Inception Report for the Terminal Evaluation – Climate Change Adaptation in the Coastal Zone of Mauritius

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2017-2023, Mauritius
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
08/2019
Completion Date:
11/2019
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
25,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document Terminal Evaluation AF Project_Final_April.docx related-document English 339.57 KB Posted 850
Download document Terminal Evaluation AF Project__Clean_Final with annexes.docx report English 285.75 KB Posted 51
Download document ToR.pdf tor English 543.31 KB Posted 24
Title Inception Report for the Terminal Evaluation – Climate Change Adaptation in the Coastal Zone of Mauritius
Atlas Project Number: 00062857
Evaluation Plan: 2017-2023, Mauritius
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 11/2019
Planned End Date: 08/2019
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Others
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021)
  • 1. Output 2.1.1 Low emission and climate resilient objectives addressed in national, sub-national and sectoral development plans and policies to promote economic diversification and green growth
SDG Goal
  • Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts
SDG Target
  • 13.1 Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries
  • 13.2 Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning
Evaluation Budget(US $): 25,000
Source of Funding: Project
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 25,000
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Nationality
Ms. Sohinee Mazumdar, International Consultant TE Team Leader BRAZIL
Ms. Fabiola Monty National Expert MOROCCO
GEF Evaluation: No
Key Stakeholders: Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, University of Mauritius, Ministry of Agro Industry and Food Security, Ministry of Ocean Economy
Countries: MAURITIUS
Comments:

Achieving Environmental Stability while addressing Climate Change, ensuring effective environmental protection and conservation of natural resources.

Lessons
1.

Summary of Lessons Learned

Lesson#1: Adequate attention to intervention design, pre-feasibility studies for coastal adaptation measures and careful budgeting are required to avoid significant delays on projects of high technical complexity.

Lesson #2: Special attention should be given to assessment of risks, inclusive of political, financial, operational, environmental and social. Risk assessment should iteratively inform project design and implementation. Risks should not be underestimated for the purposes of project approval.

Lesson #3: A clear understanding of donor requirements and adequate communication of priorities and constraints of various funds (what is allowable under both UNDP and donor policies) can save considerable time in the assessment of adaptation options funded under a specific project.

Lesson #4: It is essential to have a long-term monitoring strategy in place with clear roles and responsibilities assigned to the appropriate stakeholders as well as budget allocation. This allows an assessment of the actual impacts and results of the adaptation investment.

Lesson #5: Training and capacity-building activities should include an initial phase which determines specific training needs and establishes the baseline level of knowledge and awareness of the proposed topics and technical skills. This allows an assessment of whether participants have actually gained skills and knowledge when coupled with a post-training or capacity building assessment, rather than using metrics related to delivery (outcome rather than output focus).

Lesson #6: The Project Steering Committee meetings can be rendered more useful for key decision making by involving more subject-matter experts and sometimes a large range of stakeholders may actually decrease the efficiency and engagement within the meeting.

Lesson #7: Climate change adaptation (and other) project scope, in terms of design of project interventions and budget, should take into account the institutional capacity to absorb funding based on previous experience.

Lesson #8: It is useful to have a performance-based contracts, as well as clear reporting lines to UNDP for the Project Manager position, under the National Implementation Modality, in order to help ensure accountability and delivery.

Lesson #9: The outcomes of the project should be carefully aligned with the project objective, and the outputs aligned with outcomes. Realistic targets can be set when baseline conditions are determined prior to project implementation, and indicators should ideally link to on-going processes taking place independent of the project.

Lessons #10: A long-term monitoring plan for indicators established under the project should be developed, implemented and budgeted for by the executing agency to ensure sustainability of and learning from project interventions. This is particularly essential for adaptation interventions, whose utility is usually evident over longer timescales.


Findings
1.

3. Findings

3.1 Project Design / Formulation

 

The programme design was comprehensive and integrated, however proved too ambitious for the original project timeframe, and resulted in several extensions resulting in a project implementation period of double the planned time (8 years rather than the originally allotted 5 years). The site selection and chosen interventions could have been optimized to enhance the resilience of communities and livelihoods, which was the stated objective of the project. Although a thorough risk analysis was completed at the project outset, it did not include a robust consideration of mitigation measures and design changes to account for the operational, technical and political risks, or the capacity of the Ministry of Environmental and Sustainable Development (the executing entity) to absorb the scale of funding received. Design flaws in the interventions proposed in the project document, as well as consideration of options, which were not viable under the project (such as community resettlement), also led to very long delays in implementation. This is discussed in further detail below.

 

3.1.1 Analysis of LFA/Results Framework (Project logic /strategy; Indicators)

 

The project’s stated objective “increased climate resilience of communities and livelihoods in coastal areas in Mauritius (all islands)” was clear, necessary and extremely relevant, however the elements of the results framework (outcomes, outputs, indicators and targets) of the project could have been better aligned with the objective. An actual community vulnerability focus would have been achieved if the site selection took into account a multi-criteria community vulnerability mapping at the outset, and then prioritized the sites for investment / coastal adaptation measures accordingly. This is certainly a lesson of the project, and integrated into future work funded by the Adaptation Fund work to establish where along the coast the most climate change vulnerable communities are located.

It is also notable that there was little emphasis on the livelihood aspects of the community members for building of climate resilience. This was with the exception of assuming that stopping beach erosion would protect tourism jobs at the Mon Choisy site, and limited livelihood support to a women’s association and fishers association at the Quatre Soeurs/ Grand Sable site, which is discussed further in the sections on Mainstreaming and Stakeholder Participation, respectively. Based on the findings of the TE and the justification in the project document, the selection of Mon Choisy as a prioritized site for the project seemed to be more based on the protection of economic assets, given that the public beach is important for tourism, and the fact that no data at the community level on socio-economic impacts of coastal erosion had been gathered previous to site selection or since. Although, the beach at Mon Choisy has been confirmed subsequently by a JICA project to be one of the beaches in Mauritius experiencing one of the highest erosion rates, the problem of beach erosion, while a critical economic issue for Mauritius given that tourism accounts for a significant portion of the GDP, is perhaps not the most urgent in terms of community vulnerability.

Finally, the project’s Monitoring and Evaluation framework, in regards to the chosen indicators, as well as issues in regards to the baseline, are further discussed in the section on Monitoring and Evaluation below.

3.1.2 Assumptions and Risks

 

Although many potential program risks were identified in the project document risk framework, along with proposed countermeasures (for the full list see risk matrix in the project document), the countermeasures proposed were at times inadequate and did not address the level of identified risk.

The key risks that manifested most strongly over the project lifespan are reproduced below with their proposed countermeasures.   

  1. Political risk: Government of Mauritius commitment to climate change management could wane as development priorities become more prominent and compete, especially in the run-up to elections.
    Proposed countermeasure: Constant reiteration of the risks of climate change and the positive net benefits of adaptation investments is required.

This was indeed a key risk of the project and the fact that the previous Minister in charge of the MoESD had a greater emphasis on social security related priorities over climate change, had an impact on the project. Although this was well managed through advocacy, the development priorities of the government (for example in terms of permitting of new hotel developments along the coast) do in fact undermine the long-terms goals of the project. Rather than being managed through reiteration of the benefits of adaptation, this risk should have been managed through an adequate emphasis on the implementation of the National Coastal Zone Adaptation Strategy (NCZAS) as well as on complementary policy such a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) law and enforcement of regulations in regards to building in environmentally sensitive areas (such as wetlands, which play a critical role in regulating flood impacts).

