Management Response Detail

Evaluation of Improved Seed Production for Sustainable Agriculture and Reduction of Post-Harvest Losses for Food Security projects

Commissioning Unit:	DPR Korea
Evaluation Plan:	2011-2019
Evaluation Type:	Project
Completion Date:	04/2014
Unit Responsible for providing Management Response:	DPR Korea
Documents Related to overall Management Response:

1. Recommendation: Evaluation Recommendation 1: The overall success of the two evaluated projects depends on the extent to which post harvest losses are reduced and seed production is improved, but even more importantly, on how well the interventions will have demonstrated the most cost-effective methods for reducing these losses and strengthening seed management. In order to do so, the projects´ ability to carefully measure and document field results and achieved improvements is essential, as, based on these field results, potential adjustments need to be made, which must then be tested again. This particular component of the overall project implementation process requires significant strengthening during the remaining project duration, as substantial amounts of additional data will need to be collected and processed.

Management Response: [Added: 2015/02/10]

The collection of field results and achieved improvements is important, but this was not specific activity component of the projects. Moreover, the projects were supposed to be supported by an in-parallel project ?Strengthening Food and Agriculture Information System (FAIS)? for information and data collection in the target farms. Delay in implementation of the FAIS project and eventual premature closure of the FAIS project disabled such activities. In addition, the Evaluation Report was finally completed in August 2014 by incorporating comments from all relevant parties. As the projects were to be closed by the end of October 2014, there was not sufficient time for the executing agency, FAO, and local stakeholders to adapt the project progress as recommended. However, the recommendation will be considered in future project planning.

Key Actions:

Key Action	Responsible	DueDate	Status	Comments	Documents
To share final Evaluation Report with the major stakeholders in the government of DPRK a. National Committee for FAO b. Ministry of Agriculture, DPRK [Added: 2015/02/10]	DRR, PM	2014/09	Completed	Shared with stakeholders in Sept2014 Endorsed by MoA in Oct2014

2. Recommendation: Evaluation Recommendation 2: It is therefore recommended that adequate additional efforts in data collection, recording / processing of field results and related reporting are initiated soonest possible, in order to ensure that firm statements with regard to the viability of the piloted technologies and management practices, as well as their suitability in different environments, can be made prior to the project end. A very intense collaboration with the MoA, PAC, the county authorities and management teams of beneficiary cooperative farms will be essential in the process.

Management Response: [Added: 2015/02/10]

Key Actions:

Key Action	Responsible	DueDate	Status	Comments	Documents
Share final Evaluation Report with the major stakeholders in the Government of DPRK a. National Committee for FAO b. Ministry of Agriculture, DPRK [Added: 2015/02/10]	DRR, PM	2014/09	Completed	Shared with stakeholders in Sept2014 Endorsed by MoA in Oct2014

3. Recommendation: Evaluation Recommendation 3: Another, in parallel implemented, UNDP/FAO ?Strengthening Capacity for the Improvement of Food and Agriculture Information System (Agricultural Databank)? initiative was supposed to provide inputs on baseline information and assess / monitor post harvest loss (PHL) on the demonstration and neighboring farms. The early closure of this Agricultural Databank initiative in 2013 certainly had a negative effect on the other projects´ current capacity to generate, analyze and disseminate key productivity, production and PHL data. In view of this and given the intensity of additionally required PHL assessment efforts ahead, it is recommended that the PB considers re-allocating some of the remaining budgetary resources for temporary external project support by a qualified expert in this specific domain. If approved in principal, detailed planning of such external support will be of great importance, as the timing of expected contributions would need to be carefully aligned with the already scheduled follow-up field survey that will compare the 2014 season post-harvest losses on the six demonstration farms with the earlier established baseline data.

Management Response: [Added: 2015/02/10]

Re-allocating some of the remaining budgetary resources from FAIS project to temporary external project support by a qualified expert could be one of the best options. However, as the Evaluation Report was finally completed and submitted in August 2014, and given the other projects were to be closed in October 2014, there was not practicality to reallocate the fund leftover from FAIS project to other projects.

Key Actions:

Key Action	Responsible	DueDate	Status	Comments	Documents
No [Added: 2015/02/10]		2014/10	Completed	Project closed in October 2014

4. Recommendation: Evaluation Recommendation 4: Much of that already scheduled follow-up survey work will in fact be done rather late for being published prior to 31 October 2014. The possibility of having certain, limited activities still taking place after the current project end date should therefore not be fully excluded. A project phasing down period could be defined for this purpose.

