addressing challenges, resulting in project implementation delays.
7.	Finance and Co-finance: The project has expended about 39% of the total $5.95 million budget (Table 4). This is an acceptable rate at MTE point. The initial low expenditure rate was largely due to delays in start-up activities (PIT recruitment and change of initial Program Manager). The PCU and UNDP, in agreement with the AF, are making significant efforts to ensure efficient AF fund disbursements by preparing the annual PPR early for a prompt submission to the AF in August.
8.	Project Monitoring and Evaluation Systems: The Project is also not using its existing monitoring efforts for deeper reflection to document evidence or to generate lessons and learning that shows results/impacts at outcome level. The PSC is not actively participating in monitoring project progress. The PSC has therefore not adequately supported the use of M&E information for adaptive management. Consequently, project implementation has suffered, and delivery of results and impacts are likely to be compromised, unless corrective measures are taken immediately.
9.	Stakeholder Engagement: The Project does not have an explicit strategy for whom to engage with, why, how and when. Stakeholder engagement therefore appears to be mostly ad-hoc, reactive and opportunity-driven, instead of proactive and vision-driven. The MTE also noted limited understanding of the concept of EbA during the MTE Validation Workshop among key project stakeholders. The project could therefore engage more actively with stakeholders in experiences-sharing, dissemination of project results and EbA awareness raising. Finally, the MTE was surprised to learn that the Project is not actively engaging with the Department of Tourism and Transport and the Seychelles Tourism Board, given that this sector is one of the most significant water users in Seychelles.
10.	Reporting and Communications: Despite not having an explicit Communications Strategy, the current Community Engagement Specialist has managed to carry out a wide range of excellent communications and outreach-related activities and deliverables (a Project Facebook page, preparation of a Project leaflet and 2 new videos-in-progress of the forestry rehabilitation and water project components) Overall external project communication and outreach is adhoc and reactive instead of being proactive grounded in a clear prioritized strategy. As a result, the communication and outreach aspects of the project activities are in serious need of some urgent attention
11.	Sustainability A review of the main project risks from the Project Risk Log does not reveal additional or more severe risks than previously estimated by the Project team. It is therefore fair to assume a likelihood lasting benefits from at least some of the project interventions after the project ends.

Recommendations
1	As an urgent priority, the PCU, with active participation of the Project Implementation Team (PIT), should enhance project management Recommendation to: PCU, PIT
2	As another urgent priority, improve the role of the PCU and the Project Steering Committee in project governance and strategic oversight. Recommendation to: PCU, PIT
3	The PCU and PIT should strengthen project monitoring and evaluation to ensure stronger alignment with Project Outcomes and better documentation of project results Recommendation to: PCU, PIT
4	The PIT, with active support from the PCU and UNDP HQ, should better define project communication to enhance public/stakeholder awareness about project activities and the multiple benefits they generate Recommendation to: PIT, with support from PCU and UNDP HQ Communications Unit.
5	Strengthen documentation of project results, with an emphasis on lessons learned and good practices. Recommendation to: PIT, with support from PCU, PSC and UNDP Regional Technical Advisor
6	The PIT, with active support from the PCU, PSC and the UNDP Regional Technical Advisor, should improve stakeholder involvement. Recommendation to: PIT, with active support from the PUC, PSC and the UNDP Regional Technical Advisor.
7	The PIT should consolidate the Watershed Committees to encourage stronger buy-in from members, enhance their effectiveness and ensure their long-term sustainability Recommendation to: PIT
8	The PCU, in close collaboration with the PIT and PSC, should strengthen the long-term sustainability of project interventions through definition of a clearly defined project exist strategy. Recommendation to: PCU, in close collaboration with the PIT and PSC
9	UNDP should ensure continuity of Technical Advisory services and timely follow up. This will be particularly important in light of the imminent departure of the PCU Programme Coordinator. While this PCU position will be filled with a local Seychellois, the TOR is being changed and will no longer include the Technical Advisor role and responsibilities. Recommendation to: UNDP CO, RTA

1. Recommendation:

As an urgent priority, the PCU, with active participation of the Project Implementation Team (PIT), should enhance project management

Recommendation to: PCU, PIT

Management Response: [Added: 2018/06/05] [Last Updated: 2018/06/05]

PCU has undertaken a review of project management and initiated a number of improvements based on discussions held during the MTR.

