Capacity for Implementing Rio Conventions in Samoa_TE

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2018-2022, Samoa
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
11/2018
Completion Date:
10/2018
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
30,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document TOR RIO Consultancy.pdf tor English 883.35 KB Posted 350
Download document Samoa TE Report CCCD RIO Final.pdf report English 1442.21 KB Posted 505
Download document ManagementResponse_RIO_Final copy.doc related-document English 63.00 KB Posted 516
Title Capacity for Implementing Rio Conventions in Samoa_TE
Atlas Project Number: 00078841
Evaluation Plan: 2018-2022, Samoa
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 10/2018
Planned End Date: 11/2018
Management Response: Yes
UNDP Signature Solution:
  • 1. Governance
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021)
  • 1. Output 2.1.1 Low emission and climate resilient objectives addressed in national, sub-national and sectoral development plans and policies to promote economic diversification and green growth
SDG Goal
  • Goal 16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels
SDG Target
  • 16.6 Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels
Evaluation Budget(US $): 30,000
Source of Funding: GEFTF
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 14,600
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Trond Norheim Mr trondn@dimes-global.com BOLIVIA
GEF Evaluation: Yes
GEF Project Title: Capacity for Implementing Rio Conventions in Samoa
Evaluation Type: Terminal Evaluation
Focal Area: Biodiversity
Project Type: MSP
GEF Phase: GEF-5
GEF Project ID: 5164
PIMS Number: 4938
Key Stakeholders: Government of Samoa(GoS), Ministry of Finance (MoF), Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment (MNRE), NGOs, CSOs
Countries: SAMOA
Lessons
Findings
1.

3. FINDINGS

3.1. Project design/Formulation

3.1.1. Analysis of Results Framework/Logframe 

The Consultant has undertaken a critical analysis of the project’s logframe (“framework”), including the outputs, indicators and targets mentioned in the Project Results Framework. The conclusion is that it is a logical design, and no alternative would therefore be presented. One issue to comment on is that if it had been a traditional project the budget and timeframe would not have been enough for the many tasks to be carried out. However, this was mitigated through MNRE Management’s high priority to the project, resulting in a strong effort from staff and additional work-hours put in to achieve the targets on time. The outcomes and outputs were well defined, and with mostly SMART indicators, while all indicators included at least quality, quantity and expected time of compliance (considering timeframe to be the whole implementation period when no deadline was mentioned). The Consultant reviewed the quality of the Project designed to reach its goal, based on the Project Document and Logical framework. Some information for this review was also drawn from Project performance and difficulties encountered during the implementation. An analysis of the quality of the logical framework and/or results framework took effect based on the Theory of Change.

3.1.2. Assumptions and Risks a) The Project Document mentioned one medium risk, regarding the staff turnover in government ministries, in particular the MNRE, where investments in training could be lost. This risk was planned to be mitigated involving as many staff as possible in the training activities, to count on individuals who would likely replace departing staff. This is the only risk that turned into reality, because two PMU staff members changed during the implementation period.The ProDoc mentioned also three low risks: (i) the perception within some sectors of the government that environment should take a back seat to more important issues, such as the economy, health care and education resulting in sector agencies non-committal to mainstreaming Rio Conventions into their respective plans; (ii) key agencies and authorities not agreeing to share data and information towards the establishment of a centralized Data, Knowledge & Information Facility (DKIF) or the provision of poor quality or wrong information that would illegitimate decision-making and misinform Rio Convention reporting obligations; and (iii) the respondents to surveys conducted not providing true answers that could also damage the integrity of data and information collected for monitoring and reporting on Rio Convention implementation. The ProDoc did not mention any mitigation measures for these three low risks. However, it seems like the project staff mitigated these issues anyway, through the day-to-day work. b) The Project Results Matrix considered a large number of assumptions and five risks associated with the project. The way these are formulated it becomes clear that in case of any wrongdoing in the assumptions these might convert into risks. All the defined risks seem to be real risks (outside PMU’s control). They are however lacking definition of mitigation measures. It is necessary to highlight that the risks included in the Results Framework are not the same as those mentioned in the text of the ProDoc. 

3.1.3. Lessons from other relevant projects incorporated into project design The project document par. C.3.b called “Replicability and Lessons Learned” says a lot about lessons to be learned and how these lessons could be replicated, however the document doesn’t mention anything about lessons from previous projects that are incorporated into the design of this project. 


Tag: Programme Synergy Programme/Project Design Results-Based Management Risk Management Strategic Positioning Theory of Change

2.