Management Response: [Added: 2015/02/10]

There was a prior decision from UNDP HQ that the projects would not be further extended after October 2014.

Key Actions:

Key Action	Responsible	DueDate	Status	Comments	Documents
No [Added: 2015/02/10]		2014/10	Completed	Project closed in October 2014

5. Recommendation: Evaluation Recommendation 5: Findings from the upcoming comparative analysis of the on the six demonstration farms introduced measures for improved post harvest management and resulting recommendations on reducing PHL on farms in DPRK should be compiled, published (in the form of extension materials in Korean language), and made available to county officers and cooperative farms. The translation of other by the two projects produced English language training material and handouts into Korean language should be considered.

Management Response: [Added: 2015/02/10]

The compiling IEC materials and making them available in cooperative farms will serve the purpose of promoting the achievement and findings from project intervention to other farms. UNDP CO will positively consider extending support to this activity in future planning.

Key Actions:

Key Action	Responsible	DueDate	Status	Comments	Documents
Share final Evaluation Report with findings and recommendations with MoA [Added: 2015/02/10]	DRR, PA	2014/10	Completed

6. Recommendation: Evaluation Recommendation 6: Given the limited remaining duration of the projects, the updating of the sustainability strategy should be undertaken as early as possible.

Management Response: [Added: 2015/02/10]

Recommendation is well noted, but in practice, given the limited project duration after the Evaluation Report was shared with the government in September 2014, while the projects were to be closed in October 2014, there was no time to proceed with updating sustainability strategy. However, the recommendation will be considered in future project planning.

Key Actions:

Key Action	Responsible	DueDate	Status	Comments	Documents
Share final Evaluation Report with findings and recommendations with MoA [Added: 2015/02/10]	DRR, PA	2014/10	Completed

7. Recommendation: Evaluation Recommendation 7: As part of this strategy authorities should continue to train farmers in post-harvest practices by building this into their established extension programmes.

Management Response: [Added: 2015/02/10]

Recommendation is well noted, and will be considered in future project planning.

Key Actions:

Key Action	Responsible	DueDate	Status	Comments	Documents
Share final Evaluation Report with findings and recommendations with MoA [Added: 2015/02/10]	DRR, PA	2014/10	Completed

8. Recommendation: Evaluation Recommendation 8: The project should consider procuring of a limited additional stock of essential spare parts for all imported project equipment. These spare parts should then be centrally stored by the Agricultural Mechanization Department in the MoA, from where they could be rapidly delivered to the beneficiary cooperatives in case of need. Ideally, the Agricultural Mechanization Department in the MoA would also put system in place that ensures a continued replacement of used spare part stocks, organize continued refresher training for the engineers that are in charge of maintaining respective equipment, and oversee the proper updating of maintenance log sheets in each beneficiary farm.

Management Response: [Added: 2015/02/10]

The recommendation includes 2 aspects; (1) procurement planning at the stage of project formulation, and (2) strengthening the mechanism for maintenance of equipment. The recommendation will be considered in future project planning.

Key Actions:

Key Action	Responsible	DueDate	Status	Comments	Documents
Share final Evaluation Report with findings and recommendations with MoA [Added: 2015/02/10]	DRR, PA	2014/10	Completed

9. Recommendation: Evaluation Recommendation 9: Further, well targeted investments for the development of the seed sector and the reduction of post harvest losses in DPRK are recommended. They should closely build on the experiences gained through the two evaluated projects, seek to consolidate achievements in the seed and PHL sectors and focus particularly on the up-scaling of proven results from the current demonstration cooperatives. A careful balance of efforts to strengthen local capacities, including farm management skills and awareness of modern agricultural practices, along with a matching level of cost-effective technology and infrastructure improvements that result in sustainable, locally adapted solutions for enhanced efficiency and productivity of rural production systems have the greatest potential of improving food security in DPRK.

Management Response: [Added: 2015/02/10]

The recommendation is well noted and will be considered in future project planning.

Key Actions:

Key Action	Responsible	DueDate	Status	Comments	Documents
Share final Evaluation Report with findings and recommendations with MoA [Added: 2015/02/10]	DRR, PA	2014/10	Completed

10. Recommendation: Evaluation Recommendation 10: One particular focus in future seed sector programming would need to be on further seed quality improvements to fully reach international quality standards. It is recommended that potential future project phases or projects in support of the seed sector furthermore consider including the testing of high-cold-tolerant winter wheat varieties (such as those grown under similar conditions in China), as they could help revitalize the country´s double cropping programme. Other double cropping system related benefits could potentially be obtained through the introduction of short duration, photo insensitive and cold tolerant hybrid varieties of maize, which could be used in combination with wheat and barley. Programming support to strengthen breeder seed production and to make reasonable priced hybrid rice and hybrid vegetable seed of superior cultivars available in larger quantities are seen as other priorities as these could have a very high multiplier and associated knock-on effects.

