final evaluation report - humanitarianresponse€¦ · the final evaluation of the project shows...
TRANSCRIPT
1
BUILDING ADAPTIVE CAPACITY AND RESILIENCE TO CLIMATE
CHANGE IN THE WATER SECTOR IN CABO VERDE
CIDA Fast Start Climate Change Funds
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT
Praia, Cabo Verde
Survey date: December 2016
Report drafting date: December 2016 - March 2017
This evaluation was conducted with the support of
CIDA/UNDP
Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – Page 2/82
Cabo Verde – Final Evaluation Report Building adaptive capacity and resilience to climate change in the water sector in Cabo Verde Atlas ID: 00058318
PIMS ID of the project (UNDP): 4091
Evaluation period: December 12-21, 2016
Evaluation report date: December 2016
Region and country of the project: Cabo Verde
Implementing partner: Government of Cabo Verde
Other implementing partners: INIDA, DGASP, SNSAN, ANAS
Lead Coordination Agency Ministry of Agriculture and Environment
Duration of the intervention: 2013-2016
Start date of the intervention: October 2013
End date of the intervention: November 2016
CIDA’s contribution: USD 1,980,000
Co-financing: USD 63,699,027
Evaluation team members: Alexandre Borde (International Expert) Elisabeth Lopes (National Consultant) Luisa Reis de Freitas (Technical
Assistant)
The evaluation field mission took place from December 11 to 21, 2016. The project
intervention sites in the islands of Santiago and Santo Antão were visited.
Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – Page 3/82
ACKNOWLEGMENTS
The evaluators wish to express their sincere thanks to those who helped during this
evaluation. Especially to the Country office of UNDP in Praia, including Mrs Sandra Martins,
Mrs Ilaria Carnevali and Mrs Ulrika Richardson-Golinski, the resident coordinator. Also to the
members of the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment, including the Project Supervisor,
Mr. Carlos Monteiro, the former Project Supervisor, Mrs Alayde Dias, the National Director of
Environment, Mr. Alexandre Nevsky, the National Director of Agriculture, Forestry and
Animal-Husbandry, Mr. José João Teixeira and the local focal points, Mr. Orlando Freitas,
Manuel Delgado and Antonio Andrade. As well as to Mrs Angela Moreno, President of
INIDA.
Their availability was invaluable throughout the mission to respond to questions and
clarifications needed for any thorough final evaluation. The stakeholders were available to
meet the evaluators, at the national level as well as in the demonstration project villages, and
all those who collaborated during the mission should also be thanked.
CANADA AND FAST START FINANCE
During the Conference of the Parties (COP15) held in December 2009 in Copenhagen
developed countries pledged to provide new and additional resources, including forestry and
investments, approaching USD 30 billion for the period 2010 - 2012 and with balanced
allocation between mitigation and adaptation. This collective commitment has come to be
known as ‘fast-start finance’. At COP 18, Parties acknowledged the delivery of Fast-start
Finance by developed country Parties to fulfill their collective Fast-start Finance commitment,
and invited developed country Parties to expedite its full disbursement.
Over the last three fiscal years (2010–2011 to 2012–2013), Canada has fully delivered on its
commitment to provide its fair share of fast-start financing. Over the fast-start period, $1.2
billion in new and additional climate change financing has been issued, with approximately
$400 million in each of the three years. Canada’s support is producing results across the
globe—to date; funds have been committed at the project level to the benefit of over 50
developing countries. This support has been delivered primarily through multilateral
channels, but also directly to Canada’s bilateral partners and in partnership with civil society
and the private sector.
Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – Page 4/82
Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................. 5 Summary introduction and summary of the assessment of the project .................................. 6 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 9
1.1. Context and justification: Reminder of the context in the Republic of Cabo Verde and aspects related to climate change impacts .................................................................. 9
1.1.1. General presentation of the country ................................................................. 9 1.1.2. Effects of climate changes in Cabo Verde .......................................................10 1.1.3. Expected impacts of climate change and future projections ............................11
1.2. Evaluation’s objectives ...........................................................................................13 1.3. Methodology and scope of the evaluation ..............................................................15
1.3.1. Mission preparation (steps 1 and 2) ................................................................15 1.3.2. Field mission: consultations and first results analysis (steps 3 and 4) .............15 1.3.3. Finalization of the report (steps 5 and 6) .........................................................15
2. Description of the project and development context ......................................................17 2.1. Project start and expected duration ........................................................................17 2.2. Issues that the project sought to solve....................................................................17 2.3. Goal and objectives of the project ..........................................................................18 2.4. Baseline indicators established in the logical framework and expected results .......18 2.5. Main stakeholders ..................................................................................................19
3. Observations .................................................................................................................22 3.1. Formulation of the project extension .......................................................................22
3.1.1. Logical Framework and Results Analysis ........................................................22 3.1.2. Assumptions and risks ....................................................................................22 3.1.3. Stakeholders participation planning .................................................................25 3.1.4. Extension and replication approach .................................................................26 3.1.5. Links between the project and other interventions in the same sector .............27 3.1.6. Management ...................................................................................................28
3.2. Project implementation ...........................................................................................29 3.2.1. Adaptive management ....................................................................................29 3.2.2. Partnerships ....................................................................................................30 3.2.3. Integration of M&E in the adaptive management .............................................32 3.2.4. Financing of the project ...................................................................................33 3.2.5. Follow-up and evaluation: project’s extension and implementation ..................34 3.2.6. Coordination between UNDP, the implementing partner and the executing partner 34 3.2.7. Cross-cutting issues: nature of the beneficiaries and recognition of the gender and food security issues ................................................................................................35
3.3. Project results ........................................................................................................38 3.3.1. Overall results by intervention zones ...............................................................38 3.3.2. Relevance .......................................................................................................42 3.3.3. Efficiency & Effectiveness ...............................................................................42 3.3.4. Appropriation by the country ............................................................................42 3.3.5. Sustainability ...................................................................................................43 3.3.6. Impact .............................................................................................................44
4. Conclusions, recommendations and lessons learnt .......................................................45 5. Annexes ........................................................................................................................50
5.1. Photographs ...........................................................................................................50 5.2. Itinerary ..................................................................................................................54 5.3. List of documents reviewed ....................................................................................54 5.4. List of persons interviewed .....................................................................................55 5.5. Project’s logical framework .....................................................................................56 5.6. Terms of reference .................................................................................................62
Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – Page 5/82
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACC Adaptation to Climate Change ANAS National Institute for Water Resources Management ANMCV National Association of municipalities of Cape Verde CC Climate Change CCAF Canadian Climate Adaptation Facility CIDA Canadian International Development Agency COP Conference of the Parties COP-21 21st Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC DGADR Directorate General of Agriculture and Rural Development DGASP Directorate General of Agriculture, Forestry and Animal-Husbandry DSA Service Directorate of Food Security ECREEE ECOWAS Center for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States FAO Food and Agriculture Organization GCCA Global Climate Change Alliance GCF Green Climate Fund GCM Global Circulation Models GEF Global Environment Facility ICIEG Cabo Verdean Institute for Equity and Gender Equality INDC Intended Nationally Determined Contribution INIDA National Institute of Agriculture Research and Development INMG National Institute for Meteorology and Geophysics JICA Japanese International Cooperation Agency LDCF Least Developed Countries Fund MAE Ministry of Agriculture and Environment MCC Millennium Challenge Corporation MoU Memorandum of Understanding MRD Ministry of Rural Development NAPA National Adaptation Program of Action on Climate Change PMT Project Management Team UNDAF United Nations Development Assistance Framework UNDP United Nations Development Program UNEP United Nations Environmental Program UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNICV University of Cabo Verde
Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – Page 6/82
Summary introduction and summary of the assessment of the project
The “Building adaptive capacity and resilience to climate change in the water sector in Cabo
Verde”, funded by the Canadian International Development Agency, is an extension of
project with the same name, funded by the GEF. It lasted for 3 years, from 2013 until 2016
and its goal was to ensure the water availability, supply and quality are maintained in the
face of changed climatic conditions, and subsequently reduce the impact of climate change
on food security.
The project appears to be a success against the objectives set initially, on the one hand, and
against the vision that the beneficiaries hold of it, on the other hand. It is also important to
note that these beneficiaries are farmers, breeders and fishermen who have been hardly hit
by the ravages of the adverse effects of climate change. The action of the project seeks to
improve their livelihoods and create resilience to climate change effects, also taking into
consideration food security and gender issues.
The project’s investments are important regarding the very low or inexistent real investment
powers of recipients. The results of the project as a whole constitute a change in the local
communities’ lives, enabling them to increase and improve their production, have a better life
quality and diversify their livelihood. The project hence was appreciated on all the visited
sites.
The project evaluation can be summarized in the following scoring table:
Criteria Note Comment
Implementation of the project
Monitoring and evaluation
S Planning for monitoring and evaluation was comprehensive, but not enough detailed in the project document. During the project implementation, it integrated both internal M&E daily and annually, and external evaluations at project completion. A consistent budget was implemented to ensure the functioning of M&E. The implementation of the M&E plan was satisfactory. The conclusions of the final review of the first phase were positive and recommendations relevant. These recommendations have been implemented and had positive consequences on the project execution, with appropriate adjustments of project activities regarding the progress and remaining time for these activities.
UNDP implementation S The UNDP’s implementation, monitoring and facilitation work was provided adequately throughout the project. The structure and implementation of the project in Cabo Verde were adequate, and the role of UNDP significant as the guarantor of this adequacy.
DGASP Execution S The DGASP has fully played its role as executing agency of the project, with the provision of premises and staff throughout the life of the project, and an appropriate political and technical supervision of the project.
Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – Page 7/82
Coordination between the UNDP, the implementing partner and the executive partner
S The collaboration between the UNDP and the Government of Cabo Verde has not been a major problem, apart from purely administrative side effects due to the reorganization of the Government with the elections. These departmental reorganization problems or UNDP intervention procedures in Cabo Verde changes are beyond the scope of the project and not treated in this report.
Project results
Global results S The project document, as it was originally developed, is ambitious, and corresponds to the concerns of rural populations affected by climate change. The final evaluation of the project shows that overall most of the results were achieved. The activities were implemented effectively and have led to very satisfactory results. It should be noted that some of the activities were not completed by the moment of this evaluation. However, based on the information collected during the evaluation, chances are high that they will be completed within the next months. The project enabled the seventeen intervention zones to benefit from expertise and technologies which allow them to better adapt to climate change. This could be done by effectively involving local communities, national authorities and technical partners.
Relevance R The relevance of the project is obvious as the question of water resources management and food security is important and sensitive to climatic hazards in Cabo Verde. Considering the project results, it appears that the introduction of innovative techniques or practices requires extreme support, despite the expertise already present. It is recommended that the project is rescaled nationwide and extended, if possible, at all rural communities of Cabo Verde.
Efficiency and Effectiveness
S This assessment is based on the testimonies of the beneficiaries as well as national partners. Also, the team has shown motivation and involvement in the implementation of this project and has benefited from the institutional capacity and interaction of major political government authority. In conclusion, the effectiveness of the implementation of the project is satisfactory.
Appropriation by the country
S Important decisions (choices of pilot projects, beneficiaries, etc) and activities were implemented with the systematic and comprehensive agreement of the UNDP and Cabo Verdean authorities. Close cooperation with the government has certainly allowed the project to be appropriated by the institutions at all
Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – Page 8/82
levels (including villages) and therefore guarantee a high durability to the gains of the project; it also helped to integrate quite easily the issues of climate change, even if the beneficiaries are mainly concerned with improving their living conditions. We must therefore emphasize that the involvement and ownership was very satisfactory at local and national levels: both on the part of the rural populations, villages and authorities and other national institutions partners. All were very satisfied with the project, and participated actively in its implementation: municipalities brought their support through their MAE delegations, and local communities through the various groups. Follow up reports, annual work plans and reports about field visits were sent regularly to the Government and many events (meetings with the project management team, workshops, etc.) marked the project. Exchanges between the Government and the project team were numerous, and the flow of information was systematized (at the administrative as well as the technical levels).
Sustainability ML The activities introduced during the project implementation have created a dynamic in the villages and the population suggested that innovations of the project would continue. Lessons should be learned, following the project, about the activities and challenges that must be replicated on a large scale. Project sustainability is ensured in demonstration villages and it is recommended to generalize the approach of the project nationwide.
Impact ML The impact of the project was confirmed by the final evaluation. This had already been analyzed in the final evaluation of the first phase funded by the GEF with positive results, the transfer of adaptation technologies, and the continued practices against climate change also allowing to reduce poverty and food insecurity.
Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – Page 9/82
1. Introduction
1.1. Context and justification: Reminder of the context in the Republic of Cabo Verde and aspects related to climate change impacts
1.1.1. General presentation of the country
Geographic and climatic situation
Cabo Verde is an archipelago made up of ten islands and nine islets, located in the Atlantic
Ocean, approximately 500 km from the Senegal cost in West Africa. The ten islands are
divided in two groups, Windward, composed by the islands of Santo Antão, São Vicente,
Santa Luzia, São Nicolau, Sal and Boavista, and Leeward, composed by the islands of Maio,
Santiago, Fogo and Brava. The total land surface reaches 4,033 km², where only 10% are
arable1, while its Economic Exclusive Zone extends for approximately 734,000 km²2.
The geophysical configuration and geology vary from island to island. In general, the relief is
very steep, reaching more than 2,000 m high in the Fogo Island, for example. In terms of
climate, due to its latitude, Cabo Verde falls within the Sahelian climatic zone. The country
experiences a dry tropical climate which is influenced by a combination of the Azores high
pressure region, the inter-tropical convergence zone, the Canary maritime current, and the
thermal depression located over North Africa in summer. Therefore, the country’s climate
shares some characteristics of the Sahel, but also is influenced by the surrounding ocean,
which for example reduces the temperature variations.
In terms of water availability, there is no permanent water courses in the country and
temporary water courses run only during the rainy season. Significant rainfall is restricted to
the period between July and October, with the majority occurring in August-September.
Mean annual rainfall is 225 mm, and is more frequent in more mountainous islands.
Droughts are also common due to the high temperatures and strong maritime winds,
resulting in a high evaporation rate.
Socio-economical characteristics
Cabo Verde’s population was of 520,502 inhabitants in 20153, with an annual growth rate of
1.275%4. That same year, the population density reached 129.157inhab. /km²5. About 65%
of the population lives in urban areas6 and per the latest census, in 2010, the island of
Santiago registered the highest concentration of people (55,7%) and the capital, Praia, is the
most populated city, with 25,6% of the population7.
1 Intended Nationally Determined Contribution of Cabo Verde, 2015. 2 National Adaptation Program of Action on Climate Change – Cabo Verde. 3 http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=CV 4 http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW?locations=CV 5 http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.POP.DNST?locations=CV 6 http://www.afdb.org/en/countries/west-africa/cape-verde/cape-verde-economic-outlook/ 7 http://www.un.cv/arquivo-censo%20results.php
Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – Page 10/82
With an HDI of 0.646, Cabo Verde is ranked 122th out of 1888 in 2014, placing it among the
countries with a medium human development. Between 2000 and 2014, Cabo Verde’s HDI
value increased from 0.572 to 0.646, which means an average increase of about 0.88
percent9. Between 2001 and 2015, the national poverty rate has reduced from 37% to 24%10,
while the extreme poverty rate, according to national standards, has reduced from 21% to
10%. Health and education indicators also improved during the last years. The infant
mortality rate fell from 26 per 1,000 live births in 2007 to 15 in 2011 and adult literacy rate is
estimated at 86%11.
From an economic perspective, the country relies heavily in the tertiary sector (almost 70%
of the GDP), with the tourism sector representing around 30% of GDP12, while agriculture still
contributes for over 10% of the GDP and it’s the primary livelihood income source for over
30% of the population. Due to the global crisis, the economic growth of the country slowed to
approximately 1.5% in 2015, almost half the rate of 201413. In 2015, the GDP reached 1.603
billion USD14. To continue reducing poverty and consolidating its sustainable development,
Cabo Verde will have to deal with challenges such as its fragmentation, infrastructure
constraints and its vulnerability to climate change.
