basic data - undpgefpims.org€¦ · web viewproject results might be fully achieved by project...

2017

Project Implementation Review (PIR)

Kiribati LDCF

Basic Data

Overall Ratings

Development Progress

Implementation Progress

Critical Risk Management

Adjustments

Ratings and Overall Assessments

Gender

Communicating Impact

Partnerships

Grievances

Annex - Ratings Definitions

2017 Project Implementation Report

Page of

Basic Data

Project Information

UNDP PIMS ID

4570

GEF ID

5414

Title

Enhancing national food security in the context of global climate change

Country(ies)

Kiribati, Fiji, Kiribati

UNDP-GEF Technical Team

Climate Change Adaptation

Project Implementing Partner

Government

Joint Agencies

(not set or not applicable)

Project Type

Full Size

Project Description

Kiribati is a nation comprised of 33 atolls (21 inhabited) spread across a vast Pacific Ocean territory. The people of rural Kiribati are largely reliant upon a limited land base and coastal zone fisheries for both nutrition and livelihood.

As the population grows and climate change advances, the security of island resources will be challenged. Already, the ecosystem integrity upon which islanders depend for climate change resilience is being eroded. This is evinced by many factors including deteriorating quality of near-shore fisheries, degraded lagoon health, and reduced freshwater quality. The primary reason for this is that current management regimes for both atoll and lagoon resources are defined by open resource access. There is very little active management, research, and/or regulation to make certain use of lagoon resources is maintained within sustainable limits. The nation has very little experience with the design and implementation of community-based management regimes to incentivize improved and more innovative management techniques. There are few tools in place to support better management of lagoon resource in light of expanding economic use and demand for these resources. This situation challenges resource management both within the lagoon and on the atoll. Climate change will certainly exacerbates an already very high level of vulnerability.

The project objective is to build the adaptive capacity of vulnerable Kiribati communities to ensure food security under conditions of climate change.

To address these challenges and reach the projectÂs objective, the LDCF investment will support the realization of two components and related activities. Both components will be closely aligned so that national and site-based activities are designed to build synergies, increase awareness, and generate much more informed and strategic use of natural resources so that ecosystem integrity is able to continue to function as the foundation of food security needs.

Under Component One, the project will assist Kiribati to address urgent institutional capacity building needs primarily on the national level. This will include helping to set in place an improved regulatory environment, strengthened institutional planning and policy frameworks, and generation of data required to support informed decision-making.

Under Component Two, the project will assist Kiribati to address climate change vulnerabilities by implementing and demonstrating community-based adaptation measures. The project will work on a select number of atolls to set in place models for land and lagoon resources management that is predicated upon informed planning and management processes. The general awareness of rural communities regarding fisheries management and climate change impacts will be increased. Community-based monitoring systems will be established. This will be used to inform decision-making, serve as an early warning system for climate change impacts, and be linked to island-wide vulnerability assessments. The monitoring system will linked to national level programming so that national level decision-making benefits from more broad-based information sources. The project will support the generation, adoption, and implementation of model council by-laws designed to be ecosystem inclusive and enhance ecosystem integrity. This will include model regulations for the management of fisheries, including permit and reporting mechanisms for both subsistence, commercial and tourism use of lagoon resources. The project will work with extension officers responsible for both agriculture and fisheries resources. This will include building the capacities of officers, responsible government agencies, island councils, and rural stakeholders through formal training programs utilizing fisheries field schools. Model programs for more sustainable and climate resilient practices will be tested, assessed, and ready for national replication.

All project activity will target the reduction of food security issues by setting in place capacities required for local communi

Project Contacts

UNDP-GEF Regional Technical Adviser

Ms. Lisa Farroway ([email protected])

Programme Associate

Ms. Pakamon Pinprayoon ([email protected])

Project Manager

Mr. Tererei Reema ([email protected])

CO Focal Point

Mr. Josua Turaganivalu ([email protected])

GEF Operational Focal Point

Mr. Taouea T Reiher ([email protected])



Other Partners


Overall Ratings

Overall DO Rating

Moderately Unsatisfactory

Overall IP Rating

Unsatisfactory

Overall Risk Rating

Substantial

Development Progress

Objective or Outcome

Description

Objective:

To build the adaptive capacity of vulnerable Kiribati communities to ensure food security under conditions of climate change.

Description of Indicator

Baseline Level

Target level at end of project

Level at 30 June 2016

Cumulative progress since project start


1. Percentage of households and communities that have stable or increased food security in the face of climate change

Current trajectory of resource use signify increased future food insecurity (actual household food security will be defined during Year 1 of project and presented as gender- disaggregated data)

By the end of the project 100% of men, women and children of targeted islands (Nonouti 2,744, Abemama 3,299, Maiana 1,981) have stable and/or increased levels of food security increasing their resilience against climate change

[2015 census information added to target during inception phase for clarity]


50 % (300) of Nonouti Island households were surveyed in mid-June by Fisheries. Data analysis will take time, but from visual and raw data, food security is not an issue, as seen from the abundance and equal distribution of vertebrates (e,g,bonefish) which are exploited for consumption and commercial purposes . Invertebrates also contribute as food sources. almost every household have fishing gears but night scooping is commonly used.