Management Response: [Added: 2015/02/10]

Further seed quality improvements to fully reach international quality standards, especially, including the testing of high-cold-tolerant winter wheat varieties and introduction of short duration, photo insensitive and cold tolerant hybrid varieties of maize will help revitalize the country´s double cropping programme for food security. The recommendation therefore will be considered in future project planning.

Key Actions:

Key Action	Responsible	DueDate	Status	Comments	Documents
Share final Evaluation Report with findings and recommendations with MoA [Added: 2015/02/10]	DRR, PA	2014/10	Completed

11. Recommendation: Evaluation Recommendation 11: In supporting further post harvest related programming substantial additional benefits are for example possible through an even wider use of threshing -cum- seed drying floors, combined harvesters, mobile threshers, maize shellers and improved crop storage, whereby the sustainability of the adoption of technological innovations is primarily dependent upon their profitability in the local setting. A broader targeting from cooperative to county or province level could be considered. Commonly used local standards (for example with regards to wheel sizes or engine tolerance against fuel contamination) should, if possible, be given preference when selecting imported equipment to be procured under potential future project phases.

Management Response: [Added: 2015/02/10]

The recommendation will be considered in future project planning.

Key Actions:

Key Action	Responsible	DueDate	Status	Comments	Documents
Share final Evaluation Report with findings and recommendations with MoA [Added: 2015/02/10]	DRR, PA	2014/10	Completed

12. Recommendation: Evaluation Recommendation 12: Empowering local cooperative farms, work team leaders and cooperative farmers through capacity building also improves the chances of sustainability. Accompanying administrative measures and incentives that encourage cooperative farmers to take greater responsibility for their crops (including after harvest) should, in view of likely resulting additional efficiency gains, be considered when planning potential additional project phases.

Management Response: [Added: 2015/02/10]

The recommendation will be considered in future project planning.

Key Actions:

Key Action	Responsible	DueDate	Status	Comments	Documents
Share final Evaluation Report with findings and recommendations with MoA [Added: 2015/02/10]	DRR, PA	2014/10	Completed

13. Recommendation: Evaluation Recommendation 13: It is critical to foresee adequate financial and human resources to ensure effective and quality monitoring and evaluation at the planning stage of potential future projects or project phases. The resources for monitoring and evaluation should be considered within the overall costs of delivering the agreed results and not as additional costs. While it is important to plan for monitoring and evaluation together, resources for each function should be separate. In practice, a project should have two separate budget lines for its monitoring and evaluation agreed in advance among partners.

Management Response: [Added: 2015/02/10]

The recommendation will be considered in future planning of project or project phases.

Key Actions:

Key Action	Responsible	DueDate	Status	Comments	Documents
Share final Evaluation Report with findings and recommendations with MoA projects in future. [Added: 2015/02/10]	DRR, PA	2014/10	Completed	Project closed in Oct2014 and new project formulation not initiated yet.

14. Recommendation: Evaluation Recommendation 14: The ?Beneficiary Results Assessment? methodology has during the past several years been increasingly introduced to strengthen results-based monitoring and reporting of project achievements. Under the prevailing conditions in DPRK it would have definitely been of great value also for the two evaluated projects. Planners of potential future project phases should therefore consider using the tool in DPRK. Specific attention should furthermore be given to establish baselines and identify data gaps.

Management Response: [Added: 2015/02/10]

The recommendation will be considered in future planning of project or project phases.

Key Actions:

Key Action	Responsible	DueDate	Status	Comments	Documents
Share final Evaluation Report with findings and recommendations with MoA [Added: 2015/02/10]	DRR, PA	2014/10	Completed

15. Recommendation: Evaluation Recommendation 15: Annual Work Plans (AWPs) of potential future project phases should systematically include annual output targets. As projects are implemented through AWPs, it is critical to set annual targets for outputs and clearly reflect on them in the AWPs for monitoring purposes at the end of the year. Agreed upon annual output targets in AWPs should also serve as reference points for performance monitoring in any existing national or corporate results management or outcome monitoring systems.

Management Response: [Added: 2015/02/10]

The recommendation will be considered in future planning of project or project phases.