1.1.2. Effects of climate changes in Cabo Verde Cabo Verde, as a Small Island Developing State, has one of the lowest GHG emissions per
capita, but it is still particularly vulnerable to climate change. The country faces serious
adaptation challenges associated with water resources availability, food and energy security
and desertification. Climate risks in Cabo Verde range from extreme weather conditions to
sea-level rise and degradation of fish stocks. With 80% of the population living in coastal
areas, Cabo Verde is particularly sensitive to sea-level rise and coastal hazards. Besides
that, along with a depletion of the country’s already scarce natural resources, variation in the
country’s climate patterns will increase, leading to more storms, floods, droughts and even
shorter rainy-seasons. This will have immediate impacts on livelihoods, infrastructure,
sanitary conditions, recharge of reservoirs, and crop productivity15.
Rising sea levels would have a direct impact on coastal submergence and erosion, increased
flooded lands and salinity of small estuaries, streams and coastal waters. According to the
series of vulnerability scenarios analyzed for the country’s NAPA, published in 2007, the
future agro-climatic development indicates that, under the predicted conditions of increasing
aridity resulting from decreasing rainfall and under increasing temperature, the amount of
food Cabo Verde will be able to produce will drop significantly. This will end up exposing a
large part of the population to a situation of food insecurity by 202016.
More recently, the country’s National Communication and INDC presented weather forecasts
pointing to possible climate change during the 21st century and indicated feasible actions that
8 http://hdr.undp.org/sites/all/themes/hdr_theme/country-notes/CPV.pdf 9 Ibid. 10 IDRFIII – Apresentação dados 11 http://www.worldbank.org/pt/country/caboverde/overview 12 Intended Nationally Determined Contribution of Cabo Verde, 2015. 13 Ibid. 14 http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=CV 15 Intended Nationally Determined Contribution of Cabo Verde, 2015. 16 Cabo Verde National Adaptation Program of Action on Cllimate Change, 2007.
Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – Page 11/82
could be taken to prevent the likely negative impacts of these changes on food security,
public health, changes in land use and socioeconomic development.
1.1.3. Expected impacts of climate change and future projections Regarding precipitation, the projections for the future show a variety of patterns ranging from
increases to decreases, depending on the islands. Statistical analysis of annual rainfall
between 1960 and 2009 shows that on the southern islands, rainfall is more frequent and
with some regularity over the years17. However, the rainfall projections for 2020 reveal values
below the historical pattern, threatening the water supply that is predicted to increase
fourfold, from around 50,000 m3 to 160,000 m3 by 203018.
In terms of temperature, the analysis between 1960 and 2009 suggests the existence of a
growing trend of average annual temperature from 1990. The graph below shows that the
average temperature increases approximately 2oC towards the south.
Figure 1 Average annual temperature variation in stations in Mindelo, Praia and Sal19
17 Second National Communication on Climate Change of Cape Verde, 2010. 18 Intended Nationally Determined Contribution of Cabo Verde, 2015. 19 Second National Communication on Climate Change of Cape Verde, 2010.
Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – Page 12/82
Critical changes in temperature will further affect the already fragile environment of the
islands, helping to increase or prolong episodes of drought, heat waves and dust,
contributing to erosion and land degradation. An increase in the sea level will also severely
affect coastal areas and cause damage to tourism and therefore Cabo Verde’s economy and
development. Besides that, wind intensification will also cause an increase in coastal
erosion, change the coast morphology, beaches disappearance, and degradation of marine
and coastal environment, causing population to migrate from the coast to inner parts of the
islands20.
Unfortunately, the Global Circulation Models (GCM) does not have a fine enough resolution
to capture small islands such as Cabo Verde. Nevertheless, the models projected an
increase in average annual temperature from 0.7 to 2.5oC by 2060 and 1.2 to 3.7oC by
209021. Regarding rainfall and sea level rise, there is important uncertainty related to the
projections. Still, in a scenario of decreased annual rainfall (-20 to -10%) combined with
temperature increase up to 2.5oC, a large part of the rural population will be exposed to food
insecurity and the economy will be drastically affected.
Cabo Verde suffers from a poor natural resource base, including serious water shortages
and poor soil for agriculture on almost all the islands. Therefore, climate variability will have
different impacts in the country, such as:
- Changes in agricultural productivity, since it has shown great sensitivity to changes in
rainfall and temperature. The outbreak and movement of plagues may be conditioned
by climate change
- The spread of diseases will also be affected by this variability
- Rising sea level will have an impact on coastal submergence and erosion, increased
flooded lands and salinity, causing internal migrations
- Water and wind erosion will lead to a loss of soil, which will cause an impact in the
country’s agricultural sustainability and food security.
20 Second National Communication on Climate Change of Cape Verde, 2010 21 Second National Communication on Climate Change of Cape Verde, 2010
Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – Page 13/82
Regarding the level of vulnerability at the national level, it is high especially for socio-
economic systems. The main sectors concerned are agriculture, water resources, forestry,
coastal zones, human health and energy. For example, according to the country’s INDC, the
key strategic axes are: (i) promoting integrated water resources management, guaranteeing
stable and adequate water supply (for consumption, agriculture, ecosystems and tourism);
(ii) increasing adaptive capacities of agro-silvo-pastoral production systems in order to
ensure and improve national food production and promoting Cabo Verde’s ocean-based
(“blue”) economy, and (iii) protecting and preventing degradation of coastal zones and their
habitats.
1.2. Evaluation’s objectives
The project aims to ensure that water availability; supply and quality are maintained in the
face of changes in the climatic conditions and subsequently reduce the impact of climate
change on food security in Cabo Verde. This goal is in line with SDG goal 6, target 6.a: by
2030, expand international cooperation and capacity-building support to developing countries
in water-and sanitation-related activities and programs.
Thus, the project contributes to (i) integrate climate change risks and adaptation measures
into key national policies, plans and programs for water resource management; (ii)
demonstrate and implement small and medium scale climate change adaptation practices for
water resource management in selected hydrographical basins; and (iii) disseminate lessons
learned and best practices from pilot activities, capacity development initiatives and policy
changes.
This final evaluation assesses the achievement of the project objectives and draws lessons
that can enhance the durability and sustainability of the benefits of this project and promote
the overall improvement of programs supported by UNDP.
In this context, the objective of the final evaluation mission is to verify whether the project
objectives have been achieved after three years of implementation, to identify factors that
helped or hindered the project, to capitalize on the implementation experience for similar
projects in the future.
Table 1 Project's intervention zones
Island Council Intervention zone
Santiago
Santa Cruz Matinho
Achada Ponta
São Lourenço dos Orgãos
Orgãos Pequenos e Funcos
Pico de Antonia
Tarrafal
Mato Mendes
Colonato
Achada Porto
Calheta de São Miguel Machado
Ribeireta
Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – Page 14/82
The final evaluation field mission took place from 11 to 21 December 2016 to analyze the
strengths and weak points of the project, evaluating the global and per activity degree of
completion from the UNDP’s evaluation criteria grid, and appreciate the dynamics and
importance of the project's benefits.
Recommendations to all stakeholders in the project are made in this final evaluation report.
Reminder of the Terms of Reference and the methodology proposed by the consultants for the final evaluation mission The UNDP office in Praia has recruited a team of consultants – one international and one
national consultant - as part of the final evaluation of the “Building adaptive capacity and
resilience to climate change in the water sector in Cabo Verde” over the 2013-2016 period.
The objective of the evaluation mission is to specify to what extent the objectives were
achieved, identify factors that helped or hindered the implementation of the program, as well
as determine the lessons learned from this program.
During the assessment mission of the project, the consultants’ tasks were as follows:
• Step 1: Establishing the starting note and the intervention schedule;
• Step 2: Literature review;
• Step 3: Final evaluation mission in the field: stakeholder interviews;
• Step 4: Final evaluation mission field: presentation of the first results;
• Step 5: Finalization of the report: drafting and dissemination of the interim version;
• Step 6: Finalization of the report: integration of comments and diffusion of the final
version.
The documents and deliverables during this mission are:
• The methodological note and planning;
• The compilation of the first results of field consultations;
• The presentation of initial conclusions;
• The interim report;
• The final report integrating comments.
The consultants join to this report an executive summary and annexes (ToR of the
evaluation, list of documents reviewed, list of people met and meetings’ summaries, list of
visited sites, a synthesis of the comments of the parties involved in the presentation and
reading of the interim report, etc.).
Flamengos Tagarra
Santo Antão
Paúl
Chã das Furnas
Fajã de Janela
Ribeira dos Penedos
Ribeira Grande
Boca de Coruja
Chã de Mato/Ponte Sul
Ribeira das Patas
Tarrafal de Monte Trigo
Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – Page 15/82
1.3. Methodology and scope of the evaluation
1.3.1. Mission preparation (steps 1 and 2) These steps serve to collect of information, documents and needed data (methodological
documents and reflections listed in the terms of reference), to prepare meetings with key
actors and, more generally, to the understanding of the position of the Republic of Cabo
Verde regarding adaptation issues.
This includes in particular the collection and literature review of the various available
documents about the project and the country, regarding climate change and adaptation
measures, such as the NAPA, INDC and National Communication. This phase, lasting a total
of four days, leads to the start of the consultation and field evaluation phase.
1.3.2. Field mission: consultations and first results analysis (steps 3 and 4)
From the established action plan and following the preparation steps of the mission, the
steps on the field are used to consult all stakeholders and to integrate the various elements
useful to the formulation of recommendations regarding needs for assistance and
development in the areas of the evaluated project. This phase therefore comprises three
stages, including:
• Meetings with implementing partners and interviews with all stakeholders and
resource persons present on site (other ministries, technical organizations, and non-
state actors involved in the adaptation to climate change problem, etc.), the 12th, 13th
and 19th of December 2016 in Praia.
• A trip to the area of project intervention on the 14th, 15th, and 16th of December (Island
of Santiago, 14th; Island of Santo Antão, December 15th and 16th). These field visits
allowed to interview local beneficiaries (groups, village leaders, village communities),
through focus groups if necessary. The evaluation team has benefited from the
assistance of the project management team during his travels.
• A thorough analysis of consultation and the restitution of initial results during a
feedback meeting at the UNDP Office in Praia, December, 19th 2016.
Once all the elements gathered and analyzed begins the final phase of the final evaluation
report.
1.3.3. Finalization of the report (steps 5 and 6)
The stages of finalization of the report were done in two steps: (i) presentation of the first
results of the assessment in an intermediate document with the results based on the usual
assessment criteria, and (ii) after taking into account the comments / remarks, etc.,
transmission of the final report.
The final evaluation was conducted in accordance with the guidelines, rules and procedures
established by the UNDP as indicated by the UNDP evaluation guidelines for projects
implemented. The report content meets the terms of reference (see annexes). It is written in
English for validation, as a reminder, and then translated into Portuguese. Validation of the
Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – Page 16/82
English document was made by the national part, the UNDP in Praia and the Regional
UNDP in Addis Ababa.
Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – Page 17/82
2. Description of the project and development context
During the COP 15, held in December 2009 in Copenhagen, developed countries pledged to
provide new and additional resources with balanced allocation between mitigation and
adaptation, approaching USD 30 billion for the period 2010-2012. This collective commitment
has come to be known as “Fast-Start Finance”22. At the COP 17, the parties welcomed this
new initiative and urged the developed countries to enhance the transparency of their
reporting on the fulfillment of their fast-start finance commitments.
Canada was one of the countries to fully deliver its commitment to provide its fair share of
fast-start financing. Over the past three years, $1.2 billion23 in new and additional climate
change financing has been issued. Canada’s support is benefiting over 50 developing
countries and it has been delivered through multilateral channels and bilateral partnerships.
Together with the UNDP, it was established the Canadian Climate Adaptation Facility
(CCAF), which helps local population of the poorest and most vulnerable populations in six
countries to build more resilient agricultural practices, strengthen their infrastructures,
diversify their sources of livelihood and improve their food security24. The project evaluated in
this report was one of the projects implemented under the CCAF.
2.1. Project start and expected duration The project document anticipated a project launch in October 2013, with an expected
duration of three years (until November 2016). The signing of the project establishing its
launch has taken place in September and October 2013. Since it was an extension of a
previous project, funded by the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) Least Developed
Countries Fund, the administrative structure of the project management team was already
set inside the government administration. However, the activities of the second phase could
not start according to the scheduled time due to a substantial delay in allocating the funds.
Thus, the project activities officially started in 2014. The first trimester of 2014 was dedicated
to create the necessary conditions and clarify the institutional arrangements and the
responsibilities of each member of the project coordination team, as well as planning the
budget for the next years. The second trimester was dedicated to engage the national
stakeholders and prepare the memorandums of understanding between the project
coordination team and the partner institutions. It was just after these two first trimesters that
the project’s activities could start being implemented in the field.
2.2. Issues that the project sought to solve Combating the adverse effects of climate change serves several purposes for the
Government and the UNDP. Adaptation makes it possible to increase the resilience of rural
people to climate phenomena causing droughts and improve their infrastructure and water
resource management abilities. The introduction and integration of appropriate agricultural
22 http://www3.unfccc.int/pls/apex/f?p=116:13:4057321419739173 23 Canadian dollars. 24 Canada’s Fast-Start Financing. Delivering on Our Copenhagen Commitment. May, 2013
Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – Page 18/82
practices can in turn reduce the socio-economic vulnerability of current and future
generations and improve their livelihoods.
The project has therefore addressed all at once the impacts of climate change, issues of
water resources management, agricultural production, food insecurity, and poverty, opting for
adaptation. This choice, a strategic one, falls within the priorities of Cabo Verde reminded in
Cabo Verde’s INDC published in 2015 in the context of the 21th Conference of Parties (COP-
21) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
2.3. Goal and objectives of the project The goal of the project is to ensure that water availability; supply and quality are maintained
in the face of changed climatic conditions and subsequently reduce the impact of climate
change in food security. The project objective is to increase resilience and enhance key
adaptive capacity to address the additional risks posed by climate change to the water sector
in Cabo Verde.
The goal and objective were translated in the Project Document in a comprehensive logical
framework of the project’s expected outcomes and related activities.
2.4. Baseline indicators established in the logical framework and expected results
The logical framework’s monitoring indicators were established during the project formulation
to track the progress of the project and measure the achievement of targeted results. This
has been formulated according to the criteria for monitoring and evaluation of the UNDP, in
the so-called "SMART" approach (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound).
The basic status of these indicators was evaluated during the project start and is presented
below:
Project objective: increase resilience and enhance key adaptive capacity to address the
additional risks posed by climate change to the water sector in Cabo Verde.
In order to achieve the above objective, and based on a barrier analysis, the project’s
intervention was organized in three components, under which three “outcomes” are expected
from the project’s additional funding:
Component 1
Outcome 1: Climate change risks and adaptation measures integrated into key
national policies, plans and programs for water resource management.
Expected outputs with additional funding:
• Reinforce capacity of relevant agencies to assess climate change impacts in food
security
• Raise awareness of climate change impacts on food security among rural
development and health sectors decision-makers, technical officers and
stakeholders, community associations, farmers, NGO players and the media.
Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – Page 19/82
• Establish climate change early warning system for the water sector to support
national and municipal development planning and implementation
Component 2
Outcome 2: Small and medium scale climate change adaptation practices for water
resource management are demonstrated and implemented in selected hydrographical
basins.
Expected outputs with additional funding:
• Introduce measures and practices to improve water availability in areas highly
vulnerable to food insecurity
• Create enabling conditions for replication and sustainability (social, environmental
and economic) of targeted interventions
Component 3
Outcome 3: Lessons learned and best practices from pilot activities, capacity
development initiatives and policy changes are disseminated.
