Regional Ridge to Reef

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2018-2022, Fiji
Evaluation Type:
Mid Term Project
Planned End Date:
02/2020
Completion Date:
03/2020
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
30,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document Terms of Reference for the Mid Term Review Regional R2R.docx tor English 264.48 KB Posted 201
Download document MTR IW R2R Final Report.docx report English 3737.26 KB Posted 276
Title Regional Ridge to Reef
Atlas Project Number: 00084701
Evaluation Plan: 2018-2022, Fiji
Evaluation Type: Mid Term Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 03/2020
Planned End Date: 02/2020
Management Response: Yes
UNDP Signature Solution:
  • 1. Sustainable
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
SDG Goal
  • Goal 14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development
SDG Target
  • 14.5 By 2020, conserve at least 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, consistent with national and international law and based on the best available scientific information
Evaluation Budget(US $): 30,000
Source of Funding: GEF Trust Fund
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 30,000
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
David Coates Mr coatesbusiness@yahoo.co.uk
GEF Evaluation: Yes
GEF Project Title: R2R- Pacific Islands Ridge to Reef National Priorities- Integrated Water, Land, Forest, and Coastal Management to Preserve Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services, Store Coarbon, Improve Climate Resilience and Sustain Livelihoods
Evaluation Type: Mid-term Review
Focal Area: Biodiversity
Project Type: EA
GEF Phase: GEF-5
GEF Project ID: 5395
PIMS Number: 5217
Key Stakeholders: SOPAC, SPC, vaious national govenment agencies in the Pacific Island Countries
Countries: FIJI
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1

Review and update of log frames. The Regional Program Coordination Unit (RPCU), together with National Project Managers, should review and update all current national project Log Frames and ensure that, if not already done so, each is approved at the next national PSC and RSC meetings.

2

Midterm Review recommendation 13. Reporting links and information sharing across the Regional R2R Programme.

The Regional Programme Coordination Group (RPCG) should strengthen technical information sharing and reporting links between the implementing agencies and the RPCU.

3

Midterm Review recommendation 14. Clarifying RPCU’s programme role and programmatic implementation modalities. The Regional Steering Committee (RSC), with the support of the Regional Programme Coordination Group (RPCG), at its next meeting, should clarify what is required from the RPCU regarding programme coordination, and identify the reporting channels and responsibilities between STAR projects, IW R2R national projects, the RPCU and the implementing agencies (UNDP, FAO and UNEP), and specify the modalities through which the desired coordination is to be delivered

4

Midterm Review recommendation 15: Capacity building focus

The project should implement all its activities from a capacity building perspective, even if resulting in compromises on scientific quality and/or timelines.

5

Midterm Review recommendation 16: Re-assessing the role and structure of the RSTC

 

 

The RPCU and RSC should: (i) re-assess the composition and modus operandi of the Regional Scientific and Technical Committee (RSTC) in the light of the scientific and technical scope and needs of the project, specifically strengthening its social and economic expertise; (ii) as far as feasible, put more emphasis on opportunities to build scientific and technical capacity among the PICs by providing for improved engagement of national PIC science stakeholders in project/programme science and technology decision making; (iii) explore how the R2R network and platform (component 4.2) might contribute to the sustainability of science and technology support to PICs after the project finishes; and (iv) explore opportunities for expanding interactive workshops and training on the project's science and technology agenda under RSTC oversight.

6

Midterm Review recommendation 17:  Communications strategy

 

 

Communications should be considered and integrated into project activities (e.g. IDA-SOC/R2R, mainstreaming plans etc.) from their very beginning and be used to identify target audiences, influence the nature of data collected and indicators being used and improve the understanding of how constraints to R2R uptake can be  reduced to increase the impact of the project on policy.