Key Actions:

Key Action	Responsible	DueDate	Status	Comments
1.1 Provide training in overall project management and M&E to Project Manager to enhance the effectiveness of project management and implementation. [Added: 2018/06/05] [Last Updated: 2020/02/02]	PCU	2019/03	Completed	Training was provided by UNDP RBA team in 2019.
1.2 Review and reach internal agreement on all Project Implementation Team (PIT) TORs along with functioning of PIT, including roles, responsibilities, lines of reporting and communication structures. [Added: 2018/06/05]	PCU, MEECC	2018/04	Completed	TORs are all in place and agreed by the Project Steering Committee (PSC). (Changing TORs would mean re-issuing contracts). The roles and responsibilities are clearly articulated in the PIT contracts. Additionally the Aide Memoire between the MEECC and PCU is also being reviewed and will be used as a source of reference once completed.
1.3 Document agreed project management arrangements in formal Project Organizational Chart, as this differs somewhat from the version in the Prodoc. [Added: 2018/06/05]	PCU, MEECC	2018/06	Completed	Revised organizational structure to be prepared for PSC approval, documenting the divergent structure from the Prodoc. The PSC proposed a revised organizational structure and this is being documented for approval.
1.4 Enhance overall EbA Project work planning and implementation by developing a detailed, activities-based Work Plan for the project and detailed, activities-based Work Plans for each team member. [Added: 2018/06/05] [Last Updated: 2022/06/30]	PIT, PCU	2022/04	Completed	The project concluded satisfactorily in March 2022 and all key recommendations from MTR were implemented
1.5 Set up a centralized online Project Information Management system, preferably on PCU server, that can be accessed by all PIT members. The PCU IT provider will be asked to reinstate the previous PIM system that has not functioned since the PCU move to new premises. [Added: 2018/06/05] [Last Updated: 2022/01/17]	PCU	2021/12	Completed	The PCU Website is functional and the repository is created online. The PIT have also created a Dropbox folder to keep all the documents updated.
1.6 Develop team Code of Practice concerning information sharing, especially vis-à-vis external parties through regular team meetings. [Added: 2018/06/05] [Last Updated: 2022/06/30]	PIT, PCU	2022/04	Completed	The project concluded on 31st Mar 2022 with all key recommendations from MTR being implemented

2. Recommendation:

As another urgent priority, improve the role of the PCU and the Project Steering Committee in project governance and strategic oversight.

Recommendation to: PCU, PIT

Management Response: [Added: 2018/06/05]

This recommendation was discussed at the SCM held on 18/5/2018. The PSC has decided to have 3 PSC meetings per year. Extraordinary meetings will be called as and when required. In addition, the PSC has instructed the PCU to set up the schedule of meetings at the beginning of each year and to communicate to members so that meetings are planned in advance. PSC has also noted that the level of participation is not high as some members are no longer turning up for meetings. The Chairperson has agreed to review the composition of the PSC to add some new members as well as request nomination of new persons from the key institutions on the PSC. Tourism and DRDM will be contacted to be members of the PSC.

Key Actions:

Key Action	Responsible	DueDate	Status	Comments
2.1 Re-instate two mandatory meetings annually [Added: 2018/06/05] [Last Updated: 2022/01/17]	MEECC, PCU	2021/12	Completed	The SC meets at least twice a year. Additional meetings and on-site visits are organized as per requirements
2.2 Call for extraordinary meetings, if important issues affecting project implementation appear, which need urgent resolution before next mandatory meeting [Added: 2018/06/05]	PCU, MEECC	2018/05	Completed	This is normal practice, and if not practical to call a PSC Meeting then information is shared by email and PSC comments elicited.
2.3 Review PSC membership to ensure that all key institutions of importance to project implementation, including community and civil groups, are represented [Added: 2018/06/05]	MEECC, PCU, NPD	2018/05	Completed	It is recommended by MTR that key representatives from the Tourism sector be added. Also, NPD will encourage the stakeholder institutions to nominate individuals with a specific interest in the project. The NPD has issued letters requesting for the relevant institutions (Including Tourism, Land Use Plan Department and DRDM) to attend the project steering committee. Members of the PSC will be informed of their role stated in the TOR for the PSC.
2.4 Train the PSC members to enhance their understanding of what EbA is, how it can generate multiple benefits and why it is important that EbA is implemented across a multitude of sectors [Added: 2018/06/05] [Last Updated: 2022/01/17]	PM, PCU, PIT, MEECC, GCCA+ Component A	2021/12	Completed	The PSC have an increased understanding on EBA techniques and adaptation measures to climate change.
2.5 Use the PSC as a platform to enhance cross-sectoral dialogue and coordination for EbA in the Seychelles. This however, is the role of the National Climate Change Committee, PCU will call specific cross-project meeting when the need arises. [Added: 2018/06/05] [Last Updated: 2022/01/17]	NCCC,MEECC,PCU, PSC	2021/12	Completed	This has been completed with cross sectoral collaboration and with other projects such as GCCA+ and Ridge to Reef. The National Climate Change Committee is currently under review and plans are underway to revise the TORs and revamp its functions

3. Recommendation:

The PCU and PIT should strengthen project monitoring and evaluation to ensure stronger alignment with Project Outcomes and better documentation of project results

Recommendation to: PCU, PIT

Management Response: [Added: 2018/06/05]

PCU agrees there are serious problems with the project logframe and indicators, which are not SMART and do not reflect delivery of the project. This issue however was not clearly stated nor documented at the Inception Workshop. UNDP will seek approval of the Adaptation Fund to see if some of the indicators can be revised based on comments from the MTR. The solution reached is to document this issue in this response, and to develop a set of “shadow” indicators as a tracking tool that more accurately reflects project delivery.

Key Actions:

Key Action	Responsible	DueDate	Status	Comments
3.1 Add a number of new additional and more feasible (SMART) indicators with more realistic targets to the existing project indicators. (i.e. a set of “shadow indicators”). [Added: 2018/06/05] [Last Updated: 2018/07/19]	PIT, PCU, PSC, UNDP-GEF RTA	2018/07	Completed	It is unclear if AF will accept the addition of new indicators, even if more accurately reflecting what the project is supposed to deliver. The MTR highlighted that the project is at risk of not attaining satisfactory results if the existing set of indicators will be used as the sole standard for measuring progress. If endorsed by the AF, the EBA project can propose a set of SMART shadow indicators for approval by the PSC and project stakeholders. These can be used to help the PIT to better measure progress towards goal by the terminal evaluation. The PIT has developed the new set of indicators which is used to help them in management of the project and tracking of progress
3.2 Develop a basic M&E Action Plan for how to monitor, track and measure indicators to ensure clarity about who will monitor what, when and how, while guaranteeing adequate arrangements and/or finance to implement the plan. [Added: 2018/06/05] [Last Updated: 2022/01/17]	PIT, PCU, MEECC	2021/12	Completed	The project developed an MnE plan and shadow indicators to track progress of project since the mid-term evaluation. The project has since been able to make great strides in implementation and achieve innovative cost-effective solutions to adaptation.
3.3 Systematically collect and store M&E data on centralized online Project Information Management system [Added: 2018/06/05] [Last Updated: 2022/01/17]	PCU, PM, MEECC	2021/12	Completed	The project has been reporting on a quarterly and annual basis. The information is available in dropbox

4. Recommendation:

The PIT, with active support from the PCU and UNDP HQ, should better define project communication to enhance public/stakeholder awareness about project activities and the multiple benefits they generate

Recommendation to: PIT, with support from PCU and UNDP HQ Communications Unit.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/06/05]

