Disaster Resilience for Pacific SIDS (RESPAC)

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2018-2022, Fiji
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
12/2019
Completion Date:
12/2019
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
30,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document Annex 1MTR Terms of Reference.docx tor English 56.43 KB Posted 225
Download document 1 RESPAC Mid Term Review Final Report.pdf report English 1741.65 KB Posted 404
Title Disaster Resilience for Pacific SIDS (RESPAC)
Atlas Project Number: 00094415
Evaluation Plan: 2018-2022, Fiji
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 12/2019
Planned End Date: 12/2019
Management Response: Yes
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021)
  • 1. Output 2.3.1 Data and risk-informed development policies, plans, systems and financing incorporate integrated and gender-responsive solutions to reduce disaster risks, enable climate change adaptation and mitigation, and prevent risk of conflict
SDG Goal
  • Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts
SDG Target
  • 13.2 Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning
Evaluation Budget(US $): 30,000
Source of Funding: Government of Russia
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 7,000
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Richard Charles Anthony Elliott MTR Evaluator
GEF Evaluation: No
Key Stakeholders: Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, the Pacific Community, the Pacific Meteorological Council, and the Council of the Regional Organisation in the Pacific
Countries: FIJI
Lessons
Findings
1.

5. MTR Findings

5.1 PROJECT STRATEGY

Key question: “Is the project relevant to its stakeholders and beneficiaries and is there acknowledgement and appreciation of the work carried out by the project”

Key question: “What, if any, changes are required to the project design and scope so that it can strategically develop and deliver more sustainable results to its core stakeholders”
 

 


Tag: Relevance Donor relations Results-Based Management Theory of Change UN Agencies

2.

5.2 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

Key question: “What, if any, changes are required to the project design and scope so that it can strategically develop and deliver more sustainable results to its core stakeholders”

5.2.1 Management Arrangements

The project management structure comprises the Project Board and a Project Management Unit with a Project Manager supported by a team of specialists and other support staff. The project is also supported by an external technical advisory group and Project Assurance is provided internally by UNDP. Figure 2 shows the project management structure.

The Project Board members are the Executive Project Director from the UNDP Pacific Office; the Development Partner, the Russian Federation; and representatives from the 14 beneficiary countries and one beneficiary territory. The Board has met on four occasions since the project inception: in October 2016, March 2017, November 2017 and October 2018. The cycle of meetings close to the end of a calendar year is considered appropriate as it provides the board with the opportunity to review and approve the APR for the current year and the AWP for the following year. In particular it is imperative that implementation is not delayed pending approval of the AWP.

The MTR consultant can report that the support of the Russian Federation for the project and its strategic guidance role on the Project Board has been warmly appreciated by the all the key informants interviewed.

The project inception phase was managed by a project initiation consultant who was responsible for liaising with UNDP Trust Fund for Development and Regional Bureau of European Countries (RBEC) to finalise the funding agreement; organise meetings with Regional and Country stakeholders; finalise job descriptions for the RESPAC project positions; and organise the inaugural Project Board meeting. The Project Manager assumed his role in January 2017 and the rest of the project team were recruited over the following months. 

The structure of the project management team has changed during the implementation phase with the addition of an Associate Project Manager, CLEWS in October 2017, the creation of an Associate Manager for Output 2 in December 2018 and the hiring of a Communications Associate in January 2019.

The project management structure is considered inclusive and is operating effectively to provide strategic guidance for the project.

The support provided by UNDP is rated very highly by all interviewees and there was high praise for the project team. Many interviewees commented on the responsiveness of the project team to the needs of countries, for example in providing support to Tonga after Tropical Cyclone Gita in February 2018, providing support to Vanuatu after the Ambae volcanic eruption in July 2018, and the provision of spare parts to FMS to repair 14 AWS damaged by Tropical Cyclone Winston in February 2016. The interviewees also appreciated UNDP’s flexibility to adapt the project workplan to changing circumstances and requirements, for example in supporting the feasibility study for a RTC.

RESPAC also acts as an umbrella project for two other related projects funded by other donors. These are the “Climate Early Warning Systems in Pacific Island Countries (CLEWSPIC)” project funded by the Government of India and the “Strengthening Schools Preparedness for Tsunamis in the Asia Pacific” project funded by the Government of Japan. In this sense, RESPAC is adopting a programmatic approach and is able to leverage funds from other donors for projects closely related to its core objectives. This has implications for sustainability of outcomes after the end of the project and this issue is discussed further in Section 5.4.