 

  1. Organizational risk: MoESD may have limited management capacity for programme activities to be undertaken, and for the eventual assumption of climate change management oversight and enforcement; conflicts between the CC Cell and the ICZM Division may become apparent.

Proposed countermeasure: UNDP will maintain a strong link with the programme, and the various programme activities that address institutional aspects will be guided by technical consultants, who will bring valid experiences from other countries, which should inform the situation in ROM.

This was also a key risk for the project, which became increasing evident over the course of project implementation, and was clear at the MTE stage given the project was only at 6% delivery (due to both limited management capacity and other factors). The limited management capacity for the scale and technical complexity of the project, and more broadly the institutional capacity to absorb, was significant underestimated.  Again, assuming that guidance by external technical consultants was adequate to address this issue was somewhat naïve, given that even when presented with fleshed-out options for adaptation, the project manager felt ill-equipped to make final design decisions and UNDP provided delayed oversight regardless of significant lost time. A better solution may have been to scale the investment and project design to the institutional capacity, as well as to hire a Chief Technical Advisor with the necessary technical capacities, and finally to have a performance-based component in the project manager’s contract.

 

  1. Operational risk: Varying, possibly conflicting, perceptions of the climate change risks and coastal adaptation approaches may become apparent, based on previous experiences and technical expertise.

Proposed countermeasure: Frequent dialogue with programme partners and reinforcement of solid principles of climate change management and appropriate adaptation measures will be required; several other projects …will help in this regard; the role of technical consultants will be important here.

 

This is one of the identified risks that had the greatest influence on project delivery.  Specifically, after project start-up the option of resettlement at the Rivières de Galets site was reconsidered, regardless of the fact that the project was designed to provide an alternative to this costly and complicated option. Perhaps most pertinently, this was not an option that was actually fundable by the Adaptation Fund, and literally years of time, effort and project budget could have been saved by explaining the constraints of the multilateral fund to decision-makers within the MoESD. That is, in regards to environmental and social risks, issue of resettlement is a significant social risk, and is not in line with the guidelines of the Adaptation Fund, and could have been avoided with appropriate understanding and communication at an early phase regarding the what types of investments were allowable. Again, this is a significant lesson-learned as part of the project, and will be particularly relevant in future projects that may be funded by donors such as the Green Climate Fund which has particularly strict criteria in regards to environmental and social risk.

 

  1. Financial Risk: Delays in fund transfers and procurement of technical services and equipment.  Proposed countermeasure: Programme activities have been designed and paced to ensure a reasonable chance of completion over five years (a timeframe less than this would be too ambitious); the Programme Board will provide required oversight for management of programme inputs.

This is correctly identified financial risk, also had the single greatest influence in terms of the problems which manifested in regards to project delivery. One of the issues was that the project design was drafted in 2008 and then started in 2012, so the budget did not account for the escalation costs, for things such a the Early Warning System. The basic project assumption, as noted in the MTE, was that all project risks were “owned” by both UNDP, as the implementing entity, and the MoESD, as the executing entity. It was noted however that UNDP has the ultimate responsibility for all financial risks, and the right of cessation of activities or withdrawal of funding in the event of risks that cannot be otherwise managed. Again, this responsibility was not managed in a timely manner by UNDP, despite obvious bottlenecks caused by the national procurements guidelines. Ultimately, an appropriate solution was found, by directing large procurements through UNDP, however this could have occurred at an earlier stage, avoiding further delays.

Finally, the issue of environmental risks was not adequately accounted for in the project document given that submerged offshore structures (which was originally proposed as a submerged rock mound, and finally decided to be an artificial reef structure) may have a significant impacts on marine biodiversity, as well as unanticipated biophysical impacts (changes to the seabed, and down drift erosion). This was particularly critical given that this intervention is located in an environmentally sensitive area, with the presence of critically endangered species such as the Hawksbill turtle. This was not adequately accounted for in the environmental monitoring plan post project and has been addressed at one of the key recommendations of the TE.

3.1.3 Lessons from other Relevant Projects (e.g., same focal area) Incorporated into Project Design

 

It is worth noting here that this coastal adaptation project was designed in 2008 and that it was one of the first of its kind, to be funded by the Adaptation Fund. In the face of limited experience internationally, with coastal adaptation measures, and as a new, innovative approach in Mauritius, it is perhaps understandable that the project did not draw in a more direct way on other relevant projects. The MTE notes that however, over the project implementation period, Mauritius received technical support, especially on cost effective coastal zone innovations, from Japan and other governments. The project team was also said to have observed the result of the Japanese collaboration at nearby Quatre Soeurs project sites. Regardless, drawing on the lessons from other relevant projects as project implementation progressed, could have been done much more thoroughly. Between project start-up in 2012 and project close in 2020, the experience with various types of coastal adaptation measures, both in terms of green and grey infrastructure, has exponentially increased. The project could have drawn on growing international experience on green infrastructure, particularly in regards to mangrove rehabilitation, which has been implemented with greater frequency globally.  A more robust consideration eco-system based adaptation (EBA) approaches would have benefitted the project, given that one of goals identified in the project document was the ability of the government to compare the cost effectiveness of EBA with that of built infrastructure, to inform adaptation planning.

The project document states: “Millions of dollars have been spent in the last five years on beach remediation and wave-breaker structures (Government and private) that have failed.  If future interventions are not properly designed, the total cost of inefficient, ineffective, or non-existent coastal protection measures will be the accumulated value of beach erosion, damaged coastal infrastructure, and relocation of coastal communities, equivalent to US$ 3.362 billion over the next 50 years.” Regardless, the relocation of coastal communities was reconsidered during the project implementation, and a concrete-based wave-breaker structure was chosen as the main investment at two of the project sites (seawall at Rivières de Galets and an artificial reef at Mon Choisy). Although these may have indeed been the best options for adaptation at those sites, the project design did not allow for an “evidence-based assessment of the cost effectiveness of eco-system based approaches for coastal zone protection compared to built solutions” as was intended. Notably, coral reef restoration could have also been pursued as an option over the sloped rock mounds originally proposed at Mon Choisy. At the Rivières de Galets site, submerged concrete tetrapods would likely have provided a effective solution (as evidenced in Japan, and proposed in the design report for the site) to seawall fortification, which international experience has shown often has a limited life in comparison to its high capital cost.

3.1.4 Planned Stakeholder Participation

 

A range of stakeholders groups was consulted throughout project design and implementation, cementing the multi-stakeholder approach espoused in the project document. This included a wide range of institutional stakeholders, both from within the various departments of the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development (MoESD) as well the private sector. In fact, the private sector was rightly identified as a key actor, given that tourism represents the greatest portion of the country’s GDP, and much of the coastal land in Mauritius taken up by the hotel industry, giving private sector actors a particularly large stake in beach erosion.  Unfortunately, although engagement was planned, private sector actors were not as integrated in the project as they could have been, and were principally involved in the training courses delivered under Component 3 of the project.

Finally, Mauritian law requires community consultations take place when a new development is proposed, as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process, resulting in several community level consultations for the project’s hard infrastructure. The project would have benefitted however from deeper community participation in terms of deciding interventions and collecting relevant socio-economic data in terms of livelihoods and quantification of impacts from past extreme weather events exacerbated by climate change. Consultations were rather focused on informing communities of planned interventions, and of course extensive consultations took place in regards to re-considering the option of resettlement at the Rivières de Galets site, which could have been avoided (as is discussed below on the section regarding Effectiveness and Efficiency).  Finally, as part of Component 1 of the project, community based organizations were created/ incorporated into the project including the Grand Sable Fishermen Association (GSFA) Grand Sable Women Planters Farmers Entrepreneur Association (GSWPFEA) both at the level of the Quatre Soeurs site. The strengths and weakness of this primary stakeholder participation is discussed further below in the section on Effectiveness and Efficiency, as well as Mainstreaming.