7

Midterm Review recommendation 18:  Gender issue

The national demonstration plans and activities that are still currently being prepared should be gender-analysed to ensure on-site project management is gender-responsive in specific ways anchored on the objectives of these plans. The completed RapCAs and IDAs must be gender audited before they are incorporated in the SoC. The SoCs and Strategic Action Frameworks themselves must be gender- audited

Communications should be considered and integrated into project activities (e.g. IDA-SOC/R2R, mainstreaming plans etc.) from their very beginning and be used to identify target audiences, influence the nature of data collected and indicators being used and improve the understanding of how constraints to R2R uptake can be  reduced to increase the impact of the project on policy

1. Recommendation:

Review and update of log frames. The Regional Program Coordination Unit (RPCU), together with National Project Managers, should review and update all current national project Log Frames and ensure that, if not already done so, each is approved at the next national PSC and RSC meetings.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/04/01] [Last Updated: 2020/04/02]

  • SPC will advocate for and support national log frame reviews to ensure that outputs (and outcomes) contribute directly to the achievement of the Regional IW R2R project, and plausibly to the GEF Pacific R2R programme outcomes.
  • SPC and UNDP note that review and update of national log frames is determined by national processes and current framework conditions.

Available national IW R2R logframes to be submitted to Regional Steering Committee for information.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
SPC to submit formal request for extension, with justification and reference to minutes of the RSC
[Added: 2020/04/02]
SPC and the national agencies of participating countries 2019/11 Completed SPC and the national agencies of participating countries
2. Recommendation:

Midterm Review recommendation 13. Reporting links and information sharing across the Regional R2R Programme.

The Regional Programme Coordination Group (RPCG) should strengthen technical information sharing and reporting links between the implementing agencies and the RPCU.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/04/02]

Agreed. SPC will bring this issue to the RPCG will include this in the agenda. SPC believes that all GEF implementing agencies (UNDP, UNE and FAO) should be requested to provide structured reporting of the outputs and outcomes from the implementation of the various child projects under the GEF Pacific Ridge to Reef Program

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
As agreed at RSC, STAR projects to share data, information and reports, and contribute in the development of knowledge products
[Added: 2020/04/02] [Last Updated: 2020/12/03]
National STAR Projects, RPCG, UNDP and RPCU 2020/11 Completed completed History
3. Recommendation:

Midterm Review recommendation 14. Clarifying RPCU’s programme role and programmatic implementation modalities. The Regional Steering Committee (RSC), with the support of the Regional Programme Coordination Group (RPCG), at its next meeting, should clarify what is required from the RPCU regarding programme coordination, and identify the reporting channels and responsibilities between STAR projects, IW R2R national projects, the RPCU and the implementing agencies (UNDP, FAO and UNEP), and specify the modalities through which the desired coordination is to be delivered

Management Response: [Added: 2020/04/02]

  • Agreed. SPC will bring this issue to the RPCG will include this in the agenda. SPC believes that all GEF implementing agencies (UNDP, UNE and FAO) should be requested to provide structured reporting of the outputs and outcomes from the implementation of the various child projects under the GEF Pacific Ridge to Reef Program. STAR project agreed to share data, information and reports, and contribute in the development of knowledge products.

RPCG commits to promote programmatic approach

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
STAR projects to discuss and secure approval on the programmatic approach, and data and information sharing with their respective project steering committees RPCG to support STAR projects sharing of information, data and reports
[Added: 2020/04/02]
STAR projects to discuss and secure approval on the programmatic approach, and data and information sharing with their respective project steering committees RPCG to support STAR projects sharing of information, data and reports 2021/06 Initiated History
4. Recommendation:

Midterm Review recommendation 15: Capacity building focus

The project should implement all its activities from a capacity building perspective, even if resulting in compromises on scientific quality and/or timelines.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/04/02]

Partially agree. Both UNDP and SPC contend that the quality of science applied cannot be compromised.

  • SPC has initiated the process of establishing the Regional IW R2R project website that will support the achievement of this indicator. Partly agreed. SPC will implement planned activities with a capacity building perspective while ensuring effective and high quality technical and scientific results.
  • Technical and scientific activities will be conducted using established criteria, such as but not limited to: participatory and gender sensitiveness, capacity and willingness of the PICs to support the application of the full-cycle of the technological/methodological continuum, sub-regional representation and consideration of geophysical characteristics.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Implementation of activities with a capacity building focus
[Added: 2020/04/02]
RPCU 2021/06 Initiated
5. Recommendation:

Midterm Review recommendation 16: Re-assessing the role and structure of the RSTC

 