Tag: Effectiveness Efficiency Communication Donor relations Monitoring and Evaluation Partnership Project and Programme management

3.

5.2 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

Key question: “What, if any, changes are required to the project design and scope so that it can strategically develop and deliver more sustainable results to its core stakeholders”

5.2.3 Project Level Monitoring and Evaluation Systems 

The monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework in the ProDoc provides details of an M&E plan that includes: within the annual cycle reporting; annual reporting; and end of project reporting requirements. The detailed plan should follow the procedures established in the UNDP Programme and Operation Policies and Procedures (POPP). The MTR makes the following observations: • Within the annual cycle: 

 - On a quarterly basis, a quality assessment shall record progress towards the completion of key results. The MTR consultant has been informed that QPRs are not mandatory at UNDP but the summary of output results has been updated quarterly on the Corporate Planning System (ATLAS). - Based on the initial risk analysis submitted, a risk log will be activated on Atlas and regularly updated. The MTR consultant has been informed that the risk log is continually updated on ATLAS and forms part of the Annual Reporting process. - A project lessons learned log should be activated and regularly updated to ensure ongoing learning and adaptation within the organisation. The MTR consultant has been informed that lessons learnt are diligently highlighted in the annual report but have not yet been analysed. The Project Manager has undertaken to list all lessons learned, into a proper log.

• Annually: - Annual Project Review (APR) reports are submitted to the Project Board formatted on the template provided for the Russian Federation – UNDP Trust Fund for Development. The MTR consultant was provided with copies of the APR reports for 2016, 2017 and 2018.

- In addition to the APRs, short mid year progress reports were prepared and submitted to the donor but not shared with the Project Board.

• End of project cycle: - An independent final external evaluation should be conducted upon completion of the project activities. The MTR consultant notes that no provision was made in the M&E plan for the MTR and recommends that such provision should be made in future for high value, multi-year, regional projects. 

Although the MTR consultant was not able to view information on the Atlas system, the information provided to him indicates that monitoring and evaluation is being conducted satisfactorily and there are sufficient resources allocated at UNDP Pacific Office for this purpose.


Tag: Multi Donor Trust Funds Monitoring and Evaluation Partnership Policies & Procedures Quality Assurance

4.

5.2 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

Key question: “What, if any, changes are required to the project design and scope so that it can strategically develop and deliver more sustainable results to its core stakeholders”

5.2.5 Reporting

The project progress reports made available to the MTR consultant have been the annual reports for 2016, 2017 and 2018, and the mid-year reports for 2017 and 2018. The annual reports are submitted to the Project Board for endorsement whereas the shorter mid-year reports are shared with the donor only. The annual reports are formatted in a template provided by the Russian Federation-UNDP Trust Fund for Development. Their quality is generally good and they provide concise summaries and interesting information about project achievements. However, they tend to focus more on activities than on results and a more detailed analysis of the results achieved in the subject year should be provided, rather than just the quantitative results provided in the project performance tables. In this respect, short narrative comments should be included in the project performance tables that can be correlated with the corresponding AWP. An indication of whether progress is on target to achieve expected results should also be provided. In this way, both the project team and the Project Board will be better able to monitor progress and have early warning of potential problems that might require corrective actions.


Tag: Communication Knowledge management Results-Based Management

5.

5.3 PROGRESS TOWARDS RESULTS

Key question: “Has the project thus far been able to deliver on its key objectives and goals as defined in the ProDoc?”

The project has implemented a considerable number of activities which are contributing towards the achievement of the expected results. Output 1 has the largest budget allocation (USD3,166,765) and at the end of 2018 had an implementation rate of approximately 50%. Output 3 has the next highest budget (USD1,556,765) and an implementation rate of 30% at the end of 2018. The budget for Output 2 is USD1,146,765 and at the end of 2018 had an implementation rate of 90%. The budget allocated to the Project Management Unit (PMU) is USD1,629,705 and nearly 34% had been utilised at the end of 2018. Overall, the project had utilised 23.5% of its budget at the end of 2017 and 48.7% by the end of 2018. Thus, 51.3% or USD3,847,500 is available until the end of the project. This implies that the annual implementation rate will need to double in 2019 to utilise the available funds, which seems improbable considering the complexity of the areas where these funds will be utilised, i.e. the installation of AWS in eight countries. This is discussed in more detail in the justification for a no cost extension in Section 5.5.