 

3.1.5 Replication Approach

 

There was a strong emphasis on having replicable approaches to coastal adaptation identified by the project. Namely, the description of Component 3 in the project document is “This component will promote compliance with climate-proofed planning, design, and location guidelines.  Activities will ensure that all Government interventions in the coastal zone, designed to reduce erosion or address storm surge effects, incorporate site-specific features and measurably reduce the risk of flooding or the rate of erosion, and will put in place the capacity for on-going replication of effective coastal adaptive measures by both the Government and private sector.” The project document also states “The overall approach is to work from the level of technical solutions at specific coastal sites to the policy and regulatory level, such that future replication of coastal adaptation measures will be catalysed, supported by new policies, guidelines, and economic incentives.”

Furthermore, the project document notes that, although sites in Rodrigues and Agalega have not been chosen for the project, replication is also planned on those islands with government and private sector funding.   A key argument for the economic benefits of the project was also given in terms of coastal adaptation measures, such as those used to control beach erosion, being replicated fully in other sites effected by erosion. The TE mission also confirmed that the government is already planning to replicate various coastal protection measures used in this project, particularly the artificial reef structures to other economically important beaches such as Flic-en-Flac.

Although this emphasis on potential replication is positive, it is important to note the major gap in terms of assessing the actual impact by project close of the coastal adaptation measures implemented. Given the project implementation timeline, the assessment of the efficacy of the interventions over time remains to be determined. Furthermore, it is essential to understand the integrated environmental impacts of the measures (particularly the artificial reef structure) before replicating to other sites. This has been addressed as a key recommendation of the TE.

3.1.6 UNDP Comparative Advantage

 

It was clear from the TE mission interviews that government stakeholders in Mauritius value working with UNDP, and that there is a demand for UNDP services. This is evidenced through the choice of UNDP as the implementing agency for several Global Environmental Facility (GEF) projects, the present investment by the Adaptation Fund Board (AFB), a project with the Green Climate Fund (GCF) as well as new projects in the pipeline with AFB and GCF. UNDP played a central role in developing the original idea for the project, as well as a catalytic role in resourcing, resolving issues with procurement and in the strategic management of the project. It should be noted that the context for execution of the project was unique, as it was the first AFB project in Mauritius, and one of its largest investments at the time. In this context, and as noted in the MTE, UNDP’s experience in execution generally, GEF mechanisms, and the National Implementation Modality (NIM) has been crucial in assisting with unfamiliar project implementation processes and AFB modalities. UNDP has also added value by providing platforms for south-south cooperation and for the procurement of expertise through its networks. Perhaps most importantly, and as mentioned above, UNDP was essential in removing the significant procurement bottlenecks, by eventually using its own procurement process.

As noted in the MTE, it is important in the context of Mauritius, as is often the case of the context of Small Island Developing States (SIDS) where there is a limited number of professionals with the relevant environmental/technical expertise and experience, that projects are staffed by a combination of personnel from outside of the government as well as those on leave from government (civil servants). UNDP therefore also played an important role in identifying expertise for the project through its global network, and was also able to mobilize important visibility for the work. Overall, the partnership was productive, but given the issues with implementation would likely have benefitted project achievements at the outcome level with greater oversight and an emphasis on Results Based Management (RBM).

 

3.1.8 Management Arrangements

 

The National Implementation Modality (NIM) was chosen for the project, with UNDP supporting national implementation through the MoESD. In practical terms, this means that the government was ultimately responsible for project implementation, in an arrangement that is considered best for strengthening government capacity, while providing international experience, and expertise in technical and operational oversight as outlined above. Although the partnership arrangements were properly identified at project initiation, both between UNDP and the executing entity, MoESD (in addition to a range of other institutional partners critical to the success of the project) the NIM modality may not have been ideally suited to the Mauritian context. This became evident over the course of project implementation, with critical bottlenecks such as the national procurements guidelines leading to significant delays. Furthermore, past and current project experience, and as confirmed by the recently completed GEF Small Island Developing States (SIDS) meta-evaluation, show consistent challenges with delivery and the institutional capacity to absorb large tranches of international funding. These issues are further discussed in sub-section 3.2.6 UNDP and Implementing Partner Implementation/Execution (*) Coordination, and Operational Issues, in the Project Implementation section below.

One further weakness in management arrangements identified during the TE mission was that due to long project delays, there were also some issues with continuity of management in the project, particularly in regards to the project manager, a civil servant with a maximum time for secondment of 5 years. This may have in fact been a blessing, as certain elements of the PM’s management style likely contributed to project delays (such as an insistence on having signatures on hardcopy documents for all engineering design documents, rather than sending approvals by email). The length of the project also had implications on the continuity of personnel participating in Project Steering Committee and Project Technical Comittee meetings.

Overall, although the National Implementation Modality is seen is positive in the sense of giving the necessary ownership of the project and being more hands off, it may have been advisable in this case to have greater oversight by UNDP. One practical way to achieve this would have been to ensure direct reporting lines to UNDP in the project manager contract as well as to have a performance-based contract.


Recommendations
1
  1.  

Design future projects with a realistic scope that accounts for institutional capacity to deliver/absorb, accounts for lessons learned on past projects, particularly in regards to procurement delays and the procurement of technical expertise. Consider using UNDP procurement modalities and UNDP marketplace for international expertise from the outset given past experience.

2
  1.  

Future projects should give adequate attention to pre-feasibility, design and identification of measures before budgeting and costing given how extensive the delays were, and the limitations and bottlenecks in terms of procurement. Budgeting should be done particularly carefully for any future GCF projects, given strict requirements to meet pre-determined budgets for disbursements.

3
 

Recommendation 3 (Project Design and Monitoring):

Conduct a thorough risk assessment and apply the risk assessment to the design of the future projects, with a more robust consideration of risk mitigating strategies. Account for political, operational and financial risks based on previous experience. Develop capacity within the UNDP CO and well as with potential executing agencies in Mauritius on the evolving and stringent requirements of climate funds and UNDP in regards to environmental and social standards, stakeholder engagement and gender mainstreaming.

4
 

Recommendation 4 (Project Design and Monitoring):

In future projects of significant budget and/or technical complexity, hire a dedicated monitoring and evaluation officer, focused on results-based management, to support day-to-day monitoring, and to develop plans and strategies, including site-level links and community engagement strategies.

5
 

Recommendation 5 (Project Implementation):

In future projects of significant technical complexity hire an appropriately qualified Chief Technical Advisor (CTA), that is able to make key technical decisions and remove bottlenecks in technical decision-making, as well as draft Terms of Reference (TORs) for technical experts, engineers and firms hired under the project.

6
 

Recommendation 6 (Project Implementation):

In future project hire a Gender officer with Natural Resource Management (NRM) expertise that can help to implement the Gender Assessment and Action Plan (GAAP), prepared prior to project approval, as well as collect gender disaggregated baseline data, and check the validity of chosen indicators in the national context, and ensure progress towards targets. The MoESD should also hire a gender expert that can account for the gendered aspects of sustainable development at the institutional and policy levels, but also in the implementation of donor-funded projects, helping to ensure adherence to increasing comprehensive gender requirements.