Agriculture survey covered 77 households on Nonouti and found that terrestrial capacity in terms of food crops to support food security is weak due to i). lack of planting materials, ii) lack of capacity in advanced propagation techniques, iii) lack of interest by the people, iv) isolation of villages with island nursery, v) low planting/replanting rate and vi) more than 50% of the stable tree crops particulary seeded breadfruits are old and their production is declining.

Same work is also required at 2 more islands. 10% of work had been completed


2. Number of bonefish (Albula glossodonta) increasing and/or stable.

* Bonefish are the main protein source for I-Kiribati and an indicator of over-all coastal zone fishery health.

Nonouti

Estimated number of bonefish: TBD

Abemama


Maiana


South Tarawa


Qualitative estimates are that populations at all islands are overharvested.

[Qualitative information added to baseline during inception phase for clarity]

Nonouti

Estimated number of bonefish: Stable or increasing compared to baseline

Abemama


Maiana


South Tarawa



Fisheries had not undertaken its bonefish survey yet, but planned to use its 2014 survey result as baseline.

Progress is 0%


3. Percentage of Kiribati population covered by the enhanced early warning system

The existing communication systems are inadequate to send early warning message in timely manner

At least 95% of Kiribati population (109,693, of which 55,591 are women) receives early warning in a timely manner using one of the multiple communication lines

[Minor revisions to target during inception phase for clarity and addition of 2015 census information]


New equipment for installation at 3 pilot islands had not been done yet, but contract governing this between Government and international firm (NIWA) had been signed. Installation will happen in September to November, 2017 Progress is 5 %

The progress of the objective can be described as:

Off track

Outcome 1:

Institutional capacity development to reduce vulnerability to climate change-induced food shortages


Baseline Level





4. GoK provides annual financial support (in-kind and/or grant) to maintain of national adaptation and monitoring tool.

[Minor amendments to indicator wording during inception phase for clarity]

GoK annual support for AMAT: 0

Investment in current monitoring system TBD.

GoK annual support for AMAT: AU$ 25,000 (approx. US$ 18,000)

[Target amended during inception phase to AU$ 25,000; original target was US$ 25,000]


This support will be sought towards end of project once AMAT had been up and running. Momentarily AMAT has not been set up yet. Indicators (44) for monitoring had been identified and methodologies to collect most data/info were standardised with assistance of international consultant. collection of some data had commenced on 1 island but now await analysis. Progress is 10%


[Indicator moved]

Total hectares of island territory managed according to land use plans developed using national guidelines for ecosystem-based adaptation management

[Indicator moved to Outcome 2 during inception phase to improve fit to project activities and outputs]

[moved]

[moved]


[Please see Indicator 8]


[Indicator moved]

Hectares of coastal zone fishing management areas regulated through zoning system as a result of national regulatory tool adopted by GoK.

[Indicator moved to Outcome 2 during inception phase to improve fit to project activities and outputs]

[moved]

[moved]


[Please see Indicator 10]


5. Coastal Zone Fisheries Regulation adopted based upon increased level of national awareness about links between improved coastal ecosystem management and sustainability and resilience of subsistence coastal fisheries livelihoods.

0: National Coastal Zone Fishing Regulation adopted

1: National Coastal Zone Fishing Regulation adopted


Final draft of Regulation is complete as work begun in 2014.

Consideration for endorsement by Cabinet will be undertaken in Oct, 2017 Progress is 50%


6. Cohort of eight extension officers increase capacity score as a result of project training program based upon GEF Capacity Result 2 (Capacities to generate, access and use information knowledge).

Cohort of eight agriculture extension officers CR2 capacity score: 3

Cohort of eight fisheries extension officers CR2 capacity score: 3

* Score range: 0 - 15

Cohort of eight agriculture extension officers CR2 capacity score: 15

Cohort of eight fisheries extension officers CR2 capacity score: 15

* Score range: 0 - 15


Training has not commenced yet but still in planning phase. Fisheries plan to undertake it from July to August, 2017 while Agriculture will undertake theirs from Aug to Sept, 2017. Progress is 5%


7. Number of project beneficiaries

(includes people engaged in training, awareness-raising and education, pilot villages, delivery of project initiatives, stakeholder meetings and project governance)

[NEW indicator added during inception phase]


10,000 (of which at least 60% are women)


Around 1,500 people at each island had been involved in past consultations, trainings, awareness raising, surveys and mangrove replanting. an estimate of 30 -40 % are women. Progress is 5%


Off track

Outcome 2:

Implementation of community adaptation measures to increase food security


Baseline Level





8. Management of land in accordance with land use/resource management plans developed using national guidelines for ecosystem-based adaptation:

i) Hectares of island territory under land use plan/revised land use plan

ii) Number of villages managing land in accordance with land use plans

[Indicator revised during inception phase; originally the indicator was under Outcome 1, and was moved to Outcome 2 for better fit and split into two parts for clarity]

i) and ii)

Nonouti

0 ha

Abemama

0 ha

Maiana

0 ha

i)

Nonouti

Area with EBA land use plan: 2,000 ha

Abemama


Maiana


ii) At least two villages on each of the three target islands managing land in accordance with EBA land use plan.

