Mid Term Review: Scaling up community resilience to climate variability and climate change in Northern Namibia, with special focus on women and children (Score Project)

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2014-2018, Namibia
Evaluation Type:
Mid Term Project
Planned End Date:
09/2017
Completion Date:
10/2017
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
15,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document Revised SCORE Mid_term Review ToR _UK (9 June 2017) FINAL.docx tor English 822.74 KB Posted 96
Download document SCORE MTR Final Report 27 10 17.pdf report English 1495.87 KB Posted 149
Title Mid Term Review: Scaling up community resilience to climate variability and climate change in Northern Namibia, with special focus on women and children (Score Project)
Atlas Project Number: 83204
Evaluation Plan: 2014-2018, Namibia
Evaluation Type: Mid Term Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 10/2017
Planned End Date: 09/2017
Management Response: Yes
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021)
  • 1. Output 1.1.2 Marginalised groups, particularly the poor, women, people with disabilities and displaced are empowered to gain universal access to basic services and financial and non-financial assets to build productive capacities and benefit from sustainable livelihoods and jobs
  • 2. Output 3.4.1 Innovative nature-based and gender-responsive solutions developed, financed and applied for sustainable recovery
Evaluation Budget(US $): 15,000
Source of Funding:
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 23,491
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
GEF Evaluation: Yes
GEF Project Title: Scaling up community resilience to climate variability and climate change in Northern Namibia, with special focus on women and children (Score Project)
Evaluation Type: Mid-term Review
Focal Area: Climate Change
Project Type: FSP
GEF Phase: GEF-5
GEF Project ID: 5343
PIMS Number: 4711
Key Stakeholders:
Countries: NAMIBIA
Lessons
1.

Summary of Lessons

Lesson 1: It is important to match the ambition of the project with the available budget.

Lesson 2: The project design had been formulated with a specific stakeholder participation plan as the context. This stakeholder participation plan had indeed been negotiated during the project formulation; changing the particpation plan without adjusting the project strategy has reduced the resources available for project implementation (technical skills and co-finance) and resulted in a very limited portion of the project being implemented. It is important to either stick with the project strategy, or adjust the strategy early on to match the ambition of the project to the resources available.

Lesson 3: Project level, participatory M&E is critical for assessing projects impacts and supporting knowledge management, learning and adaptive management

Lesson 4: For the popular uptake of climate smart technologies by the wider population (not included as project beneficiaries), there is need to provide policy based incentives to encourage local manufacturing and/or affordability of the inputs for the technologies demonstrated; in this case drip irrigation pipes and related gadets, encourage use of solar pumps rather than petrol pumps, make plastic tanks, rippers,  direct seeders and water affordable, etc.

Lesson 5: While mainstreaming the project into the Ministry of Agriculture Extension service is important for sustainability, it is also important to balance the need to pilot conservation agriculture in a manner that generates knowledge about what or who needs to change what practices in which ways in order for the concept to become a reality. This may require that the project be managed by senior staff with a more sophisticated understanding of the dynamics of using projects to engineer change and to link practice with policy.


Findings
1.

Summary of findings

Ø  The project mobilisation was not unduly delayed and is in line with acceptable timelines for GEF projects.

Ø  Project design undertook a thorough analysis of the challenges to building adaptive capacity and resilient production systems and livelihoods in Northern Namibia, identified four key barriers and designed an adequate project strategy to tackle the barriers effectively;

Ø  However, the project strategy adopted in the Prodoc was far too ambitius for the budget provided. The MTR concludes that the project was addressing far too many issues in too wide a geographic area; which it expanded by adding another region, without a corresponding increase in budget. The project has 3 outcomes, 17 outputs and 53 groups of activities, implemented over 14 constituencies (2 constituencies per region).

Ø  Rather than expand the benficiary regions and stretch the resources even thinner, the project should have focused its work more narrowly, either by prioritized (and hence dropping) some regions or some outputs;

Ø  The MTR finds that the situation above was exacerbated by the fact that the project departed from the implementation arrangement and stakeholder participation negotiated during project formulation, and which was supposed to add to technical resources and co-finance. Civil society, private sector and academic institutions have had very limited role in actual implementation on the ground (although they remain part of the PSC); hence implementation is in the hands of the MAWF extension service, supported by the Regional Coordinators, PMU and the PSC. The consequence of this is that project implementation gravitated around the 5 outputs for which the extension service and the PMU have the comparative advantage; providing ripping services and seeds for conservation agriculture,  providing materials for the micro drip irrigation and support to vegetable growing, rehabilitating ephemeral water bodies and hand dug wells, as well as generating awareness raising materials. Other parts of the project have either not been implemented yet, or not implemented effectively. The MTR finds that the project changed its scope (and character) from aiming to advance adaptive capacity and resilient productive systems and livelihoods, to one that is piloting climate smart agriculture technologies for tackling climate variability and climate change while simultaneoulsy increasing land productivity and food security.

