Tuvalu Coastal Adaptation Project (TCAP) (GCF) MTR

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2018-2022, Fiji
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
12/2021
Completion Date:
05/2021
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
30,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document Project Interim Evaluation ToR.pdf tor English 1270.55 KB Posted 850
Download document TCAP_GCF_Interim Evaluation Report_Final .docx report English 1092.64 KB Posted 978
Download document Signed clearance form_TV GCF IER.pdf related-document English 69.83 KB Posted 887
Title Tuvalu Coastal Adaptation Project (TCAP) (GCF) MTR
Atlas Project Number: 00100068
Evaluation Plan: 2018-2022, Fiji
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 05/2021
Planned End Date: 12/2021
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Others
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
Evaluation Budget(US $): 30,000
Source of Funding: GCF
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 26,200
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Nationality
Kevin Emslie Team Leader
GEF Evaluation: No
Key Stakeholders: 1. Climate Change Policy Unit, 2. The Office of the Prime Minister, Tuvalu 3. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) 4. Green Climate Fund
Countries: FIJI
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1

Recommendation 1: Representatives (local residents) from each island be added to the PMU as officers, with the role of keeping local stakeholders up to date with TCAP’s plans and progress, managing expectations of local stakeholders and facilitating the implementation of project activities on the islands

2

Recommendation 2: Review the best practices and lessons learned under the Global Environment Facility (GEF) National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) 1 and 2 projects, which had island officers that performed similar roles to inform similar positions under TCAP. However, the IE team does understand that once construction begins under Output 2, there will be dedicated monitoring officers on the islands. These individuals could also take on the role recommended by the IE team above

3

Recommendation 3: Consideration is made to either add relevant staff gender and safeguards officers to the PMU, and/or build the capacity of current PMU staff to fulfil gender and safeguards roles.

4

Recommendation 4: Clarify PMU reporting lines between Funafuti and Suva and ensure that the entire team is reporting to one individual (NPM) who then reports to the higher up structures

5

Recommendation 5: The PMU may need to meet with relevant staff from the UNDP Pacific Office in Suva, as well as the UNDP RTA, to flesh out issues in reporting lines and communication within the PMU and identify workable solutions which are agreed upon. It may be necessary that the operations CTA plays a key role in developing a model for this.

6

Recommendation 6: The IE team recommends that more time is spent managing the expectations of local communities and providing them with more frequent updates on project progress and planning, which can include more information shared regarding the crucial detailed design and safeguards assessments that have been ongoing, this can be done through:

  • Employing island community facilitators as part of the PMU on each of the islands (particularly the outer islands of Nanumaga and Nanumea). The facilitators can provide local communities with regular updates and plans on interventions (particularly details on construction works), and readily provide feedback to the PMU in Funafuti, ensuring that any issues are dealt with efficiently. Furthermore, the facilitators can ensure that local communities understand and have access to the project’s grievance redress mechanism (GRM).

Reviewing and revising the stakeholder engagement plan, highlighting the role of island community facilitators in engaging with island stakeholders, to ensure that their needs and concerns are prioritized by TCAP.

7

Recommendation 7: Fast track the acquirement of project cash on hand (PCH)/cash advances for the PMU in Tuvalu to ensure that there are no delays for the procurement of urgent items or services, such as office stationery and transport to the outer islands of Nanumaga and Nanumea.

 

In addition to the above, a more permanent solution to the project’s procurement delays needs to be identified and implemented. This could be in the form of providing more procurement support to the PMU through providing training to the project’s procurement officer (based in Suva), assessing his/her performance under the project and taking the necessary corrective measures, or bringing in an additional staff member on an ad hoc basis to reduce procurement delays.

8

Recommendation 8: Sustainability strategies should be developed for each of the project’s outputs. These may be in the form of “live” documents which are reviewed and updated annually to account for in changes in implementation or sustainability developments.

9

Recommendation 9: The design of a project (or projects) to follow TCAP should be considered under its exit strategy. Reports, studies, designs of interventions, best practices and lessons learned from TCAP should be shared with GoT and development partners working both in Tuvalu, and across the Pacific region to ensure that knowledge sharing through the project promotes sustainability, as well as replication and upscaling.