3.2. Project implementation

3.2.1. Management structure

1. The Cabinet Development Committee (CDC) is the highest-level authority for development projects in Samoa, chaired by the Prime Minister. It further includes all Cabinet Ministers and Associate Ministers, Government CEOs and Assistant Chief Executive Officers (ACEOs). CDC approves all new projects and endorses all progress reports provided by the Project Board.

2. The Implementing Agency: MNRE´s Chief Executive Officer (CEO) was the implementing agency’s person in charge as Project Director, and the following in line was the ACEO whom was the Deputy Project Director. For this project the Deputy Project Director has been the ACEO Corporate Services (from time to time also the acting project director).

3. Project Management Unit (PMU): The project was managed by a small high-level Project Management Unit, consisting of the Project Coordinator and four other persons. In this case, since the project has covered the 3 Rio Conventions and much of what MNRE deals with, three Managers (ACEOs) were involved from the start, in charge of corporative services, legal unit, and environmental sector, while the Manager of the ICT Unit was incorporated later when the IT section was officially established. Additionally, two project staff supported the project administration and establishment of DKIF. The ACEO GEF was directly involved in the development of the project document and provided strategic advice on the project implementation in regards to GEF project implementing and reporting obligations.

3.2.2. Adaptive management The project endured significant challenges, like change of several staff members, requiring internal updating of knowledge for the persons that were recruited or got new roles, as well as organizational adjustments, e.g. changing the IT unit into a Department, with required strengthening. An example of adaptive management occurred in 2015, when the firm that had been contracted for legal support was not able to comply with the tasks. They had been selected based on lowest price, but had not really understood the TOR. The PMU took the decision to cut the contract, go through a new bidding process and hire a new firm. This second time a more experienced and also more expensive firm, that had been a candidate also during the first round, was selected (see lessons learned). This adaptive management decision required starting the implementation process for the legal component again, and making budget adjustments due to a higher cost of the second consulting firm. Another example of adaptive management was securing joint effort with other projects not mentioned in the ProDoc to leverage additional funds to strengthen the project results (see 3.2.4). The mentioned adaptive management was the result of monitoring activities included in the project’s quarterly reports. Most of these reports highlighted issues to be resolved and proposed solutions, whereby the following reports commented on the results of the changes that took place. The consultant has not found any adaptive management decisions that were based on inputs from annual PIRs. The reason is that continuous monitoring resulted in fast adaptive management, with issues being resolved before preparing the annual PIRs. 


Tag: Efficiency Relevance Partnership Country Government

3.

3.2. Project implementation (continuation)

3.2.5. Monitoring and evaluation: design at entry and implementation The project monitoring tools and tracking system being used by the PMU (MNRE) are aligned with the national systems as required by the Government. The M&E system provides the necessary information on activities, outputs and outcomes, but not on impact. This is an area that should be strengthened to facilitate the work for terminal evaluations. The quarterly plans/reports and the M&E framework are aligned with UNDP-GEF requirements. The project design at entry clearly defines roles and responsibilities for M&E between UNDP and MNRE, and refers to the Inception Workshop for including other key stakeholders in project monitoring. During the implementation, an M&E consultant worked closely with the PMU in designing a “Participatory Outcomes Map” for the formulation of the updated NESP Framework 2017-2021. Final Report for Development of the Environment Sector Monitoring & Evaluation Results Framework (ES-MERF) was submitted to PMU in May 2016. Stakeholder consultations including the topic of M&E were held with NGOs in May 2016 and with Government Ministries in June 2016. Considering that it was a small project, the M&E budget was reasonable. A monitoring and evaluation specialist financed by UNDP was recruited to ensure project compliance with corporate programme and project management requirements, as well as to monitor and report on the country programme and related partnership-building and resource mobilization. The final evaluation and some other minor M&E items were also included in the project budget, as well as in the M&E Work Plan (ProDoc table 4). MNRE has complied with UNDP-GEF reporting requirements of Quarterly Progress Reports (QPR) and financial statements. Progress described in the QPRs were discussed in the Project Steering Committee, as well as in the Technical Working Groups where different stakeholders had the opportunity to comment on outputs and the process towards outcomes (see 3.1.4).


Tag: Human and Financial resources Monitoring and Evaluation Project and Programme management Results-Based Management Strategic Positioning Data and Statistics

4.