[Targets revised during inception phase: i) target for Maiana corrected; was originally 2,700 ha which is not the size of the island; ii) targets established during inception phase]


This had not been reached yet. Initial consultation with the communities on Abemama was information gathering to feed the guidelines. Analysis of the information take time. However, 3 management (community based mangrove) plans for 3 villages/communities are in their draft forms. The same consultation needs doing at two other pilot islands. Progress on target i) is 5% while target ii) is 20%. These CBMMPs are components of an earlier initiative funded by a different project, considered as co-finance to the project.


9. Number of vulnerability assessments completed.



3 (one for each target island of Nonouti, Abemama, and Maiana)


No assessments had been completed yet, but some partial components of the VnA (physical assessment) at Abemama had been undertaken, producing a draft ecological map. The consultation on the island had gathered info (50%) needed that require analysis . The remaining info would be collected through households survey. The same exercise will be undertaken at two other pilot islands. Progress is 10 %


10. Hectares of coastal zone:

i) Regulated through fishing management zoning system as a result of national regulatory tool adopted by GoK.

ii) Protected in fish recovery zones developed using national guidelines for ecosystem-based adaptation management.

[Indicator revised during inception phase; originally two separate indicators, one under Outcome 1 and one under Outcome 2, which were merged]

i) and ii)

Nonouti

0 ha

Abemama

0 ha

Maiana

0 ha

i)

Nonouti

Regulated fishing area: 40,000 ha

Abemama


Maiana


ii) At least 10% of area under zoning on each island:

Nonouti

Fish recovery zones: 4,000 ha

Abemama

Fish recovery zones: 1,500 ha

Maiana

Fish recovery zones:1,000 ha

[Targets for ii) amended during inception phase to represent a set 10% of area under zoning on each island; original targets were 4,000 ha per island]


No progress to date.,

Fisheries in collaboration with Local Government have not undertaken any initial consultation with island councils for regulated fishing areas under bye-law as they wait for endorsement of the Fisheries Regulation first Progress todate is 0 %


11. Increase in hectares of mangrove habitat as reported annually by Island Councils using the national adaptation and monitoring tool.

Nonouti

Mangrove (ha): TBD

Abemama

Mangrove (ha): TBD

Maiana

Mangrove (ha): 273

Nonouti

Mangrove (ha): At least 5% increase compared to baseline

Abemama

Mangrove (ha): At least 5% increase compared to baseline

Maiana

Mangrove (ha): >285

[Targets revised during inception phase to be more realistic; original targets were for a 10% increase on baseline]


Replanting of mangroves had commenced at Abemama at 3 sites (villages) more than 2,000 seedlings (0.015625 hect) had been replanted in mid-June, with support under a separate project

Progress is 10%


12. Number of by-laws on fisheries conservation adopted on each target island.


Nonouti

3

Abemama

3

Maiana

1

Nonouti

6

Abemama

5

Maiana

4


Initial consultations with all villages on Abemama, Nonouti and Maiana had been undertaken. certain types of species had been enlisted for protection by proposed/new bye-law. No bye-law has been developed since the fisheries regulation needs passing first, as advised by Attorney General's office Progress is 20%


13. Number of existing commercial fishing operators with permits allocated and monitored based upon implementation of coastal zone fisheries conservation by-laws.

Nonouti

Commercial Permits: 0

Abemama


Maiana


Nonouti


Abemama


Maiana


[Targets amended during inception phase to be more realistic; original targets were 5 permits per island]


Activities had not commenced yet The fishing permits are ready but await passing of the fishing regulation first, then the bye-law endorsement Progress is 0%


14. Capacity score of Fisheries Conservation Field School participants increases based upon GEF Capacity Result 2 (Capacities to generate, access and use information knowledge).

Nonouti FCFS

Scorecard CR2: 1

Abemama FCFS

Scorecard CR2: 1

Maiana FCFS

Scorecard CR2: 1

* Score range: 0-15

Nonouti FCFS

Scorecard CR2: At least 10

Abemama FCFS


Maiana FCFS


[Targets amended during inception phase to be more realistic; original targets were 15 for each FCFS]


No progress todate activities are planned for commencement Sept, 2017 Progress is 0%


15. Amount of revenue generated annually (including Island Councils and target communities) from the non-consumptive use of coastal zone resources.

[Minor amendments to indicator wording during inception phase for clarity]

Nonouti AU$ 0

Abemama AU$ 0

Maiana AU$ 0

Nonouti AU$ 15,000

(US$ 11,200)

Abemama

AU$ 5,000

(US$ 3,750)

Maiana AU$ 5,000

(US$ 3,750)


Initial consultation with the Island Council on Nonouti to revive the gamefishing initiative. full support was given by Island Council. a first meeting with tour guides (5 men) was also undertaken. a contract is being finalised for a refresher course on tourguide for gamefishing . a TOR is being finalised for a trainer on hospitality, both planned for Nonouti in third quarter. Progress is 5 %


16. Number of food crops, including traditional food crops, planted at each target village.


Surveys indicate that villages on target islands typically have 2 crops planted.

