Enhancing Resilience to Climate Change by Mainstreaming Adaptation Concerns into Agriculture Sector Development

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2013-2019, Liberia
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
11/2018
Completion Date:
02/2019
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
27,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document TOR TERMINAL EVALUATION.pdf tor English 233.81 KB Posted 382
Download document TER -UNDP-LIB-GEF-LDCF-FINAL REPORT..pdf report English 5492.37 KB Posted 541
Title Enhancing Resilience to Climate Change by Mainstreaming Adaptation Concerns into Agriculture Sector Development
Atlas Project Number: 00062109
Evaluation Plan: 2013-2019, Liberia
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 02/2019
Planned End Date: 11/2018
Management Response: Yes
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021)
  • 1. Output 1.4.1 Solutions scaled up for sustainable management of natural resources, including sustainable commodities and green and inclusive value chains
Evaluation Budget(US $): 27,000
Source of Funding:
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 25,614
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Philip Acquah Lead Consultant philip.acquah@gmail.com GHANA
Amara Kanneh National Consultant amakan2002@gmail.com
GEF Evaluation: Yes
GEF Project Title: Enhancing Resilience to Climate Change by Mainstreaming Adaptation Concerns into Agriculture Sector Development
Evaluation Type: Terminal Evaluation
Focal Area: Climate Change
Project Type: FSP
GEF Phase: GEF-5
GEF Project ID: 4268
PIMS Number: 4439
Key Stakeholders: Environmental Protection Agency; Ministry of Agriculture; UNDP
Countries: LIBERIA
Lessons
1.

Regardless of the complications and challenges encountered, the apparently two projects (UNDP/MOA; & FAO/MOA) did present a good precedence of complementarity of comparative advantages GEF Agencies, for the implementation of NAPA/NAP ranked priority adaptation sectors, namely agriculture and food security, water resources, and early warning and disaster management;


Findings
1.

3.0 PROJECT DESIGN/FORMULATION

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

The objectives of the project were to be realized by implementing two project components: Component-1: CCACD- Climate Change Adaptation Capacity development- institutional strengthening and mainstreaming CC in national policies; and Component 2: Climate Change Adaptation in agriculture project (CCAAP)- Innovative, sustainable, socially appropriate adaptive measures piloted at the community level. 

Outcome-1: CCACD: strengthened Institutional and Individual capacities to plan and manage climate change in the agricultural sector in Liberia

- Output 1.1: CRM and adaptation capacity in the agriculture sector developed of key technical stakeholders in the ministry technical departments, in parastatals, NGOs and in research institutes (especially those responsible for preparing policies and plans and for overseeing investments) - Output 1.2: In two counties, county planners and extension workers have the technical capacity to support communities on climate change, by providing advice on climate change impacts on agriculture and on alternative approaches and measures. - Output 1.3: Liberian tertiary education system adapted to produce technicians, engineers and scientists knowledgeable about adapting to climate change - Output 1.4: Raised awareness of national leaders to the threat of climate change to agriculture (e.g. MOA leaders, related Ministries and agencies, the Climate Change Committee, Cabinet, Food Security and Nutrition Technical Committee [FSNTC], Agriculture Coordinator Committee [ACC]). - Output 1.5: Climate change and adaptation mainstreamed into LASIP and other key agricultural policy initiatives (e.g. Land Policy Reform, Enhanced Land Husbandry drive under LASIP)

Outcome -2 (CCAAP): Innovative, sustainable, socially appropriate adaptive measures piloted at the community level in two selected project sites

- Output 2.1 A baseline analysis of current livelihood and natural resource use strategies and their vulnerabilities to climate change undertaken at two ‘demonstration sites’ and community adaptation strategies and plans in place. - Output 2.2 Local community-based adaptation strategies and plans implemented: At least four adaptation and locally adapted innovations enhancing resilience to climate change tested at demonstration sites. ? Output 2.3 County agriculture plans in Bong and Grand Gedeh account for potential climate risks and incorporate building of climate change resilience as a key component. ? Output 2.4 Agricultural policies and donor investments are guided by adaptation learning at demonstration sites and integrate a land-use and livelihood strategy that helps local farmers build critically needed climate change resilience 


Tag: Agriculture Climate change governance Local Governance Knowledge management Programme/Project Design Results-Based Management Risk Management Theory of Change Capacity Building

2.

3.1.Analysis of LFA/Results Framework (Project logic/ strategy; Indicators) (continuation)

3.4. Linkage between project and other interventions within the agriculture sector The ProDoc identified and built on key linkages of previous projects and interventions within agriculture and food security sector since 2008, which were considered appropriate to climate change adaptation and resilience measures/coping mechanisms in the project areas (See Table 2). The related projects funded by EU and Oxfam implemented by CARE, AEDE and Catalyst in Bong and Grand Gedeh Counties were particularly important. In Bong, a project titled, Conservation Agriculture (CA), which sought to improve crop yields and soil fertility through smallholders’ adoption of conservation agricultural techniques, was implemented by CARE. Similarly, lessons were also drawn from projects like Promoting Food Security in Southeastern Liberia through Commercial Rice Value Chain Development (2010-2011), funded by EU and implemented by Oxfam through Catalyst in Grand Gedeh; the Enhancing Resilience to Climate Change by Mainstreaming Adaptation Concerns into Agriculture Sector development in Liberia (ERCC); and the Agricultural Sector Rehabilitation Project (ASRP). The projects were, however, based principally on conservation agriculture concept than climate-relevant agriculture or Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) at the time. The participants engaged in this project were therefore have to be trained specifically in climate impacts, vulnerability and risks, as well as CC adaptation measures and climate resilient capacities including adaptation technologies and practices to avoid maladaptation. Table 2: Linkage between GEF-LDC/UNDP project and other interventions in agriculture sector in Liberia.

3.5. Implementing Partners and stakeholders’ engagement The Executing GEF Agent was UNDP. The Implementing Partner was MOA. FAO was however contracted to execute Component 2 of the project by MOA in consideration of its comparative advantage to adapt FAO -FFS methodology to climate change adaptation in Liberia’s agriculture sector. The project was implemented at the national, County (local government) and district levels. The Bong County and the Grand Gedeh were selected as demonstration sites. The stakeholder analysis helped to identify and engage key relevant collaborating institutions with requisite mandates in the governance of specific roles to ensure successful project outcomes. The key stakeholders engaged are presented in the Annex 8. At the national level, the technical staff were nominated from Responsible Ministries, namely MOA, MPEA, MIA, EPA, MOT, and FDA. At the county level, the key partners were Extension Services Department of the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA), 15 County Agriculture Coordinators (CACs) and 8 District agricultural Officers (DAOs).Seven (7) Universities and Research institutions were drawn from the University of LiberiaCollege of Agriculture in Monrovia, Central Agriculture Research Institute (CARI); 26 number of technical schools and /polytechnics institutions; and West Africa Agriculture Productivity Project (WAAPP).