3.3. Project performance

3.3.1. Review of overall results

By the end of the project implementation it was expected that the project should (i) have strengthened key institutional and individual capacities to implement policies, plans, and programmes that deliver global environmental benefits; and (ii) have mainstreamed and integrated obligations of the three Rio Conventions into Samoa’s national policy framework.

In accordance with the TOR for the evaluation, the overall results have been assessed based on a review of project relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact, as well as country ownership. Since it was a Terminal Evaluation, it was not possible to make changes to improve this project, however, the results would give lessons learned that could improve design of new projects and thereby the sustainability and impact of these operations. Additional to the individual evaluation criteria, the TE also focus on the totality of the process internally in MNRE and concerted efforts with other stakeholders, for implementing a high number of activities in parallel between the three major components.


Tag: Climate Change Adaptation Climate change governance Biodiversity Relevance Global Environment Facility fund Results-Based Management Data and Statistics

5.

3.3. Project performance (continuation)

3.3.1. Review of overall results 

3.3.3. Effectiveness

Development effectiveness: The extent to which the Project’s purpose was achieved, or is expected to be achieved In Table 7 the Consultant has assessed the end results of the project and commented on the compliance with the specific objectives, and expected outcomes and outputs. The information is based on the quarterly reports and other documents, PMIS and interviews, complemented by the Consultant’s observations and opinions.

a) Major achievements A very important result on project level is that the Strategy for the Development of Samoa (SDS) 2016-2020 has been approved by the Cabinet of Ministers and the Parliament. This outcome goes further than what was planned in the project document, where the goal was to get the SDS approved by the Cabinet of Ministers and ready for Parliamentary consideration. The “Rio Project” is one of the few projects where the results and impacts of the project are clearly felt already during implementation. There seems to have been a gradual trend towards improved effectiveness and efficiency throughout the project implementation as a result of internal capacity building related with the project, but this cannot be seen isolated from other institutional strengthening in the same period, with different sources of financing. The financing has been justified both from an MNRE and donor/IA perspective. The project effectiveness was low in the beginning when MNRE was organizing the initial work. Staff changes in 2015 also negatively influenced the initial effectiveness of project implementation, while the main factors that affected effectiveness from the start had to do with delays in procurement and availability of funds.Regarding participatory processes, there has been great activity from MNRE’s staff during the development of the new ICT system and its introduction, as well as other project activities, and that commitment has been key for the positive results. It has been very positive that MNRE has taken the global conventions to the local level and involved national and local stakeholders in the process. The Consultant considers that the most important results at output level were:

- Draft bill on Soil management - Draft bill on Climate Change (incl. a proposed new ministry) - Draft bill on Environmental Management and Conservation (improvement of an old draft). The bill gives emphasis on how to comply with CBD, including the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. - Development of National Environmental Sector Plan (NESP) that feeds information to the Strategy for Development of Samoa (SDS) - Development Sector Monitoring and Evaluation Framework - Development of Sector Medium Term Expenditure Framework - New common data base system (DKIF) and website for public and private stakeholder access. 

The Consultant had the opportunity to review the new draft bills that have been prepared during the project period, as well as the DKIF System. All products seem to be of high quality, and there is also satisfaction from the users’ side. The satisfactory outputs are of course result of institutional commitment combined with good and high-level consultants. However, the processes for approval and development of regulations must be completed for the outputs to have an impact.

b) Component 1

Effective tools and mechanisms for implementing Rio Conventions: A Review Paper including Tools & mechanisms, and definitions of tools has been completed. A consolidated environmental monitoring programme (M&E components) has also been completed, integrated into relevant sector agency work programmes, like NBSAP, NAP, NAPA and SNAP.

Training on best practice approaches to implement Rio Conventions: There are now completed strategic training plans that are listing specific learning outcomes for each required training and workshop. Another important result is that all training and workshop reports are available for downloading on MNRE platforms and website, and they can partly be accessed through links on partners’ websites.

Regarding the goal that learning from training and workshops should show at least 50% improvement in awareness of Rio Convention Focal Points and stakeholders, it is highly likely that this has been achieved, but it is not possible to measure due to lack of baseline information. It was expected that the learning should improve implementation and consolidation of monitoring and reporting for Rio Convention implementation.

Strengthened environmental legal instruments and associated policies and legal frameworks: This includes some of the projects’ most important results (the bills mentioned above), with compliance at least 90% for new and/or revised legal instrument approved by relevant authorities. Convention Laws have been made publicly available through the DKIF. Another target mentioned in the results framework is that the awareness of legislation, frameworks and policies relevant to Rio conventions should have improved by at least 50% for legal enforcement officers, community enforcement authorities and parliamentarians, but it is not possible to measure this due to lack of baseline.