7
 

Recommendation 7 (Project Implementation):

In future project’s develop a Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP) with an emphasis on early community consultation that can inform project design, as well as ensure community engagement throughout project implementation. Future coastal adaptation projects should include community adaptation planning at each project site, including the establishment of a technical planning committee linked to local government structures as an on-going initiative, which includes monitoring of community-level impacts.

8
 

Recommendation 8 (Project Implementation):

Advocate with climate funds to put in place practical and flexible mechanisms for adaptive management. This is particularly important in project where all adaptation measures are not determined at the outset, but rather determined through a cost-benefit analysis process, or when a feasibility study needs to be carried out as part of the project, which will determine final cost allocations.

9
 

Recommendation 9 (Project Implementation):

In future project proposals, appoint one or two officers of the executing entity (the ministry responsible for implementation) that are attached to the project management team, so that their capacity is built in terms of hands on training, and that capacity is not just concentrated in the Project Manager (who may or may not remain involved in related activities after project close). The integration of ministry staff that are more intimately integrated in decision-making in regards to the project will help to mitigate losses in knowledge and institutional capacity.

10
 

Recommendation 10 (Project Implementation):.

Develop a comprehensive project exit strategy based on the recommendations of the TE, particularly the Outcome-Level recommendations found below, with clear lines of responsibility between UNDP and MoESD.

11
 

Recommendation 11 (Project Implementation):.

For future projects of significant technical complexity it is imperative to hire an appropriately qualified Chief Technical Advisor (CTA) with specialized technical knowledge of integrated coastal zone management, as well qualifications as an engineer to supervise the design and implementation of coastal adaptation measures.

12
 

Recommendation 12 (Project Implementation):.

For future projects invest in careful selection of sites based on multi-criteria vulnerability mapping and on community vulnerability as supported by site-level socio-economic assessments.

13
 

Recommendation 13 (Project Implementation):

For future training and capacity building activities more broadly, including for professional actors, within the private sector and government, first establish a baseline prior to training in order to understand the level of expertise among participants. Following the training, administer a post-training assessment in order to assess actual changes in skills and knowledge, rather than using simple delivery targets (which are output rather than outcome focused).

14
 

Recommendation 14 (Project Implementation):

Ensure that future projects in regards to coastal climate change adaptation (Adaptation Fund, Global Environmental Facility and Green Climate Fund) make use of experts trained under the project.

15
 

Recommendation 15 (Project Implementation):

Establish a GIS database that can be used by all institutional stakeholders working on elements of climate change adaptation planning, which includes a layer of the communities targeted by the project and other priority sites (as per the coastal vulnerability map) and the baseline conditions and monitoring data from each site.

16
 

Recommendation 16 (Outcome level – Component 1):

Develop and implement a long-term ecological monitoring plan to assess the biophysical impact of the artificial reef at the Mon Choisy site (including on marine biodiversity and changes to the sea bed and wave height) with an official mandate and requisite budget for offshore monitoring given to the Ministry of Blue Economy. Ensure that beach monitoring conducted by the Beach Authority does not just measure beach erosion rates of the facing beach, but also the possibility of down drift erosion by expanding the spatial extent of erosion monitoring to understand impacts.

17
 

Recommendation 17 (Outcome level – Component 1):

Mon Choisy dune stabilization planting protocol should be adjusted to account for a reasonable density of planted vegetation to ensure survival rates, according to species. Given that most of the planting is already completed, the site should be monitored in the medium and long-term to understand which species survive at the planted density and the appropriate protocol disseminated for dune stabilization projects.

18
 

Recommendation 18 (Outcome level – Component 1):

Rivières des Galets monitoring the efficacy of the seawall rehabilitation by recording storm surge events and the impacts on flooding in the community in regards to flooding damages, injury and/or death. If possible this should be compared to historical events to understand the value of the capital investment and to conduct a cost-benefit analysis.

19
 

Recommendation 19 (Outcome level – Component 1):

Long-term mangrove monitoring should be undertaken at the Quatre Soeurs in regards to ecological parameters and survival rate in order to refine planting methodologies for replication at other sites. Flood and/ or storm surge attenuation monitoring should also be undertaken for the purposes of understanding the ecosystem function of the mangrove as a flood regulator, and for the purposes cost benefit analysis.

20
 

Recommendation 20 (Outcome level – Component 1):

Develop and implement a handover plan for the Quatre Soeurs Refuge Centre site to the Ministry of Local government as previously agreed, so that the refuge centre is functional as soon as possible. Include a community sensitization plan, so that the purpose and protocols related to accessing the refuge centre are clear.

21
 

Recommendation 21 (Outcome level – Component 1):

Implement measures for optimization of the Quatre Soeurs Refuge Centre, including cyclone proofing of windows by installing shutters, converting the roof space into useable shelter space (doubling shelter capacity/area), changing the location of the solar water heater to under the concrete side wall so that it is less exposed to damage in cyclone conditions.

22
 

Recommendation 22 (Outcome level – Component 1):

Improve the gender-responsiveness of the Quatre Soeurs Refuge Centre by ensuring that there are functional spaces according to user groups (room for breastfeeding, rooms for women and children to change and/or sleep separately). Refuge centre staff should be given gender-based violence (GBV) in disasters sensitivity training. A female staff member should be trained and assigned to deal with any complaints or grievances in regards to GBV.

23
 

Recommendation 23 (Outcome level – Component 1):

Gather and analyse data over a 5-year time horizon on the impacts of implemented coastal adaptation measures at the three project sites. Develop a simplified matrix for technical design criteria and cost benefit analysis with the lessons learned at each of the sites, which can be used to gauge the appropriateness of measures for coastal adaptation at sites for replication.The government of Mauritius should not attempt to replicate coastal adaptation measures (such as the artificial reef) at other sites without a data-based understanding of the impacts on ecological and biophysical parameters.

24
 

Recommendation 24 (Outcome level – Component 1):

Ensure that donor-funded projects have a budget for the implementation of the Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) past the life of such projects, and that the mandate and budget for long term monitoring according to the ESMP is given to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Division, the Beach Authority and the Ministry of Blue Economy as appropriate for the current project.

25
 

Recommendation 25 (Outcome level – Component 2):

Develop a manual that formalizes the operation of the current wave height modelling system so that if there is loss of personnel, the operation of the system remains uninterrupted and viable.

26
 

Recommendation 26 (Outcome level – Component 2):

Once the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) is available in May 2020, complete the calibration of the model which correlates wave height with inland flooding and develop a protocol in collaboration with NDRMCC to notify local government counterparts and community members, once the flooding passes the determined threshold for evacuations.

27
 

Recommendation 27 (Outcome level – Component 2):

Develop shared protocols for dissemination of EWS system information at the community level, using the most appropriate means of communication as identified through local stakeholder consultation (radio, television, community communication protocols). Ensure that information dissemination is inclusive and reaches the most vulnerable (i.e. women, youth, the elderly and the disabled).

28
 

Recommendation 28 (Outcome level – Component 2):

Link the national EWS to the Word Meteorological Organization’s (WMO) Global Multi-Hazard Alert System (GMAS).

29
 

Recommendation 29 (Outcome level – Component 3):

Immediate distribution of the handbook on coastal adaptation that was developed for coastal communities to primary beneficiaries. Prior to dissemination it would be useful to establish a baseline of current level of understanding of coastal adaptation and then to assess changes in knowledge, attitudes and behaviour after distribution and use of the materials. This will allow institutional stakeholders, and UNDP, to understand the actual impact of the knowledge product.