 

The RPCU and RSC should: (i) re-assess the composition and modus operandi of the Regional Scientific and Technical Committee (RSTC) in the light of the scientific and technical scope and needs of the project, specifically strengthening its social and economic expertise; (ii) as far as feasible, put more emphasis on opportunities to build scientific and technical capacity among the PICs by providing for improved engagement of national PIC science stakeholders in project/programme science and technology decision making; (iii) explore how the R2R network and platform (component 4.2) might contribute to the sustainability of science and technology support to PICs after the project finishes; and (iv) explore opportunities for expanding interactive workshops and training on the project's science and technology agenda under RSTC oversight.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/04/02] [Last Updated: 2020/04/02]

Agreed.  SPC will presented a paper to RSTC (proposing review of the Committee’s terms of reference and composition) which was endorsed

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Promote collaboration between STAR and IW projects (e.g. capacity building)
[Added: 2020/04/02] [Last Updated: 2021/01/10]
RPCU, RPCG 2020/12 Completed completed History
6. Recommendation:

Midterm Review recommendation 17:  Communications strategy

 

 

Communications should be considered and integrated into project activities (e.g. IDA-SOC/R2R, mainstreaming plans etc.) from their very beginning and be used to identify target audiences, influence the nature of data collected and indicators being used and improve the understanding of how constraints to R2R uptake can be  reduced to increase the impact of the project on policy.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/04/02]

  • The main intention of the communications strategy is to guide the GEF Pacific R2R program and the respective child projects (including the Regional IW R2R project), in crafting both visibility and advocacy plans.
  • Specific to the Regional IW R2R project, promotion of project goal, outputs and activities, and the knowledge gained thereof (from publishable knowledge products) will be based on a clearly defined / established Theory of Change (ToC) concepts and tools which have been agreed by RPSTC and RSC to be tested or trialled. The two major concepts that are being tested by the Regional IW R2R project are:
  • Innovative technologies and related solutions that successfully integrate and mainstream R2R concept across water, land, forest and coastal areas of 14 PICs.

The project is currently using a number of tools and methods to deliver on such integration and mainstreaming, and these are technological/ methodological continuum (IDA-RAPCA-SOC-national SAF/SAP-Regional SAF) including the stress reduction measures

Resource governance dimensions in mainstreaming R2R aligned with the community to cabinet approach in planning and policy

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
STAR project to sharing data, information and reports, and contribute in the development of knowledge products. RPCG promoting programmatic approach
[Added: 2020/04/02]
RPCU, RPCG UNDP, FAO and UNE 2021/06 Not Initiated
7. Recommendation:

Midterm Review recommendation 18:  Gender issue

The national demonstration plans and activities that are still currently being prepared should be gender-analysed to ensure on-site project management is gender-responsive in specific ways anchored on the objectives of these plans. The completed RapCAs and IDAs must be gender audited before they are incorporated in the SoC. The SoCs and Strategic Action Frameworks themselves must be gender- audited

Communications should be considered and integrated into project activities (e.g. IDA-SOC/R2R, mainstreaming plans etc.) from their very beginning and be used to identify target audiences, influence the nature of data collected and indicators being used and improve the understanding of how constraints to R2R uptake can be  reduced to increase the impact of the project on policy

Management Response: [Added: 2020/04/02]

Agreed. SPC is taking account of gender sensitivity rather than gender responsiveness. The IW R2R regional project is a G-0 (gender equality markers) meaning– a gender sensitive (ensuring the ‘do no harm approach and does not reinforce gender inequalities’) and is factoring the roles of men and women in natural resource management. The project has worked to satisfy these requirements by producing Gender Strategy, Action Plans, and Toolkit and tracking participation of stakeholders by recording disaggregated data.

  • To reinforce the current practice of the project, SPC will also conduct gender audits of all R2R guidelines and manuals produced.

 UNDP proposes that SPC conduct gender assessments.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
• SPC to work with National IW projects in conducting gender assessments/audits UNDP, UNE and FAO to work with national STAR projects in conducting gender assessments/audits
[Added: 2020/04/02]
RPCU, RPCG UNDP, FAO and UNE 2021/06 Not Initiated

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