Expected outputs with additional funding:
• Applied research program on climate-smart agriculture and food security is
strengthened
Details of the project outcomes are presented in the logical framework appended to this
document.
2.5. Main stakeholders
The project extension is funded by the CIDA.
The UN Agency partner for the project is the Country Office of UNDP in Cabo Verde. The
UNDP is administrator of resources and played a quality insurance role throughout the
project. The UNDP oversees and monitors the project in partnership with the implementing
partner, the government of Cabo Verde and the lead coordinating agency, the Directorate
General of Budget, Planning and Management (DGPOG), part of the Ministry of Agriculture
and Environment, the and authorities designated by the regional administrations.
The executing agency is the DGASP. The Ministry and the UNDP are indeed used to
collaborate on joint projects in Cabo Verde (National Communications on climate change,
biodiversity, Action Plan against drought and desertification Program, National Action Plan
for Adaptation to climate change, etc.). The Ministry carries the overall administrative and
financial responsibility for the project.
Consultants and local contractors (NGOs, private sector ...) are recruited by the project team
and the UNDP, in cooperation with the project partners.
Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – Page 20/82
The DGASP and the UNDP also are in contact with other stakeholders in the fight against
climate change in Cabo Verde:
The Ministry of Agriculture and Environment with mainly:
- DGASP (Directorate General of Agriculture, Forestry and Animal-Husbandry)
- DGPOG (Directorate General of Budget, Planning and Management)
- SNSAN (National Secretariat for Food Security and Nutrition)
- DNA (National Direction of Environment)
- The local delegations of the ministry in the councils.
The ANAS (National Agency for Water and Sanitation).
The INMG (National Institute for Meteorology and Geophysics).
The INIDA (National Agriculture Research Institute).
The ICIEG (Cabo Verdean Institute for Equity and Gender Equality).
The Ministry of Finance and Planning.
The UNICV (University of Cabo Verde)
The Non-Governmental Organizations’ Platform
The FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization).
The 17 intervention sites:
- Matinho
- Achada Ponta
- Orgãos Pequenos e Funcos
- Pico de Antonia
- Mato Mendes
- Colonato
- Achada Porto
- Machado
- Ribeireta
- Flamengos Tagarra
- Chã das Furnas
- Fajã de Janela
- Ribeira dos Penedos
- Boca de Coruja
- Chã de Mato/Ponte Sul
- Ribeira das Patas
- Tarrafal de Monte Trigo
Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – Page 21/82
The local farmer’s and communities’ associations.
Other partners, like the Spanish Government, supporting the creation of hydroponic schools
in partnership with DGASP, and the French Development Agency, that had different water
projects in Cabo Verde, such as the WASH project and other small scale projects. The
European Commission, that supported the climate change program development for
energy policy in the country, among other initiatives, and the Luxembourg Cooperation that
invested in different water-related projects in Cabo Verde.
Structure, management and staff
Figure 2 Institutional arrangement for project's execution25
According to the latest official document regarding the project execution institutional
structure, from July 1st 2015, the project coordination is provided by the project management
team, which consists of the following resource persons:
- Mr Carlos Monteiro, Project Supervisor
- Mrs Filomena Fialho, Project Co-Supervisor (until April 2016)
- Dra Angela Moreno, INIDA’s President
- Mr Osvaldo Chantre, from SNSAN
- Mr Oumar Barry, from the DSA
- Dr León António Spencer Correia, Administrative and Financial Support, SNSAN
- Delegates from the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment in the councils with
project’s intervention zones (Santa Cruz, Tarrafal, Ribeira Grande and Porto Novo)
25 Despacho No. 19/2015
Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – Page 22/82
3. Observations
This project complements an existing full-sized project funded by the GEF’s Least Developed
Country Fund, which initially had a grant totaling 3,100,000 USD and co-financing and
parallel funding commitments amounting to 63.7 million USD. The project was approved in
2009, but implementation started in 2011. The final evaluation took place in July 2014, while
this “second phase”, funded by the Canadian International Development Agency was already
being prepared for implementation26.
3.1. Formulation of the project extension
3.1.1. Logical Framework and Results Analysis
The project’s logical frameworks are presented in the appendix of this document.
The analysis is carried out outcome by outcome, and addresses the impacts and
sustainability of actions, and on ownership by the beneficiaries of the project results. The
structure defined by the project document already during the first phase is reliable, since it is
based on a logical division between a political component (Outcome 1), a technical
component (Outcome 2) and a capacity-building component (Outcome 3). This structure is
fairly standard - it is often taken by the GEF-funded projects - and has the benefit of clarity to
articulate and implement activities at different local and national scales.
An issue identified during the process of evaluation was that indicators presented in the
logical framework in the project document could not be used to assess the results of the
project due to the lack of baseline data. Therefore, the level of achievement of the project
were measured based on the activities performed during the last three years. The activities
of the project were chosen based on the particular needs of each community in the
intervention zones. Together with the local association, the delegations and the project
management team were able to come up with activities that would address the real needs of
the beneficiaries depending on their context and what they considered more important for
their sustainable development.
3.1.2. Assumptions and risks
The assumptions and risks at objective and outcome levels have been set up in the Project
Document. During the Project formulation, the external factors which may jeopardize the
project have been identified and assessed through a participatory brainstorm and draft
proposal meetings joined by relevant stakeholders.
Table 2 Identified risks and comments
Identified Risk (Prodoc) Comments
26 Terminal Evaluation Report, 2014, José Antonio Cabo Buján.
Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – Page 23/82
Operational Risks
OP1 – HR Since project implementation will be embedded in the national institutions (to avoid parallel structures) there is a risk of staff involved in the project giving lower priority to the project responsibilities. - Very Low
The risk identified is very relevant, however, the mitigation measure seems a bit light and was not very efficient during the project implementation. The delays in finishing activities and frequent changes in the project management team were some obstacles that could harm the project and could be solved if the project had more priority inside the national institutions.
Difficulties finding the required technical assistance with the required technical and language skills (Portuguese) could delay implementation and delivery. - Very Low
The risk identified is relevant as there is a need for specific technical and language skills that are harder to find. Even though the mitigation measure was implemented, it did not manage to avoid the delays in finding the required technical assistance.
Turnover of technical staff at the public institutions could undermine sustainability of the capacity development strategies. - Very Low
The changes in the project management team during the implementation phase show that risk was relevant and that the mitigation measures presented in the project document were not enough to avoid it.
OP2 – Performance Management
Limited capacities at the national institutions level to systematically monitor and evaluate projects. – Very Low
The risk identified is relevant and its related mitigation measures efficient. The risk has been overcome successfully.
Limited capacities for knowledge management. - Very Low
The risk identified is relevant and its related mitigation measures efficient. The risk has been overcome successfully.
OP3 – Business-critical Information
Data sharing among national institutions and stakeholders is not an institutionalized practice. Capacities of some institutes responsible for meteorological and hydrological data collection and analysis are low which could imply data gaps or data
The risk identified is relevant and its related mitigation measures efficient. The risk has been overcome successfully.
Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – Page 24/82
quality issues that affect strategic decision-making processes. - Low
Financial Risks
FIN1 – Funding Delay in disbursements of funds could slow down project implementation. Absorptive capacities of national institutions are moderate which could imply some delays on delivery. – Very Low
The risk identified is relevant and its related mitigation measures efficient. The risk has been overcome successfully even though some problems happened during the implementation phase.
FIN2 - Fiduciary The risk that funds will not be used for their intended purposes, funds will not be properly accounted for, and/or services delivered will not be commensurate to funds transferred. – Very Low
The risk identified is relevant and its related mitigation measures efficient. The risk has been overcome successfully.
Development Risks
DEV1 - Strategic No risk No risk
DEV2 – Socio-pol-economic, GE
Conflicts could arise between resources’ (water, land) users when designing water pumping systems or deciding on the infrastructures’ sitting. Tensions could arise among communities because those who did not directly benefit from project intervention could feel they have been excluded. – Very Low
The risk identified is relevant and its related mitigation measures efficient. The risk has been overcome successfully.
DEV3 – Institutional Capacity
Lack of clear definition of the institutional model that will be adopted for the water sector in
The risk identified is relevant and its related mitigation measures efficient. The risk has been overcome successfully.
Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – Page 25/82
Cape Verde as a result of the ongoing water and sanitation reform – Low
DEV4 - Modality No risk No risk
DEV5 – Disasters, Environment
Climate change risk imply increase prevalence of extreme events such droughts, flash floods, storms, torrential rains, etc. – Very Low
The risk identified is very relevant and its related mitigation measures efficient. The risk has been overcome successfully.
Reputation Risks
REP1 - Reputation
Existing climate data for Cabo Verde is relatively scarce and not too precise. The general public’s perception is that climate analysis should be able to predict changes with precision. In case climate trends do not coincide with the project’s forecasts and adaptation proposals, there may be an impression of lack of professionalism. – Low
The risk identified is relevant and its related mitigation measures efficient. The risk has been overcome successfully.
3.1.3. Stakeholders participation planning The project document provides an analysis of the stakeholders that can be integrated in the
project, of their capabilities and of the support they can provide to the planned activities. It
takes stock of the existing projects similar to this one in the country. This inventory enabled,
secondly, the cooperation with these stakeholders, institutions and local communities.
The project document was signed by the UNDP, the Government of Cabo Verde and CIDA.
During this “second phase” of the project, the implementing partner shifted to the DGASP
(Directorate General of Agriculture, Forestry and Animal-Husbandry), since the project
needed additional expertise due to the new focus on food security. Other stakeholders that
were taken into consideration during the analysis are the ANAS, INMG, DGASP, SNSAN,
INIDA, ICIEG, the FAO, Ministry of Environment, local associations and international
partners.
Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – Page 26/82
This planning of stakeholders’ participation facilitated the interventions of each and
strengthened the complementarity, for example between the research-action activities,
receiving support from academic organizations and more institutional supports by different
technical ministries. Consultations with the above-mentioned stakeholders had been
undertaken for the project preparation through a series of site visits, roundtable meetings and
interviews. In summary, the Project made an analysis of the characteristics, problems,
needs, interests and potentials of the stakeholders related to it, thus offering an opportunity
to encourage the interested individuals and groups to participate in the Project from its outset
and to use the outputs delivered by it.
3.1.4. Extension and replication approach
Since knowledge sharing was an intrinsic element of the project, its formulation allows an
effective sharing of information and lessons learned from the project. This should be done
through different networks and channels. At the community level, radios, TV and school
associations will be used to raise awareness not only on the climate risk to the agriculture
and water sector, but especially on the strategies to build resilience, enhance water use
efficiency and to improve food security through increased food availability, food and water
safety and diet diversification. At the institutional level, knowledge sharing will be done by
transmitting the results of the project within the UNDP and CIDA networks to qualified
personnel working on projects with similar characteristics, for example in connection with
adaptation to climate change, as it was done with the “first phase” of the same project.
In practice, the project logical framework provides that the demonstration activities are
implemented in 17 selected intervention sites that are agricultural regions with difficult access
to water and affected by climate change. The "research action” type of activities, focusing on
climate-smart agriculture and food security, after being improved by stakeholders and
validated by experience, may be scattered in other villages or even in a much wider area in
order to have a positive impact at a large scale.
In order to ensure replication and diffusion of adaptation practices and technologies
demonstrated the project adopted a threefold strategy that included:
(i) The project will put a great emphasis on applied-research in partnership with the lead
national agencies, especially the National Agriculture Development Research Institute
(INIDA) testing practices and documenting best practices; monitoring results and
performance of materials, equipment and crops under specific local conditions and feeding
the results back onto the national system of rural extension. To this purpose, technological
packages will be designed, updated and published.
(ii) Also, the project will implement a comprehensive capacity development strategy. At
the upstream level, it will raise awareness and develop capacities of planners and decision-
makers to use concrete tools for climate screening of policies, programmes, plans and
budgets. At the downstream level, it will make use of demonstrative projects, from its design
to its implementation and evaluation, to train rural technicians and extension workers on
climate-smart agriculture practices.
(iii) Moreover, a project expected output is especially geared towards identifying and
proposing specific financial mechanism to support replication and determining key incentives
to be incorporated in water and agriculture policies, management plans and regulations. To
Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – Page 27/82
ensure appropriation of proposed approaches and technologies the project has planned to
conduct some technology adequacy assessments and adopted a participatory approach for
project implementation.
The final evaluation confirms that the project presents good ground for replication thanks to
well-documented activities and sustainable achievements of the project which will be detailed
later in this document.
3.1.5. Links between the project and other interventions in the same sector
Several projects aimed at improving climate change adaptation are developed by various
actors in Cabo Verde. The project “Building adaptive capacity and resilience to climate
change in the water sector in Cabo Verde” identified existing interventions on its action zone;
this has enabled the project team to collaborate effectively with these partners during the
implementation of project activities. Efforts made by the project team to create synergies with
other projects are noteworthy. The project has work in conjunction with and benefited from
other ongoing project interventions in Cabo Verde in order to avoid duplication of project
efforts and to benefit from synergies. Of particular, relevance are the following projects:
The WASH project27 Through the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), the Government of the United States
and the Government of Cabo Verde signed a five-year compact in 2012 to reduce poverty
through economic growth by reforming two sectors identified as constraints to economic
growth: the water and sanitation sector and the land management sector.
Each compact project is an important component of the government’s economic
transformation agenda, focused on shifting from foreign aid and remittances to private sector
investment and improved domestic resource management. This compact builds off the
success of Cabo Verde’s first MCC compact, completed in October 2010, and upholds high
standards for accountability, transparency and achieving results.
The second compact includes the $39.7 million Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Project
(WASH Project), which is designed to establish a financially sound, transparent and
accountable institutional basis for the delivery of water and sanitation services to Cape
Verdean households and businesses.
The project’s approach to improving sector performance is based on a three-pronged
strategy:
- Reform national policy and utility regulators,
- Transform inefficient utilities into independent corporate entities operating on a
commercial basis, and
- Improve the quality and reach of water and sanitation infrastructure.
The WASH Project is comprised of three activities:
27 https://www.mcc.gov/where-we-work/program/cape-verde-compact-ii
Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – Page 28/82
- National Institutional and Regulatory Reform Activity
- Utility Reform Activity
- Infrastructure Grant Facility
One of the main results of the WASH project was the elaboration and approval by the
Government, in 20 February 2015, of the new National Strategic Plan for Water and
Sanitation (PLENAS), an initial study to support the water and sanitation sectors in Cabo
Verde. The document has a complete analysis of the water needs in the country, the
stakeholders and national institutions involved in the sectors, strategies and goals for 2030,
as well as sustainable practices for water management and recommendations for each
institution28.
Water supply system development project in Santiago Island29
The project, financed by the Japanese International Cooperation Agency, aims to ensure
stable freshwater supply and improve access to safe freshwater by connecting regional water
systems in the Santiago Island, Cape Verde through construction of seawater desalination
facilities and treated water transmission facilities in the island, thus contributing to
improvement in living conditions and economic revitalization. Furthermore, the project
facilitates the country’s climate change adaptation by the subsequent preservation and
replacement of underground water resources through seawater desalination.
The project is composed of two components:
- Construction of water supply facilities (seawater desalination facilities with a capacity
of 40,000m3 per day), water transmission pipelines (about 130km)
- Consulting services (reviews on feasibility study, detailed design, bid assistance,
construction supervision, environmental and social considerations, etc.)
The project duration is 72 months, from December 2013 to November 2019 and it is
executed by the Ministry of Environment and executed by the ANAS.
3.1.6. Management
The water and sanitation sector in Cape Verde was undergoing a sector-wide institutional
reform. The reform was spearheaded by the Ministry of Environment, Land use and Housing,
through a National Commission of the Reform supported by the MCC’s WASH program. As
an output of the reform, the national partner INGRH (National Institute of Water Resource
Management) responsible for the LDCF project implementation was extinct and a national
agency for water and sanitation was be created.
