Success message
error message
warn message
National Initiative on Civic Education (Fiji)
Commissioning Unit: Fiji
Evaluation Plan: 2008-2012
Evaluation Type: Project
Completion Date: 07/2009
Unit Responsible for providing Management Response: Fiji
Documents Related to overall Management Response:
 
1. Recommendation: It is recommended that an immediate priority must be given to reaching an agreement as to how the existing funding can be best used. This will entails assessing which aspects of the Projects outputs and activities should be given priority for implementation within the available resources, including the key pending work with the Implementation Partner CSOs in terms of what can be achieved in delivering Civic Education at the community level. Similarly, it should involve the release and reallocation of resources that were aligned to Output areas such as Voter Education which, with the deferment of elections, cannot now be implemented within the life of the project.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/17]

Recommendation has been noted and incorporated into the revised project document, which has been circulated for the endorsement by the board. It was agreed in the August 11th Board meeting the Voter Education component be renamed ?Electoral Education? and for Civic Education activities to be charged and reported against this component. Board had agreed to use resources allocated to Voter Education for Civic Education, without realignment of resources. This meant charging the budget lines to the outputs and resources within the frameworks of the current project document.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Revised Results and Resources Framework (RRF) as part of the revised Project Document has been circulated for the board?s endorsement
[Added: 2010/01/17]
UNDP and Project team 2010/01 Completed Incorporated into the revised document
2. Recommendation: Whilst the substantive and financial content of this immediate measure would need to be reflected in the recommended subsequent project revision, it should not have to wait for it to be prepared. It is recommended that agreement be reached, in the interim, as to the reallocation of existing project resources based upon a revised RRF under current budgetary allocations. In the course of this exercise consideration should also be given, in terms of available Project resources, as to the implications of the recent currency devaluation.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/17]

Recommendation agreed to in Principle. It was agreed that while the Project team and UNDP work on the revised project document for endorsement by the board, the project should work within the default workplan to implement activities for 2009. UNDP agrees on the decision by the board on the status quo budget of US$882,736. Furthermore, Voter Education funds are to be used for Civic Education, but to report the use of the US$140,000 fund allocation for Voter Education under its own component. Stakeholders consultation: Whist relocating funds, the project should ensure that much work is carried out under CE component for the benefit and interest of the CSOs. Agree that the amount allocated for VE to be used for CE component.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Revised RRF incorporating changes recommended has been completed and has been submitted to the Project for the board for approval
[Added: 2010/01/17]
UNDP and Project Team 2010/01 Completed Incorporated into the revised document
3. Recommendation: In order to enable the Project to undertake additional activities beyond those that will be possible with existing resources it is recommended that discussions be entered into with all potential additional donors as soon as possible. For this purpose it would be advisable to prepare another draft RRF that would anticipate further funding and identify options in terms of what activities could be undertaken by end of the Project. This draft RRF will essentially replace the draft RRF that was prepared in March 2009. On the basis of these initial discussions it should be possible to derive at least a notional estimate as to how much additional funding could be expected, as well as importantly, those aspects of civic education that the donors would be most interested to support. This information will be essential in the drafting of the framework, timeframe and indicative budget of the recommended substantive project revision and in finalizing its accompanying RRF.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/17]

Recommendation is noted. It is important that the project focus on using the current resources to deliver tangible results at the same time prepare revised RRF which will address issues or changes suggested by the donors and stakeholders. The project is also required to indicate the additional coverage and results which will be attained as a result of additional resources. The Management agrees that the project must review the current monitoring and evaluation framework, provide results and quantified outputs. The project is also expected to provide clear explanations for allocation of funds and value added approaches into the revised document. The final decisions rest with the project board. Stakeholders consultation: On the issue of funding, certain donors have advertised publicly for CE funds. CE activities are conducted best by NICE under the UNDP banner. The point should be made that the best trained facilitators of CE are with NICE. It is important that CE is effectively delivered to the people of Fiji. The perception of people needs to be understood by numerous donor agencies and partners conducting CE to ensure that messages are uniform. Need to liaise with other CE partners to ascertain that similar CE messages are being disseminated to the population of Fiji.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Project to indicate the variances scope of coverage and resulting from additional resource
[Added: 2010/01/17]
UNDP and Project Team 2010/01 Completed Revised RRF prepared
Review the current monitoring and evaluation framework, provide results and quantified outputs
[Added: 2010/01/17]
UNDP and Project Team 2010/01 Completed Revised RRF prepared
4. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Project revision include an update of the Situation Analysis in terms of the events that have occurred since the formulation of the Project in 2006; their implications upon community civic education in Fiji; and hence an up-date of the problem that the Project attempts to address.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/17]