30
 

Recommendation 30 (Outcome level – Component 3):

Create a network of experts that have been trained in coastal engineering design and cost-benefit analysis for coastal adaptation measures, so that trained experts under the project can be easily sourced and used in future procurements. Ensure that institutional, private sector and multilateral actors have access to the network of trained national experts and are incentivized this expertise.

31
 

Recommendation 31 (Outcome level – Component 4):

Ensure that the completion of the multi-criteria coastal vulnerability map, with the incorporation of socio-economic/community vulnerability.Ensure that the finalized map is incorporated into a GIS layer for national planning purposes and available to all relevant stakeholders.Use the coastal vulnerability map as the basis of site selection and prioritization for future projects related to coastal adaptation and disaster risk management.

32
 

Recommendation 32 (Outcome level – Component 4):

Prioritize passing a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Coastal Risk Management (CRM) law, as outlined in the National Coastal Zone Adaptation Strategy (NCZAS), in order to ensure that climate change adaptation concerns are actually considered when planning for coastal development and granting approvals for new infrastructure (such as hotels).

33
 

Recommendation 33 (Outcome level – Component 4):

Formalize the implementation of the planning and advisory guidelines as outlined in the National Coastal Zone Adaptation Strategy (NCZAS) by incorporating into existing Environmental and Social Impact Assessment guidelines as well as broader Land Use Planning guidelines.

34
 

Recommendation 34 (Outcome level – Component 4):

Introduce a new economic instrument for targeted corporate social responsibility / environmental and social investment funding that requires private sectors actors with developments (current and planned) to contribute 3% of revenues towards coastal adaptation measures.

35
 

Recommendation 35 (Outcome level – Component 5):

Hand over the interpretive signs and small-scale models to the implementing partner Reef Conservation to optimize use of the materials developed, by the local NGO with the most experience with the use of the materials for community sensitization. Reef Conservation and/ or the institutional actors using these community sensitization materials in the future should also establish a baseline and undertake periodic assessments in regards to changes in knowledge, attitudes and behaviour at the community level.

36
 

Recommendation 36 (Outcome level – Component 5):

Ensure that the prioritized ranking of vulnerable coastal sites, which takes into account community vulnerability, is used for the eventual replication of coastal adaptation measures that show a positive impact. Disseminate the final priority ranking of vulnerable coastal sites to future climate finance project development teams for use in site selection.

Management Response Documents
1. Recommendation:
  1.  

Design future projects with a realistic scope that accounts for institutional capacity to deliver/absorb, accounts for lessons learned on past projects, particularly in regards to procurement delays and the procurement of technical expertise. Consider using UNDP procurement modalities and UNDP marketplace for international expertise from the outset given past experience.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/03/30]

Management response:

Management partially agrees with this recommendation and, where possible UNDP has assisted the project in procuring expertise or items. Furthermore, the institutional capacity assessment is a requirement for all UNDP GEF projects as we have to complete the Partner Capacity Assessment Tool and the Micro Assessment which are both extensive. It may be noted that under National Implementation Modality, the responsibility for project execution rests with the Implementing Entity and therefore in general, on project implementation, discussions are regularly held on procurement modalities. While in future projects this recommendation will be taken into account, it is also important to confer responsibility to the Implementing Entity and build their capacity to handle complex project.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The recommendation will be transmitted to Government.
[Added: 2021/03/30] [Last Updated: 2021/04/01]
UNDP Country Office 2020/12 Completed The Project has been completed History
2. Recommendation:
  1.  

Future projects should give adequate attention to pre-feasibility, design and identification of measures before budgeting and costing given how extensive the delays were, and the limitations and bottlenecks in terms of procurement. Budgeting should be done particularly carefully for any future GCF projects, given strict requirements to meet pre-determined budgets for disbursements.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/03/30]

Management response:

Management partially agrees with this recommendation, which is general in nature, and applies to all projects. This project was among the first approved by the Adaptation Fund in 2012 and therefore there was not much experience in project design. Budgeting for future projects, not just GCF projects, will be based on actual feasibility studies. As mentioned above such parameters are captured as per current corporate and donor funded project design requirements.

 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The recommendation will be taken into account in all future projects
[Added: 2021/03/30]
UNDP CO 2020/12 Completed
3. Recommendation:
 

Recommendation 3 (Project Design and Monitoring):

Conduct a thorough risk assessment and apply the risk assessment to the design of the future projects, with a more robust consideration of risk mitigating strategies. Account for political, operational and financial risks based on previous experience. Develop capacity within the UNDP CO and well as with potential executing agencies in Mauritius on the evolving and stringent requirements of climate funds and UNDP in regards to environmental and social standards, stakeholder engagement and gender mainstreaming.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/03/30]

Management response:

Management partially agrees with the recommendation as it is based on the situation as at 2012, and and projct development reuirements applicable then. These have now evolved, and UNDP indeed has adequate risk assessment and safeguards procedures that are applied to every project. Risk assessment is part of the normal process for project development and stakeholder engagement and gender mainstreaming are already part of project development processes. Lessons learnt will be applied in future projects.

 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
No action needed for this particular project as it is at closure stage.
[Added: 2021/03/30] [Last Updated: 2021/04/01]
UNDP Co 2020/12 Completed The project has been completed History
4. Recommendation:
 

Recommendation 4 (Project Design and Monitoring):

In future projects of significant budget and/or technical complexity, hire a dedicated monitoring and evaluation officer, focused on results-based management, to support day-to-day monitoring, and to develop plans and strategies, including site-level links and community engagement strategies.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/03/30]

Management response:

Management partially agrees with the recommendation. As most projects are based on National Implementation Modality, the function of monitoring and evaluation needs to be at portfolio level to advise on the development of project plans and strategies which is a technical matter, and therefore to be carried out by Technical specialists.. It is important to note that the Country Office is currently hiring a Gender and Monitoring and Evaluation officer.

Key Actions:

5. Recommendation:
 

Recommendation 5 (Project Implementation):

In future projects of significant technical complexity hire an appropriately qualified Chief Technical Advisor (CTA), that is able to make key technical decisions and remove bottlenecks in technical decision-making, as well as draft Terms of Reference (TORs) for technical experts, engineers and firms hired under the project.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/03/30]

Management response:

Management agrees with this recommendation which is applicable to projects in general, and the nature and type of provision of this technical advice will differ from project to project. As regards this project,  owing to its complexity and the range of skills needed, the decision was made in 2014 to contract a firm to provide the necessary expertise. Unfortunately, the experience with the firm was not conclusive and caused delays to the project.

 

Key Actions:

6. Recommendation:
 

Recommendation 6 (Project Implementation):

In future project hire a Gender officer with Natural Resource Management (NRM) expertise that can help to implement the Gender Assessment and Action Plan (GAAP), prepared prior to project approval, as well as collect gender disaggregated baseline data, and check the validity of chosen indicators in the national context, and ensure progress towards targets. The MoESD should also hire a gender expert that can account for the gendered aspects of sustainable development at the institutional and policy levels, but also in the implementation of donor-funded projects, helping to ensure adherence to increasing comprehensive gender requirements.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/03/30]

Management response:

Management partially agrees with the recommendation which is of a general nature. The principle of ensuring that the project engages expertise in these areas is acknowledged. In general, projects are required to carry out the gender assessment at preparation stage and to prepare the gender action plan. The implementation of a gender action plan is not the sole responsibility of a Gender officer, but rather of the project team as a whole. As regards the Ministry of Environment, they have a gender officer already, who is responsible for ensuring the application of gender mainstreaming principles. It is important to note that the Country Office is currently hiring a Gender and Monitoring and Evaluation officer. The implementation of this recommendation, and other recommendations that suggest hiring officers will be done within the budgetary context of each project.