Tag: Agriculture Climate Change Adaptation Implementation Modality Partnership Programme Synergy Programme/Project Design Country Government UN Agencies Capacity Building Civil Societies and NGOs

3.

3.1.Analysis of LFA/Results Framework (Project logic/ strategy; Indicators) (continuation)

3.7. Management arrangements

The UNDP was the GEF Executing Agent (EA), and MOA, the National Implementing Agency (I/A). UNDP executed the fiduciary under its Direct Execution (DEX) Modality. UNDP provided certified accounts to the donor on all expenditures in line with UNDP’s rules and regulations. Through its Energy and Environment Project, UNDP worked with the MOA and the Project Board.

The project constituted a management arrangement based on recommendations of the Local Advisory Committee (LPAC). The Project Board made management decisions and provided guidance to the Project Manager. The Board was chaired by MOA as the Executive; UNDP as the technical expert in the position of the Senior Supplier and the Project Assurance; and Ministry of Planning and Economic Affairs, on behalf of the Government of Liberia was appointed as the Senior Beneficiary. Other members of the Board were representatives from the Responsible Ministries and relevant government departments, namely the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA), Ministry of Transport, Forestry Development Authority, EnvironmentalProtection Authority, (EPA), Ministry of Planning and Economic Affairs (MPEA), DEN, and SCNL (See Annex 13 -Sample of Project Board minutes).

Project Steering Committee (PSC) acted as Technical Support Mechanism; was chaired by the MOA or EPA. The Deputy Minister of Technical Services of MOA or his delegate was appointed The Project Manager (PM) served as Secretary to the PSC. The Project Implementation Unit (PMU) comprised Technical Project Coordinator, M&E and Communications expert and a fulltime Finance and Admin Manager.The evaluation identified that there was a clear management arrangement considered at project design and in place during implementation. The project management arrangement clearly identified and defined the roles and responsibilities of key structures, positions and partners. The management arrangement was assessed to be adequate for the effective management of the project, delivery of activities and the achievement of results. For example, the Project Board responsible for making management decisions met at regular intervals to review reports, approving of work plan, etc. Other structures such as the Project Assurance, Project Steering Committee, Project Manager, Project Support functioned during the implementation of the project.


Tag: Agriculture Climate Change Adaptation Implementation Modality Oversight Project and Programme management Strategic Positioning Country Government Food Security Inclusive economic growth Jobs and Livelihoods Poverty Reduction SDG Integration

4.

3.1.Analysis of LFA/Results Framework (Project logic/ strategy; Indicators) (continuation)

3.9. Project Implementation challenges, Design Changes, and Adaptative management

There was significantly changed from the original ProDoc Results Logframe during the implementation phase. This resulted from the key factors , including fundamental changes made by the MOA, the Implementing Agency (I/A) to the project delivery in appointing FAO to implement the Component 2 of the project; delayed and project burdened by force majeure incidence that could not have been foreseen in project risk analysis (the Ebola virus that extended 40% of the project period), recommendations by the MTR-2015, and the application and granting of No-Cost Extension period for one year to 2016. The key modifications and changes identified are as follows:

3.9.1.Change in Execution Implementation modality

The modality of the implementation of the GEF-LDCF/UNDP/Gol project fundamentally changed. The Minister of Agriculture (MOA) offered a non-objection to FAO to implement Component The Project Steering Committee (PSC) approved the FAO work plan/budget on 16 October 2012. FAO adapted the Farmers’ Field Schools (FFS) model of the FAO for the development and implementation of the Component 2 as “Climate Change Adaptation to Agriculture Development Project (CCAAP) in Liberia”.4. UNDP resorted subsequently to Direct Implementation Modality (DIM) instead of original National Implementation Modality (NIM) as an adaptive fiduciary management approach to address the challenges in the funding of FAO activities of Component-2. The change in the execution resulted in apparently two distinct projects as CCACB by MOA/UNDP and CCAAP by MOA/FAO. The implementation was complimentary in the attainment of the overall project objective of component 2. However, FAO adopting its traditional reporting guidelines and procedures resulted in FAO not reporting directly to the PMU.

3.9.2. Changes in Component 2 Results-Based Management Logical framework

FAO, in adapting its flagship FFS model to implementing Component 2 of the Project made significant changes to the main outcome, activities, and the activity indicators appropriate to the application of the model to achieve the objectives of the UNDP ProDoc expected results. For instance, the Component 2 key outcome was changed to “Adaptive capacity of communities and the agricultural production system through farmer field schools approach” to deliver the outcomes of “Innovative, sustainable, socially appropriate adaptive measures piloted at the Community Level” in the UNDP ProDoc. Needs-Assessment (N-A)17 methodology was implemented as CC vulnerability and Adaptation (V&A) Assessment to determine the site-specific baseline vulnerabilities and choice of adaptation response actions. Guidelines developed for establishing and implementing the FFS System18 was tailored to transfer of CC adaptation knowledge, technologies and practices and drive the adoption intensity;FAO expanded beneficiary farmers from initial target of 200 in 8 pilot sites to 600 including additional 400 farmers in demonstration and replication of the pilot results in 4 non-pilot sites in the Bong and Grand Gedeh counties; Jorquelleh and Kpaii (Bong county) and Tchien and Cavalla (Grand Gedeh County).


Tag: Climate Change Adaptation Environmental impact assessment Implementation Modality Project and Programme management Results-Based Management Theory of Change UN Agencies Capacity Building

5.

3.1.Analysis of LFA/Results Framework (Project logic/ strategy; Indicators) (continuation)

3.10. Adaptive management

Adaptive management of Fiduciary implementation modality UNDP resorted to Direct Implementation Modality (DIM) instead of original National Implementation Modality (NIM) to address the challenges in disbursement for FAO activities for the implementation of Component 2..The Government of Liberia through UNDP applied for No-cost Extension, which was granted by GEF. That compensated for the delays occasioned by the Ebola Virus tragedy and addressed the uncertainties regarding fund availability identified at the time of the MTR 2015. The facility assisted in achieving the revised annual work plan approved in 2016 focused on readily achievable targets for the achievement of outputs that were outstanding. For instance, Component 2 revalidated 20 conservation agricultural practices and limited the pilot and the demonstration to 4 adaptation measures that reduced climate impacts and vulnerability and built adequate adaptive capacity of the beneficial population. The revalidation transitioned the FFS approach from conservation agriculture being transferred by the previous interventions to climate smart agriculture (CSA). 