Ø  The MTR notes that consolidating the implementation to areas of comparative advantage was probably a good strategy. However, the proper procedure to follow would have been a revision of the Logframe accompanied by approvals by the PSC, UNDP and the GEF. This needs to be addressed urgently;

Ø  However, the project has delivered impressive results for the outputs that it prioritized. An assessment of the Logframe shows that the project has exceeded the end of project target for the objective. It has reached 4,759 beneficiaries (instead of 4,000). The project has introduced conservation agriculture to 28 farmers - 2 Lead Farmers per constituency for 2 constituencies per region – supported by six tractors. It has assisted 664 farmers with ripping services (315 females, 229 males) and distributed seeds to 1,051 farmers (627 females and 424 males). It has provided 112 micro-drip irrigation vegetable garden for 120 households (69 female headed, 51 males headed); set up 37 community micro irrigation gardens - mostly women-led benefiting 1,024 individuals (604 females and 420 males); and set up 63 school vegetable gardens (serving about 6,366 female learners and 6,820 male learners). In total, 14,330 individuals (7,291 males and 7,039 females) are benefiting from these micro drip irrigation technologies (Table x). It has provided training on vegetable growing and awareness raising brochures on climate smart agriculture.

Ø  The project assisted in the restoration/construction of six hand-dug wells each serving an average of two villages benefiting 627 females and 443 males; one serving 11 villages. In addition, it has desilted three burrow pits benefiting about 10,548 females and 6,010 males. Two of the burrow pits are approximately 40m (length) x 40m (width) x 3m (depth) = 4800 m3 (480 loads), while the third one is 21000m3 (2100 loads). Desilting of 2 more pits halted due to flooding in Dec 2016-Jan 2017.  The PMU contributed to the review and drafting of the National Strategy for mainstreaming disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation into development (2016-2020) facilitated by the Office of the Prime Minister and Food and Agriculture Organization. The document has not been finalized as yet as regional consultation is ongoing.

Ø  The project also contributes to the Comprehensive Agriculture Programme for Namibia (2015 - 2019) and it's National Conservation Agriculture Forum. It regularly participates in the Ministry of Environment and Tourism Annual Planning Meetings at which the national climate change policy agenda and domestic budgets are decided. It has held awareness raising campaigns on climate change adaptation and mitigation. The project contributed to the formulation of CRAVE project, which has mobilized USD 10m for supporting Conservation Agriculture in Kavango region.

Ø  The MTR finds that although focusing on a narrow set of outputs (5 out of 17) enabled the project to deliver impressive results on those outputs, it should have formalized the prioritization by revising the logframe and obtaining the required approvals. Because this was not done, the MTR is conducted against the original, very ambitius project document without the budget to back up the ambition, and therefore performance seems to be very poor. The MTR therefore finds performance either moderately unsatisfactory or unsatisfactory on most evaluation criteria.

Ø  Consequently, although 70% of the budget is spent, only about 12.3% of the logframe has been implemented, and expenditures have been recorded for outcomes with almost no implementation. Indeed, outcome 2 registered an over-expenditure while logframe analysis shows very limited implementation of outputs under the outcome. The MTR finds that while there is probably a good reason for this level of expenditure, the PMU and PSC should have caught this anormally and harmonised expenditure with level of implementation, or revised either the prodoc or the budget to line them up.

Ø  The M&E for the project is wanting; currently the M&E is based on the GEF indicators for Adaptation Projects, which are quantitative and cannot measure impacts meaningfully. The project had provisions for establishing a participatory M&E plan, supported by action research, to guide learning, knowledge management, impact assessment and adaptive management. This has not yet happened and has reduced the quality of the project, especially the opportunities for linking practice and policies.

Ø  The sustainability of the achievements of this latter project is however threatened by the fact that implementation has been handled through the extension service of MAWF. While this secures long-term sustainability, there is need for th eproject to become an agent of change, to influence government service delivery systems to comply with the principles that make conservation agriculture effective (as in Fig. 1). 

Ø  Despite the sharp focus on conservation agriculture, the project still need to do more work to get conservation agriculture farmers to prepare their fileds early enough to catch the first rains from the last two cropping seasons (2015-2016 and 2016-2017). If the project closes in December 2019, it will only have one season to try and get the farmers under conservation agriculture ready to plant early enough to catch the first rains – 2018-2019. This is because if it closes in Decmber 2019 (in the middle of the 2019-2020 cropping season), project staff will be busy with project winding down procedures to effectively facilitate farmers to effectively engage with conservation agriculture.

Ø  Sustainability of the micro drip irrigation, especially under the group farmers mode is unlikely. Some of the plots have stopped production because some farmers don’t honor payments for water (especially where NAMWATER is used) and fuel for the pumps. The cost benefit analysis of the vegetable growing under micro drip irrigation on such small plots (20 x30 meters) needs to be undertaken, especially for groups which get the same small plot as an individual (and in some cases groups of over 20 households are sharing one 20x30 meter plot).