10

Recommendation 10: Champions who can promote the sustainability of project outcomes need to be identified through a participatory process, including champions at the community level that represent vulnerable groups (such as women and youth).

11

Recommendation 11: The IE team recommends that should the COVID-19-related travel restrictions in Tuvalu not be lifted in 2021 or significant progress be made on the delivery of Output 3 specifically by the end of 2021, that an extension of 6 months to a year be considered for TCAP

12

Recommendation 12: The IE team recommends that more detail on key milestones should be added to TCAP’s multiyear activity implementation plan, and that any significant changes should be highlighted and explained in APRs. This would include information on potential and expected delays, and any tolerance that has been added to specific activities as a result

13

Recommendation 13: The IE team recommends that the ToC diagram is updated to:

  • reflect changes that have been made to the logical/results framework since project inception,
  • include project assumptions presented in the logical/results framework,
  • clearly indicate how identified risks could impact project viability or sustainability,
  • include both GCF outcomes relevant to the project, and

include a goal statement for TCAP.

14

Recommendation 14: The target of Indicator 1 should be revised to make it clearer that the project needs to measure the extent to which the updated ISPs address climate change threats. Furthermore, the mid-term and final project targets for Indicator 4: “Number of students that are supported at higher-level studies (tertiary level or higher) on disciplines related to coastal protection work” imply that all 24 students should obtain a CCA-related position in the country once qualified. However, details at the input level of the logical framework suggest that only six students will obtain a CCA-related position once qualified. Details under Indicator 4 in the logical framework need to be updated to reflect the correct mid-term and final project targets. Where possible, the wording of targets should be revised to improve their links to the gaps presented in the baseline

15

Recommendation 15: Regarding the coastal protection measures under Output 2, more granular detail should be added to the targets. This includes: i) how the number of beneficiaries is disaggregated across the three islands; ii) more detail on how communities in Funafuti will be protected by the land reclamation interventions, for example, it is recommended that the target mention the area of land that will be reclaimed and what that reclamation will mean in terms of adaptation impact (i.e. reclaiming this land will reduce the impacts of sea level and soil erosion etc.); and iii) how the targeted 3,090 m of protected vulnerable coastlines is split across Nanumea and Nanumaga

16

Recommendation 16: There have been challenges in meeting several mid-term targets (such as those for Indicators 1, 4, 5 and 8). The targets will need to be reviewed and adjusted to what is more appropriate at mid-term.

17

Recommendation 17: Achieving a target of 50% of women trained under Output 1 (Indicator 3) — if more than 12 technical officers in total are trained — is likely to be challenging because of gender dynamics in government departments. The IE team recommends that this target is reviewed and adjusted to an achievable percentage

18

Recommendation 18: For indicators 3, 4 and 7, the Means of Verification (MoV’s) need to be reviewed and revised so that impacts/results can be better measured. For Indicator 3, solely generating reports and sharing results from an assessment on a forum will not demonstrate any improved knowledge and awareness about climate change impacts on different genders. Likewise, for Indicator 4, reports are unlikely to show the true impacts on capacity. The IE team recommends that a capacity scorecard is developed to measure how capacity has increased through the training. For Indicator 7, solely generating a report and sharing results from an assessment on a forum will not demonstrate any improved knowledge and awareness about climate change impacts on different genders. It is consequently recommended that the MoV is revised to make it more results oriented.

19

Recommendation 19: The project team must assess which of the assumptions are still relevant at this stage of the project and update, remove and/or add assumptions as necessary

20

Recommendation 20: The IE team recommends that the PMU develop a reporting strategy/approach that allows them to feed information into the relevant reports on a weekly basis, resulting in less time being spent on developing the major project reports just before they are due.  Quarterly reports should also be developed, with the findings discussed in the Annual Progress Reports (APRs), which are formally submitted to the GCF each year of project implementation as required by the Accreditation Master Agreement (AMA) and FAA

1. Recommendation:

Recommendation 1: Representatives (local residents) from each island be added to the PMU as officers, with the role of keeping local stakeholders up to date with TCAP’s plans and progress, managing expectations of local stakeholders and facilitating the implementation of project activities on the islands