Tag: Agriculture Climate Change Adaptation Implementation Modality Knowledge management Partnership Project and Programme management Civil Societies and NGOs Country Government Technology

6.

4.0 Attainment of project objectives and planned results

4.1.Extent of achievement of Outputs and Outcomes

The section assessed, for each component, the project success in producing the programmed outputs as presented in the project document, both in quantity and quality, as well as their contribution towards achieving the objectives of the project. The Evaluation adopted the Physical Progress Report (PPR) (See Annex 14) methodology for the assessment of the extent the project achieved the designed outputs under the respective project components and outcomes. The PPR has been based on the project outputs and activities outlined in the ProDoC (See Section 2.4 pg. 44-60) for each of the components and outcomes and the Project Results Logframe (ProDoc pg. 64). The actual outputs delivered compared to the planned outputs approved in the ProDoc, which contributed to the attainment of results and overall objectives of the project, have been compiled and presented in the Physical Progress Report (PPR) (See Annex 8). The degree of success of the project in achieving its different outputs of Component 2 has been based on the FAO Revised Results Log Frame developed as part of the Vulnerability and Adaptation Needs Assessment (N-A), and in accordance with the outputs of the original UNDP ProDoc to the extent possible.

The Outputs, which were not delivered were significantly low (see Annex 14: PPR). The justifications provided in the project reports are summarized as follow: a) Output 2.3.3 Organized site visits for relevant county representative and other interested communities not achieved because of lack of funds {Source: FAO Terminal report 2016}; b) Output 2.4.2 key findings from the demonstration sites from FFS-tested innovations of CCA measures at pilot and demonstration sites involving farmers disseminated to agriculture sector stakeholders was documented and reported but was not discussed and disseminated with agriculture stakeholders as was intended (FAO Terminal report 2016); c) Output 2.4.8 FFS groups within the same sub-counties and from other subcounty networks made active and functional was not achieved. 


Tag: Agriculture Climate Change Adaptation Climate change governance Effectiveness Results-Based Management Civil Societies and NGOs Country Government Capacity Building

7.

4.1.1. Component-1: CCACD of Outputs and indicators: Extent of achievement CCACD (continuation)

Output-1.2 CCACD 1.2: In two counties, county planners and extension workers have the technical capacity to support communities on climate change, by providing advice on climate change impacts on agriculture and on alternative approaches and measures. 

At the sub-national level in the two pilot counties, like the national level, the 32 Staff of relevant government institutions and parastatals, particularly MOA Extension services, county planners and commissioners, FFS facilitators including contracted international and national NGOs were trained on adaptation planning and disaster management. The staff were subsequently involved in the peer review of climate change knowledge materials produced under the project (See Annex 14) including 5 concept notes for the transfer of adaptation knowledge, technologies, measures and practices submitted for review, comments and approval for the implementation and achievement of Component 2 outcomes. They were also trained in tracking and reporting activities at FAO-FFS, and climate information sharing with other farming communities as a part of the exit strategy recommended by the MTR to sustain the uptake and replication of adaptive capacities built at the farmer level after project closure. Initial lessons from the adaptation capacity Needs Assessment (N-A) were packaged into brochures and video documentaries. The brochure was widely circulated among staff of the MOA, FDA, MOT, students from the University of Liberia, Cuttington University, high school students (during the launch of the high school CC clubs) and other local literate stakeholders in the two pilot counties.


Tag: Agriculture Climate change governance Effectiveness Human and Financial resources Knowledge management Education Advocacy Capacity Building Technical Support SDG Integration

8.

4.1.2. Component 2 CCAAP Outputs: extent of achievement

CCAAP Objective: Innovative, sustainable, socially appropriate adaptive measures piloted at the community level in two selected pilot counties. The project achieved 88 percent of all the planned outputs in contributing to the attainment of the objectives of Component 2.  

CCAAP-Output 2.1: A baseline analysis of current livelihood and natural resource use strategies and their vulnerabilities to climate change undertaken at two ‘demonstration sites’ and community adaptation strategies and plans in place. Component 2 was implemented by FAO in collaboration with MOA. Consistent with the Project design, the FAO carried out site-specific climate change vulnerability and adaptation Needs Assessment (N-A) in 201232, including climate baseline at the two selected pilot counties, Bong and Grand Gedeh. As part of the Needs Assessment, the prevailing natural resources use and indigenous coping strategies in two pilot sites were documented. FAO also developed tailored FFS guidelines and the Concept notes to analyze both the formal & informal institutional arrangements in the two project counties. to determine the suitable CC adaptation measures that best suited the county circumstances. FFS was established in 8 pilot communities; a curriculum was developed and reviewed for the awareness creation and identification of climate resilient adaptation response measures appropriate to local CC context. FFS facilitators’ training in FFS methodology of “Learn-byDoing” was conducted for a total of 17 persons, including eight 8 FFS facilitators. The CC facilitators’ guideline was edited to suit the local context for FFS training. The climaterelevant needs assessment and the tailored FFS guidelines transformed conservation agriculture, the local farmers had hither been introduced to by other interventions, to climate smart agriculture (CSA) and addressed the potential problem of malad administration. 


Tag: Climate Change Adaptation Natural Resouce management Innovation Country Government UN Agencies Resilience

9.

4.1.2. Component 2 CCAAP Outputs: extent of achievement (continuation)

CCAAP Output 2.3 County agriculture plans in Bong and Grand Gedeh account for potential climate risks and incorporate building of climate change resilience as a key component. 

The outputs under this outcome were achieved by the engagement of Four extension officers Two local adaptation planning and mainstreaming training workshops were organized (one in each county) for extension officers and county development planners involving 28 participants (14 in each county). Two CC farmer networks set-up; workshops held with all FFS participants and a five-person interim leadership established (one in each county). Two MOI workshops were held (one in each county) involving four FBOs as a sustainability strategy to enhance market linkages and develop savings mechanism, as well as financing opportunities. The Evaluation noted all the outputs were delivered except site visits, which should have been organized for relevant county representative and other interested communities because of lack of funds.

CCAAP Output 2.4 Agricultural policies and donor investments are guided by adaptation learning at demonstration sites and integrate a land-use and livelihood strategy that helps local farmers build critically needed climate change resilience

The output was delivered by a series of round tables and workshops and adaptation learning at the pilot and demonstration sites. Two local county development steering policy roundtable meetings were facilitated to mainstream climate and lessons learned in climate risk management and adaptation in county-level planning processes for 28 participants (14 in Bong and 14 in Grand Gedeh). However, the FFS-tested innovations of CCA measures at demonstration sites involving farmers were documented and reported, but not disseminated to sector stakeholders as was planned; and that no meetings were held with sector stakeholders to discuss findings [Source: FAO Terminal report 2016]. Land use management strategy was integrated to promote community livelihood strategies and the resilience of farmers in pilot communities against CC was strengthened. The field mission confirmed SRI in lowlands integrated with aqua-culture were the best mixed-farming that provided the income and livelihood strategy (See Video).