Agree.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Revise Situation Analysis of the Project to include an update of the Situation Analysis in terms of the events that have occurred since the formulation of the Project in 2006; their implications upon community civic education in Fiji; and hence an up-date of the problem that the Project attempts to address.
[Added: 2010/01/17]
UNDP and Project Team 2009/09 Completed Situational Analysis of the Project revised.
5. Recommendation: It is recommended that the project revision include explanations as to how the Project?s original strategy will need to be adjusted to respond appropriately to the prevailing and foreseeable situation.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/17]

Agree: The Project to amend its strategy to respond appropriately to the prevailing and foreseeable situation. Complementariness with other partners needs to be looked into. NICE should take initiative to better coordinate with external partners doing work on civic education.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Revise strategy of the project. The Strategy for NICE is to work primarily with CSOs capitalizing on their community networks to ensure that civic education messages reach as many people as possible. CSOs are trained in Civic Education and project management issues to facilitate community civic education exercise. The project also targets community leaders and opinion makers to build a common understanding of civic education and imparts its understanding on democratic principles and values.
[Added: 2010/01/17]
UNDP & Project Team 2009/09 Completed Submitted as part of the revised document for approval by the board
6. Recommendation: It is recommended that the project revision include a revised Results and Resources Framework to reflect what the Project intends to accomplish in term of activities and outputs between mid-2009 and the end of 2010 with the existing and any additional resources mobilized.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/17]

Recommendation is noted. Any revision to the project and results and resources framework will have to be sanctioned by the project board. However, the Management agrees that two RRFs (Default and Proposed) to be constructed to indicate activities that could be possibly implemented by the project under the current resource envelope and with additional resources for the remaining life of the project. The preferred option is the default option.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Prepare a revised results and resources framework for the project board
[Added: 2010/01/17]
UNDP 2009/09 Completed Revised RRF Submitted for Board?s endorsement
7. Recommendation: It is recommended that the project revision focuses on those outputs and activities which are considered core to the objective of the Project and the identification, to the extent possible, of those outputs and activities that one could envisage could be continued notwithstanding further changes which might occur in the political environment.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/17]

Recommendation is noted. The project revision to ensure that the core objectives of the project are achieved through the implementation of core activities under the current resource envelope.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Activities to be prioritized to achieve core results of the project
[Added: 2010/01/17]
UNDP and Project Team 2009/09 Completed
8. Recommendation: It is recommended that the project revision makes provisions for monitoring the progress of the Project and for evaluating its impact. These should include those achievements identified by the Project Team which will need to be reached before the Project?s closure in order to ensure the sustainability of its activities and outputs.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/17]

This had already been factored into the original project design. However, the project revision should also include proper baseline indicators and quantified outputs with proper mechanisms of monitoring and evaluation in place.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Baseline Indicators and Monitoring and Evaluation framework to be incorporated as part of the revision. The baselines and indicators were established at output and activities level.
[Added: 2010/01/17]
UNDP & Project Team 2009/09 Completed
9. Recommendation: Specific reference needs to be made, as described elsewhere in this Report, in regards to what is envisaged will happen when the current Project ends in late 2010 in terms of the sustainability of the Project, including an exit strategy and/or successor arrangements, etc. Particularly in view of the fact that the Project is currently implemented under the DEX/UNDP arrangement the project revision should at least initiate consideration as to viable potential custodians for on-going community civic education after the Project?s closure at the end of 2010. Ways and means need to be further explored as to how this area of work is to be adequately embedded in appropriate local structures.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/17]

