mid term review (mtr) report of the regional iw r2r … · the rsc is invited to review the...

GEFIWR2R/RSC.4/5Date:28thJuly2019

Original:EnglishFourthRegionalSteeringCommitteeMeetingfortheGEFPacificRegionalInternationalWatersProjectEntitled:RidgetoReef–TestingtheIntegrationofWater,Land,Forest&CoastalManagementtoPreserveEcosystemServices,StoreCarbon,ImproveClimateResilienceandSustainLivelihoodsinPacificIslandCountriesNadi,Fiji,30thto31stJuly2019

MID TERM REVIEW (MTR) REPORT OF THE REGIONAL IW R2R PROJECT

ThisdocumentdetailstherecommendationsoftheMidTermReviewofthePacificRegionalInternationalWatersRidgetoReefProject.TheRSCisinvitedtoreviewtherecommendationsoftheMTRandapprovethemanagementresponsesproposedinAnnex2tothispaper.

GEFIWR2RRSC4_4

Basic facts

Project title RidgetoReef–Testingtheintegrationofwater,land,forestandcoastalmanagementtopreserveecosystemservices,storecarbon,improveclimateresilienceandsustainlivelihoodsinPacificIslandCountries

Atlas Award ID 00084701Project ID 00092601PIMS ID 5221GEF ID 5404Project Period August2015toAugust2020Management Arrangements

ExecutingPartner–ThePacificCommunity

Pacific Region, Countries

CookIslands,FederatedStatesofMicronesia,FijiIslands,Kiribati,Nauru,Niue,Palau,PapuaNewGuinea,MarshallIslands,Samoa,SolomonIslands,Tonga,Tuvalu,andVanuatu

UNDP Strategic Plan Environment and Sustainable Development Primary Outcome

Outcome2;Output2.5–Legalandregulatoryframeworks,policiesandinstitutionsenabledtoensuretheconservation,sustainableuseandaccessandbenefitsharingofnaturalresources,biodiversityandecosystemsinlinewithinternationalconventionsandnationallegislation;Output2.5.2

UNDP Strategic Plan Secondary Outcome

Outcome1:Output1.4–Scaledupactiononclimatechangeadaptationandmitigationacrosssectorswhichisfundedandimplemented:Output1.4.2

Applicable GEF Strategic Objective and Program

InternationalWatersStrategicObjective1;andStrategicObjective3

Project Objective

Totestthemainstreamingof‘ridge-to-reef’(R2R),climateresilientapproachestointegratedland,water,forestandcoastalmanagementinthePICsthroughstrategicplanning,capacitybuildingandpilotedlocalactionstosustainlivelihoodsandpreserveecosystemservices

Objective Indicator Extentofharmonizationofsectoralgovernanceframeworksforintegrated‘ridgetoreef’approachesachievedthroughnationalsustainabledevelopmentplanning

Executing Agency ThePacificCommunityExecuting Entity/ Implementing Partner

ThePacificCommunity

GEF Implementing Agency

UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme

Responsible Parties NationalGovernmentLine-agenciesin14PacificIslandCountries

Acknowledgements 68personsrepresentingtheImplementingandExecutingAgenciesandNationalStakeholders,aslistedinAnnex1,providedvaluableinsightsandinformationtoguidetheMTR.

MTR Team DavidCoatesandMa.Susan(Bebot)J.LuceroMTR duration February20toMay10,2019Field mission March13–April27,2019Draft MTR Report May10,2019Final MTR Report xxxxx

GEFIWR2RRSC4_4

Recommendations of the MTR

1. Review and update of logframes

TheRPCU,togetherwithNationalProjectManagers,shouldreviewandupdateallcurrentnationalprojectLogFramesandensurethat,ifnotalreadydoneso,eachisapprovedatthenextnationalPSCandRSCmeetings.

2. Review of/ lesson learned from previous related investments

TheRPCU,incollaborationwithnationalagencies,shouldreviewtheimpactofpreviousIWRM,ICMandR2R(ifany)investments,andparticularlytheGEFIWRMProject,basedoncurrentrealitiesandwiththeobjectiveofderivingfurtherlessonslearned,particularlyregardingimpact,upscalingandsustainability.

3. Linkages with other national activities and processes.

Eachnationaldemonstrationprojectshouldre-evaluateitslinkagestoandrelationshipswithotherrelevantprojectsandactivitiesatlocalandnationallevel,andwithlocalplanningmechanismsandinstitutionalarrangements,toensurethatitsactivitiesandoutputsarecoherentwith,andbuilduponandstrengthen,theseotheractivitiesandgovernancesystems.

4. Mainstreaming R2R

TheRPCUincollaborationwithnationalagenciesshould:(i)mapexistingnational(andregional)sustainabledevelopmentplanningprocesses(includingclimatechangeadaptationanddisasterriskreductionandacrossallsectors)andrelatedcurrentactivities;(ii)identifyimmediate,short-andmedium-termopportunitiesformainstreamingR2Rapproachesintotheseframeworks;(iii)developaclearandcoherentapproachtodelivermainstreamingneedsintotheseframeworks,prioritisingimmediateopportunitiesbasedonexistingscientific/technicalknowledgeandpracticalexperience(withoutwaitingforIDAsorSoCs);(iv)discourageactivitiesthatresultinthedevelopmentofneworparallel"strategicframeworksforR2R"orR2Rplanningmechanismsorframeworks,andinsteadbuildonexistingprocesses;and(v)considerhowtheintendedfunctionsof"inter-ministerialcommittees"(aspertheProjectDocument)fitwithexistingplanningandcoordinationprocessesandgovernancearrangementsandidentifymeasurestodeliverIMCfunctionsby,asfaraspossible,buildingonexistinggovernancestructuresandprocessesandbuildingnewonesonlywhereclearlyneeded.

5. Adopting an Ecosystems Goods and Services Approach

Theprojectshouldadoptanecosystemgoodsandservicesframeworkasthefoundationofitsscientificandtechnicalapproachby:(i)integratingecosystemgoodsandservicesindicatorsintotheRapCA,IDAandSoC,notasa"supplement"toexistingindicatorsbutastheirfoundation;(ii)integratinganecosystemgoodsandservicesapproach/contextasthebasisforallrelevantprojectactivitiesincludingforR2Rplanning,mainstreamingandpolicy;(iii)testinganecosystemgoodsandservicesandvaluationapproachastheentrypointinalimitednumberofappropriatedemonstrationprojectsthathaveyettocommenceorhaveonlyrecentlycommenced(subjecttocountryneedsandbuy-in);(iv)commencingbasictrainingonecosystemgoodsandservices(includingvaluation)fornationalcapacitybuilding,includingconsideringadedicatedmoduleonthistopicaspartoftheon-goingpost-graduatetrainingdeliveredthroughanappropriateinstitution(subjecttoresourcesavailability).

GEFIWR2RRSC4_4

6. Re-assessing IDA-RAPCA-SOC-SAF-SAP continuum

Theprojectshouldre-assessitsstrategyonIDAsandSoCsbasedonthefollowingcriteria:(i)Focusonobjectives/outcomes-theIDAorSoCisnotanoutcome,theoutcomerequiredismainstreamingR2R;(ii)IdentifyandprioritiseexistingopportunitiestomainstreamR2RwithouthavinganIDAorSoC(importantshort-termopportunitiesarecurrentlybeingmissed);(iii)Theabsolutepriorityiscapacitybuilding-thisinturndeterminestheimpactofanIDAorSoConpolicies-thisrequiresownershipofandparticipationofPICsintheIDA/SoCprocess;(iv)IDAs/SoCsmustbecountry-driven,wherecountriesseeanIDAor"SoC"asanecessaryorpriorityneedtheprocesscangoahead,butifthisisabsentbewareofdoingtheSoC;(v)ThepriorityisfortheIDAand/orSoCtobeintegratedwithandbuildon,addvalueto,existingactivitiesandprocessesatnationallevel(notablytheStateofEnvironmentreportingprocessandsimilarundertakings),theprocessneednotnecessarilyresultinastand-alone"SoC"reportbutitcanachieveitspurposeequallyaswellthroughintegrationofinformationgeneratedintootherreports/processes;(vi)Timingofoutputsneedstobecompatiblewithtimescalesforinformationneeds(particularlyforinformingon-goingpolicyprocesses);(vii)Focusonqualitynotquantityreduceoutputsaccordingly;(viii)Wherealltheabovecriteriaaremetconsiderproceeding-whereanyisnotmetthereislimitedjustificationfortheSoC;and(ix)Re-assesstheneedandopportunitiesforanIDAand/orSoCinPSCsandre-presenttheIDA/SoCstrategytotheRSCfordiscussionandreview.

7. Mapping R2R contribution to SDGs

Theprojectshould,withnationalcounterpartparticipation,mapitspotentialcontributionstotheSDGs,identifyrelevantlinkagesandinterdependencies(includingpotentialindicatorscurrentlyinuse),exploretheextenttowhichR2Risatooltoachieveintegrateddeliveryof,andhasalreadydelivered,thenaturalresourcesbasedordependentSDGsandusethisprocessasameansto:(i)testtherelevanceofitsapproaches;(ii)promotevisibilityandrelevanceoftheproject;and(iii)identifyandpotentiallymonitorthecontributionoftheprojecttosustainabledevelopmentoutcomes.

8. Website structure and purpose

TheRPCUshouldensurethatthewebsiteandassociateddatabasesdevelopedunderactivity4.2.3iskeptassimpleaspossible,primarilybuildsonexistingefforts,learnsfrompreviousefforts,andislimitedtothepurposeofcommunicatingandsharinglessonslearnedonR2Randsupportingthedevelopmentofanetwork(orcommunityofpractice)onR2R.

9. Re-assessing multi-focal website features

Theprojectshouldre-assesstheadvisabilityofintegratingtheintegratedresultsframeworkformulti-focalGEFprojectsunderthesameplatformasthecommunication/networkingplatformforR2R.Ifitcontinuesassuchthentheabilitytoseparatethetwofunctionalitiesmustbein-built.

10. Delivering Outcome 4.2

Theprojectshouldidentifyhowitisgoingtodeliveroutcome4.2(inparticularactivity4.2.3)atnationallevel,asrequiredintheoutcomedescription,andpresentthisplantothenextRSCmeeting.

“4.2.3indicator:PacificR2Rnetworkestablishedwithatleast100usersregistered,onlineregionalandnationalportalscontainingamongothers,databases,rostersofnationalandregionalexpertsandpractitionersonR2R,registerofnationalandregionalprojects,repositoryforbestpracticesR2Rtechnologies,lessonslearned,etc.”

GEFIWR2RRSC4_4

11. Compiling lessons learned

TheRPCUshouldplayaleadcoordinatingroleindevelopingorcompilinglessonslearnedonR2R,includingfromthepreviousIWRM/ICM/R2Rinvestments,includingbyprovidingguidancetocurrentR2Rprojects(STARandIWR2RProjects)inorderforthemtobeginnowtomaximiseextractionoflessonslearnedfrominvestments.

12. A no-cost extension

Theprojectshouldhaveano-costextensionsubjecttoimplementationofthefurtherrecommendationsoftheMTR.

13. Reporting links and information sharing across the Regional R2R Programme

TheRegionalProgrammeCoordinationGroup(RPCG)shouldstrengthentechnicalinformationsharingandreportinglinksbetweentheimplementingagenciesandtheRPCU.

14. Clarifying RPCU’s programme role and programmatic implementation modalities

TheRegionalSteeringCommittee(RSC),withthesupportoftheRegionalProgrammeCoordinationGroup(RPCG),atitsnextmeeting,shouldclarifywhatisrequiredfromtheRPCUregardingprogrammecoordination,andidentifythereportingchannelsandresponsibilitiesbetweenSTARprojects,IWR2Rnationalprojects,theRPCUandtheimplementingagencies(UNDP,FAOandUNEP),andspecifythemodalitiesthroughwhichthedesiredcoordinationistobedelivered.

15. Capacity building focus

Theprojectshouldimplementallitsactivitiesfromacapacitybuildingperspective,evenifresultingincompromisesonscientificqualityand/ortimelines.