A 3-day training in Market Opportunities for Sustained Production was organized for 2 FBOs from Panta District, Bong County. They were Panta Farmers’ Cooperative Society (PANFAMCO) and Kwapa-Gei Farmers Development Cooperative Society (KGFDCS). A total of 11 persons participated in the training workshop (9 males & 2 females). Two meetings were held with FFS facilitators (one in each county) in order to review project implementation processes. Four requirements were identified for implementation adjustment. (FAO Terminal report 2016; pg. 19). Twelve community awareness sessions were held (six in Bong and six in Grand Gedeh) and knowledge on successfully tested CC innovations was transferred. [Source: FAO Terminal Report 2016]. Six community outreach sessions were also held to non-pilot districts to apply CC adaptive measures (three in Bong and three in Grand Gedeh), involving 170 farmers (79 in Bong and 91 in Grand Gedeh). No site visits were, however, made for relevant county representatives and other interested communities, and no commercial plots were supported by grants.

Of the initially targeted 200 FFS farmers, 101 participants were scheduled for graduation (56 in Bong and 45 in Grand Gedeh); owing to time constraint, only participants in Bong graduated. A graduation program was organized in Bellemue Town, Panta District, Bong County on August 29, 2016. A total of 54 farmers graduated; and several dignities from national and county levels witnessed the program among which were Hon. Chea Garley, Assistant Minister/MOA and Mr. Emmanuel Johnson, Acting CCAAP Coordinator/PMU/MOA. As an exit strategy for sustainability of the FFS and the community program recommended by the MTR, three LNGOs (Farm Life Africa (FLA)- Gbarzon District; 2. Liberia Agency for National Development (LARO)-Tchien District; 3. Liberia Agriculture Relief Organization (LAND)-Tchien District were trained to establish and facilitate farmer field school (FFS). A total of 9 persons participated in the training workshop (6 males & 3 females).


Tag: Agriculture Climate change governance Natural Resouce management Local Governance Donor relations Policies & Procedures Resilience Capacity Building

10.

4.2. Assessment of Project Results

4.2.1. Overall results (attainment of objectives) 

The expected results achieved based on the strategic objectives adopted from the Updated Results-Based Management Framework for Adaptation to climate change under the GEF LDCF (2014-2018) is presented in the completed Tracking Tool for Climate Change Adaptation Projects and Programs under GEF-LDCF (See Annex 12); and summarized as follows:

GEF-LDCF Objective 1: Reduced vulnerability of people, livelihoods, physical assets and natural systems to the adverse effects of climate change: the Number of direct beneficiaries of appropriate adaptive measures piloted and replicated in the pilot counties (Bong and Grand Gedeh), who completed the training and practiced on their farms were 437 (with 66.4% female) made up of 101 (out of 200) from pilot sites and 336 (out 400) from non-pilot demonstration sites from a total 21 communities. This exceeded the project target of 200 FFS participants..Objective 1, Outcome 1.1: Vulnerability of physical assets and natural systems reduced: Type and extent of assets strengthened and/or better managed to withstand CC were 23.3 acres of nonpiloted sites farms representing 50.5 % of targeted 100.Objective 1, Outcome 1.3: Climate-resilient technologies and practices adopted and scaled up, The Extent of adoption of climate- resilient technologies/ practices achieved: - Number of famers involved in the FFS pilot sites and no-pilot demonstration sites were 437 with 59% women. This exceeded the end of project target of 200 farmers. Of the 200 famers, 101 completed and graduated from the FFS with 68% women.

GEF-LDCF Objective 2: Strengthen institutional and technical capacities for effective climate change adaptation; Outcome 2.1 Increased awareness of climate change impacts, vulnerability and adaptation were: - At the county level, the estimated total number of people sensitized from institutions and technical staff was 805 comprised: MDAs (5), MOA (87), Universities and research institutions (188, 43% women), the CRM Think Thank initiated (80); 26 high schools as farmer advocacy groups (416), NGOs and FBOs (29). ? Under Access to improved climate information, national, sub-national and local levels. Objective 2, Outcome 2.- Access to improved climate information, national, sub-national and local levels and number of relevant assessments/ knowledge product: The number of relevant assessments/ knowledge product produced were 6 at the county level and 5 at the national level from Risk and vulnerability assessments, and other relevant scientific and technical assessments carried out and updated; Objective 2, Outcome 2.3: Institutional and technical capacities and human skills strengthened to identify, prioritize, implement, monitor and evaluate adaptation strategies and measures: The Number of people trained to identify, prioritize, implement, monitor and evaluate adaptation strategies and measures from 7 university institutions and 5 technical and polytechnic institutions was a total number of 188 (> 80 women). CARI carried out an Assessment and produced a report after the hands-on training (see 6.8.Annex 8: Stakeholder Engagement Summary) and also was supposed to collaborated with the Resource center in Gbarnga to sustain the field monitoring, evaluation and reporting of adaptation technologies, practices and measures to drive adoption intensity.


Tag: Climate Change Adaptation Climate change governance Vulnerable Women's Empowerment Local Governance Communication Knowledge management Policies & Procedures Project and Programme management Jobs and Livelihoods Technical Support SDG Integration

11.

4.2.2. Relevance 

The Republic of Liberia ratified the UNFCCC in 2002 and the Kyoto Protocol in the same year. Liberia is classified as a non-Annex 1 Party and a Least Developed Country (LDC) Party to the Convention. Liberia has developed and submitted its national adaptation programme of Action (NAPA, 2008). The Liberian NAPA (2008) identified as its top priority ‘Enhancing resilience to increasing rainfall variability through the diversification of crop cultivation and small ruminants rearing (agriculture). Liberia, as LDCF Party to the Convention, took advantage of the LDCF finance under the UNFCCC for additional costs of achieving sustainable development imposed on the LDCF-eligible countries by the impacts of climate change and integrated climate change risk considerations into agricultural development and high-priority national initiatives to achieve sustainable agricultural growth and food security (which is a priority intervention sector that is eligible under LDCF guidelines). 


Tag: Climate Change Adaptation Climate change governance Natural Resouce management Relevance Inclusive economic growth Poverty Reduction SDG Integration

12.