Recommendation is agreed to. An exit strategy has been incorporated in the revised project document. While sustainability is addressed through ongoing capacity development for partner CSOs to sustain ongoing work in the area of civic education, the project should review options with relevant stakeholders to identify an appropriate exit strategy at the end of the current life of the project. Stakeholders consultation: One option is for partner CSOs to look for further funding so they can continue with the dissemination of CE messages to communities when NICE project comes to an end. It is also recommended that the NICE Project be extended to continue with its neutral communication of the work on civic education with partner CSOs. NICE has enabled the coordination between partner CSOs and continues to strengthen their respective institutional capacity.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Exit strategy to be identified as part of the project revision however decision on the most appropriate exit strategy at the time is to be taken by the Board nearer the end of the project.
[Added: 2010/01/17]
UNDP and Project Team 2010/01 Overdue-Initiated
10. Recommendation: It may also be opportune to use the project revision exercise to start exploring what sort of assistance the UN system may be able to provide in the area of civic education post 2010.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/17]

Recommendation is noted. This is subject to final project evaluation which will be commissioned toward the end of the project and based on the findings; the recommendation will be further discussed. The findings of the final evaluation may also provide adequate basis for UN assistance towards civic education beyond 2010.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Raise issue for discussion and decision at Board meeting
[Added: 2010/01/17]
UNDP 2010/01 Overdue-Initiated
Draft TOR for final project evaluation
[Added: 2010/01/17]
UNDP 2010/01 Overdue-Initiated
Hold discussions with Government, development partners and other stakeholders on the future of Civic Education beyond 2010
[Added: 2010/01/17]
UNDP 2010/03 Overdue-Not Initiated
11. Recommendation: It is recommended that the actual project revision process be led by the NICE Project Team and the UNDP MCO, in its executing agency capacity. On the basis of the experience of the first eighteen months of the Project?s implementation the Project Team and the UNDP MCO are well positioned to lead this exercise. In this regard, a significant amount of the work that such a revision would entail, both in terms of substance as well as related resource requirements, has already been undertaken. Nevertheless, it would be important to ensure that the Project Team?s involvement in preparation of the project revision does not impact negatively upon the progress of urgent on-going project activities.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/17]

Recommendation is noted. UNDP and the Project Team to conduct revision of the NICE Project. This is a normal part of the UNDP Programme design and approval process in consultation with relevant stakeholders.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
UNDP and the Project Team to conduct revision
[Added: 2010/01/17]
UNDP 2010/01 Completed
12. Recommendation: It is essential that the preparation of the project revision is undertaken in full consultation with the other parties concerned, in particular with Government, with the Donors (both existing and potential), with the Advisory Committee, and with the Implementing Partner CSOs. This inclusive approach should result in the project revision providing the vessel with everyone concerned with the Project ?
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/17] [Last Updated: 2010/01/17]

Recommendation is noted. This is a normal part of the UNDP Programme design and approval process in consultation with relevant stakeholders. A revised terms of reference on the role, function and mandate of Advisory Committee is also developed for endorsement by the project board.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Consult with project partners and stakeholders on the project revision
[Added: 2010/01/17]
UNDP 2010/01 Completed
13. Recommendation: The involvement, from the outset, of any potential donors will be essential. In this regard it would also be advisable if the envisaged future outputs and activities, as well as the related resources required, can be presented in a modular manner that may meet the specific areas of interest and available resources of potential donors.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/17] [Last Updated: 2010/01/17]

Recommendation is noted. Although the current project may not benefit from additional resources, UNDP will seek the participation of other potential donors for future, more comprehensive, civic education project. Stakeholders consultation: Identification and harmonization of other activities funded by other donors to support CE work to be undertaken by the NICE Project.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
UNDP conducts an information session for all potential donors as part of project formulation for civic education beyond 2010
[Added: 2010/01/17]
UNDP 2010/03 Overdue-Not Initiated
14. Recommendation: The involvement of the Implementing Partner CSOs will not only enable them to contribute their substantive input but will also provide the opportunity to verify that what is envisaged can indeed be implemented within the time and resources available
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/17]