16. Re-assessing the role and structure of the RSTC

TheRPCUandRSCshould:(i)re-assessthecompositionandmodusoperandioftheRegionalScientificandTechnicalCommittee(RSTC)inthelightofthescientificandtechnicalscopeandneedsoftheproject,specificallystrengtheningitssocialandeconomicexpertise;(ii)asfarasfeasible,putmoreemphasisonopportunitiestobuildscientificandtechnicalcapacityamongthePICsbyprovidingforimprovedengagementofnationalPICsciencestakeholdersinproject/programmescienceandtechnologydecisionmaking;(iii)explorehowtheR2Rnetworkandplatform(component4.2)mightcontributetothesustainabilityofscienceandtechnologysupporttoPICsaftertheprojectfinishes;and(iv)exploreopportunitiesforexpandinginteractiveworkshopsandtrainingontheproject'sscienceandtechnologyagendaunderRSTCoversight.

17. Communications strategy

Communicationsshouldbeconsideredandintegratedintoprojectactivities(e.g.IDA-SOC/R2R,mainstreamingplansetc.)fromtheirverybeginningandbeusedtoidentifytargetaudiences,influencethenatureofdatacollectedandindicatorsbeingusedandimprovetheunderstandingofhowconstraintstoR2Ruptakecanbereducedtoincreasetheimpactoftheprojectonpolicy.

18. Gender issue

Thenationaldemonstrationplansandactivitiesthatarestillcurrentlybeingpreparedshouldbegender-analysedtoensureon-siteprojectmanagementisgender-responsiveinspecificwaysanchoredontheobjectivesoftheseplans.ThecompletedRapCAsandIDAsmustbegenderauditedbeforetheyareincorporatedintheSoC.TheSoCsandStrategicActionFrameworksthemselvesmustbegender-audited.

GEFIWR2RRSC4_4

Annex 1. Mid Term Review (MTR) Report

RidgetoReef–TestingtheIntegrationofWater,

Land,Forest&CoastalManagementtoPreserve

EcosystemServices,StoreCarbon,ImproveClimate

ResilienceandSustainLivelihoodsinPacificIsland

Countries

________________________________________________________________

Mid-TermReview

AtlasAwardID:00084701

ProjectID:00092601

PIMSID:5221

GEFID:5404

-DRAFTREPORT-Revision1

Preparedby:

DavidCoates,InternationalConsultant/TeamLeader:[email protected](Bebot)J.Lucero,InternationalConsultant:[email protected]

ii

I. BasicReportInformation

Project Title: Ridge to Reef - Testing the Integration of Water, Land, Forest & Coastal

Management toPreserveEcosystemServices, StoreCarbon, ImproveClimateResilienceand

SustainLivelihoodsinPacificIslandCountriesAtlasAwardID: 00084701 MTRTIMEFRAME:ProjectID: 00092601 20February

2019StartMTR

PIMSID: 5221 08March2019 Inception ReportSubmitted

ProjectPeriod: August2015toAugust2020

13 March - 08April2019

FieldMission

ManagementArrangements: Executing Partner - ThePacificCommunity

23 - 27 April2019

Field Mission(Palau)

PacificRegion,Countries: Cook Islands, FederatedStates of Micronesia, FijiIslands,Kiribati,Nauru,Niue,Palau, Papua New Guinea,Marshall Islands, Samoa,Solomon Islands, Tonga,Tuvalu,andVanuatu

10May2019 Draft MTRSubmitted

XXXX2019 Final ReportSubmission

UNDP Strategic PlanEnvironment andSustainable DevelopmentPrimaryOutcome:

Outcome 2; Output 2.5 – Legal and regulatory frameworks, policiesand institutionsenabled toensure the conservation, sustainableuseandaccessandbenefitsharingofnaturalresources,biodiversityandecosystems in line with international conventions and nationallegislation;Output2.5.2

UNDP Strategic PlanSecondaryOutcome:

Outcome 1: Output 1.4 – Scaled up action on climate changeadaptation and mitigation across sectors which is funded andimplemented:Output1.4.2.

Applicable GEF StrategicObjectiveandProgram:

InternationalWatersStrategicObjective1;andStrategicObjective3

ProjectObjective: To test themainstreaming of ‘ridge-to-reef’ (R2R), climate resilientapproachestointegratedland,water,forestandcoastalmanagementin thePICs throughstrategicplanning, capacitybuildingandpilotedlocalactionstosustainlivelihoodsandpreserveecosystemservices

ObjectiveIndicator: Extent of harmonization of sectoral governance frameworks forintegrated ‘ridge to reef’ approaches achieved through nationalsustainabledevelopmentplanning

ExecutingEntity/ImplementingPartner:

ThePacificCommunity

ImplementingEntity/ResponsiblePartner:

ThePacificCommunity

ResponsibleParties: NationalGovernmentLine-agenciesin14PacificIslandCountriesAcknowledgements: 68 persons representing the Implementing and Executing Agencies

and National Stakeholders, as listed in Annex 1, provided valuableinsightsandinformationtoguidetheMTR.

MTRTeam DavidCoatesandMa.Susan(Bebot)J.Lucero

iii

II. AcronymsandAbbreviations

ADB AsianDevelopmentBankCBOs CommunityBasedOrganisation(s)CC ClimateChangeCCA ClimateChangeAdaptationCCCPIR CopingwithClimateChangeinthePacificIslandRegionCRGA CommitteeofRepresentativesofGovernmentsandAdministrationsCTI CoralTriangleInitiativeDRM DisasterRiskManagementEC EuropeanCommissionEGS EcosystemGoodsandServicesEMIS EnvironmentalManagementInformationSystemENSO ElNiñoSouthernOscillationERC UNDPEvaluationOfficeEvaluationResourceCentreEU EuropeanUnionFAO FoodandAgricultureOrganisationFSM FederateStatesofMicronesiaGDP GrossDomesticProductGEF GlobalEnvironmentFacilityGEM GeoScienceEnergyandMaritimeDivision(ofSPC)GIZ DeutscheGesellschaftfürInternationaleZusammenarbeitICM IntegratedCoastalManagementIDA IslandDiagnosticAssessmentIMC Inter-MinistryCommitteeIUCN InternationalUnionfortheConservationofNatureIWCAM IntegratingWatershedandCoastalAreaManagementIW 1.1 InternationalWaters

IWECO IntegratingWater,LandandEcosystemsManagementIW:LEARN InternationalWatersLearningExchangeandResourceNetworkIWR2R TheGEFInternationalWatersRidgetoReefProject(RidgetoReef-Testing

theIntegrationofWater,Land,Forest&CoastalManagementtoPreserveEcosystemServices,StoreCarbon,ImproveClimateResilienceandSustainLivelihoodsinPacificIslandCountries)

JCSP JointCountryStrategyProgrammesJCU JamesCookUniversity,AustraliaLDCF LeastDevelopedCountriesFundLDCs LeastDevelopedCountriesMYCWP Multi-YearCostedWorkPlanMPA MarineProtectedAreaNAPA NationalAdaptationProgrammeofActionNBSAP NationalBiodiversityStrategyandActionPlanNGO Non-GovernmentalOrganisationODA OfficialDevelopmentAssistancePACC PacificAdaptationtoClimateChangePacificRAP PacificRegionalActionPlanofSustainableWaterManagementPacIWRM PacificIntegratedWaterResourceManagementPICs PacificSmallIslandDevelopingStatesParticipatingintheR2RProgrammePIMS ProjectInformationManagementSystem

iv

PIR AnnualProjectImplementationReportPNG PapuaNewGuineaPPR ProjectProgressReportsPSC ProjectSteeringCommitteeR2R RidgetoReefRapCA RapidCoastalAssessmentRBM ResultsBasedManagementREDD+ Reducingemissionsfromdeforestationandforestdegradationandtherole

ofconservation,sustainablemanagementofforestsandenhancementofforestcarbonstocksindevelopingcountries

RMI RepublicoftheMarshallIslandsRPC RegionalProgrammeCoordinatorRPCU RegionalProgrammeCoordinationUnitRPCG RegionalProgrammeCoordinatingGroupRSC RegionalSteeringCommitteeRSTC RegionalScientificandTechnicalCommitteeSAP StrategicActionProgrammeSCCF SpecialClimateChangeFundSDS-SEA SustainableDevelopmentStrategyfortheSeasofEastAsiaSIDS SmallIslandDevelopingStateSFM SustainableForestManagementSLM SustainableLandManagementSoC StateoftheCoastSoE StateoftheEnvironmentSOPAC AppliedGeoscienceandTechnologyDivisionSPC ThePacificCommunitySPREP SecretariatofthePacificRegionalEnvironmentProgrammeSTAR SystemforTransparentAllocationofResourcesToR TermsofReferenceUNDP UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgrammeUNDPRCU UNDPRegionalCo-ordinatingUnitUNEP UnitedNationsEnvironmentProgrammeUNFCCC UnitedNationsFrameworkConventiononClimateChange

v

II. TableofContents

1 ExecutiveSummary.........................................................................................................1

1.1 Projectinformation.................................................................................................................................1

1.2 Projectdescription..................................................................................................................................2

1.3 ProjectProgressSummary..................................................................................................................3

1.4 ConciseSummaryofConclusions.....................................................................................................8

1.5 RecommendationsSummaryTable.................................................................................................8

2 Introduction.....................................................................................................................12

2.1 PurposeoftheMTRandobjectives.............................................................................................12

2.2 ScopeandMethodology:PrinciplesofdesignandexecutionoftheMTR,theMTRapproach,datacollectionmethodsandlimitationstotheMTR..................................................13

2.3 LimitationsoftheMid-TermReview............................................................................................14

2.4 StructureoftheMTRreport...........................................................................................................14

3 ProjectDescriptionandBackgroundContext......................................................14

3.1 Developmentcontext:environmental,socio-economic,institutional,andpolicyfactorsrelevanttotheprojectobjectiveandscope..........................................................................14

3.2 Problemsthattheprojectseekstoaddress:threatsandbarrierstargeted..............16

3.3 ProjectDescriptionandStrategy:objective,outcomesandexpectedresults,descriptionoffieldsites...............................................................................................................................17

3.4 ProjectImplementationArrangements:shortdescriptionoftheProjectBoard,keyimplementingpartnerarrangementsandinstitutionallevelsofengagement.....................20

3.5 Projecttimingandmilestones.......................................................................................................21

3.6 Mainstakeholders.................................................................................................................................21

3.7 TheProjectas"testing"R2R.............................................................................................................22

4 Findings.............................................................................................................................22

vi

4.1 ProjectStrategy....................................................................................................................22

4.1.1 ProjectDesign.................................................................................................................................22

4.1.2 ResultsFramework/LogFrame...............................................................................................24

4.1.3 AdequacyoftheProjectBudget..............................................................................................27

4.2 Progresstowardsresults..................................................................................................28

4.2.1 Progresstowardsoutcomesanalysis...................................................................................28

Component1:NationalDemonstrationstoSupportR2RICM/IWRMApproachesforIslandResilienceandSustainability...............................................................................................................................47

Component2Island-basedInvestmentsinHumanCapitalandKnowledgetoStrengthenNationalandLocalCapacitiesforRidgetoReefICM/IWRMapproaches,incorporatingCCadaptation....................................................................................................................................................................51

Component3MainstreamingofRidgetoReefICM/IWRMApproachesintoNationalDevelopmentFrameworks...................................................................................................................................52

Theproject'sscientificandtechnicalapproach...........................................................................................54

TheIDAandSoCprocess.......................................................................................................................................57

TheSustainableDevelopmentGoals-R2Rasanimplementationtoolandlinkingprojectoutcomestothedevelopmentagenda.............................................................................................................60

Component4RegionalandNational‘RidgetoReef’IndicatorsforReporting,Monitoring,AdaptiveManagementandKnowledgeManagement...............................................................................61

Component5Ridge-to-ReefRegionalandNationalCoordination......................................................64

4.2.2 Remainingbarrierstoachievingtheprojectobjective.................................................66

4.3 ProjectImplementationandAdaptiveManagement...............................................67

4.3.1 ManagementArrangements...................................................................................................67

Self-assessmentbytheRPCU...............................................................................................................................67

Delaysinnationallevelimplementation........................................................................................................68

ProjectandProgramCoordination:..................................................................................................................70

Inter-ministerialcommittees(IMCs)................................................................................................................73