Tag: Climate Change Adaptation Climate change governance Biodiversity Effectiveness Parliament Communication Knowledge management Policies & Procedures Capacity Building SDG Integration SDG monitoring and reporting

6.

3.3.4. Efficiency

Efficiency: How economically the resources and inputs (funds, expertise, time, etc.) have been converted to outputs The outcomes achieved even with relatively few resources are an indication of efficient project implementation. This is partly the result of high-level commitment from MNRE’s side, since it was a project expected to give substantial institutional changes. It was some changes in the management positions at an early stage that might have affected efficiency during 2014-2015. Adaptive management was executed when it was necessary to replace the firm that had been contracted for legal advisory services. A lesson learned was that it is not efficient to select a firm based on price if it doesn’t have the required capacity. The PMU consisted of five management persons, but many more staff members participated in concrete activities. The project was efficiently managed from the moment the procurement issues were resolved, and the new consultants came on board. Institutional commitment from both management and staff resulted in a highly successful project. The Project Management Unit (PMU) consisted of four Managers (ACEO): ACEO Corporate Service Division (Deputy Project Director), ACEO Legal Division, ACEO Environment Sector, and ACEO ICT, plus two staff members supporting the project administration, as well as participation of the ACEO GEF based on her experience with previous GEF projects. Please note that ICT was elevated from Unit to Division during the project implementation with a new ACEO, and that the ACEO Environment was recruited in 2015 during the project implementation period. The positive elements of this model are (i) that broad high-level steering of a project gives high priority and more efficient chain of command to monitor and implement activities; (ii) that it gives a cross-cutting approach and mainstreaming of the main topics throughout the institution; and (iii) that it promotes collaboration across division lines that could give a stronger ministry. 

On the other hand, a PMU consisting of many high-level managers (ACEOs) might have some negative effects, since (i) it could easily diffuse the question of who is in charge, because each ministry staff member would orient the day-to-day work based on instructions from his/her division chief (an issue mentioned by some staff members); (ii) it could also confuse the idea of who was in charge at any moment in time for external actors like UNDP and other ministries; and (iii) the ACEOs could be distracted from the other important tasks in their division, or be overwhelmed with work. From the institutional perspective of MNRE it was clear and understood that the ACEO Corp. Service was the Project Manager and the other ACEOs were seen as component managers. This set up created ownership of the project components and outputs as these were in line with divisional priorities of the respective ACEOs involved. The Component managers provided technical and administrative support to the overall Project Manager, considered by the PMU as an advantage. ACEOs were well versed with each other's component and able to provide support in the absence of the other, to avoid unnecessary delays. It is however necessary to take into consideration that the Rio project was an exception. Most projects implemented by MNRE have a much more narrow technical focus, e.g. forestry, biodiversity or climate change. In these cases it would be most logical and efficient to implement the project under the leadership of the respective technical division. The Rio project achieved high efficiency partly because each ACEO in the PMU was able to instruct and count on the staff of her/his division.

The DKIF system has improved efficiency of MNRE work, based on improved access to and flow of information, which is a process that should continue to be strengthened. It is however basically a depository of documents, so the next step for improved efficiency would be to establish a Project Management System (see 3.3.7 a). The MNRE divisions have so far mostly sent over documents to the ICT division for uploading to DKIF. This is not efficient, and MNRE high-level management should monitor that all divisions comply with the instructions of direct uploading to the system. The project was designed to be implemented during three years, and it only needed a small extension in the end. The Consultant considers that three years was a realistic timeframe, giving time for recruitment of the consultants, design and institutional introduction of all the outputs as well as seminars, training and stakeholder consultations. The extension of the project corresponds approximately with the time that was lost on having to go through a second procurement process to recruit a replacement legal advisory firm. The financial resources seem to have been enough for the activities that were planned, because the budget covered everything. That doesn’t mean that there are no additional needs, like more staff training, but that would probably be resolved in the follow-up to assure sustainability of achievements.


Tag: Climate Change Adaptation Climate change governance Efficiency Gender Mainstreaming Integration Ownership Project and Programme management Capacity Building Poverty Reduction Technical Support SDG Integration

7.