Through the Project?s further consultations with CSOs, implementing partner CSOs are now clear about what the Project?s expectations are and these are subject of an annex included in the MOU signed between UNDP and the CSOs

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Project?s expectations of CSOs clarified
[Added: 2010/01/17]
Project Team 2009/10 Completed
Consult with CSOs on the revision of the project document
[Added: 2010/01/17]
UNDP & Project Team 2009/12 Completed
15. Recommendation: In undertaking the preparation of a NICE Project revision, lessons learnt during the initial period of the Project, and taken into account in such a revision, can also potentially serve to benefit the UNDP, the Project's current donors, and others in the international community contemplating undertaking community civic education programmes and projects elsewhere, particularly in the Pacific region.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/17] [Last Updated: 2010/01/17]

Recommendation is noted. It is normal within UNDP Programming that lessons learnt are considered in the design and delivery of future activities. The project is to ensure that the lessons log framework captures many of the contentious issues encountered by the project as this will help in the redesign of the project activities and also for future prospects.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The project team to ensure that the lessons learnt logs are updated following every quarter and included as part of progress reports
[Added: 2010/01/17]
Project Team 2009/12 Completed
16. Recommendation: It is recommended that the TOR of the Project Board be revisited and revised in order to emphasize that, as the Project?s governing body, its roles and responsibilities should relate to issues of governance and policy rather than management and administration.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/17]

Recommendation is agreed to. The project board is an advisory body that addresses governance and policy issues and it will continue to carry out its functions within this framework. The Terms of Reference of the Board to be revised in order to ensure that its responsibilities relate to governance and policy level decision making.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Revise the TOR of the NICE Project Board
[Added: 2010/01/17]
UNDP 2009/11 Completed
Revisit the Terms of Reference and review the role of the Advisory Committee
[Added: 2010/01/17]
UNDP 2009/11 Completed
17. Recommendation: The Government has agreed to the suggestion that the Government?s representative on the Project Board should in future be the Permanent Secretary of the National Planning Office. However, it has requested that UNDP submits an Official invitation to the Permanent Secretary to the National Planning Office accordingly.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/17]

Government Participation is a prerogative of the Government. Although the Permanent Secretary is assigned the project board membership, he/she may delegate it to another Government representative where deemed necessary. However, a letter to be sent to the PS of National Planning Office

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Send invitation letter to PS National Planning
[Added: 2010/01/17]
UNDP 2009/09 Completed
18. Recommendation: It is strongly recommended that UNDP?s representation on the Project Board be more clearly understood and recognized, by all concerned, as being in two capacities. The first is in its more traditional capacity as a funding agency in which it is accountable to the Executive Board of the UNDP for all aspects of the Project's operations. The second is in its somewhat unusual additional capacity, in the case of the NICE Project, as the executing agency, in which it also assumes overall management responsibility and accountability for the Project's implementation. With this in mind it is also strongly recommended that, to the full extent possible, all management and administrative related issues are resolved between the Project Team and the UNDP MCO, in its capacity as the Project?s executing agency, prior to Board Meetings. This will enable the Project?s Board Meetings to focus on issues pertaining to policy and governance.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/17] [Last Updated: 2010/01/17]

Agreed. Management and administrative issues are normally addressed by the project management including the NICE Project Team and UNDP. However, where administrative and management issues are beyond the control of the project management team they are normally escalated to the project board for its advice and recommendations (to reflect policy issues).

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Regular monthly meetings between UNDP Governance Unit and NICE project team
[Added: 2010/01/17]
UNDP and Project team 2010/02 Overdue-Not Initiated
19. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board reaches a consensus as to precisely what project reporting and other documentation it requires, and in what format this should be presented, in order to facilitate its deliberations. Related to this it is strongly recommended that the Project Team and the UNDP MCO, in its capacity as the Project?s executing agency, work closely together in the preparation and presentation of the project reporting and other documentation to the Board.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/17]

This is a directly executed project. In event where no specific donor reporting requirements exists; UNDP to report using templates based on UNDP standards