4.2.3. Effectiveness 

The outcomes and the planned results based on the GEF Adaptation Tracking Tool and the constructed PPR were significantly achieved. The delivery of corresponding outputs positively affected the achievement of the outcomes. The Outputs were logically tailored to their respective outcomes and reinforced a cause-effect relationship between the two. For example, the conduct of a CC capacity needs assessment and subsequent development of CC capacity development plan and manual; and climate risk management plan helped guide the provision of capacity development initiatives to both institutions and individuals (See Section). The evaluation notes actions have been taken to mainstream CC adaptation and mitigation measures into LASIP and MoA programs and projects at the national level. However, there was no evidence of county planners mainstreaming CC adaptations into County Development Agenda of the two pilot counties.

The Key implementing partners of Component 2 at the national and county level contributed towards the achievement of the outcomes through the sharing of expertise, technology and knowledge. For instance, the project adopted the system of rice intensification (SRI) from the West African Agriculture Productivity Project (WAAPP) that contributed to the achievement of Component 2 outcome. SRI did not only address the decline in yield, it also resulted in increased yields for farmers and promoted integrated pest management (IPM); and preparation and application of local biopesticide; and effective water stress management in the low lands, particularly floods management. 

Despite the many challenges faced by the project, it recorded some positive, deliberate changes. Increased yield and the provision of livelihood/income for some farmers were noticeable changes. Based on understanding of seasonal changes and other climate change impact which had affected their productivity in the past, farmers continue to realize more yields and enjoy the fruit/benefits of their labour as opposed to before when drought or flood destroy their crops.

The intended project outcomes of the CC Adaption capacity development (CCACD) at national, county level planning, and community farm level in agricultural sector were delivered; and were designed to feed into the NAPA/NAP process after the project fund in 2016. The UNEP/UNDP GCF-funded project "To advance the National Adaptation Plans (NAP) process for medium-term investment planning in climate-sensitive sectors (i.e. agriculture, energy, waste management, forestry and health) and coastal areas in Liberia" was launched in March 2018.

The NAP will work to strengthen institutional frameworks and coordination for the implementation of the NAP process, expand the knowledge base achieved by the CCACD and CCAAP for scaling up adaptation, build on the capacity knowledge materials developed and initial mainstreaming climate change adaptation into planning, and budgeting processes and systems, and formulate financing mechanisms for scaling-up adaptation, including public, private, national and international.


Tag: Climate Change Adaptation Climate change governance Challenges Effectiveness Knowledge management Policies & Procedures Civil Societies and NGOs Country Government Technology Advocacy Technical Support

13.

4.2.4. Efficiency
4.2.4.1. Fiduciary aspects

UNDP executed the fiduciary under its Direct Execution (DEX) Modality. UNDP provided certified accounts to the donor on all expenditures in line with UNDP and GEF procedures, rules and regulations. Through its Energy and Environment Project, UNDP worked with the MOA, the PMU, and the Project Board as the technical expert in the position of the Senior Supplier and the Project Assurance to guide the annual work plan and budgets (AWPB) for the project implementation.The evaluation mission discussed the fiduciary aspects with the relevant project staff (mainly with the UNDP financial officers/accountants) and reviewed the status of compliance to the covenants in the Grant Agreement/Sub-Agreement) and sample documents on financial management (detailed electronic financial transacts), procurement (Procurement plans, contracts for goods and consultant services, assets register) and annual audit reports. Based on the findings, in general the fiduciary aspects had been implemented accordingly and there were no major issues, except for the change from NIM to DIM after the 2015 financial auditing; and specifically, the M&E not linking expenditures to specific activities and/or outputs, particularly for Component 2 which persisted even after the strong recommendation by the MTR. The overall rating on fiduciary aspects based on limited financial data provided is Moderately Satisfactory. The following paragraphs provide the backgrounds for the overall rating.

Financial management. The project, in general, was in compliance with the Grant covenants and country subgrant agreements. There were some delays in obtaining authorized signatures and in submission of audit reports by both executing agencies (MOA and FAO). Both MOA and FAO were managing their component finances according to national or internationally accepted procedures. Financial management was conducted in accordance with the guidance in the UNDP Financial Regulations and Rules. The mission was informed that in both project counties some payments to FFS facilitators and monies for the construction Resource Centre have been incomplete.

Disbursement and Utilization. The disbursement of funds for the project’s implementation was carried out in accordance with the procedures in the UNDP’s Financing Administration Manual and financing agreement. The expenditure was reimbursed 90 days after submitting supporting documents. Disbursement went through rigorous checks and balances to ensure value for money and efficient use of funds. The overall performance of the total amount disbursed is high. Tables 3 and 4 show the project expenditure and additional co-funding secured to support implementation of the project.Table 3: Summary of financial reports based on Component (in USD), 31 December 2016


Tag: Efficiency Global Environment Facility fund Government Cost-sharing Implementation Modality Monitoring and Evaluation Policies & Procedures Procurement UN Agencies

14.

4.2.4. Efficiency (continuation)

4.2.4.2. Monitoring and Evaluation: design at entry; Implementation and overall assessment

The evaluation finds that the project had a well-defined results framework and M&E work plan and budget at entry (developed during the formulation and design of the project). The results framework detailed at objective and outcome levels the basic elements (results hierarchy, indicator, baseline, target, source of verification, assumption and risks) required to monitor and measure progress and results (mainly knowledge, attitude and practice) of the projects..The original Project document (ProDoc) contained an M&E plan. The project management/MOA with the M&E officer developed annual M&E plans for Component 1. M&E work plan in the project implementation covered Component 1 only. The M&E work plan in the project document was costed; but the yearly M&E plans by MOA did not include budgets. There are no documentation indicating FAO developed yearly M&E plans for implementing Component 2. FAO, as part of it M&E activities, produced Monthly, Quarterly and Annual reports even Terminal report in 2016. Budget planned vs. Spent cannot not be ascertained as the M&E budget made the M&E Officer’s salary, telecom and other cost a part of a lump sum (MTR, 2015).

The evaluation could not assess evidence of timely implementation of planned M&E activities. The Mid-term review was delayed due to Ebola outbreak and terminal evaluation instead of taking place within 6 months before project closure is taking place 2 years after. The M&E at design entry is rated Satisfactory, M&E implementation rated Moderately Unsatisfactory and overall Quality of M&E is rated Moderately Satisfactory.


Tag: Efficiency Monitoring and Evaluation Policies & Procedures UN Agencies

15.

4.3. Sustainability

Sustainability measures the probability of continued long-term project-derived results and impacts after the external project funding and assistance ends. The evaluation therefore identified and assessed the key conditions or factors that were likely to undermine or contribute to the persistence of benefits. Four aspects of sustainability have been addressed and rated respectively.