 

Key Actions:

7. Recommendation:
 

Recommendation 7 (Project Implementation):

In future project’s develop a Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP) with an emphasis on early community consultation that can inform project design, as well as ensure community engagement throughout project implementation. Future coastal adaptation projects should include community adaptation planning at each project site, including the establishment of a technical planning committee linked to local government structures as an on-going initiative, which includes monitoring of community-level impacts.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/03/30]

Management response:   

Management agrees with the recommendation noting that this is now a general requirement of project development. As noted before the project was designed in 2012 when such requirements were not yet in place.

Key Actions:

8. Recommendation:
 

Recommendation 8 (Project Implementation):

Advocate with climate funds to put in place practical and flexible mechanisms for adaptive management. This is particularly important in project where all adaptation measures are not determined at the outset, but rather determined through a cost-benefit analysis process, or when a feasibility study needs to be carried out as part of the project, which will determine final cost allocations.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/03/30]

Management response:

Management partially agrees with this recommendation. Indeed adaptive management was used on the AF project and for example the final solutions at each of the three locations were based on adaptive management which was integrated in the project. There is always a trade-off between the need to specify the exact activities and costs under different components in project planning on one hand, and having flexibility to change these after project approval on the other hand, which should be understood by both the donor and the recipient. This will need to be negotiated during project preparation to ensure there is sufficient detail at the outset while also creating room for more detailed specifications during implementation.It is acknowledged that these scenarios should be identified at the outset in future projects, and discussed with donors in advanced.

Key Actions:

9. Recommendation:
 

Recommendation 9 (Project Implementation):

In future project proposals, appoint one or two officers of the executing entity (the ministry responsible for implementation) that are attached to the project management team, so that their capacity is built in terms of hands on training, and that capacity is not just concentrated in the Project Manager (who may or may not remain involved in related activities after project close). The integration of ministry staff that are more intimately integrated in decision-making in regards to the project will help to mitigate losses in knowledge and institutional capacity.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/03/30]

Management response:

Management agrees with this recommendation, and  such suggestions have been made in the past with the Government. Ultimately, the assignment or secondment of government staff and allocation of project tasks at the Implementing Entity is a decision made by government. UNDP will continue to advocate for this in the interests of capacity building and project continuity.

Key Actions:

10. Recommendation:
 

Recommendation 10 (Project Implementation):.

Develop a comprehensive project exit strategy based on the recommendations of the TE, particularly the Outcome-Level recommendations found below, with clear lines of responsibility between UNDP and MoESD.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/03/30]

Management response:

Management agrees partially with this recommendation as devising project sustainability strategy is part of project closure. However, not all recommendations from the Evaluation will be incorporated in the recommended strategy for relevance reasons, and it should also be noted that the project was designed such that it is in the hands of government from the beginning, and embedded in specific government institutions. It is the sustainability of activities such as operations that need to be ensured in such a strategy.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Prepare a sustainability plan for the project in conjunction with the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development.
[Added: 2021/03/30] [Last Updated: 2021/04/01]
UNDP CO 2020/12 Completed The Project has been completed History
11. Recommendation:
 

Recommendation 11 (Project Implementation):.

For future projects of significant technical complexity it is imperative to hire an appropriately qualified Chief Technical Advisor (CTA) with specialized technical knowledge of integrated coastal zone management, as well qualifications as an engineer to supervise the design and implementation of coastal adaptation measures.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/03/30]

Management response:

This recommendation is the same as Recommendation 5. As stated above, Management agrees with this recommendation, and the same response provided above also applies here.

 

Key Actions:

12. Recommendation:
 

Recommendation 12 (Project Implementation):.

For future projects invest in careful selection of sites based on multi-criteria vulnerability mapping and on community vulnerability as supported by site-level socio-economic assessments.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/03/30]

Management response:

Management agrees with this recommendation which is in fact part of normal project design. Furthermore, site selection is based on consultations with the Government since we also need to avoid duplication of interventions.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
No action needed as project is at closure stage
[Added: 2021/03/30] [Last Updated: 2021/04/01]
UNDP CO 2020/12 Completed The Project has been completed History
13. Recommendation:
 

Recommendation 13 (Project Implementation):

For future training and capacity building activities more broadly, including for professional actors, within the private sector and government, first establish a baseline prior to training in order to understand the level of expertise among participants. Following the training, administer a post-training assessment in order to assess actual changes in skills and knowledge, rather than using simple delivery targets (which are output rather than outcome focused).

Management Response: [Added: 2021/03/30]

Management response:

Management agrees on this recommendation which is general in nature and in fact the standard way of proceeding in terms of first carrying out a training needs analysis. Furthermore, the criteria for selection for the courses ensures that the baseline is well defined.

 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
No action needed as project is at closure stage
[Added: 2021/03/30] [Last Updated: 2021/04/01]
UNDP CO 2020/12 Completed The Project has been completed History
14. Recommendation:
 

Recommendation 14 (Project Implementation):

Ensure that future projects in regards to coastal climate change adaptation (Adaptation Fund, Global Environmental Facility and Green Climate Fund) make use of experts trained under the project.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/03/30]

Management response:

Management partially agrees with this recommendation. The decision of using appropriate expertise is based on the principles of competitive tendering which helps the CO to obtain value for money, which was applied. However some of the trained experts hired for this project did not deliver services to the satisfaction of UNDP.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
No action needed as project is at closure stage
[Added: 2021/03/30] [Last Updated: 2021/04/01]
UNDP CO 2020/12 Completed The Project has been completed History
15. Recommendation:
 

Recommendation 15 (Project Implementation):

Establish a GIS database that can be used by all institutional stakeholders working on elements of climate change adaptation planning, which includes a layer of the communities targeted by the project and other priority sites (as per the coastal vulnerability map) and the baseline conditions and monitoring data from each site.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/03/30]

Management response:

Management partially agrees with this recommendation as, apart from being too generic in nature, is outside the purview of the project. However, the data generated from the project can be accessed from MoESD when requested.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
No action needed as project is at closure stage
[Added: 2021/03/30] [Last Updated: 2021/04/01]
UNDP CO 2020/12 Completed The Project has been completed History
16. Recommendation:
 

Recommendation 16 (Outcome level – Component 1):

Develop and implement a long-term ecological monitoring plan to assess the biophysical impact of the artificial reef at the Mon Choisy site (including on marine biodiversity and changes to the sea bed and wave height) with an official mandate and requisite budget for offshore monitoring given to the Ministry of Blue Economy. Ensure that beach monitoring conducted by the Beach Authority does not just measure beach erosion rates of the facing beach, but also the possibility of down drift erosion by expanding the spatial extent of erosion monitoring to understand impacts.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/03/30]

Management response:

Management agrees partly with the recommendation as they can be transmitted to the Government of Mauritius. However, this has to be done outside the scope of the project itself, which has since completed and did not have this provision in its budget.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Transmit recommendation to the Ministry of Environment and to the Beach authority
[Added: 2021/03/30] [Last Updated: 2021/04/01]
UNDP CO and MoESD 2020/06 Completed The Project has been completed History
17. Recommendation:
 

Recommendation 17 (Outcome level – Component 1):

Mon Choisy dune stabilization planting protocol should be adjusted to account for a reasonable density of planted vegetation to ensure survival rates, according to species. Given that most of the planting is already completed, the site should be monitored in the medium and long-term to understand which species survive at the planted density and the appropriate protocol disseminated for dune stabilization projects.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/03/30]

Management response:

Management agrees partly with this recommendation. This is because the project is already at closure stage and as the recommendation itself notes, the planting is already completed. The monitoring component can however be included in the action to be undertaken under Recommendation 16.

