Evaluation Detail

Terminal Evaluation: Assisting Least Developed Countries (LDCs) with country-driven processes to advance National Adaptation Plans (NAPS) (PIMS 5246)

Evaluation Plan:: 2018-2021, Bureau for Policy and Programme Support
Evaluation Type:: Final Project
Planned End Date:: 03/2021
Completion Date:: 03/2021
Status:: Completed
Management Response:: No
Evaluation Budget(US $):: 43,500

Document	Type	Language	Size	Status	Downloads
NAP Ag- Evaluation report_Annexes_TOR.pdf	tor	English	943.93 KB	Posted	140
UNFA_GLO_616_UND_final.pdf	report	English	4585.44 KB	Posted	199

Title

Terminal Evaluation: Assisting Least Developed Countries (LDCs) with country-driven processes to advance National Adaptation Plans (NAPS) (PIMS 5246)

Atlas Project Number:

Evaluation Plan:

2018-2021, Bureau for Policy and Programme Support

Evaluation Type:

Final Project

Status:

Completed

Completion Date:

03/2021

Planned End Date:

03/2021

Management Response:

Yes

Focus Area:

1. Others

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 $):

43,500

Source of Funding:

BMUB

Evaluation Expenditure(US $):

40,000

Joint Programme:

Joint Evaluation:

Yes

Joint with UN Agencies
Joint with FAO

Evaluation Team members:

Name	Title	Nationality
Arun Rijal	Evaluation Team Leader

GEF Evaluation:

Key Stakeholders:

FAO

Countries:

GLOBAL

Lessons
Findings

Recommendations
1	Recommendation1. To FAO and UNDP. Country specific results frameworks. . Though all the countries were requested to carry out a baseline survey and report progress towards the targets in the program result frameworks, and to develop a work plan, some countries did not have specific result frameworks; in certain countries, lack of baselines hindered the identification of programme targets. This also denied the programme the ability to identify the extent to which change has happened at each level of result. Country-specific results framework would have enabled tracking of achievements and contributions from each target country. Future programmes should consider developed country specific result framework reflecting actual activities and their respective targets of the country programme.
2	Recommendation 2. To FAO and UNDP. Results Based Management. Future programs should apply results-based management approach where activities and programme products are treated as a means to an end; and not the achievement of the desired change. This requires the development of an M&E framework, plan and data collection tools that articulate instrumental and transformational changes rather than processes. This will enable future programmes not to miss the opportunities to report on transformative changes that can be directly attributed to the programme’s interventions and efforts.
3	Recommendation 3. To FAO and UNDP. Needs assessment for target countries. While some countries developed needs assessments (e.g. Nepal, Philippines and Thailand), to determine the strengths and weaknesses and guide implementation, not all countries developed those. Granted, the programme conducted extensive stocktaking of existing initiatives, gaps and needs and in the start-up phase of the programme, which informed the countries’ workplans. However the global results framework was the same for all. Subsequent similar programmes design should include need and capacities assessment of each country so that country specific activities and institutional capabilities will be reflected in the programme document.
4	Recommendation 4. To FAO and UNDP country offices. Advocating for program uptake. Continue lobbing with the relevant government partners to adopt programme outcome in their system, e.g. including of indicators in M&E system of agriculture ministry, inclusion of climate change in evaluation and planning format of the planning commissions, adopting vulnerability assessment in regular activities of the ministry, using the protocol to estimate loss and damages.
5	Recommendation 5. To FAO and UNDP. Resource mobilization. Mobilise more financial support to scaling up lessons learned from NAP-Ag and also move further to support pilot adaptation options identified by the programme that can contribute to enhance knowledge and evidence base on climate change adaptation for the agriculture sector.
6	Recommendation 6. To FAO and UNDP country offices. Private sector involvement. There was little evidence of involvement of the private sector, yet some of the climate adaptation options proposed in the NAP-Ags e.g. on irrigation technologies require the input of the private sector. Involving the private sector particularly in the cost-benefit analysis would have informed the programme on the viability and feasibility of some of their proposed adaptation options that would require production by the private sector. Hence, in future programmes, involvement of private sector in such activities should be considered.
7	Recommendation 7. To FAO and UNDP. Implementation resources. NAP-Ag programme outcomes mainly addressed the formulation of adaptation planning instruments in countries; however, real implementation of this roadmaps and planning instruments was not considered (including public expenses, human resources, institutional arrangements, technology, among others). In future programmes, the implementation process in countries need to be identified and considered in the design of such instruments. Also, for the sustainability of territorial adaptation actions (with private sector, farmers), follow-up/guidance by FAO and UNDP is recommended in support of the governments through existing focal points such as Ministries of Agriculture or Ministries of Environment.
8	Recommendation 8. To FAO and UNDP. To strengthen gender mainstreaming in adaptation options, future programming should continue to promote gender and youth specific and inclusive adaptation options and push for inclusion of aspects that guarantee access to rights and opportunities. These can include, e.g., awareness programme for policy makers and planning personals, leadership development for women and youth and involvement of private sector and financial institutions, aiming to increase access to funding for climate and gender friendly agriculture practices and technology and access to markets; inclusion of Ministries whose mandates incudes gender and/or of other government organs and multi-sector stakeholder in national and subnational levels (including members of parliament). Evidence-based adaptation options that include extreme vulnerable groups’ needs should also be included.

Terminal Evaluation: Assisting Least Developed Countries (LDCs) with country-driven processes to advance National Adaptation Plans (NAPS) (PIMS 5246)

Share

Evaluations by Unit

Latest Evaluations

Evaluation Snap Shot

Contact us