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The project to liaise with donors for their reporting template to comply with reporting standards
[Added: 2010/01/17]
UNDP and Project team 2009/12 Completed EU and NZAid have advised and provided reporting templates
20. Recommendation: With a view to ensuring that a number of key issues regarding the Project are thoroughly resolved as soon as possible, it is recommended that the Project Boards meets at least every three months.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/17]

The Board meetings are conducted on a regular interval of 3 months (subject to availability of all board members)

Key Actions:

21. Recommendation: The TORs of the Advisory Committee need to be revised in order to place due emphasis on its core role and responsibility, namely to discuss substantive civic education issues from the representative viewpoints of its members and to provide advice and guidance to the Project accordingly. On policy and governance issues the Project Board should however remain the Project?s ultimate decision making body.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/17]

Agree that the demarcation of roles and responsibilities needs to be addressed by revising the terms of reference for the advisory committee. The purpose of this revision is to resolve the conflict of interest between the CSO implementing partners and the advisory committee. The Advisory Committee should now comprise of academia, technical people, including those that can provide useful insight and advice to the project board.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Revise the Terms of Reference of the Advisory Committee under revised document.
[Added: 2010/01/17]
UNDP 2009/11 Completed Pending endorsement by the board Done
22. Recommendation: With the departure from Fiji of Dr. Sitiveni Ratuva it would be advisable to try to replace him with another academic involved with civic education, governance, and/or community development. Also with the departure from Fiji of Ms. Felicity Heffernan (former Supervisor of Elections) it is recommended that Mr. Soro Toutou (currently Deputy Supervisor of Elections) be asked to participate in the Committee. It is also recommended that the Programme Specialist (Governance) from UNDP?s Pacific Centre be invited to participate in the work of the Committee.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/17]

Recommendation is noted. UNDP, Government of Fiji, and Donors to revisit and review the composition of the advisory committee and suggest persons who should comprise membership of the committee. Stakeholders consultation: Suggestions for AC members: Ropate Qalo (USP); Ms. Siwatibau; Prof. Vijay Naidu; Imrana Jalaal (RRRT); Claire Slater (FIT); Prof. Robin Taylor (Psychology Association)

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Invitation for submission of names from Board Members.
[Added: 2010/01/17]
UNDP 2010/02 Overdue-Not Initiated
23. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Advisory Committee meets on a regular basis, and not less frequently than every three months.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/17]

Do not agree. The Advisory Committee should only meet as and when required by the Project team for advice.

Key Actions:

24. Recommendation: It is recommended to explore with the CSOs, as soon as resources are available, ways and means in order to expedite the work in finalizing the civic education curriculum, development and translation of materials, training of trainers, the training of facilitators, and initiating the pilot phase.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/17]

Agree. This has already been achieved. However, sustainability of the activities by the CSOs would require appropriate monitoring and evaluation mechanisms.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
MOU to be formulated signed between implementing partners and UNDP
[Added: 2010/01/17]
UNDP & Project Team 2009/10 Completed
25. Recommendation: In the event that, for one reason or another, one or more of the CSOs that were originally involved with the Project withdraw their participation it will be important to ensure that the geographical, demographic, or other area/s of responsibility assigned to them is carefully assessed in order to determine whether one of the remaining CSOs can take over their designated area/s of responsibility or whether it will be necessary to recruit a replacement CSOs with the requisite field of expertise and constituency.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/17]

Recommendation is noted. CSOs were recruited on the basis of them having met a set of clearly defined criteria. While it is important to ensure CSOs equally represent geographical and demographic considerations, it is important CSOs are selected on the basis of their capacity to deliver tangible results on the ground. The 8 CSOs under the current arrangement make a representation of different sectors such as religion, ethnicity, gender, disabilities and age.