Ø  Although there is very high support for the project and demand for the technologies piloted is very high, overall uptake of the piloted initiatives under both micro drip irrigation and conservation agriculture (ripping, seeds distribution) is further threatened by the high cost of these technologies relative to low levels of disposable incomes, and the absence of policy based incentives to reduce the cost of these technologies while increasing affordability and easy access (availability).


Recommendations
1

Evaluation Recommendation 1: The project should design a participatory M&E plan in order to assess project impacts, support knowledge management, learning and adaptive management.

2

Evaluation Recommendation 2: Given the low percentage implementation rate, and the fact that the project design was very ambitious for the budget, the PSC should facilitate an assessment of the current state of implementation and the realities on the ground and recommend whether the project should start all those neglected activities or drop them entirely. 

3

Evaluation Recommendation 3: While the implementation arrangement described in the ProDoc is satisfactory, so far it has not been adhered to, with negative consequences to the project. The PSC should guide the project to either adhere to the original implementation arrangement or adjust the project to the current implementation arrangement. The departure from the original implementation arrangement means there were less resources available to implement an already very ambitious project strategy.

4

Evaluation Recommendation 4: PMU should consider adopting the GIZ model where the project work plans are generated with the teams at the regional level offices. This provides a higher level of ownership and integration.

5

Evaluation Recommendation 5: PSC should facilitate a thorough review of the project expenditure and justify 70% expenditure at MTR with 12.3% of the log frame implemented.

6

Evaluation Recommendation 6: However, given the finding that the project strategy was ambitious with a small budget, and that the project being implemented currently is one of demonstrating climate smart agriculture as a tool for adaptation and increasing food security, the PSC should seriously consider if it is not too late to revert to the original more holistic adaptation project. The MTR recommends that the project being implemented be aligned with the project described in the prodoc; either by reverting to the original strategy (and fast-tracking the other 12 outputs currently not being implemented), or by refining the project document to capture what is being implemented. The MTR further recommends dropping of two regions (Kavango East and West) to focus the limited budget remaining to 5 regions. This is because Kavango is covered by the GIZ conservation agriculture project, which has a more comprehensive program and is far better resourced. In addition, CRAVE (part of the Green Climate Fund) will also include Kavango region, and has far more resources. 

7

Evaluation Recommendation 7: The project should formulate a participatory M&E plan urgently and train Regional Coordinators, MAWF extension staff and the communities on M&E.

8

Evaluation Recommendation 8: The AMAT and PIR should be refined to avoid double reporting across indicators using the same targets. This should be preceded by refining of the project indicators.

9

Evaluation Recommendation 9: To ensure that project implementation provides an opportunity for practice to inform policy processes, PMU should organize a workshop (or a discussion forum) to assess the implications of project implementation, achievements and challenges on policies and policy formulation process. They should use the lessons generated by the discussion to craft messages for policy makers and lobby for policy based incentives to support widespread uptake of climate smart agriculture.

10

Evaluation Recommendation 10: Assuming it is not too late to involve academic institutions in serious action research, the PMU should mobilize at the very least MSc or PhD researchers to use the project for research, which will contribute to technical publications. To guide the researchers to provide information that is relevant to the project management and learning, the PMU, with guidance from the PSC should develop a series of questions/topics for which further research is required. This can be generated in the course of designing an M&E system.

11

Evaluation Recommendation 11: PMU should engage its staff and partners to shift focus from simply implementing a disparate set of project activities, to understanding that they are primarily piloting climate smart agriculture as a tool for adapting agriculture to climate variability and climate change. They should therefore adhere more closely to implementing the project inline with the principles of conservation agriculture and the underlying practices as shown in Fig 1. Furthermore, they should implement the project in a “learning mode”, so as to contribute to the understanding of what needs to be changed within the agriculture set up and in which ways, if climate smart agriculture (or just conservation agriculture) were to become the common practices. They should in particular interrogate which of those changes need to be at what levels (at the local practice or higher policy levels). If the project achieved this, the shift in its character that has happened due to change of implementation arrangement would have been worth it.

1. Recommendation:

Evaluation Recommendation 1: The project should design a participatory M&E plan in order to assess project impacts, support knowledge management, learning and adaptive management.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/12/21] [Last Updated: 2018/08/23]

The SCORE project was developed based on lessons and practices tested on previous GEF investments, a SPA project (2007 to 2010) and a SGP/CBA project (2009-2011) in the target regions. Thus, the focus should have been to expand experiences and lessons learnt about building climate change resilience amongst smallholder farmers in northern Namibia and further improved with new adaptation learning. The Agriculture sector in Namibia only realizing that increased actions and investments into climate smart agricultural development are needed to assist Namibia’s small holder farmers to build more sustainable agricultural futures.