PCU and UNDP agrees that the project needs to pay more attention to communications and will support this. UNDP notes, however, that both PCU and MEECC have been without a Communications Specialist for more than six months prior to the MTR and this has hampered an effective communications programme, given the many other calls upon the time of the PIT. UNDP recommends PCU to work on both the Communications Strategy for the EBA as well as to find ways to update/review the draft PCU Communications Strategy. As PCU is part of the MEECC, this should be done in collaboration with the Ministry

Key Actions:

Key Action	Responsible	DueDate	Status	Comments
4.1 Develop an integrated Project Communications Strategy. This Strategy should build on a strategic planning exercise with the entire PIT team to identify key messages, key target audiences and how to most effectively reach these, i.e. what needs to be prepared (written documents and other media) to get the messages across most effectively, and identify partners to work with to ensure maximum outreach. [Added: 2018/06/05] [Last Updated: 2020/02/02]	PIT, PCU, MEECC (Communications Specialist)	2019/12	Completed	A communications strategy was developed and finalized in 2019, Implementation of key messages will continue until project end
4.2 Once a year, as part of the broader work planning, identify which key events during a calendar year to target with key messages and how, using this as basis for which knowledge products to prepare. [Added: 2018/06/05] [Last Updated: 2022/01/17]	PIT	2021/11	Completed	Communications and Awareness campaigns have greatly increased since mid-term.
4.3 Align the Project Communications Strategy with the broader PCU Communications Strategy to enhance collaboration with other projects. [Added: 2018/06/05] [Last Updated: 2022/01/17]	PIT, PCU	2022/04	Completed	This is completed but communications will continue until project closure which is expected as of 31st March 2022 through social media posts and website.
4.4 Use the project’s impressive photos to prepare effective knowledge products, documenting and sharing project experiences and lessons. [Added: 2018/06/05] [Last Updated: 2022/01/17]	PIT, PCU, MEECC	2021/12	Completed	The communications work will continue until project closure

5. Recommendation:

Strengthen documentation of project results, with an emphasis on lessons learned and good practices.

Recommendation to: PIT, with support from PCU, PSC and UNDP Regional Technical Advisor

Management Response: [Added: 2018/06/06]

PCU/UNDP agrees that this is a priority. PCU/UNDP does not agree with the comment of the MTR that the project team has not started documenting lessons learned in a systematic manner as yet. While key activities are still under implementation, extensive documentation and dissemination of methodologies and initial results has taken place e.g. in regard to the forest monitoring at Baie Lazare (through collaboration with UNISEY). A member of the project’s scientific panel has prepared a detailed methodology and it is well documented. PCU will ensure that the project results continue to be disseminated through local, regional and international media, following up activities already undertaken. A number of results have been captured and is available. However, UNDP recommends that the Project organises itself with regards to documentation of information in a way that is can be easily accessible and disseminated to wider stakeholders.

Key Actions:

Key Action	Responsible	DueDate	Status	Comments	Documents
5.1 In line with the new Communications Strategy (see 4.1), prepare and disseminate additional information and communication materials that focus on good practices and lessons learned and identifying critical factors that affect success and failure. Focus in particular on documenting Ecosystem-based Adaptation in a SIDS context vis-à-vis climate change and national level development planning [Added: 2018/06/06] [Last Updated: 2022/01/17]	PIT, PCU, MEECC, RTA	2021/12	Completed	The Comms strategy is done and communications will be ongoing until project closure
5.2 Increase involvement from entire project team in development of knowledge products. The project management and the rest of the technical project team should make increased support to the Community Engagement Specialist an ongoing priority. [Added: 2018/06/06] [Last Updated: 2020/02/02]	PIT, PCU	2019/12	Completed	An additional staff has been recruited to support the CES and the PIT is fully engaged in community engagement

6. Recommendation:

The PIT, with active support from the PCU, PSC and the UNDP Regional Technical Advisor, should improve stakeholder involvement.

Recommendation to: PIT, with active support from the PUC, PSC and the UNDP Regional Technical Advisor.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/06/06]

PCU/UNDP agrees that the stakeholder engagement developed by the project should be documented and it made clearer how the team is engaging with the various stakeholders and who is the lead person within the PIT. PCU/UNDP also agrees and highlights the importance of the watershed management committees, which were pioneered by the project and taken up within the new Water Policy as a model for community engagement. PSC members are encouraged to provide inputs to the communications strategy TOR before it is finalized and advertised and to engage with the consultant during the preparation of the Communications Strategy.