Management Response: [Added: 2021/07/07]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
1.3 Undertake induction training of Island Officers on project design, contractual timelines, safeguards reporting requirements, community consultations, monitoring requirements, etc. based on their TORs
[Added: 2021/07/07] [Last Updated: 2022/03/09]
PMU 2022/07 Initiated History
.1 Based on multiple recommendations related to current PMU structure and changes based on implementation experience at mid-project stage, a complete review of the current project implementation arrangements and a PMU restructure to be undertaken by CO management, RTA and COSQA team. The restructure will establish reporting lines, revisit existing TORs, develop new TORs, review HR and procurement modalities for all required project implementation support. This action is relevant to recommendations 1 to 7
[Added: 2021/07/07] [Last Updated: 2022/04/05]
CO management RTA Desk Officer 2022/03 Completed completed History
1.2 Update SEP to accommodate the role of additional PMU members including Island Officers
[Added: 2021/07/07] [Last Updated: 2021/11/08]
PMU 2021/10 Completed done History
2. Recommendation:

Recommendation 2: Review the best practices and lessons learned under the Global Environment Facility (GEF) National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) 1 and 2 projects, which had island officers that performed similar roles to inform similar positions under TCAP. However, the IE team does understand that once construction begins under Output 2, there will be dedicated monitoring officers on the islands. These individuals could also take on the role recommended by the IE team above

Management Response: [Added: 2021/07/07]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
2.2 Review best practices and lessons learnt from NAPA 1&2 to aid in developing ToR’s for engagement and recruitment of 2 Island Officers – one each at Nanumaga & Nanumea, it will be ensured that the monitoring and gender roles will also be captured
[Added: 2021/07/07] [Last Updated: 2022/06/15]
CO Management RTA Desk Officer 2022/10 Initiated TCAP has recruited Nanumaga Community Facilitator. However, Nanumea is still being advertised as there is no qualified candidate History
2.1 Based on multiple recommendations related to current PMU structure and changes based on implementation experience at mid-project stage, a complete review of the current project implementation arrangements and a PMU restructure to be undertaken by CO management, RTA and COSQA team. The restructure will establish reporting lines, revisit existing TORs, develop new TORs, review HR and procurement modalities for all required project implementation support. This action is relevant to recommendations 1 to 7
[Added: 2021/07/07] [Last Updated: 2022/05/01]
CO management RTA Desk Officer 2022/04 Completed completed History
3. Recommendation:

Recommendation 3: Consideration is made to either add relevant staff gender and safeguards officers to the PMU, and/or build the capacity of current PMU staff to fulfil gender and safeguards roles.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/07/07] [Last Updated: 2021/07/07]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
3.1 Based on multiple recommendations related to current PMU structure and changes based on implementation experience at mid-project stage, a complete review of the current project implementation arrangements and a PMU restructure to be undertaken by CO management, RTA and COSQA team. The restructure will establish reporting lines, revisit existing TORs, develop new TORs, review HR and procurement modalities for all required project implementation support. This action is relevant to recommendations 1 to 7
[Added: 2021/07/07] [Last Updated: 2022/06/16]
CO management RTA Desk Officer 2022/10 Initiated History
3.2 Provide training to relevant PMU staff on gender monitoring by the gender support to be embedded within PMU.
[Added: 2021/07/07] [Last Updated: 2022/04/05]
UNDP 2022/03 Completed gender training conducted in Feb for the Office History
4. Recommendation:

Recommendation 4: Clarify PMU reporting lines between Funafuti and Suva and ensure that the entire team is reporting to one individual (NPM) who then reports to the higher up structures

Management Response: [Added: 2021/07/07]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
5.1 Based on multiple recommendations related to current PMU structure and changes based on implementation experience at mid-project stage, a complete review of the current project implementation arrangements and a PMU restructure to be undertaken by CO management, RTA and COSQA team. The restructure will establish reporting lines, revisit existing TORs, develop new TORs, review HR and procurement modalities for all required project implementation support. This action is relevant to recommendations 1 to 7.
[Added: 2021/07/07] [Last Updated: 2022/06/16]
CO management RTA Desk Officer 2022/09 Initiated History
4.2 Use the findings from the Jan & Mar “PMU Roles and Responsibilities” workshops and lessons learnt
[Added: 2021/07/07] [Last Updated: 2022/06/16]
CO Management RTA Desk Officer 2022/10 Initiated History
5. Recommendation:

Recommendation 5: The PMU may need to meet with relevant staff from the UNDP Pacific Office in Suva, as well as the UNDP RTA, to flesh out issues in reporting lines and communication within the PMU and identify workable solutions which are agreed upon. It may be necessary that the operations CTA plays a key role in developing a model for this.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/07/07]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
5.1 Based on multiple recommendations related to current PMU structure and changes based on implementation experience at mid-project stage, a complete review of the current project implementation arrangements and a PMU restructure to be undertaken by CO management, RTA and COSQA team. The restructure will establish reporting lines, revisit existing TORs, develop new TORs, review HR and procurement modalities for all required project implementation support. This action is relevant to recommendations 1 to 7
[Added: 2021/07/07] [Last Updated: 2022/06/16]
CO management RTA Desk Officer 2022/09 Initiated History
6. Recommendation:

Recommendation 6: The IE team recommends that more time is spent managing the expectations of local communities and providing them with more frequent updates on project progress and planning, which can include more information shared regarding the crucial detailed design and safeguards assessments that have been ongoing, this can be done through:

  • Employing island community facilitators as part of the PMU on each of the islands (particularly the outer islands of Nanumaga and Nanumea). The facilitators can provide local communities with regular updates and plans on interventions (particularly details on construction works), and readily provide feedback to the PMU in Funafuti, ensuring that any issues are dealt with efficiently. Furthermore, the facilitators can ensure that local communities understand and have access to the project’s grievance redress mechanism (GRM).

Reviewing and revising the stakeholder engagement plan, highlighting the role of island community facilitators in engaging with island stakeholders, to ensure that their needs and concerns are prioritized by TCAP.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/07/07]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
6.1 Based on multiple recommendations related to current PMU structure and changes based on implementation experience at mid-project stage, a complete review of the current project implementation arrangements and a PMU restructure to be undertaken by CO management, RTA and COSQA team. The restructure will establish reporting lines, revisit existing TORs, develop new TORs, review HR and procurement modalities for all required project implementation support. This action is relevant to recommendations 1 to 7
[Added: 2021/07/07] [Last Updated: 2022/06/16]
CO management RTA Desk Officer 2022/10 Initiated History
6.3 Undertake a community consultation at N&N to ascertain community needs as to the roles and responsibilities of the island community facilitator(s)
[Added: 2021/07/07] [Last Updated: 2022/03/09]
PMU CO 2022/07 Initiated History
6.2 Update Stakeholder engagement plan ensuring it highlights the role of island community facilitator(s) and other changes to the PMU structure in engaging island stakeholders (including clarity on grievance redress mechanism)
[Added: 2021/07/07] [Last Updated: 2021/08/10]
PMU 2021/08 Completed EP (+GRM) updated (to be endorsed by BM#6 9 August 2021) History
7. Recommendation:

Recommendation 7: Fast track the acquirement of project cash on hand (PCH)/cash advances for the PMU in Tuvalu to ensure that there are no delays for the procurement of urgent items or services, such as office stationery and transport to the outer islands of Nanumaga and Nanumea.

 