Nonouti

At least 5 varieties per village

Abemama


Maiana



This is still in preparatory phase. Schools on 1 island (Maiana) had been consulted (teachers and school committee members) for its school garden policy and roll-out. The same will be done at 2 pilot islands

Training of key stakeholders (Government, Environment, Culture, Education) which would be involved, in replanting had been provided. Survey of Nonouti Island had been done in mid-June to gather info on varieties of food crops found that there are 4 existing varieties of breadfruit and 14 varieties of pandanus. The local fig is not fully utilized but replanting using the existing trees can increase the number of planted local fig at household level. There are also 13 babai pits that can be improved and recovered with more cyrtosperma and colocasai introduced

The establishment of gene banks at 5 sites on the island will increase tree crops diversity and more planting materials readily available whenever people want to start a replanting or planting activities. A crutial component of establishing a gene bank will be a capacity building to the people in all aspects of establishing a mini gene bank at a household level. This same survey will be done at 2 other islands.

Culture & Museum had consulted all villages on 1 island (Abemama) to identify participants in replanting traditional food trees. the same will be undertaken at 2 other islands. Progress is 6%


Off track

Implementation Progress

Cumulative GL delivery against total approved amount (in prodoc):

2.39%

Cumulative GL delivery against expected delivery as of this year:

7.26%

Cumulative disbursement as of 30 June (note: amount to be updated in late August):

106,478.61

Key Financing Amounts

PPG Amount

120,000

GEF Grant Amount

4446210

Co-financing

7,140,000

Key Project Dates

PIF Approval Date

Jun 3, 2013

CEO Endorsement Date

Mar 10, 2015

Project Document Signature Date (project start date):

Jan 20, 2016

Date of Inception Workshop

Jul 8, 2016

Expected Date of Mid-term Review


Actual Date of Mid-term Review


Expected Date of Terminal Evaluation

Jul 22, 2020

Original Planned Closing Date

Jan 18, 2021

Revised Planned Closing Date


Dates of Project Steering Committee/Board Meetings during reporting period (30 June 2016 to 1 July 2017)

2017-03-01

2016-12-20

Critical Risk Management

Current Types of Critical Risks

Critical risk management measures undertaken this reporting period

Financial

•Funding made available to through advance request had been inadequate to support intended activities and hence PMU had to seek other sources of funding for later reimbursement.Stakeholders had been anxious for making visits to pilot islands but all plans await replenishment of funding. The risk will persist if the rationing of funding continues

•Financial report for acquittal from Central Treasury had been slow. One of the hold-ups is the return of island financial reports on fund used by stakeholders at each pilot island. after the discussion of the issue between the Director of ECD and the Accountant General (Treasury), stakeholders are now allowed to cash their working capital on each island under a special imprest for an immediate financial reporting to Treasury upon return within a week.

The delay in providing Government's printout from Treasury on a monthly basis will continue to delay acquittal reporting of the project.

Adjustments

Comments on delays in key project milestones

Project Manager: please provide comments on delays this reporting period in achieving any of the following key project milestones: inception workshop, mid-term review, terminal evaluation and/or project closure.


Country Office: please provide comments on delays this reporting period in achieving any of the following key project milestones: inception workshop, mid-term review, terminal evaluation and/or project closure.


UNDP-GEF Technical Adviser: please provide comments on delays this reporting period in achieving any of the following key project milestones: inception workshop, mid-term review, terminal evaluation and/or project closure.


Ratings and Overall Assessments

Role

2017 Development Objective Progress Rating

2017 Implementation Progress Rating

Project Manager/Coordinator

Unsatisfactory

- IP Rating provided by UNDP-GEF Technical Adviser and UNDP Country Office only -

Overall Assessment

Project is off track and is not expected to achieve its end-of-project targets by project closure. Project results might be partially achieved by project closure if major adaptive management is undertaken immediately.Project had a low delivery rate.

The progress has been unsatisfactory since not all islands have been visited for initial surveys (date and information gathering) and consultations, hence some baselines have not been obtained. Except for few outputs (1.2 & 1.4), most of the targets would be a long way to be achieved. Overall assessment is in the range 5-10%

The hold-up is a financial issue due to UNDP's strict financial regulation of rationing advance requests and acceptance of central Treasury record only. Government's tracking system is very slow and hence delays financial acquittal process, required by UNDP.

The project would certainly need extension after expected closure time.

Role



UNDP Country Office Programme Officer



Overall Assessment

The Kiribati LDCF project has been very slow with the progress of implementation ever since the project document was signed right up to the recruitment of the project team and to the implementation progress to date. The project’s performance to date has been moderately unsatisfactory towards achievement of development objectives (DO) and implementation progress (IP) because of the many delays encountered. These delays had included the late recruitment of project staff, late submission of annual workplan and quarterly advance request, and the slow implementation of project activities planned for each quarter overall.