Key Actions:

Key Action	Responsible	DueDate	Status	Comments	Documents
6.1 Develop a basic Stakeholder Engagement Strategy with clearly defined activities and timeline. This strategy should identify which key stakeholder (i.e. ‘who’) to engage with, why, how and when. The Strategy should also highlight who in the team is responsible for what and how the team needs to work together to make this happen [Added: 2018/06/06] [Last Updated: 2020/10/12]	PIT, PCU	2019/08	Completed	The Stakeholder Engagement Strategy will be utilized along with the Communications Strategy to ensure effective collaboration with key stakeholders and build ownership of the project. This has been completed.
6.2 Continue monthly meetings with each Watershed Committee, emphasizing participation of DA and district team, to strengthen the district and community level stakeholders’ involvement in the project. In addition to the specific agendas, the objective should also be to provide updates about project work progress and to solicit inputs regarding opportunities and challenges to ensure the sustainability of key project initiatives and potential replication of demonstration activities beyond the project closure. [Added: 2018/06/06] [Last Updated: 2022/01/17]	PIT	2021/12	Completed	Meetings with Watershed committees are held regularly and stakeholder participation and community ownership is high.

7. Recommendation:

The PIT should consolidate the Watershed Committees to encourage stronger buy-in from members, enhance their effectiveness and ensure their long-term sustainability

Recommendation to: PIT

Management Response: [Added: 2018/06/06]

As noted above, PCU/ UNDP acknowledges the importance of the watershed committees in ensuring project delivery benefits the local population in general and will support the further development of the committees (and their formalization under the new Water Act, when enacted). The PIT/PCU is encouraged to liaise closely with PUC with regards to the future roles and responsibilities of watershed Committees post project. A training needs analysis will be undertaken for all committees.

Key Actions:

Key Action	Responsible	DueDate	Status	Comments
7.1 Formalize their rationale, structure and capacities of the Committees by convening all 4 Committees at once for a Strategic Planning Workshop to prepare TORs and Constitutions for the committees, based on a joint clarification of status, vision, mission, objectives and rules for memberships for the Committees. [Added: 2018/06/06] [Last Updated: 2020/02/02]	PIT, PCU	2018/12	Completed	The constitution for the WSC has been prepared
7.2 Provide training to the Watershed Committees in how to organize meetings, prepare work plans and specific events, along with how to better advocate for watershed rehabilitation vis-à-vis local and national decision-makers. [Added: 2018/06/06] [Last Updated: 2020/02/02]	PIT	2019/12	Completed	Initial training completed. Will support WSC until end of project closure
7.3 Build on existing exchange activities, to create better incentives for local community members to join and be part of the Watershed Committees. Successful examples of incentives from elsewhere include exchange visits to connect several Watershed Committees; training, sponsored social events; like picnics or field trips to project sites; and public acknowledgement of watershed committee activities. [Added: 2018/06/06] [Last Updated: 2022/01/17]	PIT	2021/12	Completed	The WSC have had exchanges and appreciation of the projects interventions on various sites

8. Recommendation:

The PCU, in close collaboration with the PIT and PSC, should strengthen the long-term sustainability of project interventions through definition of a clearly defined project exist strategy.

Recommendation to: PCU, in close collaboration with the PIT and PSC

Management Response: [Added: 2018/06/06]

MEECC/ UNDP agrees the importance of a defined exit strategy and the PCU is encouraged to start developing the Strategy. UNDP notes that MEECC has already taken the initiative to assign responsibilities for long-term management of project infrastructural developments, commencing with the Bougainville barrage. Similar infrastructures will continue to be developed with the stakeholder groups who will manage them, e.g. the Fire and Rescue Service in regard to small barrages and restored wetlands on Praslin.