 

Following on this, the PMU will commission an appropriate assessment of project impacts to support knowledge, learning and adaptive management.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
1. Revise the M&E framework in line with the recommendations, results framework and UNDP GEF AMAT indicators. The monitoring system will need to track three levels of benefits as well as the climate baseline to attribute the benefits identified to the project. (a) Environmental Benefits: Environmental benefits from this SCCF project will derived from a decrease in land degradation and soil erosion through the adoption of sustainable climate smart agricultural practices leading to overall environmental sustainability. (b) The monitoring system will track causal pathways in order to test the theory of change. (c) Social Benefits: Social benefits from this SCCF project will be derived from: • Improvements in human capacity, especially women, children and other vulnerable groups; • Local adaptive capacity for climate smart agriculture strengthened by smallholder farmers’ improved access to agricultural technologies specific to local farming needs; • Increase in human capital of farmers and regional councils due to improved access to technical support; and • Increase in institutional capacity to mainstream climate change adaptation concerns or absorption of best-practices and lessons learnt in national and district level development planning processes and spending plans will improve the resilience of local communities to climate impacts in the long-term.
[Added: 2017/12/21] [Last Updated: 2018/08/29]
PMU, MAWF, MET and RCs with support by PSC and UNDP 2018/11 Overdue-Initiated 1. Initiated and developed by PMU after UNDP oversight mission in January 2018; 2. The M&E framework was revised a regular update is been done; History
2. a. Conduct a Gender assessment combined with the impact assessment planned in output 3.1 of the project workplan.; b. Revise and update the Local Level Resource Monitoring Tool to cover intervention areas and gender disaggregated data.
[Added: 2017/12/21] [Last Updated: 2018/08/23]
PMU, MAWF, MET and RCs with support by PSC and UNDP 2018/11 Overdue-Initiated 1. A gender assessment is currently underway as it is been carried out concurrently with the impact assessment including the Local Level Assessment Tool.; 2. The impact assessment is a long-term assessment which includes field studies, stakeholder workshops and policy recommendations and will hence need a longer time period to finalise. History
3. Revise the project log frame to ensure results-based delivery of the remaining project activities by carefully unpacking the project document and strategy into implementable action plan.
[Added: 2017/12/21] [Last Updated: 2018/08/28]
PMU, MAWF, MET and RCs with support by PSC and UNDP 2018/03 Completed History
4. Monthly, quarterly and annual progress reports to be submitted by the PMU to consider results-based reporting instead of activity-based reporting based on the updated M&E Plan and the indicators therein. AMATs should be synchronized with the project results framework.
[Added: 2017/12/21] [Last Updated: 2018/08/28]
PMU, MAWF, MET and RCs with support by PSC and UNDP 2019/09 Initiated This is an ongoing exercise 1. Monthly reports from regional project coordinators to the project manager; 2. Quarterly and Annual Progress Reports to UNDP CO History
5. The PMU to improve on data collection, analysis and reporting standards. The Local Level Resource Monitoring Tool to be updated and data consistently captured.
[Added: 2018/08/23]
PMU, MAWF, MET and RCs with support by PSC and UNDP 2019/09 Initiated This is an ongoing exercise. Monthly Local Level Monitoring reports from regional project coordinators from project beneficiaries to the project manager.
2. Recommendation:

Evaluation Recommendation 2: Given the low percentage implementation rate, and the fact that the project design was very ambitious for the budget, the PSC should facilitate an assessment of the current state of implementation and the realities on the ground and recommend whether the project should start all those neglected activities or drop them entirely. 

Management Response: [Added: 2017/12/21]

Revise the project work plan to reprioritize project activities into implementable interventions for the remaining project term.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
1. Conduct an assessment of viable activities for implementation in the remaining project period. Barriers should be identified and an adaptation solution proposed for the going implementation of the project.
[Added: 2017/12/21] [Last Updated: 2018/08/29]
PMU, MAWF, MET and RCs with support by PSC and UNDP 2018/03 Completed Completed by PMU after UNDP oversight mission in January 2018. History
2. Reprioritize and revise the project work plan of the remaining project activities by carefully unpacking the project document and strategy into implementable action plan compatible with the budgetary spending and in accordance with UNDP financial guidelines/policies. Scale down activities in all the regions especially the Kavango East and West regions and develop regional-level work plans to ensure higher level of ownership and integration.
[Added: 2017/12/21] [Last Updated: 2018/08/23]
PMU and MAWF with support by PSC and UNDP 2018/09 Overdue-Initiated Handover meeting held with MAWF, EIF-CRAVE, RCs and GIZ to provide briefing notes on the SCORE work in the region, the beneficiaries list including the asset register. Office to be closed mid-September 2018 History
3. Recommendation:

Evaluation Recommendation 3: While the implementation arrangement described in the ProDoc is satisfactory, so far it has not been adhered to, with negative consequences to the project. The PSC should guide the project to either adhere to the original implementation arrangement or adjust the project to the current implementation arrangement. The departure from the original implementation arrangement means there were less resources available to implement an already very ambitious project strategy.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/12/21] [Last Updated: 2018/08/23]

1: This is noted, and in future, proper inductions of PMU, and segregation of managerial and specialists (e.g. CA and CSA) and technical functionalities will be better considered. Lessons from similar project teams which encompasses both PM and TA will be applied so as not to hamper project implementation and cause misalignments to initial project logic. Further, utilisation of line sector experts, e.g. within the national institutions (e.g. NUST, MET or MAWF) will be assessed to ensure that mainstreaming of implementation activities including meeting the reporting requirements as well as technical dependence are addressed in the existing mechanisms or coordination arrangements of the implementing partners. In this case particularly focussing on the conservation agriculture programme in agricultural sector activities or KRAs (key results areas).

2: In future proper oversight  functions for technical outputs and project performance will be strictly monitored on a monthly basis, and where lax or lack of concrete deliverables is observed, recommendations for corrective actions will be taken timely and implemented. 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
1 a. Undertake UNDP oversight mission and provide recommendations on PMU arrangements.; 1 b. Hold PSC meeting to provide direction on how to endorse resolutions of the oversight mission by UNDP in collaboration with the PMU.
[Added: 2017/12/21] [Last Updated: 2018/08/28]
PMU, MAWF and UNDP 2018/03 Completed 1. Oversight provided through the UNDP oversight mission conducted between 24 January – 02 February 2018 2. PSC meeting held in April 2018 to provide additional directions to the PMU. History
2 a. Comprehensively Review the PMU staff complement and provide justification for service contracts vis-à-vis local consultants responsible for specific deliverables in timely and quality manner.; 2 b. Revise the TORs of the PMU staff to render their engagement on specific deliverables and timelines.
[Added: 2017/12/21] [Last Updated: 2018/08/28]
PMU with approval and endorsement of MET, MAWF and UNDP 2018/03 Completed The staff complement has reduced and staff members still have their contracts with the work plan reflecting specific responsibilities. History
3. Approve the desired performance targets for the PMU staff, and consistently monitor PMU performance on a monthly basis and systematically
[Added: 2018/08/23] [Last Updated: 2018/08/28]
PMU, MET, MAWF and UNDP 2018/03 Completed The workplan deliverables are linked to the annual workplan in which regional workplans are developed; History
4. Monthly, quarterly and annual progress reports should be submitted to UNDP against set targets of the revised M&E Plan and performance targets
[Added: 2018/08/23] [Last Updated: 2018/08/28]
PMU, MAWF, MET and RCs with support by PSC and UNDP 2019/09 Initiated This is an ongoing exercise 1. Monthly reports from regional project coordinators to the project manager; 2. Quarterly and Annual Progress Reports to UNDP CO. History
4. Recommendation:

Evaluation Recommendation 4: PMU should consider adopting the GIZ model where the project work plans are generated with the teams at the regional level offices. This provides a higher level of ownership and integration.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/12/21] [Last Updated: 2018/08/23]

PMU will adopt the regional work plans following the model being used by GIZ, to build ownership by MAWF; further PMU will develop regional work plans in full consultations with MAWF at decentralized levels, to ensure ownership by the regions and mainstream activities of the project into the regions.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
1. Draft work plan with full participation, and consultations of MAWF/DAPEES at regional and national level. Use the understanding on holistic climate smart agriculture and conservation agriculture to develop a work plan for the remaining activities.
[Added: 2017/12/21] [Last Updated: 2018/08/28]
PMU, MAWF, and where relevant Regional Councils 2017/12 Completed The planning calendar has always been done in consultation with MAWF/DAPEESS, similarly, this was done too for season 2017/2018. Ripping services where undertaken, tractor drivers trained and farmer field days held in 2017/2018. History
2. Hold regional workshops through regional and constituency coordination committees (RDCCs and CDCs) in the regional councils.
[Added: 2017/12/21] [Last Updated: 2018/08/23]
PMU, MAWF and RCs 2019/09 Initiated The PMU has continued to attend regular CDC meetings and regional workshops are planned after the impact assessment. History
3. Draft regional level work plans using the model of GIZ and scale down activities in the regions and exclude regions where similar activities are being undertaken by development partners such as JICA, GIZ, AgriBusDev and Environmental Investment Fund (EIF)/CRAVE-MAWF.
[Added: 2017/12/21] [Last Updated: 2018/08/29]
PMU, MAWF and RCs 2019/03 Completed This is part of the regular workplans for the regional implementation officers which is done in consultation with MAWF and Regional Councilors at regional meetings. Only Kavango East and West similar such activities as the SCORE with EIF-CRAVE and GIZ. History
5. Recommendation:

Evaluation Recommendation 5: PSC should facilitate a thorough review of the project expenditure and justify 70% expenditure at MTR with 12.3% of the log frame implemented.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/12/21] [Last Updated: 2018/08/23]

The project will develop a comprehensive project implementation plan (with budgets) and procurement plan against which services will be rendered and activities implemented.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
1. (a) In line with action 1b), in the next recommendation, the PMU will finalize the revised operational plan, 2018 procurement plan and 2018 annual work plan and budget to serve as decision-making reference points/tools for immediate implementation and payments. (b) two meetings held with MAWF, MET and UNDP to recommend suitable actions
[Added: 2017/12/21] [Last Updated: 2018/08/28]
PMU, with participation and endorsement by MAWF, MET with support, and final approval by PSC and UNDP 2017/12 Completed Final documents submitted – The workplan was approved in April 2018 as the PSC took long to sit due to a quorum issue. History
2. PMU should continuously implement the work plan with, and submit monthly reports, quarterly and annual PIRs to MAWF,MET and UNDP. The project M&E plan should be followed consistently. UNDP CO to provide sufficient oversight.
[Added: 2017/12/21] [Last Updated: 2018/08/23]
PMU, with support by PSC and UNDP 2019/09 Initiated This is an ongoing exercise 1. Monthly reports from regional project coordinators to the project manager; 2. Quarterly and Annual Progress Reports to UNDP CO. History
3. PSC to be narrowed to MET, MAWF, MURD and UNDP, and designate the current PSC members as Technical Advisory panel to review and advice the project before tabling the plans for PSC approval.
[Added: 2017/12/21] [Last Updated: 2018/08/29]
PMU supported by UNDP 2018/03 Completed PSC only consist of those members, with others used to for technical advice. History
6. Recommendation:

Evaluation Recommendation 6: However, given the finding that the project strategy was ambitious with a small budget, and that the project being implemented currently is one of demonstrating climate smart agriculture as a tool for adaptation and increasing food security, the PSC should seriously consider if it is not too late to revert to the original more holistic adaptation project. The MTR recommends that the project being implemented be aligned with the project described in the prodoc; either by reverting to the original strategy (and fast-tracking the other 12 outputs currently not being implemented), or by refining the project document to capture what is being implemented. The MTR further recommends dropping of two regions (Kavango East and West) to focus the limited budget remaining to 5 regions. This is because Kavango is covered by the GIZ conservation agriculture project, which has a more comprehensive program and is far better resourced. In addition, CRAVE (part of the Green Climate Fund) will also include Kavango region, and has far more resources. 

Management Response: [Added: 2017/12/21] [Last Updated: 2018/08/23]

This is noted, the SCORE project was amongst the first in the country to be considered for holistic implementation of the CSA and CA practices. It adopted lessons that emanated from several scattered/fragmented and small-scale pilot initiatives, including the pilot in the Omusati region which was funded by the Strategic Priority on Adaptation of the GEF. Currently, there are few holistic and well-funded initiatives, amongst these, include the CRAVE -funded by the Green Climate Fund through EIF. Thus, the GEF funds can still be used to complete the SCORE project implementation by removing all redundant activities and (identify regions that can be easily transferred or handed over) towards a holistic adaptation approach.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
1. Revise and align project workplan to the ProDoc; by reverting to the original strategy (and fast-tracking the other 12 outputs currently not being implemented), with the recommendation to reduce the number of beneficiaries, and regions. Develop project implementation plan that is catalytic and transformative to ensure sustainability of the interventions beyond the project life. The PMU should develop a sustainability and exit plan 1a) Two meetings held between UNDP, MET, MAWF and PMU to guide the re-prioritization process
[Added: 2017/12/21] [Last Updated: 2018/08/29]
PMU, MAWF and MET 2018/12 Completed Refined project plan finalized History
2. Arrange a PSC meeting between the PMU, MET, MAWF-DAPEES, OPM-DRM, regional councils and MURD to provide guidance on moving forward to scale down activities.
[Added: 2017/12/21] [Last Updated: 2018/08/28]
PMU, MAWF, MET and RCs with support by PSC and UNDP 2018/12 Overdue-Initiated Done at Kavango East and West office. To be completed in other regions. History
3. PMU should continuously implement the work plan, and submit monthly reports, quarterly PIRs or monthly and annual PIRs to MAWF and MET. The project M&E plan should be followed consistently.
[Added: 2017/12/21] [Last Updated: 2018/08/23]
PMU, MAWF, MET and RCs with support by PSC and UNDP 2019/09 Initiated This is an ongoing exercise 1. Monthly reports from regional project coordinators to the project manager; 2. Quarterly and Annual Progress Reports to UNDP CO History
7. Recommendation:

Evaluation Recommendation 7: The project should formulate a participatory M&E plan urgently and train Regional Coordinators, MAWF extension staff and the communities on M&E.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/12/21]