The project was only able to start properly in 2016 which is why very little has been achieved on the ground to witness any significant impact. The slow delivery of project activities planned for 2016 have also affected the progress overall towards meeting set targets and indicators for the project. The limited progress towards objective and outcome targets, even at a foundational level, is evident in the updates provided in the DO progress tab. There has been some progress of activities reported however they have been mostly on data gathering (baseline assessment) and planning (community consultation and workshop). These activities are critical to the project because they can help provide the ground work to allow effective implementation once the project is actively performing. While working towards achieving the overall targets and indicators of the current year’s annual progress is relatively limited. The project has only started gathering some baseline data on some of the project targets and indicators. In May, a two days workshop was convened to revise the projects Strategic Results Framework (SRF). The finalised SRF was later shared to members of the Project Steering Committee (PSC) for endorsement. PSC had endorsed the revised SRF and the project is now working towards reporting on this new SRF.

Implementation progress has also been ‘moderately unsatisfactory’ over the reporting period. Delivery for the project has been very low, with only 7% cumulative delivery to date. Not surprisingly, at such low delivery the implementation of the work plan has been challenged. In May detailed discussions in-country were held with the PMU to identify big ticket items to enhance delivery, including those that could be supported by UNDP (e.g. recruitment of project consultancies). A budget revision is proposed to better reflect the achievable delivery for the remainder of 2017.

A couple issues that should be highlighted here include the project’s quarterly advance reaching the PMU at a very delayed stage. Upon discussion with the PMU, it was noted that quarterly advance funds are not released on a timely basis by the Ministry of Finance and Treasury to the team. Project acquittal was undertaken on a monthly basis but it was slow due to late issuance of project warrant from Treasury/Finance and was finally released after mid-May. The over two months hold-up was due to the President's decision for Cabinet to consider the project first and reaffirm the pilot islands. Advance request was received in mid-April.

Resolving the delay in financial release/advance and issuance of project warrant would not be easy since these follow both national Government procedures and UNDP regulations, and hence these delays are expected to continue into the foreseeable future. However the ECD management managed to get the approval of the Accountant General to allow key stakeholders to take cash advances as imprest for their working capital on the islands. This would avoid extended delays (2 to 3 months) in getting financial returns from the outer islands to Treasury, as experienced in the last two quarters. Further efforts to resolve these financial challenges will continue in the coming months to ensure appropriate management of this critical risk.

Based on the challenges faced on the ground, the project has the potential to improve by the end of the year once all the project consultants are fully recruited and procurement of project equipment are completed. The PMU team has been recruited to ensure that the project is fully implemented on the ground. The engagement of local staff is important to ensure ownership of project in the long term as they have a better platform to engage with their local communities. The project has the potential to deliver within the project timeframe under current management support.

The action plan to improve progress is to complete the recruitment of consultancies to support the project (CTA and communications specialist are already underway), and place further efforts on resolving the quarterly advance/acquittal stage.

Role



GEF Operational Focal point

Moderately Satisfactory


Overall Assessment

The delivery rate of the project has been low due to financial issue associated with the untimely release of the project’s warrant and the delay in providing the financial report from the Ministry of Finance which is the only accepted document by the Implementing Agency for acquittal. The insufficient amount in the cash advance is also contributing to the low delivery which should be increased in the next advance to cater for activities that are ready to be rolled out.

Role






Overall Assessment

Implementing progress of the project is moderately unsatisfactory. Pending activities has been the cause of late release of project’s warrant but overall the project was well managed by a responsible officer (.i.e A Project Coordinator with the utmost assistance of the project assistant). Way forward to mitigate this issue was to assign one officer for Finance to actually sit on the project in following up with payment and a quarterly reconciliation of project fund utilized to fast track on reconciliation report thus help in expediting project warrant.

Role



Other Partners



Overall Assessment


Role



UNDP-GEF Technical Adviser


Unsatisfactory

Overall Assessment

This is the first PIR for this LDCF project that is aiming to build the adaptive capacity of vulnerable Kiribati communities to climate change. After a bumpy inception phase, implementation is underway but challenged by disconnected work planning and the slow release and acquittal of funds. Considering these challenges, I have allocated a progress towards development objectives (DO) rating of ‘moderately unsatisfactory’ and an implementation progress (IP) rating of ‘unsatisfactory’.

PROGRESS TOWARDS DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES (DO)

The project aims to enhance adaptive capacity through two interlinked components – Outcome 1 operating at a national level and putting in place the required policy, legislation, mechanisms and capacity to achieve the transformative change desired, and Outcome 2 demonstrating enhanced food security and adaptive capacity on Kiribati’s outer islands measured against several defined indicators.

Progress towards targets is often difficult to evaluate in the first year, relying upon activity completion than any meaningful measurement of indicators. The DO progress tab indicates that activities have commenced against many indicators, however these do not always appear coordinated nor clearly linked to the desired outcomes. Many baselines remain to be established. These should be finalized immediately as setting baselines in year 2 (or later) will limit the time available to achieve project targets. Should the current trajectory continue, targets might only be partially achieved by project end. A DO rating of ‘moderately unsatisfactory’ is given. This aligns with the CO assessment. It is more positive than the Project Manager rating of 'unsatisfactory', although the PM's DO rating also appears to reflect implementation challenges.