Communitytocabinetapproaches....................................................................................................................76

vii

OtherperformanceoftheExecutingAgency(SPC-SOPAC,RPCU)......................................................76

TechnicalexpertiseoftheRPCU...................................................................................................................76

Adaptivemanagement......................................................................................................................................77

Acentralisedand"top-down"projectmanagementapproach.......................................................77

SupportprovidedbytheImplementingAgencyandUNDP-GEFRegionalOfficeandnationalagenciesinPICs..................................................................................................................................78

TheRegionalScientificandTechnicalCommittee................................................................................78

4.3.2 Workplanning................................................................................................................................79

4.3.3 Financeandco-finance...............................................................................................................81

4.3.4 Project-levelmonitoringandevaluationsystems(M&E)...........................................82

Reporting....................................................................................................................................................................83

4.3.5 Stakeholderengagement...........................................................................................................83

4.3.6 Communications...........................................................................................................................84

4.3.7 GenderandDevelopment(GAD)MainstreamingStrategy.........................................85

OverallRating:ProjectImplementationandAdaptiveManagement...........................................89

4.4 Sustainabilityofprojectoutcomes................................................................................89

MTRRiskRatings................................................................................................................................................90

4.4.1 Financialriskstosustainability............................................................................................92

4.4.2 Socio-economicriskstosustainability..............................................................................92

4.4.3 Institutionalframeworkandgovernanceriskstosustainability.............................92

4.4.4 Environmentalriskstosustainability................................................................................93

4.4.5 RatingsforSustainability...........................................................................................................93

SustainabilityRating..........................................................................................................................................93

5 Conclusionsandrecommendations.........................................................................94

6 Annexes.............................................................................................................................94

viii

Annex1:ListofStakeholdersMetandInterviewed............................................................................95

Annex2:TermsofReferencefortheMid-termReview.................................................................104

Annex3:Listofdocumentsanddatabasesconsulted......................................................................115

Annex4:Mid-TermReviewInterviewGuide.......................................................................................119

Annex5:ThestandardisedEvaluationMatrix...................................................................................122

Annex6:RecommendedadjustmentstothetargetsandindicatorsintheProjectLogFrame.............................................................................................................................................................136

Annex7:AnalysisoforiginalprojecttargetsasS.M.A.R.T.andtheappropriatenessoforiginalindicators............................................................................................................................................142

Annex8:Co-financingoftheprojectasofthetimeoftheMTR...................................................150

Annex9:Performanceratingsandtheirdescriptions....................................................................151

Annex10:Mainstakeholdersandtheirrole(fromtheProjectDocument)..........................152

Annex11:MTRassessmentofthestatusofrisksandassumptionsintheprojectLogFrame.............................................................................................................................................................155

Annex12:Milestonesfornationallevelimplementationoftheproject.TheofficialstartdateoftheprojectwasAugust2015.......................................................................................................160

Annex13:Tasksidentifiedtobeundertakeninpreparationfor,andissuestobeconsideredby,thenextRegionalSteeringCommitteeMeeting..................................................164

Annex14:TheMTRMissionSchedule...................................................................................................166

Annex15:BriefBIOSoftheMTRTeam..................................................................................................167

Annex16:MTRConsultantAgreementForms....................................................................................168

1

2 ExecutiveSummary1

2.1 Projectinformation2ProjectInformation

ProjectTitle:RidgetoReef-TestingtheIntegrationofWater,Land,Forest&CoastalManagementto

PreserveEcosystemServices,StoreCarbon,ImproveClimateResilienceandSustainLivelihoodsin

PacificIslandCountries

UNDPStrategicPlanEnvironmentandSustainableDevelopmentPrimaryOutcome:

Outcome 2; Output 2.5 – Legal and regulatory frameworks, policies and institutions enabled to ensure the conservation, sustainable use and access and benefit sharing of natural resources, biodiversity and ecosystems in line with international conventions and national legislation; Output 2.5.2: Number of countries implementing national and local plans for Integrated Water Resources Management.

UNDPStrategicPlanSecondaryOutcome:

Outcome 1: Output 1.4 – Scaled up action on climate change adaptation and mitigation across sectors which is funded and implemented: Output 1.4.2: Number of countries with comprehensive measures - plans, strategies, policies, programmes and budgets - implemented to achieve low-emission and climate-resilient development objectives.

ApplicableGEFStrategicObjectiveandProgram:

International Waters Strategic Objective 1: Catalyze multi-state cooperation to balance conflicting water uses in trans- boundary surface and groundwater basins while considering climatic variability and change; and Strategic Objective 3: Support foundational capacity building, portfolio learning, and targeted research needs for joint, ecosystem- based management of trans-boundary water systems.

ProjectObjective: Totestthemainstreamingof‘ridge-to-reef’(R2R),climateresilientapproachestointegratedland,water,forestandcoastalmanagementinthePICsthroughstrategicplanning,capacitybuildingandpilotedlocalactionstosustainlivelihoodsandpreserveecosystemservices

ProjectOutcomes: Component1.NationalDemonstrationstoSupportR2RICM/IWRMApproachesforIslandResilienceandSustainability.Outcomes:

1.1SuccessfulpilotprojectstestinginnovativesolutionsinvolvinglinkingICM,IWRMandclimatechangeadaptation[linkedtonationalSTARprojectsvialargerPacificR2Rnetwork]

1.2NationaldiagnosticanalysesforICMconductedforprioritizingandscaling-upkeyICM/IWRMreformsandinvestments

1.3Communityleaderroundtablenetworksestablishedforstrengthened‘communitytocabinet’ICM/IWRM

Component2.Island-basedInvestmentsinHumanCapitalandKnowledgetoStrengthenNationalandLocalCapacitiesforRidgetoReefICM/IWRMapproaches,incorporatingCCadaptationOutcomes:

2.1NationalandlocalcapacityforICMandIWRMimplementationbuilttoenablebestpracticeinintegratedland,water,forestandcoastalmanagementandCCadaptation

2.2PICknowledgeonclimatevariability,coastalareaplanninginDRM,integrating‘blueforest’andcoastallivelihoodsconsolidatedandsharedtosupportevidence-basedcoastalandmarinespatialplanning

2.3Incentivestructuresforretentionoflocal‘RidgetoReef’

2

expertiseandinter-governmentaldialogueonhumanresourceneedsforICM/IWRMinitiated

Component3.MainstreamingofRidgetoReefICM/IWRMApproachesintoNationalDevelopmentPlanningOutcomes:

3.1NationalandregionalstrategicactionframeworksforICM/IWRMendorsednationallyandregionally

3.2CoordinatedapproachesforR2Rintegratedland,water,forestandcoastalmanagementandCCadaptationachievedin14PICs

3.3Physical,natural,humanandsocialcapitalbuilttostrengthenislandresiliencetocurrentandemerginganthropogenicthreatsandclimateextremes

Component4.RegionalandNational‘RidgetoReef’IndicatorsforReporting,Monitoring,AdaptiveManagementandKnowledgeManagementOutcomes:

4.1Nationalandregionalformulationandadoptionofintegratedandsimplifiedresultsframeworksforintegratedmulti-focalprojects

4.2NationalandregionalplatformsformanaginginformationandsharingofbestpracticesandlessonslearnedinR2Restablished

Component5.Ridge-to-ReefRegionalandNationalCoordinationOutcomes:

5.1EffectiveprogrammecoordinationofnationalandregionalR2Rprojects

Totalresources

required

Totalresources

allocated

GEF Co-financing

UNDP Governments SPC-SOPAC

$98,025,614 $98,025,614 $10,317,454 $8,300,000 $47,926,605 $31,481,5551

2.2 Projectdescription2The objective of the project is to test themainstreaming of ‘ridge-to-reef’ (R2R),3climate resilient approaches to integrated land, water, forest and coastal4management in the Pacific Island Countries (PICS) through strategic planning,5capacity building and piloted local actions to sustain livelihoods and preserve6ecosystem services. The project outcomes are: Successful pilot projects testing7innovative solutions involving linking Integrate Coastal Management (ICM),8Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) and climate change (CC)9adaptation (linked to national STAR projects via a larger Pacific R2R network);10Nationaldiagnosticanalyses for ICMconducted forprioritizingandscaling-upkey11ICM/IWRM reforms and investments; Community leader roundtable networks12established for strengthened ‘community to cabinet’ ICM/IWRM approaches;13NationalandlocalcapacityforICMandIWRMimplementationbuilttoenablebest14practice in integrated land, water, forest and coastal management and CC15adaptation;PICknowledgeonclimatevariability, coastalareaplanning indisaster16riskmanagement,integrating‘blueforest’andcoastallivelihoodsconsolidatedand17shared to support evidence-based coastal and marine spatial planning; Incentive18

3

structures for retention of local ‘Ridge to Reef’ expertise and inter-governmental1dialogueonhumanresourceneeds for ICM/IWRMinitiated;Nationalandregional2strategic action frameworks for ICM/IWRM endorsed nationally and regionally;3Coordinated approaches for R2R integrated land, water, forest and coastal4managementandCCadaptationachievedin14PICs;Physical,natural,humanand5social capital built to strengthen island resilience to current and emerging6anthropogenicthreatsandclimateextremes;Nationalandregionalformulationand7adoptionofintegratedandsimplifiedresultsframeworksforintegratedmulti-focal8projects;Nationalandregionalplatformsformanaginginformationandsharingof9best practices and lessons learned in R2R established; and effective programme10coordinationofnationalandregionalR2Rprojects.11The project builds on previous IWRM investments and supports the ongoing12development of ‘Ridge to Reef’ and ‘Community to Cabinet’ approaches in the13targetedPICs throughthemulti-focalareaGEFPacificR2RProgram.Thisregional14project is implemented by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP)15throughtheAppliedGeoscienceandTechnologyDivisionofthePacificCommunity16(SPC-SOPAC) (now the GeoScience Energy and Maritime Division; SPC-GEM17Division)inpartnershipwiththe14PICs.Itisdesignedtoimprovetheintegration18of water, land, forest and coastal management required to fashion sustainable19futures for island communities. The project strategy includes: reforms in policy,20institutions, and coordination; building capacity of local institutions to integrate21land, water and coastal management; establishing evidence-based approaches to22R2R planning; and improved consolidation of information and data required to23informcross-sectorR2Rplanningapproaches.Theprojectprovidessupportinareas24of coordination, capacity building, technical assistance, and monitoring and25evaluation for the operation of the broader Pacific R2R Program and, therefore,26linkages with the national GEF STAR multifocal projects and LDCF project. It27facilitatesdialogueandactionplanningthroughnationalInter-MinistryCommittees28(IMCs) on responses to emerging issues and threats in environment and natural29resourcemanagement. The project fosters solidarity among the PICs, particularly30withrespecttothepoliticalwillrequiredtosupportmoreintegratedapproachesto31R2Rinnaturalresourcemanagement.32

2.3 ProjectProgressSummary33Progress towards results (as per the Project LogFrame) varies among the34components andoutcomes andbetween individualPICsbut overall ismoderately35unsatisfactory. Despite extended periods of senior staff vacancies in the Regional36ProgrammeCoordinationUnit (RPCU), other staff in position performedwell and37kept theprojectgoingunderchallengingmanagementconditionsandanextended38start-upperiod.Thisincludedgeneratingscientificandtechnicalguidance,training39andcapacitybuilding,supportingcommunicationsand,afterabelatedstart,starting40to develop an integrated and simplified results reporting framework. The41introductionofamulti-yearcostedworkprogrammingapproachwasinstrumental42in stimulating implementationofnational level activities. Nationaldemonstration43projects areat various stagesof advancement,with someonly just starting.Many44

4

PICs had staff recruitment and turn-over challenges. Project implementation and1managementhavebeenratedmoderatelyunsatisfactory.Asomewhattop-downand2inflexibleapproachtoprojectmanagementpreviouslyat theRPCUhasresulted in3limited adaptive management at regional level. National level project4implementation has exhibited good adaptive management. Monitoring and5evaluation procedures are in place but reporting from national level is variable.6There remain significant challenges to achieving theproject's role in coordinating7the broader Pacific R2R Program, mostly not of the project's making. It is8moderately likely that at least some of the project’s outcomes will be sustained9beyondtheproject,especiallyiftheprojectimplementationnowseekstointegrate10ormainstreamR2Rintoexistinglocal/sub-national/state/nationalgovernanceand11management mechanisms and processes. However, it is unlikely that the project12objectivewillbefully,comprehensivelyandsustainablyachievedwithintheproject13lifetime and will require long-term sustained support. The project's capacity14buildingandlessonslearnedwillthereforebeparamounttofuturesustainability.A15summaryoftheMTRratingsoftheachievementofmeasuresadoptedbytheProject16isasbelow:1718

MTRRatingsandAchievementSummary1

MTRRating AchievementDescription

PROJECTSTRATEGY

N/A The project strategy as per the Project Document remains valid.Objectives are stillwidely supportedatnational and local governmentlevels.Theprojectstrategysupportsnational,regionalandinternationalpoliciesandframeworks.