Key Actions:

Key Action	Responsible	DueDate	Status	Comments
8.1 Gather MEEC and the PUC Water division to start discussions about a concrete project exit strategy, including definition of how and when to hand over of project activities to the respective divisions in charge of relevant aspects of project interventions. [Added: 2018/06/06] [Last Updated: 2022/04/28]	PCU, MEECC	2022/03	Completed	The PUC have been in discussions with the Ministry and the project team over the course of the project life cycle. An exit strategy was drafted and submitted to Government for comments and further implementation
8.2 Strengthen the implementation of the maintenance component of the forest rehabilitation methodology to ensure that project interventions are sustained in the long term [Added: 2018/06/06]	PIT	2018/05	Completed	No specific further action as this is part of the forest rehabilitation methodology. The project steering committee, scientific panel and MEECC will provide on-going support to the PIT for this recommendation.
8.3 Lobby for and actively work towards embedding both enhanced water management and forest rehabilitation in the public works programmes and forest management in Seychelles, respectively. This will require enhancing the already positive working relationship with SAA, PUC, SNPA and Ministry of Habitat, Infrastructure and Land Transport, among other existing project stakeholders, e.g. to incorporate catchment management in land use plans and discussions about future planning for coastal realignment. [Added: 2018/06/06] [Last Updated: 2020/02/02]	PIT, PCU, MEECC	2019/12	Completed	The project has effectively managed to get support from various departments for effective management of water catchments.
8.4 Mobilize PSC to lobby for long-term financing options for watershed management and forest rehabilitation [Added: 2018/06/06] [Last Updated: 2020/02/02]	PSC	2019/12	Completed	Although this recommendation is completed- ongoing work with PSC will continue to support and identify potential areas for replication and access to finance.

9. Recommendation:

UNDP should ensure continuity of Technical Advisory services and timely follow up. This will be particularly important in light of the imminent departure of the PCU Programme Coordinator. While this PCU position will be filled with a local Seychellois, the TOR is being changed and will no longer include the Technical Advisor role and responsibilities.

Recommendation to: UNDP CO, RTA

Management Response: [Added: 2018/06/06]

UNDP takes note of the departure of the Programme Coordinator and recruitment of a local person who contribute less on technical oversight. Whilst UNDP RTA will be called upon to provide backstopping, UNDP recommends that the Ministry of Environment through the NDA plays a more active role in oversight of the PCU. The PCU and the PIT needs to continually ensure that technical inputs from local institutions are sought in a timely manner and coordinated through the new Programme Coordinator. UNDP will increase oversight and closer monitoring of the PCU during initial stages of the new PC is in place. The RTA and the CO agrees to assume additional responsibilities and closer involvement with the project on a daily basis during the initial period of the new PC.

Key Actions:

Key Action	Responsible	DueDate	Status	Comments	Documents
9.1 UNDP-CO and RTA to exercise increased technical oversight [Added: 2018/06/06] [Last Updated: 2022/06/30]	UNDP, UNDP-GEF RTA	2022/04	Completed	Project concluded at the end of Mar 2022
9.2 PIT and MEECC to ensure that linkages with key technical institutions is enhanced [Added: 2018/06/06] [Last Updated: 2022/06/30]	PIT, NPD	2022/04	Completed	This was initiated and project handover done on 31st March 2022 to the Ministry of Agriculture Climate Change and Environment, to continue the engagement and successes of the project

Mid Term Evaluation of the AFB Project – Ecosystem-Based Adaptation to Climate Change in Seychelles

Share

Management Response: [Added: 2018/06/05] [Last Updated: 2018/06/05]

Key Actions:

Management Response: [Added: 2018/06/05]

Key Actions:

Management Response: [Added: 2018/06/05]

Key Actions:

Management Response: [Added: 2018/06/05]

Key Actions:

Management Response: [Added: 2018/06/06]

Key Actions:

Management Response: [Added: 2018/06/06]

Key Actions:

Management Response: [Added: 2018/06/06]

Key Actions:

Management Response: [Added: 2018/06/06]

Key Actions:

Management Response: [Added: 2018/06/06]

Key Actions:

Evaluations by Unit

Latest Evaluations

Evaluation Snap Shot

Contact us