In addition to the above, a more permanent solution to the project’s procurement delays needs to be identified and implemented. This could be in the form of providing more procurement support to the PMU through providing training to the project’s procurement officer (based in Suva), assessing his/her performance under the project and taking the necessary corrective measures, or bringing in an additional staff member on an ad hoc basis to reduce procurement delays.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/07/07]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
7.1 Based on multiple recommendations related to current PMU structure and changes based on implementation experience at mid-project stage, a complete review of the current project implementation arrangements and a PMU restructure to be undertaken by CO management, RTA and COSQA team. The restructure will establish reporting lines, revisit existing TORs, develop new TORs, review HR and procurement modalities for all required project implementation support. This action is relevant to recommendations 1 to 7
[Added: 2021/07/07] [Last Updated: 2022/03/09]
CO management RTA Desk Officer 2022/07 Initiated History
7.2 Obtain PCH (Project Cash Advance) for PMU Funafuti
[Added: 2021/07/07] [Last Updated: 2022/06/15]
PMU CO 2022/11 Initiated In addition to the above, a more permanent solution to the project’s procurement delays needs to be identified and implemented. This could be in the form of providing more procurement support to the PMU through providing training to the project’s procurement officer (based in Suva), assessing his/her performance under the project and taking the necessary corrective measures, or bringing in an additional staff member on an ad hoc basis to reduce procurement delays. Update: TCAP has recruited Nanumaga Community Facilitator. However, Nanumea is still being advertised as there is no qualified candidate. History
7.3 Assist PMU Funafuti on PCH transactions including acquittals
[Added: 2021/07/07] [Last Updated: 2021/11/08]
CO 2021/10 Completed B- 7.3. PCH now effective and operational (going for 2nd replenishment) History
8. Recommendation:

Recommendation 8: Sustainability strategies should be developed for each of the project’s outputs. These may be in the form of “live” documents which are reviewed and updated annually to account for in changes in implementation or sustainability developments.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/07/07]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
8.1 Have a Team workshop with RTA/CO to develop and endorse sustainability strategies per output
[Added: 2021/07/07] [Last Updated: 2022/06/16]
CO RTA PMU 2022/10 Initiated History
9. Recommendation:

Recommendation 9: The design of a project (or projects) to follow TCAP should be considered under its exit strategy. Reports, studies, designs of interventions, best practices and lessons learned from TCAP should be shared with GoT and development partners working both in Tuvalu, and across the Pacific region to ensure that knowledge sharing through the project promotes sustainability, as well as replication and upscaling.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/07/07]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
9.1 Project to develop an Exit Strategy that includes sharing of knowledge, lessons learnt, good practices with the GoT so that the information can be used for the GoT to potentially pursue a follow-up project
[Added: 2021/07/07] [Last Updated: 2022/06/15]
PMU CO RTA 2023/06 Initiated History
9.2 As part of the project activities already planned, share lessons learnt from TCAP including convening 2 regional conferences and/or workshop for this purpose depending on when Covid19 restrictions will be lifted
[Added: 2021/07/07] [Last Updated: 2022/06/15]
PMU CO 2022/12 Initiated History
10. Recommendation:

Recommendation 10: Champions who can promote the sustainability of project outcomes need to be identified through a participatory process, including champions at the community level that represent vulnerable groups (such as women and youth).

Management Response: [Added: 2021/07/07]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
10.1 PMU to work with Kaupules, DLG and CCD to identify ‘champions’ at community level and ensure clear roles for the champions
[Added: 2021/07/07] [Last Updated: 2022/06/16]
PMU 2022/10 Initiated History
11. Recommendation:

Recommendation 11: The IE team recommends that should the COVID-19-related travel restrictions in Tuvalu not be lifted in 2021 or significant progress be made on the delivery of Output 3 specifically by the end of 2021, that an extension of 6 months to a year be considered for TCAP

Management Response: [Added: 2021/07/07]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
11.1 Obtain Board approval then GCF approval on extension at the appropriate point in time before the project end date
[Added: 2021/07/07] [Last Updated: 2022/06/16]
RTA PMU CO 2022/08 Initiated History
12. Recommendation:

Recommendation 12: The IE team recommends that more detail on key milestones should be added to TCAP’s multiyear activity implementation plan, and that any significant changes should be highlighted and explained in APRs. This would include information on potential and expected delays, and any tolerance that has been added to specific activities as a result

Management Response: [Added: 2021/07/07]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
12.1 Develop Multiyear activity-based Work Plan with clear milestones annually and revised on a needed basis
[Added: 2021/07/07] [Last Updated: 2022/06/16]
PMU 2022/11 Initiated History
12.2 Information on significant and/or potential changes and delays continued to be reported in the APR
[Added: 2021/07/07] [Last Updated: 2022/06/16]
PMU CO RTA 2022/09 Initiated History
13. Recommendation:

Recommendation 13: The IE team recommends that the ToC diagram is updated to:

  • reflect changes that have been made to the logical/results framework since project inception,
  • include project assumptions presented in the logical/results framework,
  • clearly indicate how identified risks could impact project viability or sustainability,
  • include both GCF outcomes relevant to the project, and

include a goal statement for TCAP.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/07/07]

Agree, but if required after review

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
13.2 If required, update project Theory of Change and have this tabled at the board
[Added: 2021/07/07] [Last Updated: 2022/03/09]
PMU RTA 2022/07 Initiated History
13.3 Report updates in the APR
[Added: 2021/07/07] [Last Updated: 2022/06/16]
PMU RTA 2022/09 Initiated History
13.1 CO IRMU and PMU to review the important changes required to the ToC diagram while following the standard template for ToCs for UNDP/GCF projects. The changes to be made should reflect those that are important and relevant to future implementation of the project.CO
[Added: 2021/07/07] [Last Updated: 2022/06/15]
PMU CO/IRMU 2023/10 Not Initiated Wait towards end of 2023 to be able to see whether final targets are met. History
14. Recommendation:

Recommendation 14: The target of Indicator 1 should be revised to make it clearer that the project needs to measure the extent to which the updated ISPs address climate change threats. Furthermore, the mid-term and final project targets for Indicator 4: “Number of students that are supported at higher-level studies (tertiary level or higher) on disciplines related to coastal protection work” imply that all 24 students should obtain a CCA-related position in the country once qualified. However, details at the input level of the logical framework suggest that only six students will obtain a CCA-related position once qualified. Details under Indicator 4 in the logical framework need to be updated to reflect the correct mid-term and final project targets. Where possible, the wording of targets should be revised to improve their links to the gaps presented in the baseline

Management Response: [Added: 2021/07/07]

Agree, but correction will only be made for final targets as mid-term targets cannot be changed retrospectively.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
14.2 Get project board approval to the changes and communicate to the GCF Secretariat
[Added: 2021/07/07] [Last Updated: 2022/06/16]
PMU RTA 2022/08 Initiated History
14.1 Conduct an exercise to review the project’s log frame to identify any corrections/clarifications that need to be made based on the recommendations and experience of project implementation to date. No changes to the mid-term targets and no downgrading of final targets will be made. This action is relevant to recommendations 14, 15, 18 and 19
[Added: 2021/07/07] [Last Updated: 2021/08/10]
PMU CO – RSD team RTA 2021/07 Completed Completed History
14.3 Update project M&E framework accordingly
[Added: 2021/07/07] [Last Updated: 2022/03/09]
PMU 2022/02 Completed completed History
15. Recommendation:

Recommendation 15: Regarding the coastal protection measures under Output 2, more granular detail should be added to the targets. This includes: i) how the number of beneficiaries is disaggregated across the three islands; ii) more detail on how communities in Funafuti will be protected by the land reclamation interventions, for example, it is recommended that the target mention the area of land that will be reclaimed and what that reclamation will mean in terms of adaptation impact (i.e. reclaiming this land will reduce the impacts of sea level and soil erosion etc.); and iii) how the targeted 3,090 m of protected vulnerable coastlines is split across Nanumea and Nanumaga

Management Response: [Added: 2021/07/07]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
15.1 Conduct an exercise to review the project’s log frame to identify any corrections/clarifications that need to be made based on the recommendations and experience of project implementation to date. No changes to the mid-term targets and no downgrading of final targets will be made. This action is relevant to recommendations 14, 15, 18 and 19
[Added: 2021/07/07] [Last Updated: 2021/08/10]
PMU CO – RSD team RTA 2021/07 Completed completed History
15.1 Conduct an exercise to review the project’s log frame to identify any corrections/clarifications that need to be made based on the recommendations and experience of project implementation to date. No changes to the mid-term targets and no downgrading of final targets will be made. This action is relevant to recommendations 14, 15, 18 and 19
[Added: 2021/07/07] [Last Updated: 2021/08/10]
PMU CO – RSD team RTA 2021/07 Completed completed History
15.2 Get PB approval to the changes and communicate to the GCF Secretariat.
[Added: 2021/07/07] [Last Updated: 2022/03/09]
PMU RTA 2022/02 Completed completed History
15.3 Update project M&E framework accordingly
[Added: 2021/07/07] [Last Updated: 2021/11/08]
PMU 2021/10 Completed 15.3 Project log frame updated and approved at BM#6, and M&E framework updated (and detailed) accordingly. Both to be reported to GCF through the 2021 APR. Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents History
16. Recommendation:

Recommendation 16: There have been challenges in meeting several mid-term targets (such as those for Indicators 1, 4, 5 and 8). The targets will need to be reviewed and adjusted to what is more appropriate at mid-term.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/07/07]

Disagree, because mid-term targets cannot be changed retrospectively. No action required because mid-term has passed.