Progress towards national cross-sector activities for Outcome 1 is mixed. Initial scoping for the development of the national adaptation and monitoring tool (AMAT) is progressing slowly (see IP section). There has been limited attention to the development of the national training program intended to underpin the capacity building of extension officers. In comparison, there is good progress towards the target to have an adopted national coastal zone fishing regulation. A final draft of the regulation is complete and will be submitted for Cabinet approval in October. However, much of this drafting was completed ahead of project implementation. Impressively, around 1,500 people at each of the three outer islands have already been involved in project consultations and activities – almost halfway to the end of project target of 10,000.

Under Outcome 2, foundational activities are underway for indicators related to land use planning, vulnerability assessments, and mangrove replanting, and initial community consultations have commenced for work on bye-laws, game fishing and planting of traditional food crops. Activities have not progressed against a handful of indicators, with a few pending the approval of the new fisheries regulation.

As set out in the ProDoc, the project strategy envisaged that Outcome 1 would be foundational to Outcome 2, i.e. national tools and institutional capacity would be enhanced and subsequently piloted on the outer islands. Accordingly, the budget for Outcome 2 was weighted towards the second half of the project. Of some concern therefore is the extent of activity under Outcome 2 and potential disconnect of this from national activities. For example, under Outcome 2 progress is reported on community-based mangrove plans that have been supported by an earlier initiative. What is not reported is any progress to develop the national guidelines for ecosystem-based adaptation that are intended to form the basis of the outer island land use planning process. Similar disconnect between national-level and outer island activities can be detected elsewhere in the results framework, such as through the scheduled commencement of training programs in the final quarter of this year in the absence of any reported progress with the development of national training curricula to underpin this training rollout. This should be addressed in the next work plan to ensure the appropriate connection between activities at national and outer island level.

Also concerning is the perceived deviation from the project strategy for objective indicators. New monitoring regimes to measure fisheries health and community livelihoods in an integrated fashion were envisaged. There has been little progress to develop these new integrated monitoring regimes. While there has been good effort to establish a baseline for food security at the household level, surveys are being conducted in parallel by fisheries and agriculture and these could appear uncoordinated. It will be important to pull the two surveys together into a unified measure (and baseline) of overall food security. The baseline for bonefish populations should also be established ahead of the next PIR. There has been limited progress with developing a new fisheries health monitoring program and as reported in the DO progress tab the use of creel survey data is proposed for the baseline. This goes against the intent of the model bonefish monitoring program envisaged in the ProDoc that was proposed to use information on size (girth, length, weight) and otolith (earbone) sampling.

The project’s results framework has been revised during the inception phase. Substantial revisions were made during the inception workshop yet as these tended to downgrade indicators to output level and disaggregate them to individual project partners they were not RTA-endorsed. The project completed its inception during a time of RTA changeover which resulted in limited oversight at this critical stage. As a corrective strategy, a results framework workshop was held in Tarawa in June 2017, attended by the Project Management Unit (PMU), partner agencies, the UNDP CO and RTA. A further revised results framework was agreed at the workshop and subsequently approved by both the Board and RTA. This should be further reviewed at the mid-term review point in light of progress made. The baseline LDCF tracking tool prepared for the project does not appear to fully reflect the project’s intended activities. This should be reviewed by the Chief Technical Advisor (CTA) once recruited and any necessary baseline revisions confirmed and endorsed by the Project Board and RTA.

IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS (IP)

The ProDoc was signed in January 2016. While progress has since been made in the establishment of the PMU and Project Board and the convening of the inception workshop in December 2016, delivery and work planning have been sub-optimal. As indicated in the Project Manager’s assessment, the PM herself considers that a project extension will be required. These challenges and the risk of deviation from project strategy through uncoordinated delivery result in my IP rating of ‘unsatisfactory’.

There is strong cross-agency engagement in the project, with many agencies represented on the Project Board. Multiple agencies are also involved in directly implementing project activities. While this shows excellent cross-agency ownership (essential to ensure mainstreaming of project outcomes and their long-term sustainability) it also brings the risk of uncoordinated implementation and a sense that multiple partners are ‘pulling in different directions’.

The cohesive strategy of the project has been challenged by an early focus on allocation of project funds to participating agencies instead of on outputs. With the perception that they have a set budget allocation, partners have tended to identify activities that reflect individual mandates rather than contribute towards collective outputs aligned to project outcomes. Over time this could result in a deviation from the project strategy and a failure to achieve the transformational, cross-sector changes intended. This has been corrected over the reporting period through the adaptive action of a joint UNDP CO/RTA mission to Kiribati, and the provision of additional support to the PMU on work planning processes.

Project delivery is very low. As with many new projects, delivery has been severely restricted by slow disbursement and acquittal processes as the government and UNDP financial systems are aligned and familiarity in the respective systems gained. Cumulative delivery is at only 2.4% based on ProDoc budget, comprising 22% delivery against the 2016 work plan and 5% delivery to end June for the 2017 work plan. Work plan delivery has been impeded by the slow acquittal process. Activities to outer island sites have been delayed along with the recruitment of additional project staff such as the CTA. To help improve work plan implementation, UNDP has offered support with procurement of consultants and project equipment. Two consultancies are currently being recruited (the CTA and a communications specialist). The 2017 delivery target of almost $1.3 million was overly ambitious.