Considering the reform and the additional expertise required by the new focus on food
security brought in by the CIDA Climate Change Fast Start financing, the implementing
partner shifted to the Directorate General of Agriculture, Forestry and Animal-Husbandry
(DGASP) as part of the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment. This DG is responsible for
28 http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/cvi148923.pdf 29 https://www.jica.go.jp/english/our_work/evaluation/oda_loan/economic_cooperation/c8h0vm000001rdjt-att/capeverde_131220_01.pdf
Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – Page 29/82
the rural extension systems and has the largest decentralized representation across the
islands.
DGASP has the responsibilities over the definition, implementation and coordination of policy
for agriculture, forestry and animal husbandry, engineering and rural extension and has
implemented other large project in partnership with international development agencies. The
DGASP has also competencies over combating desertification; regulation of pesticides and
agriculture inputs’ use; forest management; water and soil conservation programs, etc.
The global supervision of the project was provided by the Project Steering Committee,
composed by the Minister of Agriculture and Environment, the UNDP Coordinator and other
national and local institutions, organizations and partners that have a financial stake in the
project. The PSC is responsible for making management decisions, preferably on a
consensus basis, including approval of project work plans, budgetary and substantive
revisions.
The composition of the LDCF project technical committee was slightly reviewed to take into
consideration the focus on food security proposed for this new phase. The members of the
technical committee include:
1. United Nations Development Program (UNDP)
2. INGRH/ANAS: National Water Resources Management Institute/ National Agency of
water and sanitation
3. Directorate General of Environment
4. Directorate General of Agriculture, forestry and animal husbandry
5. Directorate General of Planning, budget and management of the Ministry of
Agriculture and Environment
6. National Institute of Agriculture Research and Development (INIDA)
7. National Meteorological and Geophysics Institute (INMG)
8. National Civil Protection Service (SNPC)
9. National NGO Platform
10. Directorate General of Basic and Secondary Education
11. National Association of municipalities of Cape Verde (ANMCV)
12. National Directorate of External affairs and cooperation
13. Directorate General of Health
14. Directorate General of Plan of the Ministry of Finances and Planning
Besides both committees, there was also the Project Management Team, which went
through various changes along the project duration. The last project supervisor was Mr.
Carlos Monteiro. To support the execution of the project, the Project Management Team
relied on the local MAE delegations that participated actively in the implementation activities.
The following section details the important points relating to the project management, at the
different scales of the project.
3.2. Project implementation 3.2.1. Adaptive management
Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – Page 30/82
First, as mentioned before, one of the main challenges faced by the project in terms of
management and implementation was the several institutional changes that happened in the
government due to the elections in 2016. Since the project is embedded in the government’
institutions to guarantee a national ownership, the legislative and presidential elections that
took place in March and October, respectively, ended up slowing down the process of
implementing the project because of the uncertainty about the continuation of the staff, goals
and priorities of the new government.
Furthermore, there was also the need to change the Project Supervisor after one year of the
start of the project. Even though this could have been a problem, the quick nomination of Mr.
Carlos Monteiro has enabled the smooth transition in the implementation team. The fact he
was already part of the team working with the previous Project Supervisor and has worked
as the National Consultant for the final evaluation of the GEF financed phase guaranteed
that he had the knowledge and skills necessary to lead the implementation until the end.
The implementation of the project by the Project Coordination team was carried out under
the general guidance of the Project Steering Committee and the Technical Committee, as
previous mentioned in section 3.1.6.
The Project Coordination Team worked closely with the Delegations of the Ministry of
Agriculture and Environment in the local councils, where the focal points were responsible for
oversee the implementation directly in the field, in the intervention sites inside the councils
they were responsible for. This structure helped to create national ownership and to include
the local populations in the organization and activities of the project.
3.2.2. Partnerships
The execution of the “Building adaptive capacity and resilience to climate change in the
water sector in Cabo Verde” project was made through numerous partnerships, evidenced by
memoranda of understanding signed with various government departments and research
institutes. As part of this project, many partnerships have been implemented to facilitate the
implementation of project activities, including activities of "research-action". These
partnerships have involved research organizations, government departments and
municipalities. The evaluator considers that these partnerships have been instrumental to the
success of the project implementation. Efficient and diverse they have brought a real added
value to this initiative.
Partnerships with research organizations
Partnerships with research centers and organizations are judged successful, not only for the
needs of the project, but by and for project stakeholders. Indeed, the applied-research
dimension of the project, through activities oriented towards research-action, has led to
formal and long-term partnerships with institutions that can facilitate the execution and
success of the project activities, and the dissemination of positive results. These national
academic specialists renowned in their fields were able to contribute to the project’s
activities.
INIDA
Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – Page 31/82
The INIDA (National Agriculture Research Institute), as one of the implementation partners of
the project, is responsible for leading the research activities regarding different topics, such
as high nutritional value and climate resilient crops, important to guarantee the food security
component of the project. Besides that, INIDA was also responsible for monitoring soil and
water quality parameters and crops performance associated with the new techniques
introduced. Throughout the project, INIDA also had the role of introducing new technologies
about water and soil management, new planting techniques and knowledge about how to
prevent diseases to the farmers, in order to improve their production both in quality and
quantity.
This partnership is part of the strategy to ensure replication and diffusion of adaptation
measures and technologies of the project. One of the activities particularly important to
INIDA was to build a bromatology lab that would help the farmers to certify their products and
allow them to reach other markets than the local ones, thus increasing their revenues. They
managed to find their own funds to build it and they expect it to be working by the first
semester of 2017. Besides that, they produced a series of manuals with climate change
adaptation measures, and now are waiting for them to be printed so they can start to spread
it and realize trainings.
ICIEG The ICIEG (Cape Verdean Institute for Gender Equality and Equity) was a partner of the
project since the first phase, with GEF LDCF funding. During this second phase, they signed
a Memorandum of Understanding in 2014, but it was not renewed in the following year. The
ICIEG was responsible for collecting the information for a gender analysis for the baseline
study for Food and Nutritional Security, hold information sessions about introducing gender
in the project planning and elaborate an analysis and proposal for including gender issues in
the Strategic Document for Food and Nutritional Security. The continuation of the partnership
would have made possible for the ICIEG to continue working on introducing the gender issue
on the project implementation and then achieving more gender sensitive outcomes, an
important factor for this CIDA phase of the project.
Radio Educativa
The Radio Educativa is a public educational radio who is a partner of the project, and was
responsible for executing the radio program called “climate changes and food security focus”.
The aim was to inform and educate populations on how climate changes impact on their day
to day lives and the urge to work on its mitigation and reduction of its impacts. The
importance of protecting agriculture food security and nutrition as well as the water knowing
that the archipelago is exposed to innumerous risks. The other focus of the program was
food security and gender. The program was broadcasted every other week.
ECREEE
ECREEE entered in partnership with the ministry of Agriculture and environment on 2015 to
give a technical assistance and guidance that was lacking from the beginning for the
procurement of the solar panels. The TORs were proposed by ECREEE and all the
Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – Page 32/82
assistance regarding the specific type of materials that was more appropriate for the project.
Regarding future follow ups ECREEE aims to give a year of technical assistance to the
ministry by sending their technicians to the fields every three months to supervise the right
use of the panels and identify eventual needs of extra trainings to the users and
dysfunctions. It was specified that the cost of this technical assistance would have to be
secured by the ministry.
ANAS The ANAS is the new agency created to replace the old National Institute for Water
Resources Management, the idea was that the ANAS would be responsible for everything
related to water use. However, in the Prodoc the scope of their activities was not defined yet.
According to the MoU, the partnership with ANAS regarding the implementation of the project
consisted in the elaboration of groundwater measurement study in the selected councils, as
well as the installation of a piezometric network. The evaluation team tried to get in contact
with someone at ANAS to know more about their participation and opinions about the project,
but unfortunately no one was available.
Partnerships with local associations In each of the councils involved in the project, partnerships were set up within local
associations to facilitate the participation and knowledge sharing within the communities.
These partnerships have allowed the project team to benefit from local technical knowledge
(on practices, the environment ...) of the persons concerned by the various issues (farmers,
fishermen, breeders, etc.) and to better reflect the needs and expectations of local
communities in the implementation of its activities. Adaptive action plans have been prepared
by the local communities to express their needs.
It is useful that the municipalities continue to support the project villages, including those that
do not or only partially brought the expected contributions.
In conclusion, the partnerships have been of great help in achieving the project results but
also technical and institutional capacity building opportunities in terms of integrating climate
change in the knowledge and the transmission of technical knowledge. The evaluation team
observed a great rigor in the application of various partnership agreements signed by the
Project team in terms of implementation of partner activities.
3.2.3. Integration of M&E in the adaptive management
The monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system of the project was useful and served a good
project management. A comprehensive review of the progress of the project was conducted
after the first phase, during the final evaluation in December 2014. This evaluation allowed
the project extension to address the issues identified and to implement the recommendations
to improve its outcomes.
Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – Page 33/82
As detailed in the section 3.2.5. below, the monitoring and evaluation of the project “Building
adaptive capacity and resilience to climate change in the water sector in Cabo Verde” are
considered satisfactory.
3.2.4. Financing of the project
Since this project is an extension of a previous project financed by the GEF, it is important to
present a brief overview of the financial structure of the first phase, in order to understand
and analyze the most recent contributions.
Figure 3 Budget distribution - GEF phase
The second phase of the project intended to upscale the outcomes and impacts of the first
phase. Therefore, it is possible to assume the activities evaluated here also benefited from
the structure built thanks to the co-financing of the previous phase. The table below sum up
all the co-financers and the amount disbursed by each of them during 2011 to 2014. The
information is from the Terminal Evaluation made at the end of the project.
Table 3 Co-financing - GEF and CIDA phase
Donor/Agency Amount USD European Commission 30,860,000
France 13,619,646
Government of Cabo Verde 8,543,699
Japan 617,284
Luxembourg 9,008,090
UNICEF 800,000
USAID 50,308
UNDP 200,000
Total 63,699,027
Regarding the phase financed by the CIDA, the figure below show how the budget has been
disbursed over the years of the project, in comparison with what was planned. The spending
Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – Page 34/82
was lower in 2014 due to the delay in beginning the activities between the last semester of
2013, when the project was accepted and the first semester of 2014.
Figure 4 Budget allocated Vs Budget disbursed
3.2.5. Follow-up and evaluation: project’s extension and implementation Planning for monitoring and evaluation was quite comprehensive, but not enough detailed in
the project document, integrating both internal M&E quarterly, half-year and annually budget
revision and assessments, as well as external evaluations at project completion. A consistent
budget was implemented to ensure the functioning of M&E.
The implementation of the M&E plan was satisfactory. The project managed to have a good
follow up of the implementation process within the intervention sites. The local councils,
associations and the project management team provided frequent follow up reports about the
implementation and the progress of activities, as well as field trips realized to monitor the
project’s intervention zones. Besides that, the annual work plans and the semi-annual reports
to the Canada-UNDP Climate Change Adaptation Facility were important efforts to monitor
the activities progress over the project duration and its results’ achievement, as well as the
budget allocation along with the integration of the project indicators with the national M&E
system.
However, the weak definition of indicators and responsibilities in terms of data collection led
to an irregular collection of data related to the project’s indicators. Some of the indicators
were missing the baseline information, as well as end of the project target, which made it
difficult to assess the real impact and the degree to which the project would have achieved
its objective and outcomes.
3.2.6. Coordination between UNDP, the implementing partner and the executing partner
0
250000
500000
750000
1000000
1250000
1500000
1750000
2000000
2014 2015 2016
Total budget available Total Utilized
Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – Page 35/82
The collaboration between the UNDP and the Project Management Team has not been a
major problem, apart from purely administrative side effects due to the reorganization of the
Government after the elections, with the changes in the Ministry and its staff. These
departmental reorganization problems or UNDP intervention procedures in Cabo Verde
changes are beyond the scope of the project and not treated in this report.
From formulation to implementation and monitoring and evaluation of the project, the UNDP
has played a role much appreciated by partners met by the mission. This role can be
summed up as follows:
- Technical and strategic support and advice and guidance;
- Thematic leadership;
- Internal capacity to meet partners’ expectations.
What was also noted is the support for the mobilization of expertise and skills, the financial
contribution and the external and internal mobilization of resources for the implementation of
interventions; the quality insurance measures; the strengthening of national and local
capacities; the support; the acquisition of materials and equipment at the request of the
partners and the realization of infrastructure.
UNDP's role has also been to inspire and support the promotion of national leadership,
strengthen national ownership, stimulate domestic accountability through program
rationalization and strengthening of implementation and monitoring-evaluation capacity.
Significant efforts in synergy research with other interventions and the implementation of a
project exit strategy was also noted. Sessions on capacity building on project ownership,
regular reminders from the members of the Technical and Steering Committee on key
outcomes of the project, the dialog for the removal of bottlenecks in the event of difficulties of
implementation. In its support of the national part, UNDP played an appreciated supervisory
role on the management of planning processes, on review by leaving the prior responsibility
to the national part and making a quality mentoring.
3.2.7. Cross-cutting issues: nature of the beneficiaries and recognition of the gender and food security issues
With regard to cross-cutting themes, the subject of the project itself - adaptation to climate
change - addresses one of them: the environment and climate change. Indeed, improved
management of water resources and awareness of climate change issues contribute to
reduce the degradation of natural resources and environment. Other cross-cutting issues
were indirectly addressed by the project, including the strengthening of the social economy,
as the beneficiaries of the project in the target areas were vulnerable farmers, fishermen and
breeders. Through this project, farmers learned to adopt measures that can enable them to
adapt to climate change. These measures were the teaching of appropriate agricultural
techniques, agro forestry, selection and cultivation of species resistant to drought. For
example, the project taught farmers how to plant while adapting to climate change. They
adopted new agricultural technologies and practices such as the use of drip irrigation
systems.
Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – Page 36/82
The selection of beneficiaries was one of the responsibilities of the local delegations of the
Ministry of Agriculture and Environment (former Ministry of Rural Development). During the
formulation of the new phase of the project, financed by the CIDA, there was a discussion if
the intervention zones should be kept the same and what would be the criteria to choose the
beneficiaries. The rationale behind keeping the same islands from the GEF funding phase
was to capitalize the investments already made and because Santiago and Santo Antão are
also priorities in terms of food security, as stated in the graph below.
Figure 5 Food Security distribution by island30
Regarding the selection of beneficiaries, the criteria used were:
- Being beneficiary of a micro-irrigation system installation in the previous phase of the
project (have at least irrigation head);
- Having plots of easy access, availability of water in quantity and quality;
- Being a female head of household, with plots that meet the above requirements, as a
way to promote gender equity;
- Agree to work according to the guidelines of INIDA / MAE Delegations, thus ensuring
the maintenance of the plot (weeding, fertilization, clearing of planting, phytosanitary
treatments).
Concerning gender issues, the project management team, supervised by the UNDP and
CIDA, sought the support of ICIEG in order to integrate a gender approach in the project’s
intervention strategy to allow the activities to have a positive impact in the promotion of
gender equality. Training sessions with the project management team, as well with the
professionals responsible for choosing the beneficiaries were planned in the first
Memorandum of Understanding between the DGPOG (former execution agency) and the
30 Project Document
Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – Page 37/82
ICIEG. However, the partnership was not renewed after August 15, when the first MoU
expired.