Key Actions:

26. Recommendation: It is advisable to try and re-engage both ECREA and Transparency International
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/17]

Recommendation is noted. Transparency International has now been re-engaged with the project as an implementing partner.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Project to continue building dialogue with CSOs
[Added: 2010/01/17]
Project team 2010/12 Overdue-Initiated
27. Recommendation: It is most important to regularly review the Project timelines with the CSOs and, once agreed upon, ensure that they are adhered to. In the event that it is necessary to make subsequent changes to the timelines the CSOs need to be advised as to why this is necessary and consulted concerning the revised timeline.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/17]

Agree: Recommendation is noted. UNDP and the project team to ensure that regular meetings are held with CSOs for information sharing and also for update on the progress of respective activities CSOs are involved in. The Project also conducts monitoring of CSO community activities to ensure smooth running of activities and that common practices are followed.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Regular meetings to be held with implementing partners
[Added: 2010/01/17]
Project team 2010/12 Overdue-Initiated
28. Recommendation: In order to ensure that the recommended project revision is realistic in terms of the time and resources required for the implementation of activities, it would be important to involve the Implementing Partner CSOs, as appropriate, in the project revision exercise.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/17]

The revision is to be undertaken in consultation between UNDP and the project board. The approved document will be shared with all relevant stakeholders including the CSOs. However views of implementing partner CSOs were taken in consideration by the Project team during the revision exercise. Implementing partners meeting held on 18th on December 2010.

Key Actions:

29. Recommendation: It is essential that the Project Team continues to make sure that the channels of communications with the CSOs are well maintained and that they are at all times kept informed of, and feel involved with, the Project?s progress.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/17]

Noted. The project has been sharing information and it will continue to do so within its remaining lifespan.

Key Actions:

30. Recommendation: In the interest of maintaining good relations with the Project's donors it is important that their role in, and support for, the Project is at all times given due visibility and recognition.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/17] [Last Updated: 2010/01/17]

Agree: It is important to acknowledge the support of donors and the project will continue to support this recommendation.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The project to ensure that the donors of the project are given due visibility under any activities undertaken by the project
[Added: 2010/01/17]
Project Team 2010/12 Overdue-Initiated Ongoing
31. Recommendation: It is recommended to maximize working relationship with the Office of the Supervisor of Elections that seems very keen to cooperate with the Project as appropriate.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/17]

The project has carried out initial training on elections and democracy for elections office staff. It will conduct further training in 2010 based on the needs assessment to be conducted by the elections office with the help of the project team.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The Project team explores partnership opportunities with the Office of the Supervisor of Elections.
[Added: 2010/01/17]
Project Team 2009/10 Completed
32. Recommendation: Mutual benefits will derive from a continued close collaboration with Citizenship (In-School) Education Project especially with regard to youth, the more so given the anticipated reduction in the age of voting.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/17]

Agreed. However, project team is expected to share knowledge on thematic areas complementing project such as CEP to improve the quality of the curriculum that has to be developed.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Close linkages to be maintained between NICE and CEP
[Added: 2010/01/17]
Project team 2010/12 Overdue-Initiated
33. Recommendation: With a view to ensuring optimal working relationships and cooperation between all the parties concerned with the NICE Project it is recommended that an early opportunity be taken whereby the parties revisit their understanding, perception, and expectations of their own respective role/s and responsibilities and that of the other parties. It is believed that this will bring out any misunderstandings/misperceptions on the part of the various parties and thus help to clarify areas where there may be either an overlap, or a gap, or a need for greater delineation regarding respective roles and responsibilities. This exercise could perhaps be undertaken at the time of the project revision and should ideally involve revisiting all the various Project related relationships.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/17]

Agree. The project will consider this following the project board meeting where decisions on the revisions will be made. A more concerted effort is needed to have consultation between the project team and the Multi-Country Office, however coordination has improved considerably following the project?s relocation to Kadavu House together with MCO.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Consultation to continue between UNDP and the project team
[Added: 2010/01/17]
UNDP and Project team 2010/12 Overdue-Initiated
34. Recommendation: The NICE Project represents an extremely laudable endeavor to maintain a space for dialogue between the interim government, civil society and the international community. To its credit the NICE Project has indeed managed, not without difficulties, to operate within a politically sensitive and somewhat fluid environment, and to establish and maintain a stance of political impartiality and neutrality. It is absolutely critical to the success of the Project that it continues to be regarded, by all parties concerned, in this way.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/17]