There are also key foundational activities that have not been delivered to schedule and are not yet fully embedded within work plans. This includes consultancies intended to progress cross-sector work under Outcome 1 and the development of integrated fisheries health and food security monitoring programs. It is not yet clear whether an effective alternative strategy is in place to achieve these outputs and this should be confirmed as a priority, with revisions to work planning as required. The establishment of the ‘adaptation monitoring and assessment tool’ is behind schedule after initial confusion between the international consultant and PMU on what the ‘AMAT’ is intended to achieve. The approach outlined in the consultancy report is sub-optimal, reflecting a consolidation of existing monitoring rather than a critical assessment of what is needed and how these can be best brought together into a single tool to support government decision-making and community outreach. The consultant’s report is still awaiting finalization; a delay that could impede the delivery of outputs that depend upon the establishment of the AMAT.

The first 2017 work plan submitted to UNDP for approval included a substantial shift in funds from Outcome 1 to Outcome 2, and a proposed allocation of $580,000 to fund construction of an integrated market at South Tarawa. This activity was not included in the ProDoc endorsed by GEF Secretariat. After carefully reviewing the proposal, UNDP concluded that this constituted a major change to project strategy and budget that could not be approved by the GEF Agency. This was noted by the Project Board at its meeting in March 2017. Subsequently a revised 2017 work plan that more closely aligned to the intended project strategy was developed and approved by government and UNDP. As the construction of the integrated market is a government priority and it will support local livelihoods, a contributing budget allocation towards the establishment of the market has been included in the work plan.

Risk management can be improved, although it is at least being addressed through a collaborative approach between UNDP, PMU and government. The critical risk of slow disbursement and acquittal requires further attention over the coming months to raise familiarity with UNDP-GEF financial processes and to offer further support to the Government of Kiribati to help it adhere to these processes. UNDP is already offering additional support with procurement. There have been two oversight missions conducted over the reporting period – CO attendance at the Board meeting in March, and a follow-up mission by the CO and RTA in June to revise the results framework and discuss implementation challenges. Further monitoring missions can be anticipated over the coming reporting period to help further improve performance.

ACTION PLAN TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE

The action plan to improve project implementation aims to enhance strategic and technical oversight in parallel with correcting delivery challenges. Recommended actions are as follows: 1) Finalize the recruitment of the CTA as a priority and among their initial tasks include: a review of the monitoring required to establish baselines, revision of LDCF baseline tracking tool, identification of further capacity (via consultancies and/or project staff) to deliver critical outputs, and completion of strategic workplan mapping to identify how project activities connect to outputs and then outcomes; 2) Critically review the proposed approach for development of the AMAT, bringing in further specialist technical consultancy support as needed; 2) Complete a budget revision for 2017 to more realistically reflect expected delivery; 3) Offer UNDP technical support to further improve disbursement/acquittal processes and overall work plan implementation including an in-country visit to understand Government of Kiribati systems and processes; 4) Consider a joint CO/RTA monitoring mission prior to the completion of the next PIR period.

Gender

Progress in Advancing Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment

This information is used in the UNDP-GEF Annual Performance Report, UNDP-GEF Annual Gender Report, reporting to the UNDP Gender Steering and Implementation Committee and for other internal and external communications and learning.

Has a gender analysis been carried out this reporting period? Please note that all projects approved in GEF-6 (1 July 2014 through 30 June 2018) are required to carry out a gender analysis.

No

If a gender analysis was carried out what were the findings?

N/A

Does this project specifically target woman or girls as direct beneficiaries?

No

Please specify results achieved this reporting period that focus on increasing gender equality and improving the empowerment of women.

Results reported can include site-level results working with local communities as well as work to integrate gender considerations into national policies, strategies and planning. Please explain how the results reported addressed the different needs of men or women, changed norms, values, and power structures, and/or contributed to transforming or challenging gender inequalities and discrimination.

N/A

Communicating Impact

Tell us the story of the project focusing on how the project has helped to improve people’s lives.

(This text will be used for UNDP corporate communications, the UNDP-GEF website, and/or other internal and external knowledge and learning efforts.)

Since the project is slowly getting off the ground, it is still early days to see improvement in people's lives. Those consulted during the launching events are expecting the rolling out of activities for their involvement.

However, on a particular island (Abemama), where progress on community based management planning (environment, fisheries, social and agriculture) is advancing (output 1.2), interest from the communities is increasing, since members could see how their natural resources are decreasing, their environment is degrading from climate change impacts, development on their island and a change of life style.

The target of having at least 2 communities (villages) involved in implementing management plans has reached 4 villages with an additional village seeking inclusion amongst the other villages. This advance progress is due to support from another project which does not have financial hold-ups and began prior 2010.

What is the most significant change that has resulted from the project this reporting period?

(This text will be used for internal knowledge management in the respective technical team and region.)

No change could be seen yet as the project is not yet in full operation mode and have visible results

Describe how the project supported South-South Cooperation and Triangular Cooperation efforts in the reporting year.