The project scientific and technical strategy needs to adopt anecosystemgoodsandservicesframeworkapproach.

Capacitybuildingneedstobemaintainedastheprimarystrategyoftheprojectandguideallprojectactivities.

PROJECTOBJECTIVE:Totestthemainstreamingof‘ridge-to-reef’(R2R),climateresilientapproachestointegratedland,water,forestandcoastalmanagementinthePICsthroughstrategicplanning,capacitybuildingandpilotedlocalactionstosustainlivelihoodsandpreserveecosystemservices

Achievement Rating: 3(Moderatelyunsatisfactory)

Composite measure based on progress towards outcomes as listedindividuallybelow.

PROGRESSTOWARDSRESULTS:3

Outcome1.1:SuccessfulpilotprojectstestinginnovativesolutionsinvolvinglinkingICM,IWRMandclimatechangeadaptation[linkedtonationalSTARprojectsvialargerPacificR2Rnetwork]

Achievement Rating 3(ModeratelyUnsatisfactory)

Most PICs are behind schedule due to delayed start-up.Indicators/metrics/parameters developed by the project areweak formonitoring social factors and CC vulnerability. Plans andmethods forbaselines/diagnostics are in-place, but few actual baseline

1RatingscalesandtheirdescriptionsareincludedinAnnexes7and9.3AdetailedassessmentbyindividualoutcomeandactivityisprovidedinSection4.2Table1.

5



data/diagnosticsyetundertaken.12countryplansforstressreductionmeasures have been produced (except Fiji started late and no dataKiribati)butgenderanalysisandmainstreamingstillweak.Actualstressreduction measures implemented in Cook Islands, FSM, Nauru, Niue,PNG,Samoa,TongaandVanuatu.InmostPICS:itisunlikelythatactionsat project sites will lead to verifiable reductions in stressors (orimprovements in habitat quality) by project end; there is limitedevidence of testing methods etc. best practice examples, communityaction;limitedevidenceofdemonstrationsandformingcommitteesetc.leadingtoactualimprovementsontheground.

Outcome1.2:NationaldiagnosticanalysesforICMconductedforprioritizingandscaling-upkeyICM/IWRMreformsandinvestments


Only a limited number of diagnostic analyses have been completed(Cook Islands, Palau, PNG). Significant risk that future diagnosticanalysesmightbefast-trackedandhavemorelimitedcapacity-buildingimpact.

Some progress made in developing and testing methodologies andidentifyingbaselineenvironmentalandsomesocio-culturalinformationbutlimitedinscoperegardingecosystemgoodsandservices(ecosystembenefits)andCCvulnerability.

Outcome1.3:Communityleaderroundtablenetworksestablishedforstrengthened‘communitytocabinet’ICM/IWRM


Limitedestablishmentof"inter-ministrycommittees"withfunctionsasintended inProjectDocument.NocommonunderstandingamongPICsregardingtheintendedfunctionsofIMCsandPSCs.

Cook Islands, Vanuatu and PNG have PSCs specific to IW R2R and nojointPSCwithSTARandnoIMC,Fiji,Niue,RMI,TongaandTuvaluhavea IW R2R PSC sharing functions with the STAR PSC but no clearlyidentifiedIMC;PalauandSamoahaveanIMCthatalsofunctionsasthePSC for IWR2RandSTAR;onlyFSMandSolomonIslandshavebothaPSCandanIMC.NauruplansajointPSC.NodataforKiribati.

MTR notes ambiguity in Project Document regarding IMCs (etc.) andthereforedifferinginterpretationsofprogressonthis.

Limitedengagementbyprivatesectorhasbeenachieved.

Outcome2.1:NationalandlocalcapacityforICMandIWRMimplementationbuilttoenablebestpracticeinintegratedland,water,forestandcoastalmanagementandCCadaptation

Achievement Rating 5(Satisfactory)

Design of post-graduate training and implementation of training hasprogressedwell.Thetarget(10people trainedwithat least5women)hasbeenexceededwith51peopleenrolledinthecourseonecosystemdynamics and 44 enrolled in the courses on projectmanagement andtools for R2R. Overall, 52% of enrolees were women. All PICs arerepresented.Furthertrainingandcoursesareongoing.

Outcome2.2:Incentivestructuresforretentionoflocal‘RidgetoReef’expertiseandinter-governmentaldialogueonhumanresourceneedsforICM/IWRMinitiated

Achievement Rating 3(Moderately

Indicator2.2.1referstotrackingR2RpersonnelandidentifyingcapacityneedsforR2Rinnationalandlocalgovernmentunitsetc.withatarget

6



Unsatisfactory)

of14achievedbyprojectend;noassessmentsyetmade (except somescoping of needs for the JCU course). Re. indicator 2.2.2 - norecommendationsonpractitionerretentionhavebeenmade.

Outcome3.1:NationalandregionalstrategicactionframeworksforICM/IWRMendorsednationallyandregionally


RPCU reports refer to measures to begin to compile national policiesand legislations, etc., draft methodologies etc.; but awaiting IDAs andSoCs(wellbehindschedule).

Limitedactualprogress.

Outcome3.2:CoordinatedapproachesforR2Rintegratedland,water,forestandcoastalmanagementandCCadaptationachievedin14PICs

Achievement Rating 2(Unsatisfactory)

Limited evidence of demonstrated "R2R networks" (that is, policynetworks and forums) or "broader R2R frameworks" beingstrengthenedorestablished.MostPICshavenotestablishedIMCsaspertheintention/functionintheProjectDocument(althoughinmanycasesbecause existing institutional arrangements for this already exist). Noevidenceofchangesinperception(asrequiredbyindicator).

Outcome4.1:Nationalandregionalformulationandadoptionofintegratedandsimplifiedresultsframeworksforintegratedmulti-focalprojects

Achievement Rating 4(ModeratelySatisfactory)

After slow start the integrated and simplified results framework forintegratedmulti-focalprojects isnowprogressing.Limitedevidenceasyet of "simplification" but the initial stage of compiling existingreportingandM&Erequirementsiswellunderway.

Training and support on M&E, results framework and results basedmanagementhasbeenprovided.

Outcome4.2:NationalandregionalplatformsformanaginginformationandsharingofbestpracticesandlessonslearnedinR2Restablished

Achievement Rating 4(Moderatelysatisfactory)

Communications strategies, guidance and support to PICs have beenprovided. Participation in IW:LEARN activities on track. Pacific R2Rnetwork (of R2R practitioners) is already established and beingdeveloped/strengthened.PlansinplacetoupgradethewebsiteandR2Rnetworksupport(butdelaysinprocurementprocedures).

Outcome5.1:EffectiveprogrammecoordinationofnationalandregionalR2Rprojects

Achievement Rating 1(HighlyUnsatisfactory)

Althoughtheprojectnowhasanearfullstaffcomplement(regionalandnational level), previous delays in recruitments have been highlyunsatisfactory(especiallyatSPC).

The project has responded to some limited requests for support fromSTARprojectsandundertakensomejointactivitieswithSTARonanad-hocbasis.ButtheRPCUisnotsystematicallysupportingSTARprojects(the Pacific R2RProgram) - due largely to lack of demand from STARprojects.

There are serious challenges to theproject (and itsRPCU)performingPacificR2RProgramcoordinationfunctions(althoughnotallduetothe

7



projectitself).

PROJECTIMPLEMENTATION&ADAPTIVEMANAGEMENT


Senior SPC management has allowed significant delays in staffrecruitment and retention.Thishas affected support and coordinationprovided by the RPCU. Staff recruitment challenges at national levelhaveledtolowfinancialdeliveryatnationallevel.Almostfullstaffingisnowinplace.

TherehasbeengoodadaptivemanagementatnationallevelbutlimitedatRPCU(SPC) level.Theabsenceofaneffective inceptionprocessandprevious "topdown"management styleof theRPCU is a root causeofmany current challenges the project faces. The establishment of inter-ministerial committees is not in-line with as intended in the ProjectDocument leading to challenges in coordination and mainstreamingR2R.

Theprojecthasintroducedawell-designedmulti-yearcostedworkplanapproach that has proved useful in getting implementation going atnationallevel.

Financing and co-financing arrangements are satisfactory but withissueswithlengthyprocurementdelaysatSPCreported.

ProjectM&Esystemsareestablishedbutovercomplicatedandhumanresource intensive for national project staff considering the smallnationalbudgetsinvolved.TherearesignificantchallengestoreportingwithmanyPICswithsignificantgapsinreportsubmission.ReportingbySTAR projects to the project (as part of its intended coordination) isveryweak.

Stakeholder engagement at national demonstration sites is, overall,good.TherearesomeweaknessesinstakeholderengagementathigherlevelsinsomePICs.

The RPCU has provided communications support. Communication hastended to be on individual activitieswithin a broaderR2R frameworkandlesssoonactualR2R.

Incorporatinggenderandgendertraininghavebeensomewhatgenericwithremainingneedsforgenderanalysisofprojectoutputs.

Support from the implementing agency (UNDP) has been satisfactorybut that provided by the Executing Agency (SPC) has beenunsatisfactory.

SUSTAINABILITY

Achievement Rating: 3(ModeratelyLikely)

There are no identified significant financial, socioeconomic,environmental or institutional/legal risks to project sustainabilityduringitslifetime.Theprojectdoesnothaveanexitstrategybuttherearesignsthatsomeof itsoutputs/outcomeswillcontinueafterprojectend. Achieving R2R requires a long time horizon. The project is also"testing"R2Rapproachesand therefore intendedtoguideor influencefuture investments. A capacity-building, lessons learned and

8



mainstreamingapproachprovidesthebestchanceofsustainingProjectgains.

12.4 ConciseSummaryofConclusions2

Thereisahighlevelofnationalsupportforwhattheprojectaimstoachieveandthe3Project Objectives and Strategy remain in-line with stated national, regional and4international priorities. Poor implementation performance is due mainly to: (i)5failingsatseniormanagementlevelatSPCleadingtoextendedgapsinstaffingatthe6RPCU; and (ii) limited adaptivemanagement by the RPCU and the absence of an7effectiveinceptionperiodcanbeidentifiedasarootcauseofmanyofthechallenges8now being faced. Challenges remaining include: R2R mainstreaming and9implementationmechanismsfordoingso; involvingnationalstaff in implementing10components 3, 4, and 5; coordination and communication with STAR projects;11creating a stronger "programmatic" vision across the programme; strengthening12reporting by national IW R2R and STAR projects; and, overall programme13coordination.Changesareneededtotheproject'sscientificandtechnicalapproach14to align outputs better with influencing policy, in particular by adopting an15ecosystemgoodsandservicesapproachasrequiredbytheProjectDocument.Now16thattheprojecthasachievednearfullstaffingatregionalandnationallevelsthereis17reason toexpect that implementationcanbeaccelerated inmanyareas.Ano-cost18extensioniswarranted,subjecttotheotherrecommendationsofthisMTR,anditis19expectedthatthiswillenablemostnationaldemonstrationprojectstocatchupwith20implementation and achieve the targets as per their revised LogFrames. A21provisional estimate of the revised project end date based on no-cost extension22wouldbe31December2021subjecttocheckingthefinalfiguresandensuringthat23the agreed allocation of SPC overhead costs is not applied to national project24budgetswhich are tobemaintained at current levels. Further conclusionsdrawn,25challenges identified, and solutions to them are self-evident from the MTR26recommendationsasbelow.2728

2.5 RecommendationsSummaryTable29Therecommendationsarecombinedinthetablebelow.Thebodytextexplainsthe30backgroundandjustificationforeachrecommendation.TheMTRhasassessedthese31recommendations as to whether they address project design,32management/planning or budgets/finance and concludes they all address33managementissues.Thissupportsaconclusionthatthemainchallengesfacingthe34project, andmeans to overcome them, relate to projectmanagement and are not35directlyrelatedtoprojectdesignorthebudget.36TheMTRhasnotprioritisedtheserecommendations.Theyareallapriority(orthey37wouldnothavebeenmade).Itiswithintheresourcesandcapacityoftheprojectto38

9

implementthemallandtodosowouldincreaseandnotconstrainthelikelihoodof1projectsuccess.2# Recommendation EntityResponsible

1 TheRPCU, togetherwithNationalProjectManagers,shouldreview and update all current national project LogFramesandensurethat, ifnotalreadydoneso,each isapprovedatthenextnationalPSCandRSCmeetings.