 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Transmit recommendation to the Ministry of Environment and to the Beach authority
[Added: 2021/03/30] [Last Updated: 2021/04/01]
UNDP CO and MoESD 2020/06 Completed The Project has been completed History
18. Recommendation:
 

Recommendation 18 (Outcome level – Component 1):

Rivières des Galets monitoring the efficacy of the seawall rehabilitation by recording storm surge events and the impacts on flooding in the community in regards to flooding damages, injury and/or death. If possible this should be compared to historical events to understand the value of the capital investment and to conduct a cost-benefit analysis.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/03/30]

Management response:

Management agrees partly with this recommendation. This is because the project is already at closure stage and there is no budget for a long-term assessment required. The monitoring component can however be included in the action to be undertaken under Recommendation 16.

 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Transmit recommendation to the Ministry of Environment and to the Beach authority
[Added: 2021/03/30] [Last Updated: 2021/04/01]
UNDP CO and MoESD 2020/06 Completed The Project has been completed History
19. Recommendation:
 

Recommendation 19 (Outcome level – Component 1):

Long-term mangrove monitoring should be undertaken at the Quatre Soeurs in regards to ecological parameters and survival rate in order to refine planting methodologies for replication at other sites. Flood and/ or storm surge attenuation monitoring should also be undertaken for the purposes of understanding the ecosystem function of the mangrove as a flood regulator, and for the purposes cost benefit analysis.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/03/30]

Management response:

Management agrees partly with this recommendation. This is because the project is already at closure stage and there is no budget for the actions proposed. The monitoring component can however be included in the action to be undertaken under Recommendation 16.

 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Transmit recommendation to the Ministry of Environment and to the Beach authority
[Added: 2021/03/30] [Last Updated: 2021/04/01]
UNDP CO and MoESD 2020/06 Completed The Project has been completed History
20. Recommendation:
 

Recommendation 20 (Outcome level – Component 1):

Develop and implement a handover plan for the Quatre Soeurs Refuge Centre site to the Ministry of Local government as previously agreed, so that the refuge centre is functional as soon as possible. Include a community sensitization plan, so that the purpose and protocols related to accessing the refuge centre are clear.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/03/30]

Management response:

Management agrees partly with this recommendation. To clarify, the Refuge Centre is not under the current responsibility of the UNDP and therefore the CO cannot perform the handing over. Furthermore, the project is already at closure stage and it is understood that there is already a Memorandum of Understanding which had been prepared by the Ministry of Environment in view of handing over the Refuge Centre to the Ministry of Local Government.

 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Transmit recommendation to the Ministry of Environment and to the Beach authority
[Added: 2021/03/30] [Last Updated: 2021/04/01]
UNDP CO and MoESD 2020/06 Completed The Project has been completed History
21. Recommendation:
 

Recommendation 21 (Outcome level – Component 1):

Implement measures for optimization of the Quatre Soeurs Refuge Centre, including cyclone proofing of windows by installing shutters, converting the roof space into useable shelter space (doubling shelter capacity/area), changing the location of the solar water heater to under the concrete side wall so that it is less exposed to damage in cyclone conditions.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/03/30]

Management response:

Management does not agree with this recommendation. This is because the designs have already been done in accordance with construction standards in Mauritius and the construction has been approved to be of the required quality by a certified and qualified Civil Engineer. The value judgments of the Evaluator who is not a qualified engineer are not considered to be appropriate.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
No actions to be undertaken
[Added: 2021/03/30] [Last Updated: 2021/04/01]
N/A 2020/12 No Longer Applicable [Justification: The Project has been completed]
History
22. Recommendation:
 

Recommendation 22 (Outcome level – Component 1):

Improve the gender-responsiveness of the Quatre Soeurs Refuge Centre by ensuring that there are functional spaces according to user groups (room for breastfeeding, rooms for women and children to change and/or sleep separately). Refuge centre staff should be given gender-based violence (GBV) in disasters sensitivity training. A female staff member should be trained and assigned to deal with any complaints or grievances in regards to GBV.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/03/30]

Management response:

Management partially agrees with the recommendation. First, Management does not agree with the recommendation in terms of functional spaces as these are already provided for. As regards training to refuge centre staff on GBV, the recommendation will be transmitted to the Ministry.

 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Transmit recommendation to the Ministry of Environment and to the Beach authority
[Added: 2021/03/30] [Last Updated: 2021/04/01]
UNDP CO and MoESD 2020/12 Completed The Project has been completed History
23. Recommendation:
 

Recommendation 23 (Outcome level – Component 1):

Gather and analyse data over a 5-year time horizon on the impacts of implemented coastal adaptation measures at the three project sites. Develop a simplified matrix for technical design criteria and cost benefit analysis with the lessons learned at each of the sites, which can be used to gauge the appropriateness of measures for coastal adaptation at sites for replication.The government of Mauritius should not attempt to replicate coastal adaptation measures (such as the artificial reef) at other sites without a data-based understanding of the impacts on ecological and biophysical parameters.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/03/30]

Management response:

Management agrees partially with the recommendation. In the sense that the horizon is outside the scope of the current project, it cannot be implemented by the UNDP CO. The recommendation can however be included in the action to be undertaken under Recommendation 16.  

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Transmit recommendation to the Ministry of Environment and to the Beach authority
[Added: 2021/03/30] [Last Updated: 2021/04/01]
UNDP CO and MoESD 2020/12 Completed The Project has been completed History
24. Recommendation:
 

Recommendation 24 (Outcome level – Component 1):

Ensure that donor-funded projects have a budget for the implementation of the Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) past the life of such projects, and that the mandate and budget for long term monitoring according to the ESMP is given to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Division, the Beach Authority and the Ministry of Blue Economy as appropriate for the current project.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/03/30]

Management response:

Management partly agrees with this recommendation and it is in line with UNDP corporate guidelines. However, as regards the issue of budget for long term activities, it is part of the responsibility of Government to ensure that long term monitoring is maintained as part of government routine activities for all projects that have been completed.

 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Transmit recommendation to the Ministry of Environment and to the Beach authority
[Added: 2021/03/30] [Last Updated: 2021/04/01]
UNDP CO and MoESD 2020/12 Completed The Project has been completed History
25. Recommendation:
 

Recommendation 25 (Outcome level – Component 2):

Develop a manual that formalizes the operation of the current wave height modelling system so that if there is loss of personnel, the operation of the system remains uninterrupted and viable.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/03/30]

Management response:

Management does not agree with the recommendation as the Evaluator assumes that the Meteorological Services Department does not have provisions to operate the system in the absence of certain staff members. Rather the Met Services should ensure the provision of training from the service provider Deltares to several staff so the continued operation of the system is supported by several staff.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
No actions as Management does not agree with the recommendation for reasons stated above.
[Added: 2021/03/30] [Last Updated: 2021/04/01]
N/A 2020/12 Completed The Project has been completed History
26. Recommendation:
 

Recommendation 26 (Outcome level – Component 2):

Once the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) is available in May 2020, complete the calibration of the model which correlates wave height with inland flooding and develop a protocol in collaboration with NDRMCC to notify local government counterparts and community members, once the flooding passes the determined threshold for evacuations.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/03/30]

Management response:

Management does not agree with the recommendation as it is outside the purview of the project which is at closure stage.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
No actions as Management does not agree with the recommendation for reasons stated above.
[Added: 2021/03/30] [Last Updated: 2021/04/01]
N/A 2020/12 Completed The Project has been completed History
27. Recommendation:
 

Recommendation 27 (Outcome level – Component 2):

Develop shared protocols for dissemination of EWS system information at the community level, using the most appropriate means of communication as identified through local stakeholder consultation (radio, television, community communication protocols). Ensure that information dissemination is inclusive and reaches the most vulnerable (i.e. women, youth, the elderly and the disabled).