Key Actions:

Key Action	Responsible	DueDate	Status	Comments	Documents
Share final Evaluation Report with findings and recommendations with MoA [Added: 2015/02/10]	DRR, PA	2014/10	Completed

16. Recommendation: Evaluation Recommendation 16: All English language training materials and handouts produced during potential future project phases should also be translated into Korean language. Is recommended that future project budgets systematically include related expenditures

Management Response: [Added: 2015/02/10]

The recommendation will be considered in future planning of project or project phases

Key Actions:

Key Action	Responsible	DueDate	Status	Comments	Documents
Share final Evaluation Report with findings and recommendations with MoA [Added: 2015/02/10]	DRR, PA	2014/10	Completed

17. Recommendation: Evaluation Recommendation 17: UNDP/FAO -PHL/SP project start-up was significantly delayed due to lengthy internal agency negotiations on the future project implementation, project management and other contractual issues. As a result, the UNDP DPRK Agriculture Sector Interventions Mid-Term Project Review recommended that UNDP should consider in the future whether ?Directly Executed? projects by UNDP would be more effective and efficient both in terms of Project Management and Financial Control. Numerous agriculture related UNDP projects elsewhere have been successfully implemented under both, ?Directly Executed? and ?Agency (FAO) Executed? modus. Both options have advantages and disadvantages and during this evaluation expressed opinions on the subject by consulted stakeholders vary, not surprisingly, widely. The evaluation recommends that further direct discussions between the concerned agencies, namely UNDP, FAO, NCC and respective line ministries, take place prior to deciding on the most appropriate modality for a specific future project in the agriculture sector. While the potential benefits of UNDP direct execution may indeed be greater for certain projects, particularly in cases where only limited agriculture-specific technical support is required, there are others where, in the DPRK context, the implementation through FAO clearly offers distinct advantages. This is specially the case where FAO´s technical strengths and close relationships with respective line ministries and departments, build through a long history of successfully implemented projects, are seen as an important success factor.

Management Response: [Added: 2015/02/10]

While giving priority to ?Direct Execution (DEX)? modality which UNDP maintains in the specific situation of DPRK, an approach towards ?Agency Execution? by other UN agencies, especially in the areas of their strength, will be positively considered in future planning, and relevant decision will be made through discussion with potential stakeholders

Key Actions:

Key Action	Responsible	DueDate	Status	Comments	Documents
Share final Evaluation Report with findings and recommendations with MoA [Added: 2015/02/10]	DRR, PA	2014/10	Completed

18. Recommendation: Evaluation Recommendation 18: Provided that there is a continued local posting of a Deputy FAOR in DPRK, the FAO internal reporting line from the CTA directly to the Beijing based FAOR should, in the interest of potential administrative efficiency gains, be reviewed when planning potential additional project phases or projects. FAO and UNDP may furthermore benefit from jointly exploring the feasibility of additional measures to increase the efficiency of collaboration and management arrangements for the implementation of future agriculture sector projects.

Management Response: [Added: 2015/02/10]

The issue of reporting line within the executing agency is an internal issue of the agency. However, UNDP may consider the recommendation in case potential future project is implemented in ?Agency Execution? modality in DPRK.

Key Actions:

Key Action	Responsible	DueDate	Status	Comments	Documents
Share final Evaluation Report with findings and recommendations with MoA [Added: 2015/02/10]	DRR, PA	2014/10	Completed

Management Response: [Added: 2015/02/10]

Key Actions:

Management Response: [Added: 2015/02/10]

Key Actions:

Management Response: [Added: 2015/02/10]

Key Actions:

Management Response: [Added: 2015/02/10]

Key Actions:

Management Response: [Added: 2015/02/10]

Key Actions:

Management Response: [Added: 2015/02/10]

Key Actions:

Management Response: [Added: 2015/02/10]

Key Actions:

Management Response: [Added: 2015/02/10]

Key Actions:

Management Response: [Added: 2015/02/10]

Key Actions:

Management Response: [Added: 2015/02/10]

Key Actions:

Management Response: [Added: 2015/02/10]

Key Actions:

Management Response: [Added: 2015/02/10]

Key Actions:

Management Response: [Added: 2015/02/10]

Key Actions:

Management Response: [Added: 2015/02/10]

Key Actions:

Management Response: [Added: 2015/02/10]

Key Actions:

Management Response: [Added: 2015/02/10]

Key Actions:

Management Response: [Added: 2015/02/10]

Key Actions:

Management Response: [Added: 2015/02/10]

Key Actions:

Evaluations by Unit

Latest Evaluations

Evaluation Snap Shot

Contact us