Noted. While it is recognized that this project is crucial given the latest political developments, there is potential for civic/voter education to be facilitated in preparation for the proposed elections in 2014 to advocate democratic governance. Stakeholders consultation: NICE Project has provided CSO partners opportunities to advocate Civic Education under the current challenging political climate.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
UNDP and Project team to continue looking into entry points to have civic/electoral education messages disseminated to the communities till elections in 2014.
[Added: 2010/01/17]
UNDP and Project Team 2010/12 Overdue-Initiated
35. Recommendation: It is important for all those involved with the implementation of the NICE Project continue to frequently review the risks involved, to ensure that mitigation measures are in place, and that, to the extent possible, the Project is implemented with sufficient flexibility to enable it to adjust appropriately to changes in its environment.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/17]

Risk assessment is a normal part of any project and the NICE project maintains a risk log which records risks and issues and put in place counter measures to address identified risks

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Risk logs to be updated on quarterly basis by the Project Team
[Added: 2010/01/17]
Project team 2009/11 Overdue-Initiated to be updated quarterly
36. Recommendation: It is recommended that, in order to compartmentalize the risks associated with working with a diverse range of Implementing Partner CSOs in the current environment, the individual MOUs with them be finalized as soon as possible as these will stipulate roles and responsibilities.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/17]

MOUs have since then been signed between UNDP NICE and the Implementing Partners. Obligations and responsibilities of parties covered in the MoU are clearly defined in the agreement.

Key Actions:

37. Recommendation: It is recommended that the proposed project revision should incorporate ways and means to assess the impact of the Project. Related to this should include consideration of further work with the Perception Index data base.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/17]

The project already has provision for the second perception Index study to be conducted to measure the impact of the project against the baseline. Stakeholders consultation: Impact assessments to be conducted to measure the influence of the project initiative on the behavior and perception of people. Community response this far has been positive.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The project team to ensure that the second PIS is conducted in a timely manner
[Added: 2010/01/17]
UNDP and Project Team 2010/06 Overdue-Initiated
38. Recommendation: In view of the fact that the Project is currently operating under a UNDP/DEX execution arrangement it is strongly recommended that the proposed project revision includes specific reference to an exit strategy (a UNDP/DEX requirement) as well as successor arrangements indicating options as to where any Project related activities should reside post 2010.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/17]

Agree. UNDP and the Project team to identify a clearly defined exit strategy as part of the proposed project revision.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Exist strategy to be defined for the project
[Added: 2010/01/17]
UNDP and Project Team 2010/01 Overdue-Initiated pending approval of revised project document
39. Recommendation: The Perception Index Study cost in the region of $30,000 and contains an immense source of valuable information that would also be extremely useful for the CSOs working with the Project on community civic education, and who will no doubt be involved in any follow-up studies. It is therefore recommended that further consideration be given to its release, either in part or whole to the CSOs.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/17]

Agree. Though the information contained from PIS could be rendered sensitive, it is crucial for the information to be shared with the relevant stakeholders and implementing partners as this could also form the basis of further interventions by the CSOs in addressing the need of the community. Stakeholders consultation: Partner CSOs requested that evaluation forms be given after workshop to capture the change in perception of the workshop participants. A standard specific template to be created by the project team for facilitated to use following their respective sessions.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Propose to the board that the findings from the PIS be shared with the implementing partners
[Added: 2010/01/17]
UNDP and Project Team 2010/01 Completed
Ensure that the database is archived and maintained as UNDP property.
[Added: 2010/01/17]
UNDP 2010/01 Completed
40. Recommendation: Given the recent departure from Fiji of Dr. Steven Ratuva, the Study?s Lead Researcher, it is also recommended that every effort is made to ensure that the immense data base from which the Report was extracted is preserved. With a view to the sustainability of the Project?s outputs it is important that this valuable tool is carefully retained and entrusted, under the Project?s successor arrangements, such that it can continue to be used into the future to assess developments and progress in civic education in Fiji.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/17]

Agree: The findings of the PIS are the property of UNDP and have valuable information which could form the baseline for future development projects. It is suggested that the database be archived and stored in the UNDP G-Drive.

Key Actions:

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

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