Success message
error message
warn message
Mainstreaming Rio Convention Provisions into National Sectoral Policies
Commissioning Unit: Jordan
Evaluation Plan: 2018-2022
Evaluation Type: Project
Completion Date: 05/2019
Unit Responsible for providing Management Response: Jordan
Documents Related to overall Management Response:  
1. Recommendation:

Greater attention should be paid to the strategic results framework during project design:

It is hard to understand how the project’s SRF was approved. Log frames or SRFs are many and varied and invariably there are different opinions and often heated discussion on what constitutes an outcome, an objective, an indicator and a target. However, in this instance the SRF had structural weaknesses (e.g. output indicators) as well as the inappropriate choice and / or phrasing and the number of indicators, baselines and targets. This raises important questions about who in the process of project cycle management has control over the SRF. As the principle monitoring and evaluation tool for a GEF project it is surprising how little attention is paid to the SRF during the design. In the event, the decision by the project to continue with the SRF was a correct one, in the opinion of the TE. To have tried to revise the SRF into anything more useful would have required significant changes to it and caused long delays. Therefore, all parties were correct to keep working with the SRF despite its shortcomings, but this was not without risk had something gone wrong.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/09/10] [Last Updated: 2020/11/26]

Environment, Climate Change and DRR Portfolio at UNDP Jordan Office to ensure that all project’s partners recognize the dynamics drive the project’s design, accordingly, the project document preparation (expert) /team to apply SMART indicators. The Environment, Climate Change & DRR team leader to ensure that expert group representing all related project partners are fully involved in the preparation of the coming SRF designs. Furthermore, the Environment, Climate Change and DRR team leader to ensure that the SRF is fully addresses and revised during the inception phase

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Future project designs should be subject to a stricter and more systematic approach to developing the SRF. Whether this is through an expert panel or similar mechanism but the main point being that the SRF is developed during the design phase. Large stakeholder workshops are probably not the forum to do this because they are large, unwieldy and include too many participants with little interest in the monitoring and evaluation process. Neither is a narrow focus of the consultant tasked with developing the Project Document. An expert consultation process followed by a facilitated expert workshop would be expensive but unless there is greater investment in developing the SRF they will continue to be of poor quality.
[Added: 2019/09/10] [Last Updated: 2021/04/06]
Environment, Climate Change & DRR Portfolio 2020/12 Completed .more systematic stricter and approaches for SRF have been implemented during project designs; History
2. Recommendation:

Attention should be paid to assessing risks in the project design:

There were a number of un-assessed risks not mentioned in the Project Document risk assessment. The most important were related to the NEEAP and the National Drought Action Plan. It was already clear at the time of design that the NEEAP would expire and the NDAP was expected to be produced in time for the project’s start up. This is not to say that the project did not respond correctly when these risks materialised. In fact, the project responded very thoughtfully and effectively making hard decisions and taking effective and adaptive action to address them.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/09/10] [Last Updated: 2020/11/26]

The project preparation team at the Environment, Climate Change & DRR Portfolio to ensure that the risks’ narrative section of the project document is summarized in a clear matrix, where risks are in-depth discussed with project’s related partners and weighted collectively based on agreed criteria. Further, the Portfolio will ensure that the project implementation team consulted the risks part of APR & PIR reports with concerned project partners.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
RTAs appear to have different formats for many of the tools especially the risk log and the SRF. This needs to be standardized, removed from the narrative part of the document and included as annexes and a checklist. Risk logs should be color-coded with a “traffic lights” system (High – red, Medium – orange, Low – green). Overall, Project Documents need to be more accessible and “user-friendly” in the future.
[Added: 2019/09/10] [Last Updated: 2021/04/06]
Environment, Climate Change & DRR Portfolio in close coordination with RTAs 2020/12 Completed this has been taken in to consideration while developing risk logs 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