4.3.1.Potential of Projects and Financial Resources for Replication after Project Closure

There are funding possibilities that could be exploited to provide continued support to both men and women. Currently, a number of donor partners are working with the Government of Liberia through the Ministry of Agriculture (e.g. EU, IFAD, AfDB, WB, UN agencies) to provide continued support to women and men in the agricultural sector. However, there remain gaps to adequately provide support to farmers in a timely manner that will bring about the desired changes or agricultural transformation required to boost productivity and commercialization. The agriculture sector of the NAP is a continuation of the NAPA. One of the key objective of the NAP is to scale up the current NAPA pilot projects including the project results. The potential of financial resources sustainability for replication is rated Likely.

4.3.2. Socio-economic sustainability The project piloted and demonstrated socially appropriate and acceptable climate resilient adaptation measures to 600 farmers in 21 communities. The measures included local raw material-based practices such as compost production from farm manure and local production of biocides from local herbal materials and kerosene. The interaction with the farmers and farmer associations in the Focus groups indicated the farmers had embraced these measures and had continued the measures 2-years after the project funding with considerable success. However, the inaccessibility of the inputs from the FFS had significantly affected a couple of them; and led to their inability to sustain the yields and productivity and income generation levels achieved with the project. The use and existence of some project outputs are found low. Some of the CC adaptation technology are also not applied (e.g. water stress management, pesticide production, etc.). Nevertheless, there are three out of the 8 groups of farms that have continued. The CC networks and CC clubs were also not sustained, at best inactive. As an exit strategy recommended by the MTR 2015, lessons learned from the pilot and demonstrations sites were documented and used to train FBOs and LNGOs in non-pilot sites; aimed at building the knowledge and skill capacities of FBOs and LNGOs in the establishment and facilitation of farmer field school (FFS) and ensure that FFS system for farmers training was maintained after the end of project. Three LNGOs (Farm Life Africa (FLA)- Gbarzon District; 2. Liberia Agency for National Development (LARO)-Tchien District; 3. Liberia Agriculture Relief Organization (LAND)-Tchien District were trained to establish and facilitate farmer field school (FFS) (Source: FAO Third Quarter Progress Report, 2018; pg. 6). These have not been resources to function as planned.

At all the Focus group discussions, the Evaluation Team was informed of the usefulness of the FFS in the pilot and demonstration program and wished that the FFS had been institutionalized and integrated into the county extension services and planning systems and continued the support to the farmers and also drove the replication of the demonstration results county-wide towards achieving the immediate and the long-term objectives. As a results of the FFS and project intervention, the farmers’ adoption of IPM; water stress management practices; and locally-practiced manure management & soil fertility improvement -reduced pest infestation, avoided flooding of lowland farms, and improved productivity (by reduced baseline vulnerability rates (see Table 1)- namely: Germination failure rate-40%, Crop failure rate 60% and low crop yield due to 10-15 % loss in productivity of swamp and upland rice (Worst in 2011 over a 5-year period (2007-2011) and Increased incidence of pests and diseases.) and thus reduced vulnerability and made farmers more resilient to climate change impacts. The reduced vulnerability was confirmed by three scenarios observed during the evaluation field visit, specifically Garmu community. Farmer “A” -an FFS participant adopted the innovations technologies and practices with aquaculture had increased yield; Farmer “B”-non FFS participant replicated the innovations technologies and practices under the guidance of Farmer “A” and had excellent results. However, Farmer “C” -also a non FFS participant refused the advice and guidance of Farmer “A” to adopt/replicate the innovations technologies and practices of the project and had a disastrous results from pests and flood. Thus, demonstrates the reduced vulnerability and increased resilience of farmers through the project interventionThe Socio-economic sustainability is rated Highly Likely.


Tag: Agriculture Natural Resouce management Sustainability Resource mobilization Communication Knowledge management Civil Societies and NGOs UN Agencies Capacity Building Inclusive economic growth Jobs and Livelihoods SDG Integration

16.

4.3. Sustainability (continuation)

4.3.4. Environmental Sustainability

The project transferred knowledge, adaptation technologies and practices and addressed Water stress/drought caused by erratic and irregular rainfall pattern leading to low productivity and crop failure. The adaptation measures resulted in better managed low land rice cultivation as means that enhanced ecosystem services and integrity and reduced vulnerability of physical assets and natural ecosystems to climate-related hazards. For instance, built up head dyke to create bigger reservoir, cleared drainage canal for free flow of water, cleared peripheral canals for easy irrigation, and installed overflow pipes to avoid flooding of plots improved reliability of water supply in the swamp through establishment of water harvesting systems (valley dams, valley tank/reservoirs) with appropriate water control measures; and also reduced floods and run-off by water control and drainage systems. Rice farmers interviewed and farms visited have continued these practices 2 years down after the project. Integrated soil fertility management through such practices as green manure, legumes, N- fixing Agro-forestry trees, composting and animal manure application restored soil fertility caused by soil erosion and degradation due to increased incidence of heavy rainfall (FAO Annual Reports). 

Moreover, the project improved rural livelihoods and reduced community vulnerability of farmers in Bong County and Grand Gedeh to climate change. The risk of negative environmental and social impacts was assessed to be negligible; and no negative impacts were observed during the field visit in the pilot and non-participating farms that have replicated the results from the pilot and demonstration farms. It is essential however that periodically updating environmental and social safeguards should be integrated in the County Agriculture Extension Services to implement corrective measures when necessitated. 

The activities at the national level were mainly related to capacity and policy and therefore not expected to have a direct environmental impact. They are expected to contribute to improve environmental sustainability in a longer perspective.

The environmental sustainability is rated Highly Likely.


Tag: Climate Change Adaptation Environment Policy Natural Resouce management Sustainability Knowledge management Technology

17.

4.4. Project Impacts

4.4.1. Socio-economic benefits

Some of the noticeable changes brought about by the project include increase in capacity of relevant actors, particularly MoA staffers to conduct CC adaptation planning; reduced net labour, and increased yields. However, there are gaps in the cascading and dissemination of knowledge and skills within project and adjacent communities as desired due to the absence of follow-up technical and material supports from MoA and partners after the project ended.Without such a project, agricultural activities, particular farming could be discouraged due to poor crop yields and lost labour and other resources. As it was, the limited or the lack of knowledge on climate change and its impacts on agricultural activities caused disproportionate loss of time, material, labour and financial resources to farmers who cultivated their crops but could not reap any substantial benefits due to climate change impacts. Increased crop yields and the use of innovative CC adaptation measures have contributed towards the attainment of SDG 1 (No Poverty); SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 13 (Climate Action). The socio-economic development benefits is rated Highly Likely


Tag: Agriculture Natural Resouce management Impact Gender Equality Gender Mainstreaming Women's Empowerment Human rights Results-Based Management Theory of Change Inclusive economic growth Jobs and Livelihoods Capacity Building

18.