Table 4 Vulnerability to food insecurity by gender in each project zone
Island Zone Sex Vulnerability
Severe food
insecurity
Moderate food
insecurity
Risk of food insecurity
Food security
Santo Antão Sinagoga
Masculin n/a n/a 59,1% 40,9%
Feminin n/a n/a 61,5% 38,5%
Cha de Igreja Masculin n/a n/a ,0% 100,0%
Feminin n/a n/a 25,0% 75,0%
Lagedos Masculin 29,2% 12,5% 29,2% 29,2%
Feminin 23,1% 23,1% 46,2% 7,7%
Tarrafal M. Trigo Masculin 31,5% 13,5% 38,2% 16,9%
Feminin 46,4% 14,3% 28,6% 10,7%
Chã de Norte Masculin n/a 5,9% 58,8% 35,3%
Feminin n/a 22,2% 44,4% 33,3%
Monte Trigo Masculin 30,8% 30,8% 38,5% n/a
Feminin 40,0% 40,0% 20,0% n/a
Ribeira das Patas Masculin 42,6% 20,7% 27,4% 9,3%
Feminin 48,3% 20,8% 26,2% 4,7%
Santiago Achada Tenda Masculin ,0% ,0% ,0% 100,0%
Feminin 11,1% 3,7% 66,7% 18,5%
Chão Bom Masculin 12,3% 13,8% 49,2% 24,6%
Feminin 10,4% 13,4% 56,7% 19,4%
Achada Fazenda Masculin 2,6% 7,9% 63,2% 26,3%
Feminin 21,4% 7,1% 50,0% 21,4%
Ribeireta Masculin 18,2% 36,4% 45,5% n/a
Feminin 44,4% 33,3% 22,2% n/a
Tagarra Masculin 29,4% 17,6% 41,2% 11,8%
Feminin 65,0% 20,0% 15,0% ,0%
*Because of inexistence or for having the same identification code, some zones (indicated below) were considered as being the same: Some localities are in the same zone, so they are considered the same, as listed below:
Island Zones Localities
Santo Antão
Sinagoga Chã da Furnas
Chã d´Igreja Mocho da Garça
Ribeira das Patas Chã de Matos
Ponte Sul
Ribeira das Bodes
Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – Page 38/82
Santiago Achada Tenda Achada Porto
Chão Bom Colonato
Achada Grande
Tagarra Flamengos Baixo
Achada Fazenda Achada Colaço
The table above shows the vulnerability rate in terms of food security for men and women in
each of the project’s intervention zones. The notable difference between both sex is one of
the reasons why including a gender analysis in the project was important for its outcomes.
3.3. Project results The results of the project evaluation come from stakeholder consultation and literature
review. In addition to these consultations, the project evaluation focused on the analysis of
results as deliverables, in particular based on the “Building adaptive capacity and resilience
to climate change in the water sector in Cabo Verde” project document.
The overall project results have been rated as satisfactory
The project final evaluation shows that overall most of the results were all achieved. The
activities were efficiently implemented and led to very satisfactory outcomes. At the same
time, other activities were not implemented until the evaluation visit happened. However,
based on the interviews and documents analysis it is possible to say that chances are high
that all the results will be achieved until the end of the first semester of 2017.
As mentioned earlier, the project’s objective is to increase resilience and enhance key
adaptive capacity to address the additional risks posed by climate change to water sector in
Cabo Verde. The implementation approaches adopted have ensured the attainment of this
objective through its outputs and impacts. The project has achieved its objective by
increasing the resilience of farmers in vulnerable regions to emerging climate change threats
enhanced and the institutional capacity to plan for and respond to climate induced impacts in
Cabo Verde. Minor shortcomings have been observed in project results, as detailed below,
but the project has delivered most of the planned outcomes
3.3.1. Overall results by intervention zones
The project has enabled the 18 intervention zones to benefit from know-how and new
technologies which help them to better adapt to climate change. This could be done by
involving local communities, national authorities and technical partners efficiently. The review
of available literature, stakeholder interviews and visits to demonstration villages with
inhabitants’ survey, enabled to highlight the following results, in terms of successes and
failures of project implemented activities.
ILHA DE SANTO ANTÃO
Conselho de Ribeira Grande
• Boca de Coruja
Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – Page 39/82
➢ Recovery of 1 catch dams
➢ 2300 m of tubes installed
➢ Adduction repair damaged by rainfall
➢ Training sessions in agricultural production techniques and environmental
issues.
➢ Organization of Exchange of experience between farmers, with participation of
twelve farmers, one woman
➢ One hundred and two (102) beneficiaries, of which twenty seven (27) are
women
• Chã das Furnas
➢ Training / qualification of 24 farmers for planning of horticultural production;
➢ Recovery of 1 reservoir for storage of water for agriculture, in the zone of
Zabelinha-Chã das Furnas, with 60m3 capacity
➢ Installation of 14 plots with drop irrigation for families, now with 2.800 m² of
irrigated area
➢ Installation of 900m of pipes
➢ Fixing of 430 fruit trees
➢ Organization of Exchange of experience between farmers, Concelho de Paúl
• Fajã de Janela
➢ Installation of 61 drip irrigation systems, totalizing 20000 m2 , Of the 61 plots,
forty seven (47) are men and seventeen (17) are women
➢ Training sessions in agricultural production techniques and environmental
issues for 35 farmers, among which 7 are woman
➢ Organization of Exchange of experience between farmers, with participation of
18 farmers
• Ribeira dos Penedos
➢ Recovery of 2 catch dams, that benefits 22 farmers, being 6 women
➢ Recovery of a 100m3 reservoir
➢ Installation of 4 drip irrigation system in plots, totalizing 2200 m2
➢ Fixing of 20 fruit trees
➢ Training sessions in agricultural production techniques and environmental
issues for 20 farmers
➢ Organization of Exchange of experience between farmers, with participation of
7 farmers, one woman
Concelho do Porto Novo
• Chã de Mato/ Ponte Sul
➢ Construction of the 900 m Agricultural Perimeter Fence
➢ 6000 m2 of land preparation
➢ Installation of 6000 m2 of drip irrigation system in the plots
• Tarrafal de Monte Trigo
➢ 5450 m2 of land preparation
Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – Page 40/82
➢ Conclusion of 13 reservoirs, with a capacity of 386 m2 and adduction network
installation, benefiting among them one woman
➢ Installation of 1300m of pipes
➢ Repair of 400 m of watering channel and maintenance, benefiting 20 farmers,
among 10 women
➢ Removal of 47 acacias along adduction channels
➢ Building of 2 improved corral and cheese ateliers adapted to local conditions,
2 are in construction
➢ Acquisition of 15 improved breed piglets
➢ Construction of 5 pigsties, all benefiting women
➢ Installation of drip irrigation system in plots, totalizing 7000 m2 .Benefiting 15
farmers, one woman.
ILHA DE SANTIAGO
Concelho de Tarrafal
• Achada Porto/ Achada Tenda
➢ Rehabilitation and settlement of 1 community pigsty, benefiting 7 households
headed by women
➢ Training of 7 women in hygiene and animal handling
➢ Construction of a compost pit
➢ Acquisition of materials and placement of 1 ceiling
➢ Construction of 1 pigpens, and its posterior widening, benefiting 9 more
households headed by women
Concelho de São Miguel
• Machado
➢ Rehabilitation and increase of the capacity of a reservoir for 45m3
➢ Rehabilitation of 2 reservoirs of 50 m3
➢ Rehabilitation of 300m of levada
➢ Implementation of an adduction network of 100 m
➢ Construction of 28 m of terraces
➢ Construction of three slope protection walls, totalizing 960 m
➢ Construction of protection wall of a reservoir, 22,3 m , benefiting 130
habitants, being 77 women
• Ribeireta
➢ Construction of a will protection wall, 29 m
• Flamengos Tagarra
➢ Rehabilitation of 1 wind pumps
➢ Increase in the capacity of a reservoir from 19m3 to 25m3.
➢ Implementation of 200m of pipes
Concelho de Santa Cruz
Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – Page 41/82
• Achada Ponta
➢ Rehabilitation and modernization of fish treatment and conservation center
(now working as a community center), benefiting 411 habitants, being 214
women
Concelho de São Lourenço dos Órgãos
• Orgãos Pequenos e Funcos
➢ Construction of 20 cisterns, with a total of 200 m3. Benefiting 20 households
headed by women
➢ Rehabilitation of 9 wells
➢ 4 Awareness session for farmers about environment protection and rational
use of water, with participation of 38 people, with 31 women
• Pico de Antonia
➢ 1 Awareness session for farmers about climate change mitigation measures,
with participation of 41 people, being 12 women
➢ Construction/reparation of reservatories totalizing 453 m3 of installed water
storage capacity
➢ Recovery of one (1) water catchment dam, benefiting 42 farmers, among 15
women
➢ Installation of 5 parcels of drip irrigation systems
Installation of 6450 m of pipes,
• Funco e João Teves
➢ Installation of 200m of pipes
➢ Construction of 2 reservoir totalizing 1000 m3 , benefiting 703 people, being
361 women
• Levada
➢ Recuperation of 2 wells and construction of a protection wall
➢ Recovery of one (1) water catchment dam
• Covoada
➢ Construction of a protection wall of 60 m
• São Jorge
➢ Recovery of 1 well and 1 levada
• Longueira
➢ Support in the construction of one greenhouse
The activities planned for the localities of Colonato and Mato Mendes were not concluded by the date of the documents provided by the UNDP and the Project Management Team. Most of the activities that are still waiting for their conclusion are related to the installation of solar panels to pump water from the wells. According to the Project Management Team the delay
Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – Page 42/82
was due to administrative issues that prevented the procurement process to be finished on time. Still, everything is already set for the conclusion of the activities. The budget is already allocated and it is expected to be finished until the end of the semester. Regarding the research activities in partnership with the INIDA, the activities included studies to make an inventory of pests and diseases, identify and foment the best local practices applied in the agricultural and livestock sector, the inclusion of new species in order to enhance food security and the installation of a bromatology lab. The equipment for the Lab was bought by the project, and INIDA managed it.
3.3.2. Relevance
The relevance of the project is obvious as the question of water resources management and
food security is important and sensitive to climatic hazards in Cabo Verde. This justifies the
choice of implementing irrigation systems, building water reservoirs and developing research
activities to improve agricultural production and ensure food security. There was also a real
capacity of the project, through its activities and products, to support the concerns of target
groups, with results that have confirmed the relevance of the project. In light of the project
results, it appears that the introduction of innovative techniques or practices requires extreme
support, despite the expertise already present, as is the case of the installation of solar
panels. Thus, activities related to existing practices, and that the project has modernized,
have proven to be the most beneficial.
This criterion is ranked R.
3.3.3. Efficiency & Effectiveness
This evaluation report describes the management approach observed in the implementation
of project activities. The analysis was made with reference to the appropriateness of
expenditures and financial means used to achieve the desired results. Most of the results of
the project’s activities could be quantified, since the activities could be measured with
quantitative information. Therefore, the project outcome can be considered largely positive.
It should be mentioned that the team has shown motivation and involvement in the
implementation of this project. This assessment is based on the testimonies of the
beneficiaries as well as national partners, starting with members of the MAE, met by the
evaluation team during the evaluation trip. Conversely, the project team could benefit from
the institutional and major political interaction capacity as can be expected from a
governmental authority.
This criterion is ranked S.
3.3.4. Appropriation by the country
The issue of appropriation by the country has been a concern since the formulation of the
project. The fact that the project management structure has been embedded within the
government structure was a strategy to ensure and confirm that the project would not face
problems of lack of engagement and priority with the staff involved in its implementation.
Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – Page 43/82
Close cooperation with the Government has certainly allowed the project to be appropriated
by the institutions at all levels (including villages) and therefore guarantee a high durability to
the gains of the project; it also helped to integrate quite easily the issues of climate change,
even if the beneficiaries are mainly concerned with improving their living conditions
We must therefore emphasize that the involvement and ownership was very satisfactory at
local and national levels: both on the part of the rural populations, villages and authorities
and other national institutions partners. All were very satisfied with the project, and
participated actively in its implementation: departmental representations of the ministries of
environment and agriculture brought their support through their experts, and local
communities through the various groups.
This criterion is ranked S.
3.3.5. Sustainability
Overall likelihood of sustainability
The evaluation of the project showed that the beneficiary population was motivated by the
project: it is an asset for the country and is experienced as such. The sustainability of
undertaken activities seems likely. Yet, for its impacts to be beneficial and sustainable, a
replication of the activities will be required. The positive results of the project should be used
to extend the practices of the project to other vulnerable zones of the country.
One of the main issues concerning the sustainability of the project is the fact that the local
communities will not be able to afford the maintenance of the solar panels once the project is
over. Some strategies and ideas to include the local associations, for example, as the
responsible for guaranteeing the good conditions of the equipment are already being
discussed among the beneficiaries. This is an important point that should be addressed
before the conclusion of the project.
The Project has increased awareness and knowledge of all stakeholders on climate change
adaptation. They also realized that outcomes of the Project have reflected their priority needs
and be owned by them. Under the impact of the Project, local governmental sectors,
academic institutions, NGOs and some communities said to evaluator that they will continue
to use the outcomes from the Project. The local communities which are engaged in
development of agricultural practices and have benefited from the Project will voluntarily
support the efforts of adaptation led by local governments.
The sustainability of achievements will highly depend on the country’s political context in the
coming years. The strong implication of government bodies into the project implementation is
a good foundation for a sustainable institutional framework for climate change adaptation
activities in the country.
To conclude this section on sustainability, the project results show the appropriation of new
practices and innovations, enabling greater resilience for targeted populations. It is important
that these benefits be likely to continue after the end of external funding. Beyond
sustainability that is already observable, we must also focus on generalization.
This criterion is ranked ML.
Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – Page 44/82
3.3.6. Impact The impact of the project was confirmed by the final evaluation, regarding the principal
objective as well as specific objectives. The project has reached not only vulnerable
communities, but also government staff and other stakeholders through awareness raising
campaign on climate change issues, and through trainings on adaptation, climate
information, water management, and adaptive agricultural practices.
Though some project’s activities have been less impactful than others, the whole CIDA
initiative has scaled up an enabling environment and strong interest in climate change
adaptation in Cabo Verde. The project has indeed proven catalytic for climate change
adaptation action in the country, as shown by the mainstreaming of climate change and
water resource management in the national policies and institutions. The project has thus
shown that investing in the environmental sector in Cabo Verde is highly relevant itself. A
wide number of climate change adaptation initiatives can now be developed thanks to the
cooperation created by the project.
This criterion is ranked ML.
Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – Page 45/82
4. Conclusions, recommendations and lessons learnt
Table 5 Project scoring table
Criteria Note Comment
Implementation of the project
Monitoring and evaluation
S Planning for monitoring and evaluation was comprehensive, but not enough detailed in the project document. During the project implementation it integrated both internal M&E daily and annually, and external evaluations at project completion. A consistent budget was implemented to ensure the functioning of M&E. The implementation of the M&E plan was satisfactory. The conclusions of the final review of the first phase were positive and recommendations relevant. These recommendations have been implemented and had positive consequences on the project execution, with appropriate adjustments of project activities regarding the progress and remaining time for these activities.
UNDP implementation S The UNDP’s implementation, monitoring and facilitation work was provided adequately throughout the project. The structure and implementation of the project in Cabo Verde were adequate, and the role of UNDP significant as the guarantor of this adequacy.
DGASP Execution S The DGASP has fully played its role as executing agency of the project, with the provision of premises and staff throughout the life of the project, and an appropriate political and technical supervision of the project.
Coordination between the UNDP, the implementing partner and the executive partner
S The collaboration between the UNDP and the Government of Cabo Verde has not been a major problem, apart from purely administrative side effects due to the reorganization of the Government with the elections. These departmental reorganization problems or UNDP intervention procedures in Cabo Verde changes are beyond the scope of the project and not treated in this report.
Project results
Global results S The project document, as it was originally developed, is ambitious, and corresponds to the concerns of rural populations affected by climate change. The final evaluation of the project shows that overall most of the results were achieved. The activities were implemented effectively and have led to very satisfactory results. It should be noted that some of the activities were not completed by the moment of this evaluation. However,
Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – Page 46/82
based on the information collected during the evaluation, chances are high that they will be completed within the next months. The project enabled the seventeen intervention zones to benefit from expertise and technologies which allow them to better adapt to climate change. This could be done by effectively involving local communities, national authorities and technical partners.