RPCU and NationalProject Managers,nationalPSCs,RSC

2 The RPCU, in collaboration with national agencies, shouldreviewthe impactofprevious IWRM, ICMandR2R(ifany)investments, andparticularly theGEF IWRMProject, basedon current realities and with the objective of derivingfurther lessons learned, particularly regarding impact, up-scalingandsustainability.

RPCU, National LineAgencies

3 Each national demonstration project should re-evaluate itslinkages to and relationships with other relevant projectsand activities at local and national level, and with localplanning mechanisms and institutional arrangements, toensurethatitsactivitiesandoutputsarecoherentwith,andbuild upon and strengthen, these other activities andgovernancesystems.

National ProjectManagers/ProjectCoordinators, nationalPSCs,withsupportfromRPCU

4 TheRPCUincollaborationwithnationalagenciesshould:(i)map existing national (and regional) sustainabledevelopment planning processes (including climate changeadaptation and disaster risk reduction and across allsectors) and related current activities; (ii) identifyimmediate, short- and medium-term opportunities formainstreamingR2Rapproachesintotheseframeworks;(iii)develop a clear and coherent approach to delivermainstreaming needs into these frameworks, prioritisingimmediate opportunities based on existingscientific/technical knowledge and practical experience(withoutwaitingforIDAsorSoCs);(iv)discourageactivitiesthat result in thedevelopmentofneworparallel "strategicframeworks for R2R" or R2R planning mechanisms orframeworks,andinsteadbuildonexistingprocesses;and(v)consider how the intended functions of "inter-ministerialcommittees"(aspertheProjectDocument)fitwithexistingplanning and coordination processes and governancearrangements and identify measures to deliver IMCfunctions by, as far as possible, building on existinggovernancestructuresandprocessesandbuildingnewonesonlywhereclearlyneeded.

RPCU, National LineAgencies, NationalProject Managers/ProjectCoordinators

5 Theproject should adopt an ecosystemgoods and servicesframework as the foundation of its scientific and technicalapproach by: (i) integrating ecosystem goods and servicesindicators into the RapCA, IDA and SoC, not as a"supplement" toexisting indicatorsbutas their foundation;(ii) integrating an ecosystem goods and servicesapproach/context as the basis for all relevant projectactivities including for R2R planning, mainstreaming andpolicy; (iii) testing an ecosystem goods and services and

RPCU, RSTC, NationalProject Managers (withtechnical advice from atargetedconsultancy)

10

# Recommendation EntityResponsible

valuationapproachastheentrypointinalimitednumberofappropriate demonstration projects that have yet tocommence or have only recently commenced (subject tocountry needs and buy-in); (iv) commencing basic trainingon ecosystem goods and services (including valuation) fornationalcapacitybuilding,includingconsideringadedicatedmodule on this topic as part of the on-going post-graduatetraining delivered through an appropriate institution(subjecttoresourcesavailability).

6 The project should re-assess its strategy on IDAs and SoCsbased on the following criteria: (i) Focus onobjectives/outcomes-theIDAorSoCisnotanoutcome,theoutcome required is mainstreaming R2R; (ii) Identify andprioritiseexistingopportunitiestomainstreamR2Rwithouthavingan IDAorSoC (important short-termopportunitiesare currently being missed); (iii) The absolute priority iscapacitybuilding - this in turndetermines the impactofanIDA or SoC on policies - this requires ownership of andparticipationofPICsintheIDA/SoCprocess;(iv)IDAs/SoCsmustbecountry-driven,wherecountriesseeanIDAor"SoC"asanecessaryorpriorityneedtheprocesscangoahead,butifthis isabsentbewareofdoingtheSoC;(v)Thepriorityisfor the IDAand/orSoC tobe integratedwith andbuildon,add value to, existing activities and processes at nationallevel (notably the State of Environment reporting processandsimilarundertakings), theprocessneednotnecessarilyresult in a stand-alone "SoC" report but it can achieve itspurpose equally aswell through integration of informationgenerated into other reports/processes; (vi) Timing ofoutputs needs to be compatible with timescales forinformation needs (particularly for informing on-goingpolicy processes); (vii) Focus on quality not quantity -reduce outputs accordingly; (viii) Where all the abovecriteriaaremetconsiderproceeding-whereanyisnotmetthere is limited justification for the SoC; and (ix)Re-assessthe need and opportunities for an IDA and/or SoC in PSCsand re-present the IDA/SoC strategy to the RSC fordiscussionandreview.

RPCU, Line Agencies,RSC

7 Theprojectshould,withnationalcounterpartparticipation,mapitspotentialcontributionstotheSDGs,identifyrelevantlinkages and interdependencies (including potentialindicatorscurrentlyinuse),exploretheextenttowhichR2Ris a tool to achieve integrated delivery of, and has alreadydelivered, the natural resources based or dependent SDGsandusethisprocessasameansto:(i) testtherelevanceofits approaches; (ii) promote visibility and relevance of theproject; and (iii) identify and potentially monitor thecontribution of the project to sustainable developmentoutcomes.

RPCU and NationalCounterparts

8 The RPCU should ensure that the website and associateddatabasesdevelopedunderactivity4.2.3iskeptassimpleaspossible, primarily builds on existing efforts, learns from

RPCU

11


previous efforts, and is limited to the purpose ofcommunicating and sharing lessons learned on R2R andsupportingthedevelopmentofanetwork(orcommunityofpractice)onR2R.

9 The project should re-assess the advisability of integratingthe integrated results framework for multi-focal GEFprojects under the same platform as thecommunication/networkingplatformforR2R.Ifitcontinuesas such then the ability to separate the two functionalitiesmustbein-built.

RPCU

10 The project should identify how it is going to deliveroutcome4.2(inparticularactivity4.2.3)atnationallevel,asrequiredintheoutcomedescription,andpresentthisplantothenextRSCmeeting.

RPCU,RSC

11 TheRPCUshouldplayaleadcoordinatingroleindevelopingor compiling lessons learned on R2R, including from theprevious IWRM/ICM/R2R investments, including byproviding guidance to current R2R projects (STAR and IWR2RProjects) in order for them to begin now tomaximiseextractionoflessonslearnedfrominvestments.

RPCU

12 The project should have a no-cost extension subject toimplementationofthefurtherrecommendationsoftheMTR.

UNDP/SPC

13 The Regional Programme Coordination Group (RPCG)should strengthen technical information sharing andreporting linksbetweenthe implementingagenciesandtheRPCU.

RPCG

14 TheRegionalSteeringCommittee(RSC),withthesupportofthe Regional Programme Coordination Group, at its nextmeeting, should clarify what is required from the RPCUregarding programme coordination, and identify thereporting channels and responsibilities between STARprojects, IW R2R national projects, the RPCU and theimplementingagencies(UNDP,FAOandUNEP),andspecifythemodalitiesthroughwhichthedesiredcoordinationistobedelivered.

RSC,RPCG

15 The project should implement all its activities from acapacity building perspective, even if resulting incompromisesonscientificqualityand/ortimelines.

RPCU, National ProjectManagers/ProjectCoordinators, nationalPSCs, NationalimplementingAgencies

16 TheRPCUandRSCshould:(i)re-assessthecompositionandmodus operandi of the Regional Scientific and TechnicalCommittee(RSTC)inthelightofthescientificandtechnicalscopeandneedsoftheproject,specificallystrengtheningitssocial and economic expertise; (ii) as far as feasible, putmore emphasis on opportunities to build scientific andtechnicalcapacityamongthePICsbyprovidingforimprovedengagement of national PIC science stakeholders inproject/programme science and technology decision

RPCU/RSC

12


making; (iii) explore how the R2R network and platform(component 4.2) might contribute to the sustainability ofscience and technology support to PICs after the projectfinishes;and(iv)exploreopportunitiesforexpandinginter-activeworkshops and training on the project's science andtechnologyagendaunderRSTCoversight.

17 Recommendation17:Communicationsshouldbeconsideredand integrated into project activities (e.g. IDA-SOC/R2R,mainstreamingplansetc.)fromtheirverybeginningandbeused to identify target audiences, influence the nature ofdata collected and indicators being used and improve theunderstanding of how constraints to R2R uptake can bereducedtoincreasetheimpactoftheprojectonpolicy.

RPCU,RSTC

18 Thenationaldemonstrationplansandactivitiesthatarestillcurrently being prepared should be gender-analysed toensureon-siteprojectmanagement isgender-responsive inspecific ways anchored on the objectives of these theseplans. The completed RapCAs and IDAs must be gender-audited before they are incorporated in the SoC. The SoCsand Strategic Action Frameworks themselves must begender-audited.

RPCU, National ProjectManagers/ProjectCoordinators

AsummaryofMTRfindingsregardingactivitiesneededpriorto,andissuestobe1consideredat,thenextRegionalSteeringCommitteemeetingisprovidedinAnnex213.3

3 Introduction4

3.1 PurposeoftheMTRandobjectives5TheUNDP-GEFproject“RidgetoReef-TestingtheIntegrationofWater,Land,Forest6&CoastalManagementtoPreserveEcosystemServices,StoreCarbon,ImproveClimate7ResilienceandSustainLivelihoodsinPacificIslandCountries"(theIWR2RProject)is8afull-sizedprojectandthereforerequiresaMid-termReview(MTR).Theobjective9of the MTR, as per its Terms of Reference (ToR) (Annex 2), was to provide the10project implementing and executing partners (UNDP and SPC) and the relevant11GovernmentsofthePacificIslandsCounties(PICs)collectivelywithanindependent12MTRoftheproject.13ThepurposeoftheMTRwasto:14

• Assessanyachievements,under-performanceandchallengesatmid-point;15• Recommendcorrectiveactionstoachievestatedoutcomes;16

• Identifyopportunitiestoenhancethedeliveryofoutcomes;17• Considersustainabilityissuesandfuturedirectionsoftheproject;and18• Make recommendations for the remaining period of the project and its19

scheduledenddate,includingoptions,ifany,forno-costprojectextension.20

13

ThisMTRisoftheIWR2RProject.Itwasnottaskedwithreviewinganyoftheother1projects (STAR projects) under the Pacific R2R Program. However, the IW R2R2Project has a coordination role for the Program and its STAR projects. Where3feasible,nationalSTARprojectswereinterviewedbutprimarilyfromtheviewpoint4of support received from, and inter-linkages and coordination with, the IW R2R5Project.6The MTR assessed progress towards the achievement of the project objectives,7outputs and outcomes as specified in the Project Document focussing on signs of8projectsuccessorfailureandidentifiedthenecessarychangestobemadeinorder9to set theprojecton-track toachieve its intendedresults.TheMTRalso reviewed10theproject’sstrategyanditsriskstosustainability.11

3.2 ScopeandMethodology:Principlesofdesignandexecutionofthe12MTR,theMTRapproach,datacollectionmethodsandlimitations13totheMTR14