4.5. Stakeholder engagement, capacities built and contributions to the project

The key stakeholders, capacities built and the areas of engagement are presented in the Annex 8 and summarized as follows:

4.5.1. Responsible Ministries including MOA capacities built in mainstreaming CC adaptation options in LASIP The institutional and technical capacities of the Staff of relevant government institutions and parastatals of Responsible Ministries including MOA extension services department were strengthened. They were trained in climate change management (CCM); Climate Risk Management (CRM) including adaptation planning and disaster management as well as Assessment of progress in testing of adaptive measures and sustainability using the climate change capacity development plan (CCCDP) formulated. The knowledge materials developed and the exposure from the workshops were used in Hands-on-training in the integration and mainstreaming of CCA into national polices, plans and projects using Liberia agriculture sector investment policy (LASIP) under the NAP process in 2014. The staff were subsequently involved in the peer review of climate change knowledge materials produced under the project (See Annex 15) including 5 concept notes for the transfer of adaptation knowledge, technologies, measures and practices submitted for review, comments and approval for the implementation of Component 2.


Tag: Climate Change Adaptation Climate change governance Impact Knowledge management Partnership Project and Programme management Civil Societies and NGOs Country Government Capacity Building Technical Support

19.

4.6.Sustainable development Impacts-towards achieving relevant UN SDGs

The project achieved a high degree of transfer of knowledge, skill, and fiscal empowerment to farmers have observed positive changes in their livelihoods. This was very evident in all 7 communities where focus group discussions with the farmers and farmer associations (predominantly women). They all indicated positive livelihood changes following the implementation of the project interventions. The empowerment of the farmers was gender sensitive. The project impact therefore responded to significant number of relevant SDGs outlined.

GOAL 1: NO POVERTY (end poverty in all its forms everywhere) The project was sited in districts with a high prevalence of poverty and reliance on rain-fed agriculture as main livelihood option; yields and productivity from agriculture in these locations were largely reducing due mainly to climate change impacts. Following the project, poverty has been considerably reduced across all project sites. the beneficiaries admitted learning the farming methods demonstrated leading to good increase in yield productivity, increased income and reduced poverty. The major beneficiaries were the farmers that integrated aquaculture (fish farming) into rice farming with good water management infrastructure.


Tag: Agriculture Climate change governance Natural Resouce management Sustainability Gender Equality Communication Knowledge management Food Security Jobs and Livelihoods Poverty Reduction Technology SDG Integration

20.

4.1.1. Component-1: CCACD of Outputs and indicators: Extent of achievement CCACD (Continuation from Finding 7)

Output-1.4 CCACD 1.4: Raised awareness of national leaders to the threat of climate change to agriculture (e.g. MOA leaders, related Ministries and agencies, the Climate Change Committee, Cabinet, Food Security and Nutrition Technical Committee [FSNTC], Agriculture Coordinator Committee [ACC]).  Awareness raising knowledge materials were developed to facilitate awareness creation activities. WAAPP supported and developed communications and knowledge management in finalizing and arranging airing of the Video documentary of project lessons learned in the pilot sites on four local TV stations. Communication officers of WAAPP led the planning and compiling of the video including technical editing and production. Materials were also incorporated into MOA's website for institutional and public access and information.Two local county development steering policy roundtable meetings were facilitated to mainstream climate and lessons learned on climate risk management and adaptation in county-level planning processes for 28 participants (14 in Bong and 14 in Grand Gedeh). Two staff from the Ministries of Agriculture and the then Planning and Economic Affairs attended international peer training and subsequently rolled out training to 20 government ministries and agencies. Lessons learned were documented and used to train FBOs and LNGOs in the non-pilot sites. Training workshop conducted aimed at building the knowledge, skill and capacities of FBOs and LNGOs in farmer field school (FFS) establishment and facilitation to ensure that FFS system was maintained for farmers training after the project life. This was an exit strategy to sustain the FFS System and the replication of the results and increased adoption intensity in the counties.


Tag: Awareness raising National Institutions Agriculture Climate Change Adaptation Climate change governance Environment Policy Effectiveness Integration Knowledge management Policies & Procedures Results-Based Management

21.

(Continuation from Finding 17)

4.4.3. Review of Outcomes to Impacts (ROtI)

The intervention logic in the Project Document and the results framework have been used to construct the project’s theory of change (ToC). The ToC presented in the Annex 11 provides a full overview of the outcomes, intermediate states and impact. The intervention logic and the causal links from activities to outputs presented in the Project Document and results framework are unchanged in the constructed ToC. The activities level is not covered under the ROtI methodology, which focuses on results. The results framework identifies assumptions and risks at the objective and outcome levels. The outputs in the Project Document expected to lead to tangible outcomes for each of the two components are outlined. The logical pathways from project outputs over achieved objectives towards impacts, taking into account performance and impact drivers, and assumptions have been based on the GEF ROtI methodology. The methodology assessed to what extent the project has to date contributed, and is likely in the future to further contribute to changes with respect to awareness creation and change of perception, enhanced institutional and technical capacities, mainstreaming of CCA into agriculture, knowledge and technology transfer which in turn leads to immediate impact on increased resilience of farmers to climate vulnerability; and initiation of pilot results for replication towards the attainment of long term impact.


Tag: Agriculture Climate Change Adaptation Disaster Risk Reduction Environment Policy Impact Policies & Procedures Results-Based Management Theory of Change

Recommendations
1

MOA/UNDP/EPA collaborate to re-organize, institutionalize and establish support for the flagship Think Tank initiative within the institutional arrangement of the National Adaptation Plan (NAP) project implementation for advocacy and promotion towards realizing the long-term objectives of CCA mainstreaming into LASIP at the national, sub-national (county) and community levels. Consider and select CARI, University of Liberia College of Agriculture and Forestry, or The Center for Policy studies (CERPS) to host and foster the Think Tank to ensure sustainability.

2

MOA/FAO collaborate, institutionalize and support the FFS system (adapted as means of transferring climate smart agriculture-CSA) and the trained FBOs, LNGOs under the project so as to drive the replication and scaling up the successful piloted and demonstrated results of the project CCA measures and best practices towards achieving increased adoption intensity country-wide.

3

MOA/UNDP collaborate to develop and implement the county adaptation framework to integrate and mainstream CCA, CRM, CCM  into the county extension services, planning systems, and the research institutions and universities as  effective national  technical institutional arrangements to support and drive the FAO-FFS system approach; and  facilitate effective replication, scaling up and increase adoption intensity of the project demonstrated results from the limited investment in climate resilient and adaptation technologies and practices.