Relevance R The relevance of the project is obvious as the question of water resources management and food security is important and sensitive to climatic hazards in Cabo Verde. In light of the project results, it appears that the introduction of innovative techniques or practices requires extreme support, despite the expertise already present. It is recommended that the project is rescaled nationwide and extended, if possible, at all rural communities of Cabo Verde.
Efficiency and Effectiveness
S This assessment is based on the testimonies of the beneficiaries as well as national partners. Also, the team has shown motivation and involvement in the implementation of this project and has benefited from the institutional capacity and interaction of major political government authority. In conclusion, the effectiveness of the implementation of the project is satisfactory.
Appropriation by the country
S Important decisions (choices of pilot projects, beneficiaries, etc) and activities were implemented with the systematic and comprehensive agreement of the UNDP and Cabo Verdean authorities. Close cooperation with the government has certainly allowed the project to be appropriated by the institutions at all levels (including villages) and therefore guarantee a high durability to the gains of the project; it also helped to integrate quite easily the issues of climate change, even if the beneficiaries are mainly concerned with improving their living conditions. We must therefore emphasize that the involvement and ownership was very satisfactory at local and national levels: both on the part of the rural populations, villages and authorities and other national institutions partners. All were very satisfied with the project, and participated actively in its implementation: municipalities brought their support through their MAE delegations, and local communities through the various groups. Follow up reports, annual work plans and reports about field visits were sent regularly to the Government and many events (meetings with the project management team, workshops, etc.) marked the project. Exchanges between the Government and the project team were numerous, and the flow of information was
Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – Page 47/82
systematized (at the administrative as well as the technical levels).
Sustainability ML The activities introduced during the project implementation have created a dynamic in the villages and the population suggested that innovations of the project would continue. Lessons should be learned, following the project, about the activities and challenges that must be replicated on a large scale. Project sustainability is ensured in demonstration villages and it is recommended to generalize the approach of the project nationwide.
Impact ML The impact of the project was confirmed by the final evaluation. This had already been analyzed in the final evaluation of the first phase funded by the GEF with positive results, the transfer of adaptation technologies, and the continued practices against climate change also allowing to reduce poverty and food insecurity.
As a general conclusion, it should be noted that the project achieved its objectives: it allowed, in targeted villages, for the reduction of the vulnerability of rural populations to the impacts of climate change, with the introduction of resilient practices, technologies and access to water. It has also strengthened national capacities for adaptation, through the involvement of many administrative managers and research professionals of Cabo Verde, to provide answers to people's needs. More specifically, one can retain the following main points:
• The project allowed the eighteen demonstration zones to benefit from know-how and new technologies, such as the introduction of drip irrigation, which allowed them to better adapt to climate change. The results of the project as a whole constitute a great change in the beneficiaries’ lives, by allowing them to increase their production and improving their quality of life. This could be done by effectively involving local communities, national authorities and technical partners. This success is due to the permanent mobilization of the Project Management Team throughout the duration of the project, and to the involvement of stakeholders, whether the UNDP, the DGASP, the MAE, intervention villages or academic and agronomic research fields of Cabo Verde.
• The implementation and organization of the project went through some delay due to the elections that happened in the country over 2016 and the reorganization of the ministries, as well as changes in the Project Management Team. These obstacles were well treated by the UNDP and the PMT.
• The project has arguably strengthened the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment as well as the local ministry’s delegations and the DGASP. Institutional capacity has thus been enhanced, especially since the project triggered an inter-ministry cooperation on the multi-sectoral aspects of climate change.
• Project expenses were well managed, particularly with respect to the preparation of PTAs. Moreover, CIDA fast-start finance was highly efficient; the allocation to the ACC project was relevant and fulfilling Canada’s commitments.
Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – Page 48/82
• The attempt to include gender aspects in the project activities was successful in the beginning, but unfortunately it was not carried out until the end. Women are among the groups most vulnerable to climate change effects, encourage their participation in the project activities would reduce their vulnerability and boost the project’s outcomes.
• The project has generated a wide amount of knowledge and information on climate change in Cabo Verde, disseminating knowledge not only on the impacts, but on adaptation approaches and practices. Awareness-raising has reached not only people involved in the project, but also national institutions and the project has triggered a strong implication of local communities as well as institutional stakeholders across ministries.
• No clear exit strategy has been developed by national parties as to how adaptation measures will be sustained after the project financing. Yet, there is some budget already allocated to complete the implementation of some adaptation activities. There is, though, a need to build a strong exit strategy to ensure the sustainability of acquired adaptive capacity at national and local level.
• The country’s need for technical and financial assistance is still strong as climate change adverse impacts become more and more severe. Adaptation strategies and technologies must be scaled up and developed across the country.
The recommendations are:
• First, the positive results of the project should be continued and replicated at a larger scale as implicitly requested by the Government through the INDC, and as mentioned during the project evaluation consultations. Partnerships with research organizations and other technical partners must be strengthened in future projects.
• Coordination with donors and other development and climate actors in Cabo Verde should be pursued, amplified and extended to new funds. It is for instance recommended to formulate a concept note for an amount of around USD 60 million, to generalize the project nationwide, to be submitted to the Green Climate Fund (GCF).
• The cooperation between the UNDP and national and local authorities should be pursued on similar themes to those covered by the project, including coastal ecosystems, biodiversity, and reforestation.
• As part of the next programmatic cycle, it is recommended to focus transversely on water access, sustainable tourism, organic farming and climate change adaptation, rural electrification using renewable energies and adaptation to climate change in coastal zones to prevent sea level rise. A project focused on developing the idea of sustainable and agro tourism could be implemented, not only in the islands that have already benefited from the project, but also in the rest of the country. The tourism is a big part of the Cabo Verde’s economy, aligning it with environmental concerns is good way to promote a sustainable development and poverty reduction.
• It is important that the project management team guarantees that not only the installation of the solar panels will be concluded, but also that the local communities will have the necessary means to deal with any problem that might occur after the end of the project, thus, guaranteeing its sustainability.
Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – Page 49/82
• The greater institutional capacity triggered by the project must be sustained and enhanced. The Ministry of Agriculture and Environment, together with the Directorate General and delegations involved in the project, as well as local associations, should continue the efforts initiated by the project. Climate change should continue to be mainstreamed into the country’s policies and initiatives.
• Similarly, CIDA could continue financing adaptation activities building on the achievements of the project in the field of sustainable agriculture and with watershed committees.
50
5. Annexes
5.1. Photographs
Photograph 1: Interview with the Project’s beneficiaries in Ribeira Grande, Santo Antão Island
Photograph 2: Fishing Center in Achada Ponta, Santiago Island
51
Photograph 3: Poço built in São Lourenço dos Orgãos, Santiago Island
Photograph 4: Project’s intervention zone with the irrigation system installed
52
Photograph 5: Interview with the representative of the local association in Tarrafal, Santiago Island, where they are waiting for the solar pannels to be installed
Photograph 6 : Workers preparing the area where the solar pannels will be installed in Chã de Mato, Porto Novo, Santo Antão Island
53
Photograph 7: José Mario Sousa, president of the Federation of Associations of São Lourenço dos Orgãos shows the pipes installed by the project
Photograph 8: Evaluation team together with the local beneficiaries
54
5.2. Itinerary
The field visit followed the following itinerary and schedule:
- Monday 12, December: Meetings at the UNDP Office with the staff responsible for
the project, Mrs Sandra Martins and the Deputy Mrs Ilaria Carnevali. Interview with
the Project Coordinator, Mr Carlos Monteiro.
- Tuesday 13, December: Interview with different stakeholders, including: Mr.
Alexandre Rodrigues, Director of the Ministry of Environment, Mrs Angela Monteiro
and other members of the INIDA and the former Project Supervisor, Mrs. Alayde Dias
- Wednesday 14, December: Field visits to the project’s intervention zones of Santa
Cruz and Tarrafal, in the island of Santiago. Interview with the focal point, Antonio
Andrade, Mrs Conceição, president of one the local association in São Lourenço dos
Orgãos and José Mario Sousa, president of the Federation of Associations of São
Lourenço dos Orgãos. In Tarrafal, interview with Anilson, technic of the delegation of
the Ministry of Agriculture and Pedro Clara, president of the local association.
- Thursday 15, December: Field visit to the project’s intervention zones in Ribeira
Grande, island of Santo Antão. Interview with Orlando Freitas, focal point of the
project in the council of Ribeira Grande and Paúl. Meeting with different beneficiaries
of the project, João José Fonseca, Assis Bandeira, Paulo Jorge Silva, José Silva
Rodrigues, as well as José Coutinho, one of the responsible for disseminating the
project in the region.
- Friday 16, December: Field visit to the project’s intervention zones in Porto Novo,
island of Santo Antão. Interview with Manuel Delgado, focal point of the council of
Porto Novo.
- Monday 19, December: Second meetings with the UNDP staff and interview with
Adelcia Duarte, from the ICIEG.
- Tuesday 20, December: Presentation of the initial findings during a workshop held in
the UNDP Office, with the presence of various stakeholders and people involved in
the project.
5.3. List of documents reviewed
• PRODOC
• Technical documents: Terms of Reference; consultancies report, Management plans;
proposals; staff review & comments on consultancies deliverables
• Annual and Quarter Work Plans & Reports
• Financial Reports
• Communication materials
• Training Materials
• Training and events reports
• Memorandum of understanding for activity execution
• Cabo Verde national policy documents on environment, climate change, gender
• Relevant legislation and regulations
• CIDA Annual Report
55
5.4. List of persons interviewed List and contacts of individuals interviewed as part of the evaluation
Nr Name Attributions /Functions
Institution Contacts Phone / mail
1 Angela Ma p. b. da Veiga Moreno
President of INIDA
INIDA [email protected] angela.moreno.gov.cv (298)9912222/5159948
2 José Joao Teixeira
General Director
DGASP [email protected] Tel: (238) 2604187-995 1224- 517 1267 Mobile: (238)2604180/90
3 Ilaria Carnevali
Deputy Resident
Representative
UN Cabo Verde Joint Office
[email protected] Mobile : +238 991 1014
4 Alexandre Nevsky Rodrigues
Diretor Nacional do Ambiente
DNA [email protected] (238) 333 71 71 – 516 23 60
5 Carlos Monteiro
Project Supervisor
MAE [email protected] [email protected]
6 Alayde Dias
Former Project Supervisor
MAE
7 Antonio Andrade
Focal Point Santa Cruz
8 Jose Mario Sousa
President of the Feder-
Orgãos
9 Orlando Freitas
Focal Point Ribeira
Grande and Paul
10 Manuel Delgado
Focal Point Porto Novo
56
5.5. Project’s logical framework
Objective/
Outcome Indicator Baseline End of Project target Source of Information
Objective – To
increase
resilience and
enhance key
adaptive
capacity to
address the
additional risks
posed by
climate change
to water sector
in Cape Verde.
Original INDICATOR:
Water management plans for
municipalities on Santiago and
Santo Antão Islands where the
project is active explicitly
consider climate change risks
and opportunities (e.g. counts
on a technically sound and
widely endorsed ‘climate
change adaptation annex’ or
‘addendum’)
Plans are not climate-proof
Plans are climate-proof
Verification by independent mid-
term and final evaluations of the
project
Incidence (% of population) of
food insecurity in the
communities targeted by
project interventions
To be determined through assessment
Reduction in 25% the incidence of food insecurity in the communities targeted by project interventions
Dietary diversity indicator of the
communities targeted by
project intervention
To be determined through assessment
Increase in 25% of the population who present diversify diet in the communities
57
Objective/
Outcome Indicator Baseline End of Project target Source of Information
targeted by project intervention
Percentage of non-external
state budget allocated to
manage climate change risk
(data collection and analysis,
risk assessment and climate
change adaptation programs)
Development of assessment
guidelines for budget review…
Monitoring of State non-external
budget
% of water mobilization
investment’s decisions and
authorizations based on water
balance monitoring system on
the target zones
Water availability for agriculture
production on the target
communities….
Outcome 1 –
Climate change
risks and
1. Key policy frameworks,
programs and investments
Superficial level of incorporation
Increase by 50% over
Application of the UNDP Climate
Screening Methodology. Key
policies include the PNIA, ENSA,
58
Objective/
Outcome Indicator Baseline End of Project target Source of Information
adaptation
measures
integrated into
key national
policies, plans
and programs
for water
resource
management.
plans relevant for the
agriculture, food security and
water sector effectively
incorporate climate risk
consideration and adaptation
measures as assessed through
the
UNDP Climate Screening
Methodology
# of planning department ( at
line-ministries and local level)
that apply climate-proofing
tools on their planning and
budgeting process.
baseline
Climate-related pest and
diseases’ early warning system
fully operational at local and
There is no early warning system in place; and IPM policies
Increase by 50% over
baseline
Qualitative surveys covering
selected agencies with results
vetted independently by
UNDP/GEF upon inception, and
by the evaluators by mid-term
59
Objective/
Outcome Indicator Baseline End of Project target Source of Information
central level
# policy and program
documents which diagnosis are
based on climate data analysis
do not consider climate change risk
and project end
Outcome 2 –
Small and
medium scale
climate change
adaptation
practices for
water resource
management
are
demonstrated
and
implemented in
selected
hydrographical
basins
# of farmers who co-participate
on implementation of water
use efficiency projects
% of families who benefit from
demonstration projects that
increase yield
Surface ( in Ha) of irrigated
land within project intervention
sites using water efficiency
techniques and measures
Utilization measure to be determined by sectoral experts during inception
Target measure also t.b.d.
Project site maps in Annex 2
provide measure of water
availability. Detailed water
utilization data needs to be
collected.
60
Objective/
Outcome Indicator Baseline End of Project target Source of Information
% of farmers within targeted
communities that introduce new
drought-resistant and
diversified crops
2.
.
Outcome 3 –
Lessons learned
and best
practices from
pilot activities
are
disseminated,
and integrated
in national plans
and policies.
# of Technical packages
produced from demonstration
projects which are used by
rural extension workers
nationwide
# of strategic documents and
plans( for agriculture, water and
food security) which integrate
water efficiency incentives’
mechanism
# of water management
institutions ( local and central
61
Objective/
Outcome Indicator Baseline End of Project target Source of Information
level) that use water monitoring
system to control groundwater
pumping
62
5.6. Terms of reference
TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE FINAL EVALUATION
"Building adaptive capacity and resilience to climate change in the water
sector in Cabo Verde - CIDA Fast Start Climate Change Funds"
Type of Consultant: International Consultant
Terms of Contract: Individual Contract
Location: Cabo Verde
Expected starting date: 14th November 2016
Duration of the consultancy: 30 days Expected date for final report submission: 23th
December Closing Date: 31st October 23:59 CPV time
1. INTRODUCTION
In accordance with the UNDP and GEF M&E policies and procedures, a final evaluation of
the full-size project "Building adaptive capacity and resilience to climate change in the water
sector in Cape Verde" is required. This project, implemented through the Ministry of
Agriculture and Environmental, since 2013. The Final Evaluation report is to be completed
by December 2016.
This phase of the project started in last quarter of 2013 and is in its final year of
implementation. This Terms of Reference (TOR) sets out the expectations for this terminal
evaluation.
The essentials of the project to be reviewed are as follows:
Building adaptive capacity and resilience to climate change in the water
sector in Cape Verde
UNDP Project
ID:
PIMS 4091 Project financing at endorsement (Million USS)
ATLAS
Project ID:
00058318 CIDA financing: USD
Country: Cape Verde IA/EA own: $200,000 USD
Region West Africa Government: $ 9,211,299 USD
63
Focal Area: Climate Change
Adaptation
Other: $ USD
GEF Focal
Area
Strategic
Program
Total co-financing: $ USD
Executing
Agency:
Ministry of
Agriculture and
Environment
(MAA)
Total Project Cost in
cash:
us
Other
Partners
involved
ProDoc Signature (date project began): September 2013
Initial Planned closing date: Revised closing date:
2. Project background
The impacts of climate change on Cabo Verde water resources, particularly on water
availability, are predicted to adversely affect human health, agricultural production and food
security in both rural and urban areas. Predicted climate change scenarios are likely to
constrain long-term development through: (i) increased frequency and severity of drought;
(ii) increased rainfall variability, including more frequent events of short and intense rains,
causing flash-floods in several catchment areas; and (iii) progressive sea level rise and salt
water intrusion in freshwater reservoirs closer to coastal areas. Consequently, a major
challenge for Cape Verde is to mainstream climate change adaptation measures into
integrated water resource management across different institutional, social and spatial
frameworks. Technical capacity of both government and local communities to manage the
emerging threats imposed by climate change is required. The likely impacts of climate
change are still poorly understood and the need for adaptation not sufficiently incorporated
into relevant frameworks.