The MTR consultant has undertaken an assessment of the RRF indicators against progress towards project-targets at Output level (Annex 5). The assessment was based on reported progress available at the time of the MTR, i.e. up to the end of 2018, with further input from the project team up to March 2019. As previously noted, due to the manner in which the RRF was constructed, the correlation between output indicators and targets is unclear in many cases. The assessment is therefore more focused on recording progress towards achievement of the RRF targets and does not attempt to correlate this to the output indicators.

Table 3 below(see the report) presents a summary of the results matrix together with an assessment of the likelihood that the targets will be achieved by the scheduled end of project in December 2019 and with a no-cost extension to December 2020.


Tag: Climate change governance Disaster Risk Reduction Effectiveness Sustainability Gender Equality Gender Mainstreaming Women's Empowerment Jobs and Livelihoods Technology Data and Statistics

6.

5.3.2 Output 2 - Preparedness and Planning Mechanisms and Tools to Manage Disaster Recovery Processes Strengthened at Regional, National and Local Level

This output has had the highest implementation rate and as of the end of 2018 had utilised approximately 90% of its original budget, although it is understood that this has been supplemented by funds transferred from the PMU budget. 


Tag: Disaster Recovery Disaster Risk Reduction UN Country Team Jobs and Livelihoods South-South Cooperation

7.

5.3.3 Output 3 – Increased use of financial instruments to manage and share disaster related risk and fund post disaster recovery efforts

This output has had the lowest implementation rate of all the three outputs and as of the end of 2018 had utilised about 30% of its allocated budget. The low implementation rate does not imply inefficiency but rather a different modality of implementation to the other outputs with more focus on preparing the groundwork for full implementation, which is expected to materialise in 2019. 


Tag: Disaster Recovery Disaster Risk Reduction Efficiency

8.

5.4 SUSTAINABILITY

Key question: “Are there financial, institutional, socio-economic and/or environmental risks to sustaining long-term results?” 


Tag: Efficiency Sustainability Resource mobilization Monitoring and Evaluation Oversight Risk Management Jobs and Livelihoods

9.

5.5 GENDER EQUALITY

As noted in Section 2.2.5, gender indicators were introduced in the revised 2017 RRF to monitor and evaluate gender mainstreaming and, where relevant, to collect disaggregated data by gender. Although the indicators were introduced in 2017, the 2017 APR made only one reference to gender (one male regional expert with improved capacity in PDNA) and the 2018 APR reported disaggregated data for the same indicator. On the other hand, the 2017 and 2018 RRFs provide more information about the numbers of females and males with improved climate early warning system and monitoring capacity, although it should be noted that for 2018 this was 100% males. However, the RRFs are shared with the donor only in the mid-year reports and it is the APRs that provide gender disaggregated data to the Project Board. It is also noted that the annual report template allows for an additional table to present disaggregated gender data and it is recommended that this should be provided on future annual reports.


Tag: Disaster Risk Reduction Vulnerable Gender Equality Gender Mainstreaming Gender Parity Women's Empowerment Results-Based Management Data and Statistics

10.

5.6 NO COST EXTENSION

The MTR has highlighted the following factors which relate to the need for a no-cost extension to the project:

• The start of the project implementation phase was delayed while the project team was recruited and until the 2017 AWP was approved, and effectively started in May 2017.

• Under Output 1, the following activities remain to be achieved:

- Installation of 34 AWS in Cook Islands, Kiribati, Nauru, Niue, PNG, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu and Vanuatu.

- Further critical support to relevant NMHS staff for AWS maintenance and problem-solving training including data telemetry and CLiDE database storage.

- Continued outreach to other sectors to promote climate products related to their needs and requirements.

- Continued support for the next stage of the process to establish a Pacific-based Regional Training Centre with partners such as the USP and FMS.