4

MOA/UNDP provide support to land title registration of parcels of land suitable for SRI to facilitate the use of such landed property by identifiable farmers as equity in private-public partnership for large scale CSA agriculture and increase adoption intensity of the demonstrated climate resilient and adaptation technologies and practices country-wide.

5

The UNDP/FAO complementarity approach demonstrated in this project implementation, wherever envisaged as feasible for adoption in future projects, should be integrated in the front-end design specifying clear mandates and fiduciary arrangement. Such synergy and collaboration of UN-agencies could respond to the 2016 quadrennial comprehensive policy review (QCPR) of the UNDS and UNIDAF aimed at increasingly effective ways of complementarity of comparative advantages to deliver on the Sustainable Development Goals (SGDs) in general; and SDG-13: climate action under the Paris Agreement.

6

The on-going UNDP/GoL NAP/NAPA process should collate and manage the information and knowledge products generated, documented and published at the websites of FAO, UNDP and MOA under the project; and build on the knowledge products to facilitate integrating and mainstreaming the project adaptive response and coping mechanisms in the extension services and planning systems  of the pilot counties (Bong County and Grand Gede County); and facilitate the replication of the project outcomes in the two counties and the other counties.

1. Recommendation:

MOA/UNDP/EPA collaborate to re-organize, institutionalize and establish support for the flagship Think Tank initiative within the institutional arrangement of the National Adaptation Plan (NAP) project implementation for advocacy and promotion towards realizing the long-term objectives of CCA mainstreaming into LASIP at the national, sub-national (county) and community levels. Consider and select CARI, University of Liberia College of Agriculture and Forestry, or The Center for Policy studies (CERPS) to host and foster the Think Tank to ensure sustainability.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/03/18] [Last Updated: 2020/12/13]

Acknowledged. UNDP has been requested to upscaled/replicate this project in other counties. Re-organizing, institutionalizing and providing support for the Think Tank will be prioritized in the next project document.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Re-organize, institutionalize and establish support for the flagship Think Tank initiative.
[Added: 2019/03/18] [Last Updated: 2021/04/05]
SET Pillar 2020/05 No Longer Applicable [Justification: The project will not be scaled up at this time.]
History
2. Recommendation:

MOA/FAO collaborate, institutionalize and support the FFS system (adapted as means of transferring climate smart agriculture-CSA) and the trained FBOs, LNGOs under the project so as to drive the replication and scaling up the successful piloted and demonstrated results of the project CCA measures and best practices towards achieving increased adoption intensity country-wide.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/03/18] [Last Updated: 2020/12/13]

Acknownledged. It will be considered under the new project document.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
a. Re-organize the 200 farmers trained in Bong and Grand Gedeh Counties.
[Added: 2019/03/18] [Last Updated: 2021/04/05]
SET Pillar 2020/12 No Longer Applicable [Justification: The project will not be scaled up at this time.]
History
b. Hold two refresher workshops and discussion institutionalization of the FFS
[Added: 2019/03/18] [Last Updated: 2021/04/05]
SET Pillar 2020/12 No Longer Applicable [Justification: The project will not be scaled up at this time.]
History
3. Recommendation:

MOA/UNDP collaborate to develop and implement the county adaptation framework to integrate and mainstream CCA, CRM, CCM  into the county extension services, planning systems, and the research institutions and universities as  effective national  technical institutional arrangements to support and drive the FAO-FFS system approach; and  facilitate effective replication, scaling up and increase adoption intensity of the project demonstrated results from the limited investment in climate resilient and adaptation technologies and practices.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/03/18] [Last Updated: 2020/12/13]

Liberia is currently implementing a National Adaption plans project. A national adaptation framework is being developed in addition to the climate change investment plan. Efforts will be made to integrate and mainstream CCA, CRM and CCM during the implementation of the upscaling project.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
b. Ensure CCA, CRM and CCM is mainstreamed in county extension services.
[Added: 2019/03/18] [Last Updated: 2021/08/13]
SET Pillar 2021/06 Completed Mainstreaming CCA, CRM and CCM in county extension services are being supported through various UNDP projects including the LCDF in Sinoe, Energy & Environment and MMCRP. Long-term sustainability of these efforts will require ownership and resource commitment from the Government. Ongoing initiatives such as the Nationally Determined Commitments submitted in August 2021 are supportive of these efforts History
a. Develop country adaptation plan
[Added: 2019/03/18] [Last Updated: 2021/08/13]
SET Pillar 2021/12 Not Initiated History
4. Recommendation:

MOA/UNDP provide support to land title registration of parcels of land suitable for SRI to facilitate the use of such landed property by identifiable farmers as equity in private-public partnership for large scale CSA agriculture and increase adoption intensity of the demonstrated climate resilient and adaptation technologies and practices country-wide.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/03/18] [Last Updated: 2020/12/13]

Noted for future project development and implementation.

Key Actions:

5. Recommendation:

The UNDP/FAO complementarity approach demonstrated in this project implementation, wherever envisaged as feasible for adoption in future projects, should be integrated in the front-end design specifying clear mandates and fiduciary arrangement. Such synergy and collaboration of UN-agencies could respond to the 2016 quadrennial comprehensive policy review (QCPR) of the UNDS and UNIDAF aimed at increasingly effective ways of complementarity of comparative advantages to deliver on the Sustainable Development Goals (SGDs) in general; and SDG-13: climate action under the Paris Agreement.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/03/18] [Last Updated: 2020/12/13]

This is well noted for for furture project development and implementation. The involvement of FAO was requested by the Ministry of Agriculture through a no-objection letter to UNDP for FAO to implement component 2 of the project.

Key Actions:

6. Recommendation:

The on-going UNDP/GoL NAP/NAPA process should collate and manage the information and knowledge products generated, documented and published at the websites of FAO, UNDP and MOA under the project; and build on the knowledge products to facilitate integrating and mainstreaming the project adaptive response and coping mechanisms in the extension services and planning systems  of the pilot counties (Bong County and Grand Gede County); and facilitate the replication of the project outcomes in the two counties and the other counties.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/03/18] [Last Updated: 2020/12/13]

UNDP has been endorsed to replicate the project in other counties. Lessons learnt will are very useful for future projects.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Collate the NAPs project knowledge products and upload at the websites of FAO, UNDP and MoA for use in extensive services.
[Added: 2019/03/18] [Last Updated: 2021/04/05]
SET Pillar 2019/12 Completed The NAPs project has partnered with key national counterparts and and updated website. History

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