Management Response: [Added: 2021/03/30]

Management response:

Management does not agree with the recommendation as it is outside the purview of the project which is at closure stage. Furthermore, such protocols are already well established in Mauritius.

 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
No actions as Management does not agree with the recommendation for reasons stated above.
[Added: 2021/03/30] [Last Updated: 2021/04/01]
N/A 2020/12 Completed The Project has been completed History
28. Recommendation:
 

Recommendation 28 (Outcome level – Component 2):

Link the national EWS to the Word Meteorological Organization’s (WMO) Global Multi-Hazard Alert System (GMAS).

Management Response: [Added: 2021/03/30]

Management response:

Management partly agrees with the recommendation as it is outside the purview of the current project which is at closure stage. However it the recommendation will be communicated to the Met Services for consideration..

 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Transmit recommendation to the Meteorological Services
[Added: 2021/03/30] [Last Updated: 2021/04/01]
UNDP CO and MoESD 2020/06 Completed The Project has been completed History
29. Recommendation:
 

Recommendation 29 (Outcome level – Component 3):

Immediate distribution of the handbook on coastal adaptation that was developed for coastal communities to primary beneficiaries. Prior to dissemination it would be useful to establish a baseline of current level of understanding of coastal adaptation and then to assess changes in knowledge, attitudes and behaviour after distribution and use of the materials. This will allow institutional stakeholders, and UNDP, to understand the actual impact of the knowledge product.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/03/30]

Management response:

Management agrees with the recommendation,  and will transmit it to the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development..

 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Transmit recommendation to the Ministry of Environment and to the Beach authority
[Added: 2021/03/30] [Last Updated: 2021/04/01]
UNDP CO and MoESD 2020/06 Completed The Project has been completed History
30. Recommendation:
 

Recommendation 30 (Outcome level – Component 3):

Create a network of experts that have been trained in coastal engineering design and cost-benefit analysis for coastal adaptation measures, so that trained experts under the project can be easily sourced and used in future procurements. Ensure that institutional, private sector and multilateral actors have access to the network of trained national experts and are incentivized this expertise.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/03/30]

Management response:

Management partly agrees with the recommendation as it is outside the purview of the current project which is at closure stage. A database of experts who have been trained is available, but can be formally compiled and made available in future initiatives, The issue of incentives is a question of budget which is again outside the purview of the current project.

 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Transmit recommendation to the Ministry of Environment and to the Beach authority
[Added: 2021/03/30] [Last Updated: 2021/04/01]
UNDP CO and MoESD 2020/06 Completed The Project has been completed History
31. Recommendation:
 

Recommendation 31 (Outcome level – Component 4):

Ensure that the completion of the multi-criteria coastal vulnerability map, with the incorporation of socio-economic/community vulnerability.Ensure that the finalized map is incorporated into a GIS layer for national planning purposes and available to all relevant stakeholders.Use the coastal vulnerability map as the basis of site selection and prioritization for future projects related to coastal adaptation and disaster risk management.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/03/30]

Management response:

Management partly agrees with the recommendation as it is outside the purview of the current project which is at closure stage.  However it  will be transmitted to the Ministry for consideration, if not already implemented.  

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Transmit recommendation to the Ministry of Environment and to the Beach authority
[Added: 2021/03/30] [Last Updated: 2021/04/01]
UNDP CO and MoESD 2020/06 Completed The Project has been completed History
32. Recommendation:
 

Recommendation 32 (Outcome level – Component 4):

Prioritize passing a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Coastal Risk Management (CRM) law, as outlined in the National Coastal Zone Adaptation Strategy (NCZAS), in order to ensure that climate change adaptation concerns are actually considered when planning for coastal development and granting approvals for new infrastructure (such as hotels).

Management Response: [Added: 2021/03/30]

Management response:

Management agrees with the recommendation, noting however that that the passing of policies is a process outside the control of the project..  However, it will be transmitted to the Ministry for consideration.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Transmit recommendation to the Ministry of Environment and to the Beach authority
[Added: 2021/03/30] [Last Updated: 2021/04/01]
UNDP CO and MoESD 2020/06 Completed The Project has been completed History
33. Recommendation:
 

Recommendation 33 (Outcome level – Component 4):

Formalize the implementation of the planning and advisory guidelines as outlined in the National Coastal Zone Adaptation Strategy (NCZAS) by incorporating into existing Environmental and Social Impact Assessment guidelines as well as broader Land Use Planning guidelines.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/03/30]

Management response:

Management does not agree with this recommendation as it is outside the control of the project.  However, it will be transmitted to the Ministry for consideration.

 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Transmit recommendation to the Ministry of Environment and to the Beach authority
[Added: 2021/03/30] [Last Updated: 2021/04/01]
UNDP CO and MoESD 2020/06 Completed The Project has been completed History
34. Recommendation:
 

Recommendation 34 (Outcome level – Component 4):

Introduce a new economic instrument for targeted corporate social responsibility / environmental and social investment funding that requires private sectors actors with developments (current and planned) to contribute 3% of revenues towards coastal adaptation measures.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/03/30]

Management response:

Management does not agree with this recommendation as it is outside the purview of the current project.  However, it will be transmitted to the Ministry for consideration.

 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Transmit recommendation to the Ministry of Environment and to the Beach authority
[Added: 2021/03/30] [Last Updated: 2021/04/01]
UNDP CO and MoESD 2020/06 Completed The Project has been completed History
35. Recommendation:
 

Recommendation 35 (Outcome level – Component 5):

Hand over the interpretive signs and small-scale models to the implementing partner Reef Conservation to optimize use of the materials developed, by the local NGO with the most experience with the use of the materials for community sensitization. Reef Conservation and/ or the institutional actors using these community sensitization materials in the future should also establish a baseline and undertake periodic assessments in regards to changes in knowledge, attitudes and behaviour at the community level.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/03/30]

Management response:

Management partially  agrees with this recommendation as it is outside the purview of the current project.  However, it will be transmitted to the Ministry for consideration.

 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Transmit recommendation to the Ministry of Environment and to the Beach authority
[Added: 2021/03/30] [Last Updated: 2021/04/01]
UNDP CO and MoESD 2020/06 Completed The Project has been completed History
36. Recommendation:
 

Recommendation 36 (Outcome level – Component 5):

Ensure that the prioritized ranking of vulnerable coastal sites, which takes into account community vulnerability, is used for the eventual replication of coastal adaptation measures that show a positive impact. Disseminate the final priority ranking of vulnerable coastal sites to future climate finance project development teams for use in site selection.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/03/30]

Management response:

Management partly agrees with the recommendation in so far as it is about principles of project design. The Ministry already uses a system of ranking and is investing heavily in coastal protection based on their assessment of community vulnerability.  However, as regards dissemination, this is outside the purview of the project.  

 

Key Actions:

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