• Output 2 results are nearly achieved and its allocated budget is almost expended but with reallocation of funds from the PMU budget the following activities will be programmed:

- Further PDNA/DRF training in at least three other countries and others on request

- Revitalisation of the Pacific Disaster Net (PDN) and Pacific Damage and Loss Assessment (PDalo) information system in collaboration with SPC - Upgrade of country baseline data

• The Pacific Early Recovery Fund and the PRCRAI are expected to be launched in 2019 but will require RESPAC support for at least one year to implement, test, fine tune, monitor and scale up, including during the full Pacific tropical cyclone period.

Given the previous rate of implementation for Output 1 activities and the potential difficulties of installing AWS during the tropical cyclone season, it is considered highly unlikely that 34 AWS will be installed by the end of 2019. Considering the outstanding funds available to the project and the benefits to the region and the member PICs of continuing with project implementation, the MTR consultant concludes that an extension to the project is justified and recommends a no cost extension until 31 December 2020 to achieve its expected results.


Tag: Disaster Risk Reduction Effectiveness Efficiency Implementation Modality

Recommendations
1

6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

The MTR consultant has no specific recommendations to make regarding the activities planned for the remainder of the project and considers the activities proposed in the note on the implementation progress submitted to the Steering Committee meeting of the Russian Federation-UNDP Trust Fund for Development on 16 May 2019 to be relevant and appropriate to achieving the project’s expected results. The following recommendations relate to the revision of the RRF to make it fit for purpose as a management tool, the reporting of results in the annual reports, the introduction of gender equality indicators and targets, the sustainability of results beyond the project life cycle, the raising of RESPAC’s public profile and finally the need for a no cost extension: 

Recommendation 1: UNDP to include short narrative details of project results that have been achieved in the reporting cycle in the performance data section of future annual progress reports and report on the cumulative targets achieved as well as annual target achievements so that the reports can stand alone as records of achievements.  An indication of whether progress is on target to achieve expected results should also be provided.

2

Recommendation 2: UNDP to use the opportunity of a no-cost extension (if granted) to review the Results and Resources Framework and revise it to remove redundant indicators and targets, include appropriate indicators and targets for new activity results and make it fit for purpose as a management tool for achieving the expected results up to the end of the project.

3

Recommendation 3: UNDP to prepare the Project Sustainability and Exit Strategy and submit it for discussion as an agenda item at the 2019 Project Board meeting.

4

Recommendation 4: UNDP and the Project Board to adopt a more pro-active approach to gender equality, including setting gender equality performance indicators and targets in the Results and Resources Framework and mandatory numeric and narrative reporting of gender equality results in the annual progress reports.

5

Recommendation 5: UNDP to devote more resources to raise public awareness of the project activities and outputs with an improved and more informative website and more outreach material explaining the objectives and achievements of the project.

6

 Recommendation 6: The Mid Term Review consultant considers that an extension to the project is justified and recommends a no cost extension until 31 December 2020 to achieve its expected results.

7

6.3 LESSONS LEARNED

The RESPAC project team has not kept a detailed log of lessons learned during implementation but the MTR consultant understands that the team intends to compile a log of lessons learned before the end of the project. The annual reports contain a summary of the main lessons learnt as follows:

• 2016 The importance of the inception phase with sufficient funding is highlighted. The importance of coordination between the regional agencies and donors in the installation of AWS is also highlighted to ensure that there is no duplication of effort.

• 2017 The annual report notes the importance of having a common narrative between the three project components to ensure that there is a central development theme rather than a collection of activities. The value of using consultants to improve implementation is also highlighted. The report notes the need to strengthen the communications and visibility of the project. • 2018 The report highlights that financial investments in AWS equipment needs to be supported by adequate investment to maintain the equipment. Collaboration between the larger NMHS and their smaller counterparts is an excellent way to develop skills through South-South Cooperation.

The main lessons learned through conducting the MTR is that UNDP should allocate more time to complete the study. A longer MTR mission including visits to several of the beneficiary countries would have been useful and would have added better value to the mission. The time allocated to prepare the inception and draft MTR reports was insufficient given the scale and complexity of the project. It is suggested that UNDP bear these comments in mind for the Terminal Evaluation.