The project objective is to increase resilience and enhance key adaptive capacity to
address the additional risks posed by climate change to the water sector in Cape Verde.
Financial resources from the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) had been used to
address systemic, institutional and individual capacity gaps to manage water resources for
human, agricultural and other uses in the face of a changing climate.
A mid-term review was completed by September 2013, and a follow-up project has been
endorsed and financed by CIDA with a focus on climate change and food security.
During LDCF project implementation awareness on climate change risks and adaptation
alternatives have been reinforced and adaptive measure have been demonstrated/ scaled
up ((small-scale drip irrigation; biological and mechanical soil and water conservation
measures). Through this additional funds, capacity to mainstream climate change
adaptation in development planning will be further reinforced with a particular focus on
analyzing current and projected impacts of climate change on food security status of the
country and building community resilience through a shift towards climate-smart agriculture
and integrated water resources management.
In line with guidance and eligibility criteria of the Canadian International Development
Agency (CIDA) Fast Start Climate Change Funds, this proposal seeks to address food
64
security issues associated with climate change, with special considerations afforded to
gender issues in particular with respect to access to resources and exacerbated
vulnerability under condition of strain.
The project aim at supporting the reinforcement of national applied-research programs
targeted to climate resilient agriculture and food security in the context of a small island
developing state (SIDS).
Some priority measures identified in the NAPA, such as promotion of application of
renewable energies for water mobilization in rural areas, will be also implemented with this
additional funding.
2. Project objectives and expected outputs
The project's goal is to ensure that water availability, supply and quality are maintained in
the face of changed climatic conditions.
The project objective is to increase resilience and enhance key adaptive capacity to
address the additional risks posed by climate change to the water sector in Cape Verde. In
order to achieve the above objective, and based on a barrier analysis, the project's
intervention has been organized in three components under which three “outcomes” are
expected from the project:
Outcome 1: Climate change risks and adaptation measures integrated into key
national policies, plans and programs for water resource management.
Outcome 2: Small and medium scale climate change adaptation practices for water
resource management are demonstrated and implemented in selected
hydrographical basins.
Outcome 3: Lessons learned and best practices from pilot activities, capacity
development initiatives and policy changes are disseminated,
Outcome 1 will deal with the 'governance framework' for climate change adaptation. The
fact that climate risk, vulnerability and adaptation measures are only superficially integrated
(or mainstreamed) in policies, plans and programs is a symptom of incipient and limited
capacity of key stakeholders at the national level to plan in response to climate change.
Outcome 2 will, in turn, show how pilot demonstration investment at the site level can make
a difference in terms of improving resilience locally. Overall, the lessons learnt and
experiences acquired under Outcomes 1 and 2 will be disseminated across Cabo Verde
and to other countries through actions foreseen under Outcome 3
3. Final Evaluation objectives
Project evaluations assess the efficiency and effectiveness of a project in achieving its
intended results. Terminal evaluation is expected as well to assess the relevance and
sustainability of outputs as contributions to medium-term and longer-term outcomes.
The TE wilt be conducted according to the guidance, rules and procedures
established by UNDP as reflected in the UNDP Evaluation Guidance.
65
The objectives of the evaluation are to assess the achievement of project results, and to
draw lessons that can both improve the sustainability of benefits from this project, and aid in
the overall enhancement of UNDP programming.
The Terminal Evaluation is intended to identify weaknesses and strengths of the project
design and implementation strategy to come up with recommendations to avoid or address
similar issues in the follow-up project.
The TE must provide evidence based information that is credible, reliable and useful. The
evaluation team is expected to follow a participatory and consultative approach ensuring
close engagement with government counterparts (executing agency), in particular with line
ministries, UNDP Country Office, project team, UNDP Regional Technical Adviser based
and key stakeholders.
The evaluation mission will also identify lessons learnt and best practices from the project
which could be applied to future and other on-going projects. The international consultant
for this review is expected to identify lessons learnt and best practices from other climate
change adaptation project that could guide technical recommendations and improvements,
specially targeting follow-up project endorsed by CIDA and the SGP interventions on the
community base adaptation focal area.
Scope of the Terminal Evaluation
The scope of the Terminal Evaluation will cover all activities undertaken in the framework of
the project. The evaluators will compare planned outputs of the project to actual outputs and
assess the actual results to determine their contribution to the attainment of the project
objectives.
The evaluation should cover at minimum the five evaluation criteria considered by UNDP
Evaluation Office.
3. UNDP Evaluation Criteria.»
The extent to which the activity is suited to local and national development priorities and organizational policies, including changes over time. the extent to which the project is in line with the GEF Operational Programs or the strategic priorities under which the project was funded.
Note: Retrospectively, the question of relevance often becomes a question as to whether
the objectives of an intervention or its design are still appropriate given changed
circumstances.
The extent to which an objective has been achieved or how likely it is to be achieved.
The extent to which results have been delivered with the least costly resources possible;
also called cost effectiveness or efficacy.
66
The positive and negative, foreseen and unforeseen changes to and effects produced by a
development intervention.
in GEF terms, results include direct project outputs, short to medium-term outcomes, and
longer term impact including global environmental benefits, replication effects and other
local effects.
The likely ability of an intervention to continue to deliver benefits for an extended
period of time after completion. Projects need to be environmentally, as well as
financially and socially sustainable.
The evaluation assessment should cover, at minimum, 3 general areas, for which
conclusions and recommendations should be provided and lessons learned identified:
1. Project
formulation if.
2. Project
implementation
3. Project results
The conclusions should be comprehensive and balanced, and highlight the strengths,
weaknesses and outcomes of the project. They should be well substantiated by the
evidence and logically connected to the terminal evaluation findings. They should respond
to key evaluation questions and provide insights into the identification of and/or solutions to
important problems or issues pertinent to project beneficiaries, UNDP and Canada-UNDP
Climate Change Facility.
The recommendations should be feasible and directed to the intended users of the
evaluation about what actions to take and decisions to make. The recommendations should
be specifically supported by the evidence and linked to the findings and conclusions around
key questions addressed by the evaluation.
The terminal evaluation report should also include, if available, lessons that can be taken
from the evaluation, including best (and worst) practices that can provide knowledge gained
from the particular circumstance (programmatic and evaluation methods used, partnerships,
financial leveraging, etc.) that are applicable to other CIDA and UNDP interventions,
especially for the follow-up project.
The evaluation team will assess the following three categories of project progress. For each
category, the review team is required to rate overall progress using a six-point rating scale
outlined in section 6 (Evaluation criteria & rating).
3.1. Project formulation:
Assess project formulation and relevance of the adopted strategy. For this purpose, those
are some questions (not an exhaustive list) to be considered:
67
Were the project's objectives and components clear, practicable and feasible
within it time frame?
Were the capacities of the executing institution(s) and its counterparts properly
considered when the project was designed?
Were lessons from other relevant projects properly incorporated in the project
design? Were the partnership arrangements properly identified and roles and
responsibilities negotiated prior to project approval?
Were counterpart resources (funding, staff, and facilities), enabling legislation,
and adequate project management arrangements in place at project entry?
Were the project assumptions and risks well-articulated in the PIF and project
document?
Were project outcomes and project indicators SMART?
ii. Assess the protect assumptions and risks as set out in the project document and LOQ
Frame/Results/ Framework, including:
An assessment of the stated assumptions and risks, whether they are logical and
robust, and have helped to determine activities and planned outputs.
Externalities (i.e. effects of climate change, global economic crisis, etc.) which are
relevant to the findings.
3.2. Project Implementation
Some elements to include in the assessment of implementation approach include:
a. M&E mechanisms
The logical framework used during implementation as a management and M&E tool;
Effective partnerships arrangements established for implementation of the project with
relevant stakeholders involved in the country/region, including the formation of a Project
Board; Lessons from other relevant projects incorporated into project implementation;
Feedback from M&E activities used for adaptive management.
b. Finance
i. Effectiveness of the financial
planning if. Cost-Effective factors
c. Co-finance
The evaluation will assess the key financial aspects of the project, including the extent of
co-financing
Planned and realized. Project cost and funding data will be required, including
annual expenditures;
Variances between planned and actual expenditures will need to be assessed and
explained results;
All recent financial audits, as available, should be taken into consideration. The
evaluator(s) will receive assistance from the Country Office (CO) and Project Team
68
to obtain financial data in order to complete the co-financing table below, which will
be included in the terminal evaluation report.
d. CIDA implementing agency execution- UNDP
The evaluator should assess and rate the quality of UNDP execution of the project. The
assessment should be established through consideration of the following issues:
Whether there was an appropriate focus on results;
The adequacy of UNDP support to the Implementing Partner and project
team; Quality and timeliness of technical support to the Executing Agency
and project team;
Candour and realism in annual reporting;
The quality of risk management;
Responsiveness of the managing parties to significant implementation problems (if
any).
e. Implementing partner execution
Similarly, the quality of execution by the Implementing Partner should be assessed,
considering the following issues:
Whether there was an appropriate focus on results and timeliness;
Adequacy of management inputs and processes, including budgeting and
procurement quality of risk management;
Candour and realism in reporting Government ownership.
f. Protect M&E mechanisms
The evaluation team should be expected to provide a project M&E assessment that
provides:
An analysis of the M&E plan at project start up, considering whether baseline
conditions, methodology and roles and responsibilities are well articulated. Is the
M&E plan well-conceived? Is it articulated sufficient to monitor results and track
progress toward achieving objectives
The quality of M&E plan implementation: Was the M&E plan sufficiently
budgeted and funded during project preparation and implementation
69
The effectiveness of monitoring indicators from the project document for
measuring progress and performance;
Compliance with the progress and financial reporting requirements/ schedule,
including quality and timeliness of reports;
The value and effectiveness of the monitoring reports and evidence that these
were discussed with stakeholders and project staff;
To assess whether there were changes in the environmental and development
objectives of the project during implementation, the following questions might be
considered:
Why these changes were made and what was the approval process did the
project undergo significant changes as a result of recommendations from the
mid-term review?
If the changes were extensive, did they materially change the expected
project outcomes?
Were the project changes articulated in writing and then considered and
approved by the project steering committee?
3.3. Project Results
The results include direct project outputs, short- to medium-term outcomes, and longer term
impact including global environmental benefits, replication effects, and other local effects.
Assessing project results involves attention to the full scope of a results based management
(RBM) chain, from inputs to activities, to outputs, outcomes and impacts. For UNDP
supported GEF financed projects, the main focus of attention is at the outcome level,
recognizing that global environmental benefit impacts are often difficult to discern and
gauging outputs is straightforward but not sufficient to capture project effectiveness
To assess project outcomes, the evaluation should include consideration of results as
measured by broader aspects such as:
i. Country ownership,
The evaluation should find evidence that reveals to what extend the project fits within stated
sector development priorities, and also to what extend project outputs have been developed
with involvement from government officials and have been adopted into national strategies,
policies and/or legal codes._
Some relevant questions to assess ownership might be:
o Was the project concept in line with development priorities and plans of the country?
Were the relevant country representatives from government and civil society involved
in project Implementation, including as part of project steering and technical
committee?
70
Have the government(s), enacted legislation and/or developed policies and regulations
in line with the project's objectives?
ii. Mainstreaming,
Project terminal evaluation must assess how the projects is successfully mainstreaming
other UNDP priorities, according to UNDP Strategic Plan, including poverty alleviation,
improved governance, building resilience to disaster risk and women' empowerment.
The section on mainstreaming should assess:
1. Whether it is possible to identify and define positive or negative effects of the
project on local populations and policy frameworks;
2. If the project objectives conform to agreed priorities in the UNDP country
programme document (CCPD) and UNDAF;
3. Whether there is evidence that the project outcomes have contributed to
enhance resilience and better preparation to cope with natural disasters;
4. Whether gender issues had been taken into account in project design and
implementation and in what way has the project.
iii. Sustainability
Terminal Evaluation should at minimum assess "the likelihood of sustainability of outcomes
at project termination, and provide a rating for this catalytic role and impact". Sustainability
is generally considered to be the likelihood of continued benefits after the project ends.
Consequently, the assessment of sustainability considers the risks that are likely to affect
the continuation of project outcomes. The GEF Guidelines establish four areas for
considering risks to sustainability. Each should be separately evaluated and then rated as to
the likelihood and extent that risks will impede sustainability
Financial risks: Are there financial risks that may jeopardize the sustainability of
project outcomes? What is the likelihood of financial and economic resources not
being available once GEF grant assistance ends?
Socio-economic risks: Are there social or political risks that may threaten the
sustainability of project outcomes? What is the risk for instance that the level of
stakeholder ownership including ownership by governments and other key
stakeholders) will be insufficient to allow for the project outcomes/benefits to be
sustained? Do the various key stakeholders see that it is in their interest that project
benefits continue to flow? Is there sufficient public/stakeholder awareness in support
of the project's long-term objectives?
Institutional framework and governance risks: Do the legal frameworks, policies, and
governance structures and processes within which the project operates pose risks
that may jeopardize sustainability of project benefits? Are requisite systems for
accountability and transparency, and required technical know-how, in place?
71
Environmental risks: Are there ongoing activities that may pose an environmental threat
to the sustainability of project outcomes?
4 Likely (L) negligible risks to sustainability, with key outcomes expected to
continue into the foreseeable future.
3 Moderately Likely
(ML)
moderate risks, but expectations that at feast some outcomes Wii!
be sustained
2 Moderately Unlikely
(MU)
substantial risk that key outcomes will not carry on after project
closure although some outputs and activities should carry on.
1 Unlikely (UL) severe risk that project outcomes as well as key outputs will not be
sustained.
Not Applicable (N/A)
Unable to Assess (WA)
Catalytic Role
The evaluation team should consider the extent to which the project has demonstrated: a)
production of a public good, b) demonstration, c) replication, and d) scaling up.
Impact
The evaluators will assess the extent to which the project is achieving impacts or
progressing towards the achievement of impacts. Key findings that should be brought out in
the evaluations include whether the project has demonstrated: a) verifiable improvements in
ecological status, b) verifiable reductions in stress on ecological systems, or c)
demonstrated progress towards these impact achievements.
In the discussion on impacts it will be important at a minimum to:
Identify the mechanisms at work (i.e. the causal links to project outputs and
outcomes); e Assess the extent to which changes are taking place at scales
commensurate to natural system boundaries;
Assess the likely permanence (long lasting nature) of the impacts.
4. Evaluation Approach and method
An overall approach and method for conducting project terminal evaluations of UNDP
supported GEF financed projects have developed over time. The evaluator is expected to
frame the evaluation effort using the criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency,
sustainability, and impact, as defined and explained in the UNDP Guidance for Conducting
Terminal Evaluations of projects.
A set of questions covering each of these criteria have been drafted and are included with
this TOR. The evaluation team is expected to amend, complete and submit matrix as part of
an evaluation inception report, and shall include it as an annex to the final report.
The evaluation must provide evidence-based information that is credible, reliable and
useful. The evaluation team is expected to follow a participatory and consultative approach
72
ensuring close engagement with government counterparts, in particular the Ministry of
Agriculture and Environment, UNDP Country Office, project team, UNDP Technical Adviser
based in the region and key stakeholders. The evaluation team is expected to conduct a
field mission to Cabo Verde including the following project intervention sites (Santo Antão
and Santiago islands).