The PMU should develop a stakeholder engagement plan towards participatory implementation of the remaining activities including the development of the participatory M&E plan

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
1. The PMU must revise and develop the local level resource monitoring tool that feeds into the M&E Plan and results framework
[Added: 2017/12/21] [Last Updated: 2018/08/29]
PMU, MAWF and MET with support by PSC and UNDP 2018/03 Completed The existing M&E plan was revised with a local-level resource monitoring tool. History
2. Provide continuous mentoring and refresher training on conservation agriculture, climate smart agriculture and link project activities to the M&E framework supervised by the regional coordinators, MAWF-DAPEES extension officers and the beneficiary communities lead farmers and selfhelp group representatives.
[Added: 2017/12/21] [Last Updated: 2018/08/23]
PMU, MAWF and MET with support by PSC and UNDP 2019/09 Initiated 1. This activity to be the primary function of the regional implementation officers; 2. Mentoring and refresher training are ongoing, and have been carried out in 2018. History
3. Develop TOR and source an expert to conduct a training workshop (administer pre-training needs and rate post-training workshop) on the M&E framework for regional coordinators, MAWF-DAPEES extension officers and the beneficiary communities.
[Added: 2018/08/23]
PMU, MAWF 2018/03 No Longer Applicable [Justification: M&E reporting done by PMU, no additional recruitment to be done as per PSC recommendations.]
8. Recommendation:

Evaluation Recommendation 8: The AMAT and PIR should be refined to avoid double reporting across indicators using the same targets. This should be preceded by refining of the project indicators.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/12/21] [Last Updated: 2018/08/23]

This is noted and agreed that while the evidence base is being developed, it is vital that a learning-by-doing approach is adopted at project level. This approach will require constant reflection to inform change - both during project implementation - and to continue to collect lessons post-implementation that will facilitate longer-term adaptive management. In cognizance of this, the M&E plan and log frame will be reviewed and refined to include AMAT and project development indicators.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
1. a) Hire an M&E expert through direct support to NIM by UNDP guide the project team to refine the project indicators in line with the AMAT tracking tool, and PIR reporting. b) Develop an M&E framework in line with the UNDP GEF and SDGs reporting guidelines.
[Added: 2017/12/21] [Last Updated: 2018/08/23]
PMU and UNDP 2018/03 No Longer Applicable [Justification: M&E reporting done by PMU, no additional recruitment to be done as per PSC recommendations]
History
2. PMU to consider results-based reporting instead of activity-based reporting based on the new M&E framework and the indicators therein. Quarterly PIRs, monthly PIRs and AMATs should be submitted for ease of information compilation.
[Added: 2017/12/21] [Last Updated: 2018/08/28]
PMU, MAWF and MET with support by PSC and UNDP 2019/09 Initiated This is an ongoing exercise 1. Monthly reports from regional project coordinators to the project manager; 2. Quarterly and Annual Progress Reports to UNDP CO History
3. Revise the project log frame.
[Added: 2017/12/21] [Last Updated: 2018/08/28]
PMU, MAWF and MET with support by PSC and UNDP 2018/03 Completed Log frame was revised History
4. Improve on data collection, analysis and reporting standards in line with UNDP GEF guidelines.
[Added: 2017/12/21] [Last Updated: 2018/08/23]
PMU, MAWF and MET, NSA with support by PSC and UNDP 2019/09 Initiated UNDP reporting formats are completed regularly and submitted. History
5. Periodic monitoring through oversight missions to be done by the UNDP CO and the UNDP-GEF region-based staff to project sites and with additional PSC members.
[Added: 2018/08/23]
UNDP and PSC 2019/09 Initiated UNDP Oversight mission undertaken between 24 January – 02 February 2018
9. Recommendation:

Evaluation Recommendation 9: To ensure that project implementation provides an opportunity for practice to inform policy processes, PMU should organize a workshop (or a discussion forum) to assess the implications of project implementation, achievements and challenges on policies and policy formulation process. They should use the lessons generated by the discussion to craft messages for policy makers and lobby for policy based incentives to support widespread uptake of climate smart agriculture.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/12/21]

Develop policy brief to ensure sustainability of the climate smart agriculture or conservation agriculture