1. Recommendation:

6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

The MTR consultant has no specific recommendations to make regarding the activities planned for the remainder of the project and considers the activities proposed in the note on the implementation progress submitted to the Steering Committee meeting of the Russian Federation-UNDP Trust Fund for Development on 16 May 2019 to be relevant and appropriate to achieving the project’s expected results. The following recommendations relate to the revision of the RRF to make it fit for purpose as a management tool, the reporting of results in the annual reports, the introduction of gender equality indicators and targets, the sustainability of results beyond the project life cycle, the raising of RESPAC’s public profile and finally the need for a no cost extension: 

Recommendation 1: UNDP to include short narrative details of project results that have been achieved in the reporting cycle in the performance data section of future annual progress reports and report on the cumulative targets achieved as well as annual target achievements so that the reports can stand alone as records of achievements.  An indication of whether progress is on target to achieve expected results should also be provided.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/12/15] [Last Updated: 2020/11/08]

The comment is noted, and the Project Team will undertake to include information on project results in the Annual Reports. The need to separate result data based on annual and cumulative targets is also noted. Finally, the narrative on whether the project is on track to deliver the expected result is also noted.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
1.1. Include narrative of Annual and Cumulative Targets and indicate if results are achieved and on target
[Added: 2019/12/15] [Last Updated: 2020/02/05]
RESPAC project team 2020/02 Completed Annual Report is now undergoing finalisation. History
1.2 Compilation of Annual Reports (for 2019)
[Added: 2019/12/15] [Last Updated: 2020/03/04]
Project Manager, Noud Leenders 2020/02 Completed Annual Report submitted History
2. Recommendation:

Recommendation 2: UNDP to use the opportunity of a no-cost extension (if granted) to review the Results and Resources Framework and revise it to remove redundant indicators and targets, include appropriate indicators and targets for new activity results and make it fit for purpose as a management tool for achieving the expected results up to the end of the project.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/12/15] [Last Updated: 2020/11/08]

Duly noted and accepted

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
2.1. Revise RRF based in line with recommendation
[Added: 2019/12/15]
RESPAC project team, IRMU 2019/12 Completed IRMU awaiting revised RRF and 2020 AWP based on meeting held on 12 December 2019
2.2. Conduct a one-day M&E Seminar with and obtain approval of the revised RRF from the project board.
[Added: 2019/12/15] [Last Updated: 2020/02/05]
RESPAC 2020/03 Completed Board is planned for March 2020 History
3. Recommendation:

Recommendation 3: UNDP to prepare the Project Sustainability and Exit Strategy and submit it for discussion as an agenda item at the 2019 Project Board meeting.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/12/15] [Last Updated: 2020/11/08]

Duly noted and accepted

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
3.2 Based on the feedback from the donor, prepare Sustainability and Exit Strategy for discussion at the Project Board Meeting
[Added: 2019/12/15] [Last Updated: 2021/01/13]
RESPAC project team 2021/04 Initiated History
3.1 Discussion with Principal Project Donor on potential support for extension and areas of funding
[Added: 2019/12/15]
RESPAC project team 2019/10 Completed No cost extension approved by Donor
4. Recommendation:

Recommendation 4: UNDP and the Project Board to adopt a more pro-active approach to gender equality, including setting gender equality performance indicators and targets in the Results and Resources Framework and mandatory numeric and narrative reporting of gender equality results in the annual progress reports.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/12/15] [Last Updated: 2020/11/08]

Gender Equality takes years of dedicated work and balanced recruitment policy to bring gender equality in Government (Civil) Service particularly in male dominated areas such as meteorology and disaster management. UNDP through RESPAC and other projects are advocating for equal opportunities and non-discrimination recruitment policies based on gender however our neutrality must not be taken as lack of proactiveness. We can propose but ultimately it is Government’s decision on who to hire and whom not to.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
4.1 Review of strategic guidelines with NMHS and NDMOs to include review of recruitment practices and hiring of females
[Added: 2019/12/15] [Last Updated: 2021/01/13]
RESPAC project team 2021/03 Initiated History
4.2 Monitoring and reporting towards sex-disaggregated data generated by the project
[Added: 2019/12/15] [Last Updated: 2020/02/05]
RESPAC project team 2020/01 Completed To be presented at the Board meeting March History
4.3 Scholarship Programme under RTC to approve scholarships on 50/50 basis with first chance provided to females
[Added: 2019/12/15] [Last Updated: 2021/01/13]
RESPAC project team 2021/03 Not Initiated History
5. Recommendation:

Recommendation 5: UNDP to devote more resources to raise public awareness of the project activities and outputs with an improved and more informative website and more outreach material explaining the objectives and achievements of the project.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/12/15] [Last Updated: 2020/11/08]

Duly Noted and accepted

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
5.1 Develop a coherent communications strategy aligned with RSD
[Added: 2019/12/15] [Last Updated: 2020/07/26]
RSD Communication Officer and RESPAC project communication officer 2020/06 Completed – For CLEWS, the Communications Associate undertook a three day (orientation) visit to meet with various stakeholders including Fiji Meteorological Services, the Sugar Research Institute of Fiji, Fiji Airways, Flight attendants, Civil Aviation Authority of Fiji to also discuss the importance and the impact of UNDP support. These meetings and interviews resulted in the development and publishing of articles. In addition the Communications Associate attended the first ever planned FMS annual planning meeting January 2020; and was present at the deliberations during the pre- RESPAC board meeting March 2020, attendance in these meetings has provided more insight into CLEWS. For DRR, the communications associate attended and supported the Fiji celebrations DRR week held in Taveuni and in addition was present at the Planning meeting for Fijis Country Preparedness Package held in Holiday Inn, January 2020. Intentional efforts are undertaken to ensure the Communications Associate is part of discussions pertaining to CLEWS and DRR to enhance knowledge. CLEWS: https://www.pacific.undp.org/content/pacific/en/home/presscenter/articles/2019/Science_to_Service_Weather_and_Climate_Observations.html https://www.pacific.undp.org/content/pacific/en/home/presscenter/articles/2019/strengthening-the-role-of-meteorologists-in-the-pacific.html DRR: https://www.pacific.undp.org/content/pacific/en/home/presscenter/articles/2019/a-childs-cry-for-stronger-homes.html https://www.pacific.undp.org/content/pacific/en/home/presscenter/pressreleases/2020/strengthening-fijis-disaster-response-and-preparedness.html History
5.2 Enhance Communications Associate in understanding technical matters on CLEWS and DRM and Finance
[Added: 2019/12/15] [Last Updated: 2020/07/26]
RESPAC project team 2020/06 Completed The project Communications strategy was developed and shared with the Team December 2019, herewith attached. History
6. Recommendation:

 Recommendation 6: The Mid Term Review consultant considers that an extension to the project is justified and recommends a no cost extension until 31 December 2020 to achieve its expected results.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/12/15] [Last Updated: 2020/11/08]

Duly noted and accepted

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
6.1 Initial dialogue with Principal Donor
[Added: 2019/12/15]
RESPAC project team 2019/10 Completed
6.2 Prepare annual workplan and other documents including additional funding needs
[Added: 2019/12/15]
RESPAC project team 2019/10 Completed No cost extension approved by donor
7. Recommendation:

6.3 LESSONS LEARNED

The RESPAC project team has not kept a detailed log of lessons learned during implementation but the MTR consultant understands that the team intends to compile a log of lessons learned before the end of the project. The annual reports contain a summary of the main lessons learnt as follows:

• 2016 The importance of the inception phase with sufficient funding is highlighted. The importance of coordination between the regional agencies and donors in the installation of AWS is also highlighted to ensure that there is no duplication of effort.

• 2017 The annual report notes the importance of having a common narrative between the three project components to ensure that there is a central development theme rather than a collection of activities. The value of using consultants to improve implementation is also highlighted. The report notes the need to strengthen the communications and visibility of the project. • 2018 The report highlights that financial investments in AWS equipment needs to be supported by adequate investment to maintain the equipment. Collaboration between the larger NMHS and their smaller counterparts is an excellent way to develop skills through South-South Cooperation.

The main lessons learned through conducting the MTR is that UNDP should allocate more time to complete the study. A longer MTR mission including visits to several of the beneficiary countries would have been useful and would have added better value to the mission. The time allocated to prepare the inception and draft MTR reports was insufficient given the scale and complexity of the project. It is suggested that UNDP bear these comments in mind for the Terminal Evaluation.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/11/05]

Key Actions:

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

1 UN Plaza
DC1-20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel. +1 646 781 4200
Fax. +1 646 781 4213
erc.support@undp.org