TheMTRwasguidedbyitsTermsofReference(Annex2)andfollowedtheguidance15outlinedintheGuidanceForConductingMid-termReviewsofUNDP-Supported,GEF-16FinancedProjects4.17The MTR guiding principle is evidence-based credible and reliable information18obtainedthroughacollaborativeandparticipatoryapproach.Thishasensuredclose19commitment of the Implementing Agencies, Project Team, national government20counterparts,UNDP-GEFRegionalTechnicalAdvisers,andotherkeystakeholdersto21the MTR findings and recommendations. A wide variety of documents were22considered(Annex3).Fivecountrieswerevisited(CookIslands,Fiji,Palau,Tuvalu23and Vanuatu) where face-to-face consultations were held with a wide range of24stakeholders(Annex1)andvisitstoprojectsitesundertaken.TheMTRmissionwas25unable to interview the project team in Nauru or Kiribati due to scheduling and26communication constraints but a review of documentation was undertaken for27these.For theothersevencountriesconsultationswereheld remotely (usuallyby28phone or video conference). The interviewees were selected based upon their29knowledgeofandassociationwiththeprojectand/orthedegreetowhichtheyare30affectedby theprojectormay influence it.Semi-structured interviews,withakey31set of questions in a conversational format (Annex 4), were used to standardise32methodsacrosscountries.33A standardised evaluation matrix (Annex 5) was used to assess the project and34deriveevidence-basedconclusionsonperformance.Assessmentsand ratingsused35standardised terminology and grading following theGuidance forConductingMid-36termReviewsofUNDP-Supported,GEF-FinancedProjects,furtherdetailsofwhichare37includedinrelevanttablesandsections.38

4http://web.undp.org/evaluation/documents/guidance/GEF/mid-term/Guidance_Mid-termReview_EN_2014.pdf

14

3.3 LimitationsoftheMid-TermReview1TheMTRis limitedbythequality,detailandtimelinessofprojectreports,notably2those relating to periodic assessments of project performance and progress (e.g.3PIRs, annual and quarterly progress reports etc.). Due to time and resource4constraints only 5 of the 14 PICs were visited, with another 7 interviewed by5remote. The MTR team is, however, highly confident that its overall findings are6soundandevidence-based.7

3.4 StructureoftheMTRreport8This is a complex project with a detailed assessment framework. To improve9readabilitythisMTRreportplacesthebulkofthequantifiedanddetailedresultsof10assessments into its annexes. Section 4 of the report provides a summary of the11findingsoftheMTRcoveringProjectStrategy(projectdesign,projectLogFrameand12results framework),ProgressTowardsResults,ProjectImplementationandAdaptive13Management (management arrangements, work planning, finance and co-finance,14project-level monitoring and evaluation systems, stakeholder engagement,15reporting, communications, gender and development mainstreaming) and16Sustainability. Section 5 summarises the MTR conclusions and its key17recommendations.18

4 ProjectDescriptionandBackgroundContext19

4.1 Developmentcontext:environmental,socio-economic,20institutional,andpolicyfactorsrelevanttotheprojectobjective21andscope22

ThePICsaredistributedthroughanoceanicareacoveringtenpercentoftheEarth’s23surface, vary considerably in their size and geomorphology, ranging from high24volcanicislandstotinylowcoralatolls,andhavevariedeconomiesandsystemsof25governance.SomePICsconsistofafewsparselyinhabitedislandswhileothersare26more densely populated island groups and some have no confirmed freshwater27(dependent on rainwater and desalination). Consequently, there is a need for a28variety of different governance and resource management strategies and29approaches focusing on different scales, and different levels of capacity. PICs do30sharesomecommonenvironmentalfeaturessuchas:manyaresmall,low-lyingand31isolated,withvulnerability toclimatic influencessuchasstorms,droughtandsea-32levelrise.33The ability of PICS to manage their resources and ecosystems in a sustainable34manner while sustaining their livelihoods is crucial to their social and economic35well-being and is clearly directly related to GEF’s mandate for protection and36sustainablemanagementofbiodiversityandinternationalwaters.PICshavespecific37needs and requirements when developing their economies. These are related to38small population sizes and human resources, small GDPs, limited land area and39naturalresources.Thesmallsizeofmostcatchments,shallowaquifersand lackof40

15

storageaffectsmostwaterusersfromurbanandruralwatersupplies,commercial1forestry,agricultureandtourism.2ThefourteendevelopingPICsarehometooverninemillionpeople,speakingabout31,200languages,withthemajorityofPacific islanders(about80percent) living in4rural areas.Thereareabout1,000 islands coveringa landareaof justoverhalf a5million km2, spread across 180 million km2 of ocean. The ecosystems supported6acrosstheseislandsareuniqueandamongthemostendangeredintheworld.Many7of these same islands are globally significantwith regards to biodiversity, having8floraandfaunaexhibitinghighendemismandwithglobalbiodiversitysignificance.9These fragile island ecosystems are increasingly exposed to external and internal10anthropogenic impacts threatening endemic terrestrial and coastal biodiversity.11Many PICs have high population growth rates. Some have population densities12greater than some large cities and are becoming increasingly urbanized. In most13PICs,landisaverylimitedresourceandpressuresonithigh.Pressuresoncoastal,14estuarineandinshoremarineareascanalsobehigh.15The PICs face similar challenges managing coastal resources as other developing16countries, including access to sanitation and safe drinking water, protecting17sensitive ecosystems and productive use of limited resources. All fourteen of the18PICs have development challenges in commonwith, and are recognised as, Small19Island Developing States (SIDS). Emigration is a significant factor in maintaining20capacitywithinPICswithalossofskilledandeducatedworkersparticularlyevident21inthisregion.Agriculture, fisheriesandtourismaretheprimaryeconomicsectors22inmostPICs.Halfofthefourteencountriesreceiveofficialdevelopmentassistance23(ODA)exceeding30percentoftheirGDP.24Water resource availability differs dramatically across the region. Papua New25Guinea is endowedwith twoof the largest rivers in theworld (by run-off).Other26PICs (e.g. Tuvalu) have no rivers to speak of and rely on rainwater and limited27groundwater.Faecalwastefromhumansandanimals(mostlypigsandcattle)cause28pollutionofsurfacewatersandwatersuppliesinnearlyallPICsandeutrophication29ofwaters from these sources and agricultural fertiliser usehasbeen identified as30the major environmental threat to Pacific aquatic ecosystems. Sediment loads31arising fromdeforestation,mining and agricultural activities are also a significant32threattoecosystemsandpotentiallycompromisewatertreatmentcapacityinwater33supplies. Land availability and tenure are both an impediment to, and provide34uniqueopportunities for,povertyalleviationandsustainabledevelopmentof land.35LandtenureinPICsistypicallyveryhigh.36Freshgroundwateronatolls,coralandlimestoneislandsisoftenadelicatebalance37between rainfall, evapo-transpiration and groundwater extraction. On low-lying38islands, this balance can be further complicated by storm surges, during which39saline water mixes with fresh groundwater. Land management is an important40aspectofwaterresourcesmanagement.PICsfreshwaterandcoastalresourcesare41highly vulnerable to many of the impacts of climate variability and change, in42particularincreasesinrainfallvariability,sea-levelriseandthefrequencyoftropical43

16

storms.Thereisaveryhighlevelofconfidencethatwaterresourcesinsmallislands1willbeseriouslycompromisedbyclimatechange.2

4.2 Problemsthattheprojectseekstoaddress:threatsandbarriers3targeted4

ThePacificStrategicActionProgramme(SAP)fortheInternationalWaters(IW)of5the Pacific Islands (1997) developed a strategy for the integrated sustainable6development and management of IW to address the priorities of PICs. The SAP7identified a variety of priorities: pollution of marine and freshwater supplies8(including groundwater) from land-based activities; physical, ecological and9hydrological modification of critical habitats; and excessive exploitation of living10and non-living resources. Water and climate related threats are the focus of the11PacificRegionalActionPlan forSustainableWaterManagement(PacificRAP).The12Pacific RAP focuses on turning key threats into sustainable solutions through a13seriesofkeyactions,agreedtoby16HeadsofStateinthePacificRegion.14Theprincipalbarrierstodatethathaveconfoundedintroductionofmoreintegrated15approachestoenvironmentalandnaturalresourcemanagementinPICsinclude:16

i. Fragmented, single sector development efforts (including donor funded)17across different landscapes and government levels that do not include18needed spatial management techniques due to unclear institutional19responsibilities,weakpolicies,communicationandcoordination;20

ii. Limited knowledge and application of integrated coastal management21(ICM), integratedwater resourcesmanagement (IWRM), sustainable land22management (SLM) and sustainable forest management (SFM) practices23andtoolsinthePacificIslands;24

iii. Limitedhumanandinstitutionalcapacityforintegratedmanagementinthe25PICswithmuchcapacitylosttoemigration;26

iv. Limitedexperienceandcapacityinlinkingsustainablelandmanagementin27watersheds, through IWRM, with the livelihood needs of downstream28coastalresidentsandecosystemsthroughICM;29

v. Limited PICs knowledge and national/local capacity on SLM, SFM, IWRM30andICMaswellascarbonsequestrationopportunities;31

vi. Insufficient involvement of key civil society and other stakeholders32spanningthe‘ridgetothereef’;33

vii. Risingdevelopmentpressuresona small taxationbase, andenvironment34andnaturalresourcemanagementprovidedwithinadequateresources;35

viii. Weak governance structures and lack of government/donor interest in36supporting integratedapproachesacrosssectors,whicharemoredifficult37toachieve;and38

17

ix. Insufficient political and public awareness of the role water, land, and1biological diversity play in economic development, public health and2environmentalprotection.3

The GEF Pacific IWRM Project (2009 - 2014) made rapid, significant and4demonstrableprogressatboththenationalandregionallevelsinovercomingthese5barriers. The national water and sanitation policy and IWRM planning reforms6achievedasaresultof thatprojecthasresulted in the formalnationaladoptionof7almost90percentofthepolicies,legalreformsandimplementationplansforIWRM.8The Pacific R2R Program and the IW R2R Project seek to further address these9barriersandthreatsthroughfurtherstrengtheningandexpandingthemethodsand10approachesofpreviousinvestmentsinthisarea.11

4.3 ProjectDescriptionandStrategy:objective,outcomesandexpected12results,descriptionoffieldsites13

Theprojectstrategyhasa longhistoryofdevelopment.On thebasisof thePacific14SAP1997,theGEFInternationalWatersfocalareasubsequentlyinvestedinaseries15ofregional initiatives. Inresponsetogrowingpressuresonthewaterresourcesof16thePICs,callshavebeenmadeforarevisionoftheregionalstrategyandactionplan17to address urgent issues pertaining to the sustainable management of water18resources and delivery ofwater and sanitation services. This revision is on-going19and timelycoincidingwithother significant changes in regional strategies suchas20thePacificForumLeaders'decisiontograduatethePacificPlantoaFrameworkfor21Pacific Regionalism with the primary objective of “sustainable development that22combineseconomicsocial,andculturaldevelopmentinwaysthatimprovelivelihoods23andwell-beingandtheuseoftheenvironmentsustainably”,drivingsectorintegration24strategies. The regional agreement to integrate Disaster Risk Management and25ClimateChangeAdaptationandMitigationintoaStrategyforDisasterandClimate26ResilientDevelopmentinthePacificexemplifiesthis.Theintegrationofwater,land27and coastal management through the Pacific R2R Programme at national and28regional levels is therefore in alignment with national and regional integration29strategies.30The immediately previous GEF Pacific IWRM Project (2009 - 2014) built on31achievementsofpriorGEFinvestmentsviaafocusonnationalIWRMdemonstration32projects.Thepracticalon-thegroundsolutionstowaterandsanitationissuesacted33tostimulatesupportatbothcommunityandnationalgovernment levels forpolicy34reform and the mainstreaming of integrated approaches as part of national35sustainabledevelopmentplanning.Theexperienceandlocalcapacitygeneratedasa36result of the GEF Pacific IWRM project was recognized both nationally and37regionally as an appropriate entry point for the testing of innovative approaches38andmeasures to integrate land, forest, water and coastal management, including39climatechangeadaptationinPICs.TheGEFCouncilatits44thmeetingapprovedthe40UNDP/UNEP/FAOmulti-focalarea“PacificIslandsRidge-to-ReefNationalPriorities–41Integrated Water, Land, Forest and Coastal Management to Preserve Biodiversity,42EcosystemServices,StoreCarbon,ImproveClimateResilienceandSustainLivelihoods”43