3.3.7. Sustainability

Sustainability:  The continuation of benefits from the Project after the development assistance has been completed and the probability of continued long-term benefits The Consultant considered several dimensions of sustainability: (i) Technical, (ii) Social & Environmental, (iii) Institutional, and (iv) Economic-Financial. 

a) Technical: The technology introduced in MNRE through the project consists of software for upgrading of the ICT systems, especially the Data, Knowledge & Information Facility (DKIF) and website. Internal and external consultations and capacity building on the ICT system have strengthened its sustainability, and it is important to highlight that MNRE is only hosting the system, while there are multiple users. To assure sustainability it is important that all new staff get solid training from the beginning, and that all staff and also other stakeholders get continuous learning and follow-up. A lesson learned is how it is possible to incorporate the benefits of a new system introduced already during project implementation, and thereby get increased project efficiency. However, to improve sustainability of the ministry’s work with the system, it is important that the Division Managers assure compliance with MNRE’s decision to upload information directly, instead of handing over documents to the IT team. The IT CEO seems overloaded, and it is not a sustainable work situation. Another IT issue that has to do with MNRE’s sustainability is that DKIF basically is a depository of information. It is not a Management System, where the ministry staff can access and use information for online decision-making. The Consultant would recommend that MNRE get a presentation from Secretariat for the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) about the Management System SPREP established through another UNDP-GEF-CCCD project, also finalized in 2017. Design and implementation of an MNRE Management System with all modules could be a new scaling-up project.

b) Social and Environmental: The project was special, because the design did not include any activities on the ground, except for consultations and training with local stakeholders. Social and Environmental Safeguards were treated jointly by the project document, which is the reason the Consultant is discussing social and environmental sustainability in the same chapter. The beneficiaries of what has been established through the project would be first of all MNRE and the Government of Samoa, then national stakeholders engaged with environmental issues (public and private sector, including NGOs/CSOs), and through them the local population through improved environmental and climate change programmes with environmental & social safeguards. The future beneficiaries would be the local public and private sector, NGOs/CSOs, villages, women and youth that are integrated in collaboration with MNRE, or as beneficiaries. All the three project outcomes are related to the social and environmental sustainability when applied at local level, however Outcome 2 “Raised public support and understanding of Rio Conventions” is the most clearly related with local stakeholder engagement. Attention has been given to issues of gender equality, guided by the GEF’s Policy on Gender Mainstreaming. Gender issues were also reviewed as part of UNDP’s Environmental and Social Screening Checklist. Gender balance and other stakeholder participation issues were dealt with in the Quarterly Operational Reports and the annual Project Implementation Review that is reported to the GEF Secretariat. It should be highlighted that all the persons in the PMU were women, except for the IT ACEO. Despite this, the project reporting treat gender issues mostly as headcount instead of mainstreaming the issue and analysing the project’s impact on gender influence and empowerment. It is possible that this lack of priority to the issue is exactly because the women already are in charge. 


Tag: Climate change governance Sustainability Global Environment Facility fund Gender Mainstreaming Women's Empowerment Knowledge management Ownership Civil Societies and NGOs Country Government Private Sector Technology Technical Support Data and Statistics

8.

3.3.8. Impact

Development impact: Positive and negative, primary and secondary, long-term effects produced by the Project, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended

This project was presented to GEF for funding under the GEF-5 “Cross-Cutting Capacity Development” (CCCD) Strategy, Programme Framework C, which called for the strengthening of capacities to develop policy and legislative frameworks to meet the Rio Conventions’ objectives. MNRE is designated national focal point for the 3 Rio Conventions: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC); United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD); and United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), so it was a good fit for the institution.

The GEF CCCD strategy serves to provide resources for reducing the institutional bottlenecks and barriers to the synergistic implementation of the Rio Conventions. The project was in line with CCCD Programme Framework C - Objective 3, which calls for countries to strengthen capacities for developing policy and legislative frameworks to meet Rio Convention Objectives. Through a learning-by-doing process, the project improved MNRE’s management, legislative system, ICT system and M&E system, and thereby its capacity to support national capacities and processes in compliance with the Rio Conventions. A diagram of the relation between the project’s objective, GEF-5 Goal and impacts is shown in figure 3. Please note that all the stages in the diagram would happen ex-post, except for compliance with the Project Objectives. Fig. 3. Process from Project objectives to Impact


Tag: Climate change governance Biodiversity Impact Global Environment Facility fund Local Governance Human and Financial resources Civil Societies and NGOs Country Government Technology

Recommendations
1

4.2. Recommendations

National level:

R1. The Government of Samoa should give high priority to approval of the bills drafted under the Rio Project, to assure impact and sustainability of the achievements

2

National level:

R2. The project results should be scaled up (especially on local level) through different sources of funding

3

Ministry level:

R3. MNRE should continue to invest in institutional development to maintain and improve the results achieved through the project

4

Ministry level:

R4. All current and new staff should continue to receive and maintain training to assure compliance with policies and procedures, and use of the improved systems.  Continued active staff participation should also be encouraged for possible adjustment of the systems, to maintain the enthusiasm and assure positive results.