(This text will be used for internal knowledge management within the respective technical team and region.)

The project has no involvement with other neighbouring countries, however its first international consultant on data collection and standardisation of its methodology is from another LDC (Tuvalu). This component is not yet in full operation.

Project Links and Social Media

Please include: project's website, project page on the UNDP website, Adaptation Learning Mechanism (UNDP-ALM) platform, Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, YouTube, as well as hyperlinks to any media coverage of the project, for example, stories written by an outside source. Please upload any supporting files, including photos, videos, stories, and other documents using the 'file upload' button in the top right of the PIR.

Website: environment.gov.ki

Partnerships

Give the name of the partner(s), and describe the partnership, recent notable activities and any innovative aspects of the work. Please do not use any acronyms. (limit = 2000 characters).This information is used to get a better understanding of the work GEF-funded projects are doing with key partners, including the GEF Small Grants Programme, indigenous peoples, the private sector, and other partners. Please list the full names of the partners (no acronyms please) and summarize what they are doing to help the project achieve its objectives. The data may be used for reporting to GEF Secretariat, the UNDP-GEF Annual Performance Report, UNDP Corporate Communications, posted on the UNDP-GEF website, and for other internal and external knowledge and learning efforts. The RTA should view and edit/elaborate on the information entered here. All projects must complete this section. Please enter "N/A" in cells that are not applicable to your project.

Civil Society Organisations/NGOs

N/A

Indigenous Peoples

Community members at each pilot islands are indigenous

Private Sector

N/A

GEF Small Grants Programme

N/A

Other Partners

Government departments involved in implementing, Meteorology, Tourism, Local Trade, Local Government, Culture, Environment, Education, Agriculture, and Fisheries

Grievances

Environmental or Social Grievance

This section must be completed by the UNDP Country Office if a grievance related to the environmental or social impacts of this project was addressed this reporting period. It is very important that the questions are answered fully and in detail. If no environmental or social grievance was addressed this reporting period then please do not answer the following questions. If more than one grievance was addressed, please answer the following questions for the most significant grievance only and explain the other grievance(s) in the comment box below.

The RTA should review and edit/elaborate on the information entered here. RTAs are not expected to answer these questions separately.

What environmental or social issue was the grievance related to?


How would you rate the significance of the grievance?


Please describe the on-going or resolved grievance noting who was involved, what action was taken to resolve the grievance, how much time it took, and what you learned from managing the grievance process (maximum 500 words). If more than one grievance was addressed this reporting period, please explain the other grievance (s) here.


Annex - Ratings Definitions

Development Objective Progress Ratings Definitions

(HS) Highly Satisfactory: Project is on track to exceed its end-of-project targets, and is likely to achieve transformational change by project closure. The project can be presented as 'outstanding practice'.

(S) Satisfactory: Project is on track to fully achieve its end-of-project targets by project closure. The project can be presented as 'good practice'.

(MS) Moderately Satisfactory: Project is on track to achieve its end-of-project targets by project closure with minor shortcomings only.

(MU) Moderately Unsatisfactory: Project is off track and is expected to partially achieve its end-of-project targets by project closure with significant shortcomings. Project results might be fully achieved by project closure if adaptive management is undertaken immediately.

(U) Unsatisfactory: Project is off track and is not expected to achieve its end-of-project targets by project closure. Project results might be partially achieved by project closure if major adaptive management is undertaken immediately.

(HU) Highly Unsatisfactory: Project is off track and is not expected to achieve its end-of-project targets without major restructuring.

Implementation Progress Ratings Definitions

(HS) Highly Satisfactory: Implementation is exceeding expectations. Cumulative financial delivery, timing of key implementation milestones, and risk management are fully on track. The project is managed extremely efficiently and effectively. The implementation of the project can be presented as 'outstanding practice'.

(S) Satisfactory: Implementation is proceeding as planned. Cumulative financial delivery, timing of key implementation milestones, and risk management are on track. The project is managed efficiently and effectively. The implementation of the project can be presented as 'good practice'.

(MS) Moderately Satisfactory: Implementation is proceeding as planned with minor deviations. Cumulative financial delivery and management of risks are mostly on track, with minor delays. The project is managed well.

(MU) Moderately Unsatisfactory: Implementation is not proceeding as planned and faces significant implementation issues. Implementation progress could be improved if adaptive management is undertaken immediately. Cumulative financial delivery, timing of key implementation milestones, and/or management of critical risks are significantly off track. The project is not fully or well supported.

(U) Unsatisfactory: Implementation is not proceeding as planned and faces major implementation issues and restructuring may be necessary. Cumulative financial delivery, timing of key implementation milestones, and/or management of critical risks are off track with major issues and/or concerns. The project is not fully or well supported.

(HU) Highly Unsatisfactory: Implementation is seriously under performing and major restructuring is required. Cumulative financial delivery, timing of key implementation milestones (e.g. start of activities), and management of critical risks are severely off track with severe issues and/or concerns. The project is not effectively or efficiently supported.

basic data - undpgefpims.org€¦ · web viewproject results might be fully achieved by project...

Documents