18

programme, the goal ofwhich is tomaintain and enhance PICs’ ecosystem goods1andservices(provisioning,regulating,supportingandcultural)throughintegrated2approaches to land, water, forest, biodiversity and coastal resource management3thatcontributetopovertyreduction,sustainablelivelihoodsandclimateresilience.4This goal, under the Pacific R2RProgramme,will be achieved through a series of5nationalmulti-focalarea ‘RidgetoReef’ (R2R)demonstrationprojectswhichwill6support and address national priorities and development needs while delivering7global environmental benefits in linewith GEF focal area strategies (Biodiversity,8Land Degradation, Climate Change Mitigation, International Waters) and Climate9ChangeAdaptation. The PICs emphasized the need to focus on their ownpriority10national activities as they utilize STAR resources. Experience has shown that an11integrated approach for ridge-to-reef (R2R) is necessary for poverty reduction,12sustainability, and capacity enhancement for small countries with few human13resourcestoundertakeprojects.14The Pacific R2R Programmewas designed to complement the implementation of15relevant national priorities including the CBD National Biodiversity Strategy &16Action Plan (NBSAP), UNFCCC NAPA, UNFCCC National Communications, REDD+17Policies,UNCCDNationalActionPlans,NationalSustainableDevelopmentStrategies18andotherdocuments.19TheIWR2RProject“RidgetoReef-TestingtheIntegrationofWater,Land,Forest&20CoastalManagement toPreserveEcosystemServices, StoreCarbon, ImproveClimate21Resilience and Sustain Livelihoods in Pacific Island Countries" is part of the Pacific22R2RProgramme and intended to build on nascent national processes built in the23previous GEF IWRM project to foster sustainability and resilience for each24participating island nation through: reforms in policy, institutions, and25coordination; building capacity of local institutions to integrate land, water and26coastalmanagement;establishingevidence-basedapproachestoICMplanning;and27improved consolidation of information and data required to inform cross-sector28R2Rplanningapproaches.Theprojectalsoistoprovidecoordinationfunctionsand29linkages with GEF Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF), biodiversity and land30degradationfocalareasinthenationalSTARprojects,facilitatesdialogueandaction31planning through national Inter-Ministry Committees and facilitates coordinated32exchanges of experience and results of the GEF portfolio of investments in the33broaderPacificR2RProgramme.34TheIWR2RProjectbuildsontheabovementionedstepwiseapproachtocatalysing35transformationalchange. Italsosupportsparticipatingcountries in thereplication36and scaling up of IWRM approaches within a broader “Ridge to Reef” and37“CommunitytoCabinet”frameworkdesignedtoguidetheintegrationofwater,land,38forest and coastalmanagement required to fashion sustainable futures for island39communities.Theprojectalsoaimstoaddresstherecenthigh-levelrecognitionand40calls for results-based approaches to themanagement of development assistance41programmesandprojects,andprovidessupport inareasofcoordination, capacity42building, technical assistance, and monitoring and evaluation for the Pacific R2R43programme.44

19

TheguidingprinciplesfortheapplicationoftheRidgetoReefapproachinPICsas1determinedthroughpreviousinvestmentsare:2i. AcknowledgingInter-ConnectionsofLand,WaterandCoastalSystems;3ii. PromotionofRidgetoReefandCommunitytoCabinetApproaches;4iii. CatalysingCommunityActionviaLocallyDrivenSolutions;5iv. DoingisSeeingtheNeed;6v. InvestinginIsland-basedHumanCapital;7vi. GenderMainstreaminginR2R;8vii. SupportingNationalandRegionalPlanning;9viii. Application of Marine Spatial Planning in Ridge to Reef Planning and10

Management;11ix. IntegratingClimateVariabilityandChange;12x. SupportingResultsOrientedPlanningandAction;13xi. EffectivelyCommunicatingtheBenefitsofIntegrationandLessonsLearned;14xii. Guiding Coordinated Investment in the Sustainable Development of Island15

Communities;and16xiii. PromotingPublic-PrivatePartnerships.17The Project Objective is to test themainstreaming of ‘ridge-to-reef’ (R2R), climate18resilientapproachestointegratedland,water,forestandcoastalmanagementinthe19PICsthroughstrategicplanning,capacitybuildingandpilotedlocalactionstosustain20livelihoods and preserve ecosystem services. In order to achieve this objective key21projectcomponentsinclude:22i. national demonstrations to support and inform integrated land,water and23

coastal planning and the scaling-up of IWRM for island resilience and24sustainability;25

ii. island-based investments inhumancapital andknowledge consolidation to26preparelocalinstitutionsforICM;27

iii. improved integrated governance for local pilot institutions and national28policydevelopmentforscaling-upIWRMtointegrateland,waterandcoastal29managementinanICMframework;30

iv. establishment of regional and national R2R indicators, monitoring and31evaluation frameworks, and knowledge management to support national32inter-ministrycommitteesandresultstracking;and33

v. strengthenednationalandregionalcoordinationofinvestmentinR2R.3435

20

4.4 ProjectImplementationArrangements:shortdescriptionofthe1ProjectBoard,keyimplementingpartnerarrangementsand2institutionallevelsofengagement3

TheIWR2Rproject is implementedbyUNDPandexecutedregionallybytheGeo-4science Energy and Maritime Division (previously the Applied Geoscience and5Technology Division, SOPAC) of the Pacific Community (SPC). The project is6supportedbyaRegionalProgrammeCoordinationUnit(RPCU),locatedatSPC,Suva,7Fiji, with technical and administrative support staff headed by a Regional8Programme Coordinator. The project has operations at national level, usually9supportedbyaNationalProjectManager.EachPICusuallyhasanationalsite-level10R2Rdemonstrationproject.ThesevaryamongthePICsintermsoftheirscope.11There isaRegionalProgrammeCoordinationGroup (RPCG) for theoverallPacific12R2R Programme consisting of the main implementing agencies (UNDP, FAO and13UNEP)togetherwithrepresentationfromtheGEF.ThereisaRegionalProgramme14Steering Committee (RSC), often referred to as the Regional Steering Committee,15comprising the implementing and executing agencies, representatives of the16national STAR projects and various other stakeholders. The RSC is also themain17projectboardfortheIWR2RProject.EachnationalIWR2Rprojectcomponenthas18itsownProject SteeringCommittee (PSC) that ismandated tobea jointPSCwith19nationalSTARprojects.Atnationalleveltherearealsoanumberofpre-existingor20project-promoted "Inter-Ministry Committees", or equivalent, that operate at21various levels, from local/catchment scale to national development planning, that22serve as forums for discussion and consensus building tomainstream R2R. They23also have an important role in monitoring UNEP’s Regional project to promote24forestry and protected areamanagement in Fiji, Niue, Vanuatu and Samoa under25GEF'sPacificAllianceforSustainabilityProgramme.26TheRegionalIWR2Rproject is intendedtobetheprogrammesupportproject for27thePacificR2RProgrammeandisexpectedtocoordinatetheimplementationofnot28only the IW R2R national demonstration projects but also the GEF Pacific R2R29Programme national R2R STAR projects in terms of capacity building, knowledge30management and harmonization of technical methodologies in the integrated31managementofforest,landandwatermanagement.Coordinatingthesealongwith32theUNDP,UNEPandFAOSTARPacificProjectsisvitaltothesuccessofR2R.33TheGEFPacificIWRM(2009-2014)projecthadestablishedcloselinkageswitha34number of projects and programmes (mostly now concluded) including: the35GEF/UNDP/UNEP Implementing Integrated Water Resource and Wastewater36Management in Atlantic and Indian Ocean PICs; and, the GEF/UNDP/UNEP37IntegratingWatershedandCoastalAreaManagement(IWCAM)intheSmallIsland38DevelopmentStatesoftheCaribbeantoreflectmorethan30SIDSglobally.TheIW39R2R Project is to maintain and grow these linkages including via the successor40GEF/UNEP/UNDP project to IWCAM, Integrating Water, Land and Ecosystems41Management (IWECO). Coordination is also to occur during implementation with42other related UNDP/GEF projects including: the Pacific Adaptation to Climate43Change (PACC); Implementation of the Sustainable Development Strategy for the44

21

SeasofEastAsia(SDS-SEA);and,MainstreamingofSustainableLandManagement1(SLM) for Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States2(SIDS)throughUNDP’sAsiaandPacificRegionalOffice.TheADB/GEFStrengthening3Coastal and Marine Resources Management in the Coral Triangle of the Pacific4(Phase II) provides significant opportunities in piloting the integration of coastal5andinshoremanagementwithintheR2Rapproachandcapturingthosebenefits is6importantfortheCTIParticipatingPICs.TheMelanesianSpearheadGroup’sAnnual7Environment/ClimateChangeMinistersandSeniorOfficialsMeetingenableshigh-8levelcoordinationandintegrationofthese.Theprojectisalsotobeimplementedin9close coordination with other regional projects that are also being executed by10SOPAC/SPC,whichthisprojectbuildson.Executionoftheregionalprojectthrough11theSOPACDivisionofSPCisdesignedtoensuretheclosestpossiblecoordinationof12project and co-financed activities with other regional SPC work programmes in13disaster risk management, oceans and islands, water and sanitation, sustainable14land use, coastal fisheries, climate change and education. The integration and15coordinationoftheseatanationallevelisthroughanagreedJointCountryStrategy16Programme which is a periodically developed and agreed as integrated strategic17action plans between each Member PIC and SPC. The annual Committee of18Representatives of Governments and Administrations (CRGA) meeting provides19regional coordination and review. This process includes close coordination of20projectactivitieswiththeactivitiesofotherdonor-fundedprojects.21

4.5 Projecttimingandmilestones22ThescheduledstartdateoftheprojectwasApril2015andtheactualstartdate3123August 2015. The current scheduled end date is 31 August 2020. ThisMid-Term24Reviewwas,therefore,heldat0.71ofthescheduledduration(basedontheactual25startdate).26The Project LogFrame contains few time-bound milestones except the27establishmentofeffectivecoordinationandmanagementsupport(attheRPCUand28national level)bytheendofyearoneandtheproductionof14"StateoftheCoast29Reports"bytheendofyear3.30

4.6 Mainstakeholders31Theprojectlinksdirectlyintotheverystrongstakeholderrelationshipsbuiltbythe32Pacific IWRM Project Community to Cabinet (and back) approach. The primary33stakeholders for the project are the 14 governments of the PICs (particularly34institutions dealing with water, land and coastal management, environment,35disaster risk management and climate change) and communities within the R2R36pilotdemonstrationprojects.Thelessonslearntwillhowevereventuallybenefitall37SIDS globally. There will also be global benefits as the project will seek through38innovative approaches to coordinate multifocal area approaches within a R2R39frameworkandtousedemonstratedlocalbenefitstoprogressnationallevelpolicy40reformandaction.Asan integratedproject,privateandpublic sectorsarealso to41participate and benefit and this include tourism, agriculture, fisheries, health,42environmentand locallyselected industries.TheNGOcommunityhasasignificant43

22

stakeholder role in promoting awareness ofwater, land and coastalmanagement1and use issues and concerns, especially in demonstration project areas and in2presenting the linkagesboth tosocialdevelopmentandtosustainable,ecosystem-3based management. At the local/demonstration site level, the Project focuses on4communityinvolvementforwatershedandcoastalresourcemanagement,including5ICM,andwillalsolookatthecapacitybuildingrequirementsatthislevel.6MainstakeholdersandtheirrolesarelistedinAnnex10.7

4.7 TheProjectas"testing"R2R8Itisimportanttorecognisethattheprojectdesignisto"test"R2R.Itistocontinue9togainexperienceandlessonslearnedwithR2Randtocontinuetobuildcapacityin10R2R.Thishasimportantimplicationsforprojectevaluation.Notleast,ithighlights11that the important contribution of the Project is lessons learned. The lessons12learnedfromfailurescanbeasimportantasfromsuccesses,provided,ofcourse,the13failuresarenotduetofailuresinprojectimplementation.14