5

Ministry level:

R5. MNRE’s DKIF system should be continually maintained and upgraded, and the divisions must comply with the management’s requirement of uploading documents the documents directly.  An Institutional Management System for on-line decision making could complement DKIF to improve institutional development

6

Stakeholder level:

R6. To follow up the project results, national and local stakeholders (Villages, NGOS, CSOs, Villages, Women , Youth) should be involved in implementation of new projects in line with Rio Conventions

1. Recommendation:

4.2. Recommendations

National level:

R1. The Government of Samoa should give high priority to approval of the bills drafted under the Rio Project, to assure impact and sustainability of the achievements

Management Response: [Added: 2018/10/11] [Last Updated: 2020/12/06]

The team acknowledge the recommendation and agree that the relevant bills will be approved via national procedures.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The bills under the relevant Divisions are in the final stages for CDC approval and will processed for Parliament approval.
[Added: 2018/10/11] [Last Updated: 2019/01/10]
MNRE 2018/12 Completed History
2. Recommendation:

National level:

R2. The project results should be scaled up (especially on local level) through different sources of funding

Management Response: [Added: 2018/10/11] [Last Updated: 2020/12/06]

The team acknowledge the recommendation and note that most of the project results are incorporated into existing projects e.g. INFORM project and other UN Convention projects e.g. 6NR and ABS

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Project results have been scaled up into existing and upcoming projects e.g. Inform project, 6NR and ABS.
[Added: 2018/10/11]
MNRE/UNDP 2018/06 Completed
3. Recommendation:

Ministry level:

R3. MNRE should continue to invest in institutional development to maintain and improve the results achieved through the project

Management Response: [Added: 2018/10/11] [Last Updated: 2020/12/06]

The recommendation is noted and agree in regards to institutional development which is also reflected in the MNRE national Environment Sector Plan 2017-2021 and Capability Plan

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
To ensure continual institutional development as reflected in the NEMS 2017-2021 and Capability Plan. Also note MNRE has now expanded its GEF Divison to also include CC and therefore operationalize coordination of GEF and CC projects under MNRE.
[Added: 2018/10/11]
MNRE 2018/09 Completed
4. Recommendation:

Ministry level:

R4. All current and new staff should continue to receive and maintain training to assure compliance with policies and procedures, and use of the improved systems.  Continued active staff participation should also be encouraged for possible adjustment of the systems, to maintain the enthusiasm and assure positive results.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/10/11] [Last Updated: 2020/12/06]

The recommendation is noted and agreed as it has been completed with project trainings that have taken place in the beginning of the year to ensure sustainability of systems in place and adhere to policies and procedures of MNRE

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
In house staff training conducted in regards to policies and procedures and improved systems
[Added: 2018/10/11]
MNRE 2018/09 Completed
5. Recommendation:

Ministry level:

R5. MNRE’s DKIF system should be continually maintained and upgraded, and the divisions must comply with the management’s requirement of uploading documents the documents directly.  An Institutional Management System for on-line decision making could complement DKIF to improve institutional development

Management Response: [Added: 2018/10/11] [Last Updated: 2020/12/06]

The recommendation is noted and agree for the sustainability of the DKIF system which has now been linked or integrated into the INFORM project.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Ensure the sustainability of the DKIF system by mainstreaming or linking with existing projects e.g. INFORM project
[Added: 2018/10/11]
MNRE 2018/09 Completed
6. Recommendation:

Stakeholder level:

R6. To follow up the project results, national and local stakeholders (Villages, NGOS, CSOs, Villages, Women , Youth) should be involved in implementation of new projects in line with Rio Conventions

Management Response: [Added: 2018/10/11] [Last Updated: 2020/12/06]

The recommendation is noted. MNRE ensure to that project communication strategies are implemented and MNRE continue to have community outreach programmes to ensure community engagement in new and upcoming projects

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Communication strategies are developed for new and upcoming projects to ensure community engagement with projects.
[Added: 2018/10/11] [Last Updated: 2019/12/29]
MNRE 2019/12 Completed NESP coordinating new and upcoming projects including communication strategy. 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