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
1. Hold workshop to discuss lessons-learnt and develop and update the project knowledge products for policy makers through the impact assessment under output 3.1.
[Added: 2017/12/21] [Last Updated: 2018/08/23]
PMU, MAWF-DAPEES and MET with support from UNDP and PSC 2018/11 Overdue-Initiated Workshop to be held in November 2018 once impact assessment is completed. History
2.Prepare annual issue briefs and regional field stories
[Added: 2017/12/21] [Last Updated: 2018/08/28]
PMU with support by UNDP 2018/01 Completed Three field stories already completed, and news article done on farmers (http://www.na.undp.org/content/namibia/en/home/presscenter/articles/2018/mohss-and-undp-honours-tb-survey-field-operators.html). History
3. Review and contribute to the drafting of the Comprehensive Conservation Agriculture Programme (CCAP), National Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan (NCCSAP), National Strategy for mainstreaming disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation into development (2016-2020).
[Added: 2017/12/21] [Last Updated: 2018/08/23]
PMU, MAWF-DAPEES and MET with support from UNDP and PSC 2019/09 Initiated 1. The review on the National Strategy for mainstreaming disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation into development was completed and the PMU participated at all levels; 2. The review of the National Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan (NCCSAP) will commerce in the final quarter on 2018 under the guidance of National Committee on Climate Change; 3. The conservation agriculture programme is currently under implementation and review of the Comprehensive Conservation Agriculture Programme (CCAP) has not as yet been initiated. History
10. Recommendation:

Evaluation Recommendation 10: Assuming it is not too late to involve academic institutions in serious action research, the PMU should mobilize at the very least MSc or PhD researchers to use the project for research, which will contribute to technical publications. To guide the researchers to provide information that is relevant to the project management and learning, the PMU, with guidance from the PSC should develop a series of questions/topics for which further research is required. This can be generated in the course of designing an M&E system.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/12/21]

Management arrangement agreed at the beginning of the project that the achievement of the agreed interventions should be through engaging academic institutions such as UNAM and NUST. Academic institutions should be evaluated to assess capability to implement research activities

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
1a. Determine engagement of UNAM through direct support to NIM by UNDP in order to utilize the existing MoU between UNAM and UNDP 1b. Draft TOR for engagement for the implementation of research activities through existing memorandum of understanding (MoU) or engagement arrangement. 1c. Contract UNAM as responsible party (RP) for the implementation of output 3.1, the undertaking of the impact assessment 1d. UNAM to select MSc and PhD students especially the Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources (FARC) through Ogongo campus to conduct research on holistic conservation agriculture and climate smart agriculture towards the impact assessment in output 3.1.
[Added: 2017/12/21] [Last Updated: 2018/08/23]
PMU, MAWF-DAPEES and MET with support from UNDP and PSC 2018/03 No Longer Applicable [Justification: The PSC decided that the research activities will be carried out by the PMU, the PMU is currently carrying out research on conservation agriculture at demo plots with MAWF and the assessments. ]
History
2. HACT-micro-assessment should be undertaken for UNAM towards their eligibility for the implementation of the research activities.
[Added: 2017/12/21] [Last Updated: 2018/08/23]
PMU, MAWF-DAPEES and MET with support from UNDP and PSC 2018/01 No Longer Applicable [Justification: The PSC decided that the research activities will be carried out by the PMU, the PMU is currently carrying out research on conservation agriculture at demo plots with MAWF and the assessments. ]
History
11. Recommendation:

Evaluation Recommendation 11: PMU should engage its staff and partners to shift focus from simply implementing a disparate set of project activities, to understanding that they are primarily piloting climate smart agriculture as a tool for adapting agriculture to climate variability and climate change. They should therefore adhere more closely to implementing the project inline with the principles of conservation agriculture and the underlying practices as shown in Fig 1. Furthermore, they should implement the project in a “learning mode”, so as to contribute to the understanding of what needs to be changed within the agriculture set up and in which ways, if climate smart agriculture (or just conservation agriculture) were to become the common practices. They should in particular interrogate which of those changes need to be at what levels (at the local practice or higher policy levels). If the project achieved this, the shift in its character that has happened due to change of implementation arrangement would have been worth it.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/12/21] [Last Updated: 2018/08/23]

This is noted; a CA or CSA specialist or technical advisor will be considered or hired for the project to ensure that these elements are not lost during implementation of the remainder of the project.  Develop a sustainability and exit strategy in holistic and adaptive climate smart agriculture or conservation agriculture.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
1. Develop a sustainability and exit strategy for holistic climate smart agriculture or conservation agriculture
[Added: 2017/12/21] [Last Updated: 2018/08/23]
PMU, MAWF-DAPEES and MET with support from UNDP and PSC 2019/06 Initiated Ongoing with the impact assessment of which a sustainability plan will be developed and shared with stakeholders History
2. Hold regular workshops and refresher training for PMU staff, MAWF/DAPEES and community representatives on conservation agriculture and climate smart agriculture.
[Added: 2017/12/21] [Last Updated: 2018/08/23]
PMU 2019/09 Initiated A number of refresher workshops were already carried out this year for vegetable production farmers and farmer field days for conservation agriculture. History
3. Trials undertaken by the CRAVE-EIF and GIZ projects to be shared in order to ensure that those results are used to complement the impact assessment on climate smart agriculture and conservation agriculture.
[Added: 2017/12/21] [Last Updated: 2018/08/23]
PMU 2018/12 Overdue-Initiated Results of these trials shared already last year, and to be shared again this year at a workshop based on the demo-plot research outcomes. History

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

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