Key Actions:

17. Recommendation:

Recommendation 17: Achieving a target of 50% of women trained under Output 1 (Indicator 3) — if more than 12 technical officers in total are trained — is likely to be challenging because of gender dynamics in government departments. The IE team recommends that this target is reviewed and adjusted to an achievable percentage

Management Response: [Added: 2021/07/07]

Disagree as targets cannot be downgraded without triggering a major change. The Project will try to achieve as close to the targets as possible.

Key Actions:

18. Recommendation:

Recommendation 18: For indicators 3, 4 and 7, the Means of Verification (MoV’s) need to be reviewed and revised so that impacts/results can be better measured. For Indicator 3, solely generating reports and sharing results from an assessment on a forum will not demonstrate any improved knowledge and awareness about climate change impacts on different genders. Likewise, for Indicator 4, reports are unlikely to show the true impacts on capacity. The IE team recommends that a capacity scorecard is developed to measure how capacity has increased through the training. For Indicator 7, solely generating a report and sharing results from an assessment on a forum will not demonstrate any improved knowledge and awareness about climate change impacts on different genders. It is consequently recommended that the MoV is revised to make it more results oriented.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/07/07]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
18.2 Get project board approval to the changes and communicate to the GCF Secretariat.
[Added: 2021/07/07] [Last Updated: 2022/06/16]
PMU RTA 2022/09 Initiated History
18.1 As part of the exercise to review the project’s log frame to identify any corrections/clarifications that need to be made based on the recommendations and experience of project implementation to date, MoVs will be updated. This action is relevant to recommendations 14, 15, 18 and 19
[Added: 2021/07/07] [Last Updated: 2021/08/10]
PMU CO – RSD team RTA 2021/07 Completed completed History
18.3 Update project M&E framework accordingly
[Added: 2021/07/07] [Last Updated: 2021/08/10]
PMU 2021/07 Completed completed History
19. Recommendation:

Recommendation 19: The project team must assess which of the assumptions are still relevant at this stage of the project and update, remove and/or add assumptions as necessary

Management Response: [Added: 2021/07/07]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
19.1 As part of the exercise to review the project’s log frame to identify any corrections/clarifications that need to be made based on the recommendations and experience of project implementation to date, assumptions will be updated. This action is relevant to recommendations 14, 15, 18 and 19.
[Added: 2021/07/07] [Last Updated: 2021/08/10]
PMU CO – RSD team RTA 2021/07 Completed completed History
19.2 Get project board approval to the changes and communicate to the GCF Secretariat
[Added: 2021/07/07] [Last Updated: 2022/03/09]
PMU RTA 2022/02 Completed completed History
20. Recommendation:

Recommendation 20: The IE team recommends that the PMU develop a reporting strategy/approach that allows them to feed information into the relevant reports on a weekly basis, resulting in less time being spent on developing the major project reports just before they are due.  Quarterly reports should also be developed, with the findings discussed in the Annual Progress Reports (APRs), which are formally submitted to the GCF each year of project implementation as required by the Accreditation Master Agreement (AMA) and FAA

Management Response: [Added: 2021/07/07]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
20.1 Develop a structured reporting strategy to feed information into the relevant reports on a weekly basis
[Added: 2021/07/07] [Last Updated: 2021/08/10]
PMU 2021/08 Completed completed History
20.2 Develop Quarterly Reports to tag in with the APR Report findings
[Added: 2021/07/07] [Last Updated: 2021/08/10]
PMU 2021/09 Completed TCAP QPR templated short and long versions tested Q2 2021 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