The mission will start with a desk review of project documentation and also take the
following process:
a. Desk review of project document, outputs, monitoring reports, such as Project
Inception Report, Minutes of Project Board meetings and Technical Support and
Advisory Team meetings, Project Implementation Review (PIR), Quarterly Progress
Reports, M&E framework, mission reports and other internal documents including
financial reports and relevant correspondence;
b. Review of specific products including datasets, management and action plans,
publications, audiovisual materials, technical packages, consultancies reports and
other materials and reports;
c. Interviews with the Project Managers, technical specialist and other project staff
d. Interview with Program Officers in charge of project oversight at UNDP CO;
e. Interview with RTA (Regional Technical Advisor) responsible for this thematic and
geographic area;
Interview with the National Director of Environment;
g. Interview with the Director of Agriculture
h. Finance and Operation Manager at UNDP CO authorizing direct payments;
Interview with project executing agency: DGPOG Ministry of Agriculture and
Environment, finance Officer and The project coordinating team and the executing
technical branches of the ministry (INIDA, Extension, Island wide Representation of
Ministry of Agriculture and Environment);
Field visits to conduct consultations and/or interviews with relevant stakeholders
involved, including government's representatives, local communities, NGO's, private
sector, donors, other UN agencies and organizations.
k. Field visit to interview project beneficiaries (community associations, local officials,
farmers, water boards, etc.)
5. Evaluation criteria & rating
An assessment of project performance will be carried out, based against expectations set
out in the
Project Logical Framework/Results Framework which provides performance and impact
indicators for project implementation along with their corresponding means of verification.
The evaluation will at a minimum cover the criteria of: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency,
sustainability and impact.
Ratings must be provided on the following performance criteria. The competed table must
be included in the evaluation executive summary.
The following rating system is to be applied:
73
Ratings for Outcomes, Effectiveness, Efficiency, M&ET I&E Execution
6: Highly Satisfactory (KS):
The project had no shortcomings in the achievement of its objectives in terms of relevance, effectiveness, or efficiency
5: Satisfactory (S):
There were only minor
shortcomings
4: Moderately Satisfactory
(MS):
there were moderate
shortcomings
3. Moderately Unsatisfactory
CMU):
the project had significant
shortcomings
2. Unsatisfactory (U): there were major shortcomings in the achievement of project objectives in terms of relevance, effectiveness, or efficiency
1. Highly Unsatisfactory (HI)):
The project had severe
shortcomings
Sustainability ratings:
4. Likely negligible risks to sustainability
3. Moderately Likely {ML): moderate risks
2. Moderately Unlikely CMU): significant risks
l . Unlikely
severe risks
Relevance ratings:
2. Relevant (R)
I. Not relevant
(NR) Impact
Ratings:
3. Significant (S)
2. Minimal (M)
I. Negligible (N)
Additional ratings where
relevant:
Not Applicable (N/A)
Unable to Assess (U/A
A useful table to include in the evaluation report is set out below.
Criteria
Monitoring and Evaluation: Highly Satisfactory (HSI Satisfactory (S) Moderately Satisfactory
(MS), Moderately Unsatisfactory (MO), Unsatisfactory (I-I), Highly Unsatisfactory (HUI
Overall quality of M&E {rate 6 pt.
scale)
M&E design at project start up {rate 6 pt.
scale)
M&E Plan Implementation Irate 6 pt.
scale)
IA & EA Execution: Highly Satisfactory (HS)r Satisfactory (S) Moderately Satisfactory
(MS)r Moderately Unsatisfactory (MU), Unsatisfactory Highly Unsatisfactory
74
Overall Quality of Project
Implementation/Execution
{rate 6 pt.
scale)
implementing Agency Execution (rate 6 pt.
scale)
Executing Agency Execution Irate 6 pt.
scale)
Outcomes Highly Satisfactory (HS)E Satisfactory (S) Moderately Satisfactory (MS),
Moderately Unsatisfactory (MO), Unsatisfactory (U), Highly Unsatisfactory (HU)
Overall Quality of Project Outcomes (rate 5 pt.
scale)
Relevance: relevant (R) or not relevant
(NR)
(rate 2pt. scale)
Effectiveness (rate 6 pt.
scale)
Efficiency (rate 6 pt.
scale)
Overall likelihood of risks to
Sustainability:
(rate 4pt, scale)
Financial resources {rate 4pt. scale)
Socio-economic (rate 4pt. scale)
Institutional framework and governance (rate 4pt. scale)
Environmental (rate Apt.
scale)
Impact: Significant Minimal Negligible (N)
Environmental Status Improvement (rate 3 pt.
scale)
Environmental Stress Reduction (rate 3 pt.
scale)
Progress towards stress/status change (rate 3 pt.
scale)
Overal* Project Results (rate 6 pt€
scale)
6. Evaluation team
Two consultants with the following qualifications shall be engaged to undertake the
evaluation working concurrently according to the planned schedule. The international
consultant, who will have in depth understanding of UNDP projects including evaluation
experience, will be designated as the team leader and will have the overall responsibility of
organizing and completing the review, and submitting the final report. The national
consultant will provide supportive rotes both in terms of professional back up, and conduct
of local meetings. National Consultant recruitment process will be conducted separately by
UNDP Country Office.
The collection of documents is to be done by National Consultant prior to commencing the
work. The International Consultant has the overall responsibility for completing the desk
review prior to the country mission to Cabo Verde, and for submitting the final report
75
following the country mission. The consultants will sign an agreement with UNDP Cabo
Verde and will be bound by its terms and conditions set in the agreement.
Qualifications of International consultant
1. International consultant with advanced academic degree (MSC or PhD) and
professional background in fields related to Climate Change Adaptation, Agriculture
and Integrated Water Resource Management. A minimum of 5 years of relevant
experience is required;
2. Substantive experience in reviewing and evaluating similar projects, preferably
those involving UNDP/GEF or other United Nations development agencies or major
donors;
3. Excellent English writing and communication skills. Portuguese, French or Spanish
reading and communication skills. The consultant must bring his/her own computing
equipment;
4. Demonstrate ability to assess complex situations, succinctly distils critical issues,
and draw forward-looking conclusions and recommendations;
5. Highly knowledgeable of participatory monitoring and evaluation processes, and
experience in evaluation of technical assistance projects with major donor agencies;
6. Ability and experience to lead multi-disciplinary and national teams, and deliver
quality reports within the given time;
7. Familiarity with the challenges developing countries face in adapting to climate
change;
8. Familiarity with Cabo Verde or similar SIDS ( Small Islands Developing States)
countries;
9. Excellent in human relations, coordination, planning and team work, and
10. Excellent feedback-giving skills and culture sensitiveness
Qualifications of National consultant (as a indicative reference for International consultancy
applicants; please note that procurement for this position Wiff be conducted separately by
UNDP CO)
a. Academic degree (BsC or MsC) and professional background in fields related to
Climate Change Adaptation, Agriculture and Integrated Water Resource
Management. A minimum of 5 years of working experience in the development
sector in Cabo Verde is required;
b. Understanding of climate change adaptation and integrated water resource
management in Cabo Verde;
c. Demonstrated skills and knowledge in participatory monitoring and evaluation
processes;
d. Experience in monitoring and evaluation of climate change adaptation and
development projects, supported by UN agencies and/or major donor agencies;
e. Proficient in writing and communicating both in English and in Portuguese. Ability to
interpret to the international counterpart and also to translate necessary written
documents to English; Excellent in human relations, coordination, planning and
team work.
76
7. EVALUATOR ETHICS
Evaluation consultants will be held to the highest ethical standards and are required to sign
a Code of Conduct upon acceptance of the assignment. UNDP evaluations are conducted
in accordance with the principles outlined in the UNEG 'Ethical Guidelines for Evaluations'.
8. Proposed schedule
The review will start in November 2016 and it requires a minimum of 10 working days'
country mission in Cabo Verde (Santiago and S. Antäo island) as well as a desk review
(prior to the country mission) and drafting and finalization of the report (following the country
mission). The consultant will be paid on lump sum basis including international and local
travel, fees and living allowance. The draft Final Report should be submitted to UNDP Cabo
Verde for circulation to relevant agencies/national counterpart within three weeks after the
completion of the review mission to Cabo Verde. The consultants will finalize the report
within two weeks upon receiving comments and feedback from stakeholders compiled by
UNDP CO.
9. Deliverables
The review team will produce the following deliverables to UNDP, INGRH, GEF Operational
and Political Focal Points, UNDP/GEF-LDCF and the Project Board (Steering and Technical
Committee):
Deliverable Content Timing Responsibilities Payment
Schedule
Contract signing
Inception
Report
(including
an
evaluation
matrix)
Review team clarifies timing and
method of review
No later
than 1
week
before the
review
mission
Review team
submits to
UNDP Country
Office Upon
satisfactory
approval
Presentation
of initial
findings
Initiate Findings: discussed in
a wrap-up discussion with
project team and CO; and
presented on a stakeholder
workshop.
End of review
mission
To project
management
and UNDP
Country Office;
and key
stakeholders
Upon
satisfactory
approval
77
Draft Final Report +
Executive
summary
Full report covering all items
detailed on section 4 'Scope of
the FE" with detailed attention to
lessons learnt and
recommendations and with
annexes minimally including
(List of Persons interviewed,
summary of field visits, list of
documents reviewed,
questionnaire and summary of
results, co-financing matrix and
leveraged resources, etc.)
Within 3
weeks of the
review mission
Sent to UNDP CO, reviewed by RTA, pcu, MAA, GEF Operational and Political Focal
Point
Final Report
&
Evaluation
Matrix
Revised report with audit trail
detailing how all received
comment have (and have not)
been addressed in the final
review report).
Within 2
weeks of
receiving
UNDP,
executing
agency (MAA)
and GEF OFP
comments on
draft
Sent to UNDP
CO
Upon
satisfactory
approval
According to UNDP TE Policies and guidelines, an inception report should detail the
evaluators understanding of the project being evaluated and why, showing how each
evaluation question will be answered by way of: proposed methods, proposed sources of
data and data collection procedures. The inception report should include a proposed
schedule of tasks, activities and deliverables, designating a team member with the lead
responsibility for each task or product. The Inception Report will be shared with the Ministry
of Agriculture and Environment and other key stakeholders, to ensure a common
understanding of the mission plan, methodology and timing.
The final report together with the annexes shall be written in English and Portuguese and
shall be presented in electronic form in MS Word format to facilitate comments and PDF
format.
10. IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS AND DURATION
The principal responsibility for managing this review resides with the UNDP Country Office
(UNDP CO) in Praia, Cabo Verde. The UNDP CO will contract the consultants and ensure
the timely provision of schedule payments. The Head of Environment, Energy and Disaster
Prevention at the Joint Office of UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF will be the supervisor of this
consultancy.
The NAPA Follow up project team will be responsible for liaising with the review team to set
up stakeholder interviews, arrange field visits with missions. The project coordination unit
(PCU) will assist the evaluation team with local travel arrangements and scheduling. The
PCU is responsible as well for providing logistics for debriefing session.
Expected date for starting work: 14 November 2016
78
Duration of the consultancy: 30 days
Expected date for final report submission: 23th December
11. APPLICATION PROCESS
The applications should be submitted to the email address, [email protected]
indicating the following reference "International Consultant for "Terminal Evaluation -
Building adaptive capacity and resilience to climate change in the water sector in Cabo
Verde - CIDA Fast Start Climate Change Funds" by 31st October2016 23:59 CPV time.
Incomplete applications will be excluded from further consideration. Only selected candidate
will be contacted.
Recommended Presentation of Proposal:
Duly accomplished Letter of Confirmation of Interest and Availability using
the template provided by UNDP;
Personal Curriculum Vitae (CV) and PI 1, indicating all past experience from
similar projects, as well as the contact details (email and telephone number)
of the Candidate and at least three (3) professional references;
Technical proposal - Proposed evaluation methodology, approach to conduct
on the field mission and desk-review phase and work plan;
One sample of past publications in English, French, Portuguese or Spanish;
Financial Proposal: the financial proposal must be expressed in the following
pricing option: Lump Sum Amount - The lump sum amount must be "all-
inclusive' (honorariums, living allowance, tripsl, health insurance, etc.); the
price should be in USD indicates the all-inclusive fixed total contract price,
supported by a breakdown of costs, as per template provided. If an Offeror is
employed by an organization/company/institution, and he/she expects his/her
employer to charge a management fee in the process of releasing him/her to
UNDP under Reimbursable Loan
1 Information on domestic inter-islands flights can be found on the national company:
www.fiytacv.com.
Agreement (RLA), the Offeror must indicate at this point, and ensure that all
such costs are duly incorporated in the financial proposal submitted to
UNDP;
Criteria for Evaluation of Proposal: The selection will be made based on the educational
background
(10), experience on similar assignments (15) and the quality of the technical proposal (35).
The financial proposal will weigh as 30% of the total scoring.
Contact for additional information: [email protected] ;
79
Terms of reference approved by:
llaria Carnevali
Deputy of the Joint Office of UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF)
Praia, 17th October 2016
80
Annexes
PROPOSED EVALUATION REPORT OUTLINE
ii. Executive Summary
Project Summary Table
Project Description (brief)
Evaluation Rating Table
Summary of conclusions, recommendations and
lessons iii. Acronyms and Abbreviations
(See: UNDP Editorial ManuaP)
1. Introduction
Purpose of the evaluation
Scope & Methodology e Structure of the
evaluation report
2. Project description and development context
Project start and duration
Problems that the project sought to address
Immediate and development objectives of the project
Baseline Indicators established
Main stakeholders
Expected Results
3. Findings
(In addition to a descriptive assessment, all criteria marked with (*) must be
rated31 )
3.1 Project Design / Formulation
Analysis of LFA/Results Framework (Project logic /strategy; Indicators)
Assumptions and Risks
Lessons from other relevant projects (e.g., same focal area) incorporated
into project design
Planned stakeholder participation
Replication approach
UNDP comparative advantage
Linkages between project and other interventions within the sector
Management arrangements
3.2 Project Implementation
Adaptive management (changes to the project design and project
outputs during implementation)
Partnership arrangements (with relevant stakeholders involved in the
country/region)
Feedback from M&E activities used for adaptive management
Project Finance
Overall quality of M&E
Quality of UNDP Implementation
Quality of Execution - Executing Agency
Overall quality of Implementation / Execution - coordination, and
operational issues
31 Using the standard rating table in this TOR and the standard rating scales listed in Annex D in this TOR.
Opening page:
81
3.3 Project Results
Attainment of objectives (Overall Project Outcome*)
Relevance ( * )
Effectiveness (*)
Efficiency (*)
Country ownership
Mainstreaming
Sustainability: Financial resources, Socio-political, Institutional
framework and governance, Environmental, Overall likelihood of
Sustainability (*) Impact
4, Conclusions, Recommendations & Lessons
Corrective actions for the design, implementation, monitoring and
evaluation of the project o Actions to follow up or reinforce initial benefits
from the project
Proposals for future directions underlining main objectives
Best and worst practices in addressing issues relating to relevance,
performance and success
5. Annexes
ToR
Itinerary
List of persons interviewed
Summary of field visits
List of documents reviewed
Evaluation Question Matrix
Questionnaire used and summary of results
Evaluation Consultant Agreement Form
ANNEX B: LIST OF DOCUMENTS TO BE REVIEWED BY THE EVALUATORS
Indicative, but not exhaustive:
Technical documents: Terms of Reference; consultancies report, Management
plans; proposals; staff review & comments on consultancies deliverables
PRODOC;
Annual and Quarter Work Plans & Reports
Financial Reports
Communication materials
Training Materials
Training and events reports
Memorandum of understanding for activity execution
Cabo Verde national policy documents on environment, climate change, gender
82
Relevant legislation and regulations