5 Findings15

5.1 ProjectStrategy16

5.1.1 ProjectDesign17Currentguidelinesonprojectevaluationnowincludeanassessmentoftheproject's18TheoryofChangeatdesignandevaluation.TheTheoryofChangeisausefultoolin19projectevaluation, includingbyhelpingclarifyobjectivesand thedegree towhich20targets, indicators and activities are contributing to that objective at both project21design and implementation stages. However, the Project and Programme22FrameworkDocumentsweredesignedprior toaTheoryofChangestatementand23analysis being mandatory. There is, therefore, no explicit Theory of Change24articulated in the Project Document. The project's implicit Theory of Change can25nevertheless be derived from the descriptions in the ProgrammeFramework and26ProjectDocumentsandtheirLogFrames.Simplystated,abasicTheoryofChangefor27theProjectisthat:28i. theexistingcondition(baseline)29

is inefficient natural and human resources use across the landscape and30seascape and sub-optimal outcomes in terms of sustainable development31(includingitssocial,economicandenvironmentalpillars);32

ii. thehypothesis(orassumption)(whatwethinkcausesit)33isthatfragmentedsector,andother,policiesresultinconflictingoutcomes,a34lackofintegration(etc.)andcontributetothiscondition(andbydefaultthat35improvingthesepoliciesetc.willimprovethecondition);36

iii. thechangethatisrequired(theresultwewant)37

23

istomakepositivechangestothebaselineconditionbyachievingimproved1efficiency in natural resources use, leading to improved sustainable2developmentoutcomes;3

iv. themeans to achieve that change (interventions to achieve the change, or4driversofthechange)5aretomovepolicy,planningandinvestmenttowardsanintegratedapproach6acrosssectorsandlandscapesbyprovidinginterventionsaslistedindetailin7the Project Document that include, for example: building national (and8regional) capacity to manage natural resources in an integrated fashion;9developing and applying tools to support integrated management across10landscapes and seascapes (IWRM, ICM, R2R); building or strengthening11governance mechanisms for integrated management; and, building12experience with, and on using tools for, integrated management and13communicatingandsharingthelessonslearned.14

It is important to note that, as the Project Document describes, the required15improvementsinthegovernance(institutionalandpolicy)landscapeareameansto16achieve the desired change in sustainable development outcomes, and are not an17end in themselves. The critical assumption in the above is that the interventions18undertaken actually deliver the required change (improved socioeconomic19outcomes). This has not been explicitly expressed in the Project LogFrame but20nevertheless should have been the main criterion for identifying adaptive21management requirements during the inception phase (see further discussion on22thispointunderSection4.1.2projectLogFramebelow).23TosomeextenttheProjectDocumentdescribes“aprioritechnicalsolutions”thatare24implicit in the problem description and have conditioned or subordinated the25project strategy toward these pre-conceived solutions. For example, when the26problem is described as a lack of something, it implicitly states that once these27solutions are applied, the problem will be resolved (e.g. "the problem is lack of28capacity" therefore the solution is "build capacity" and the problem will be29resolved).Thiscanbeanincorrectunderlyingassumption;forexample,experience30shows that building capacity (including scientific/technical tools) frequently does31not resolve problems. This is especially the case where the actual problems are32political, not technical. The MTR does not conclude that the project design is in33significantdifficultiesintheseregards.Itdoes,however,stressthattheneedtobe34constantly vigilant of the change that is required and critically assessing and35measuringwhether interventionsachieve that change is fundamental toachieving36project objectives. There are examples where the project has drifted from this37principleinprojectimplementation(seesections4.2and4.3below).38The Project (and Programme) has the significant benefit of building on previous39investments in integrated natural resources management in the region and a40strengthenedconsensusbuiltamongPICgovernments thatsuch isapriority.This41includes,notleast,thepreviousGEFPacificIWRMProject(2009-2014).Thisisone42ofthemainfoundationsofProject/Programmepreparation.Thatreliance,however,43

24

highlights the importance of continuing to track the impact of those previous1investmentsandespeciallysinceitisnow5yearssincethosepreviousinvestments2weremade.3TheProjectandProgrammedocumentsusetheterms"IntegratedWaterResources4Management" (IWRM) and "Integrated Coastal (Zone) Management" (ICM)5somewhat loosely. Other similar concepts introduced include "Sustainable Land6Management" (SLM) and "Sustainable Forest Management" (SFM). These are all7largely terminologies used by different stakeholder groups that aim at similar8outcomes (integrated natural resources management). This can be somewhat9confusingforthereader.Forexample,onanislandwithasmalllandmassitwould10bechallengingto identifythedifferencebetweenIWRMandICM(ifbothtoolsare11used broadly, as they should be) and SLM and/or SFM are integral to each. The12attemptstomovethediscussiontowardsRidgetoReef(R2R)astheframeworkhelp13in understanding, communication and breaking down barriers between specialist14groupsbutcouldbemoreconsistentlyadopted.15TheminutesofthefirstRegionalSteeringCommitteemeeting(October2016)note16thatthePacificR2RProgrammewasdevelopedunderatightscheduleona"useit17orloseit"basisregardingfunds.TheMTRconcludesthat,underthecircumstances18at the time, those involved inprogrammepreparationare tobecomplimented for19securing significant GEF resources to support an important investment, in an20importantregionandregardingapriorityintervention.21IssueswithProgrammeCoordinationwereidentifiedearly intheproject.Thefirst22RSC meeting highlighted confusion about the links between the National R2R23projects and the STAR projects. It was noted that GEF had already approved the24programme and, therefore, changes could not be made to the Programme25FrameworkDocument.Withhind-sight,someflawsindesigncannowbeidentified26but this is normal and such matters are supposed to be addressed during an27effective inception process. Section 4.3 below (on Project Implementation and28AdaptiveManagement)pointsoutthattheabsenceofsuchadaptivemanagementat29regionalproject level is a leading causeof anumberof the challenges theproject30nowfaces,includingon"coordination".31

5.1.2 ResultsFramework/LogFrame32WhenusingtheResults-BasedManagement(RBM)approach,indicatorsthroughout33should enable tracking from inputs/activities, through outputs, to outcomes and34objectives that reflect progress towards the desired change. In this Project, the35"result" (inRBM) ischange(asdescribedabove). That trail should linkoutcomes36better to a described, and preferably quantified, development benefit (e.g.37increasing income generation, gender equality, increased delivery of ecosystem38benefits - that is, to the identified change). The MTR stresses that there is39confidence that the project outcomeswill lead to such development benefits. The40assumptionthat improvedintegratednaturalresourcesmanagementandplanning41willsupportsustainabledevelopmentoutcomesisentirelyreasonable.Butthelinks42throughtodevelopmentbenefitsshouldbeclear,betteridentifiedintheLogFrame43

25

andmonitoredwhere feasible, in order to keep theproject on track regarding its1purpose.2The terms used to describe many outcomes, such as "successful pilot projects3achieved", "diagnostic analyses undertaken", "community leader roundtable4networks established", and "national and regional platforms established", do not5clearly articulate the desired change. It is assumed that these will contribute to6change,butchangeitself isnotspecified.Likewiseformanyindicatorsthelinksto7desiredchangeareunclearorabsent. InanRBMframeworkallactivities,outputs,8outcomes,andobjectivesshouldbelinkedandtrackedtothedesiredchange,using9change related indicators throughout. Put another way, many of the current10outcomes (and indicators) assume that if they are delivered then the changewill11occur.Thisraisesthreeimportantpoints.First, ifthat isthecasethenitshouldbe12possible to identify indicators thatmake that link (input to output to outcome to13change) and for consistency should be included. Second, important assumptions14shouldbeconstantly reviewed(e.g. at inceptionandperiodicmonitoring)and the15onlywaytotestvalidityoftheassumptionisthroughmonitoringusingappropriate16indicators. Third, having a complete (and expanded) Theory of Change (or RBM17framework) encourages "bottom line" or "whole thinking" approaches to18implementationandadaptivemanagement.19TheMTRobservesthattheProjectDocument,inseveralplaces,makesitclearthata20focusofdeliveringthedesiredoutcome(sustainabledevelopment)istoconserveor21enhanceecosystemservices.The term ismentioned in theProject'sobjective.The22MTR agrees with that emphasis. However, the LogFramewould have beenmuch23more appropriate had it been designed from an ecosystem services perspective.24That would have enabled linkages between project activities, targets, indicators,25outcomes and the desired change to bemuchmore explicit and easily identified.26Section4.2discusses further theProject'suseofanecosystemgoodsandservices27framework/approach.28

TheProjectobjectiveisto"Totestthemainstreamingof‘ridge-to-reef’(R2R),climate29resilientapproachestointegratedland,water,forestandcoastalmanagementinthe30PICsthroughstrategicplanning,capacitybuildingandpilotedlocalactionstosustain31livelihoods and preserve ecosystem services". The indicator for this is "Extent of32harmonization of sectoral governance frameworks for integrated 'ridge to reef'33approachesachievedthroughnationalsustainabledevelopmentplanning".However,34the indicator as just stated, does not actually indicate whether livelihoods are35sustainedorecosystemservicesarepreserved.Thetestofwhetherridgetoreefis36working, that is achieving the desired change, is whether it results in improved37natural resources sustainability and related sustainable development outcomes.38That is, the criteria for whether planning is successful is whether it results in39change.ThiswouldneedtobebetterreflectedintheProjectLogFrameifitistobe40fullyalignedtoRBM.41

Addressing how project monitoring and evaluation tracks contributions to42development through adjusting the LogFramewould require substantial changes.43

26

The MTR concludes that, at this stage, addressing how outcomes, targets, and1indicatorsaddress therequiredsustainabledevelopmentoutcomescan insteadbe2improved through: (i) using ecosystem goods and services (that is, benefits for3people) as the framework for project implementation, including incorporating4ecosystemgoodsandservicesindicatorsintosite-levelassessmentsanddiagnostic5assessments(etc.),whichwouldcreatebetterlinkstosocioeconomic(development)6outcomes, as discussed and recommended in Section 4.2 (below); and (ii)7identifying the linkagesbetween theproject outcomes, targets and indicators and8the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development9Goals,withattentiontoidentifyingindicatorswherefeasible,asproposedinSection104.2.1(sectionreferringtoprogressunderComponent3).11Section3.7(above)pointsoutthattheProjectisto"test"mainstreamingofR2Rand12notes,therefore,thatlessonslearned,includingfromfailures,arecritical.However,13theLogFramedesigncentresheavilyonachievingprojectoutcomesandobjectives14and although lessons learned is included in some sub-activities they are not15dominant. A solutionmight have been to elevate "lessons learned" to the level of16ProjectComponent. Subsequentsections(4.2,4.3,4.4)stressthispointandmake17recommendationsinthisregard.18Someoftheindicatorsinuse(e.g.forstressreductionmeasures)aregettingcloser19to measuring desired change yet still assume that reducing a stress (pressure)20resultsinchangerelatedbenefits.Bettertomeasurethatchange.Also,theseapply21only to demonstration sites and it is not clear if they actually result from "R2R",22meaning that in some cases the stresses could be reduced without an R2R23framework.SoitremainsdifficulttoidentifytheaddedvalueofR2R.24It could be reasonably argued that it can take a long time for policy change (e.g.25mainstreaming R2R) to deliver sustainable development benefits. However, this26shouldnotbeanexcusefornottryingtomeasurethem.Inaddition,itisnowover2710 years since significant GEF investments in "R2R" commenced and it is now28criticaltoestablishwhetherthestatedobjectives/benefitsarebeingdelivered.29Thereareanumberofcurrent indicators in theLogFramethat ingeneral refer to30the need to disaggregate data by gender where appropriate in addition to the31inclusionofseveralgenderspecifictargets.Althoughimportantinthemselves,these32gender related indicators and targetsdonotnecessarily fully reflect the extent to33whichwomen(andvulnerableorminoritygroups)arefullyandeffectivelyinvolved34in decisionmaking. The underlying socio-cultural factors that determine full and35effectiveparticipationindecision-making,andnotjustnumericalrepresentationin36decision-makingforums,needtobealsoaddressed.Moredetailedobservationson37howtheProjectanditsLogFrameareaddressingmonitoringandevaluatingGender38and Development (GAD) are made in Section 4.3.7 dedicated to this topic. This39makes suggestions as to how to improve GAD considerations including better40approaches to incorporatingGAD into national project LogFramesmany ofwhich41arebeingrevised.42

27

InanalysinghowSMARTaretheproject’soutcomes,targetsandindicators,theMTR1foundthefollowing:2Specific: As above, some outcomes, targets and indicators did not use a ‘change’3languageorweredescribedwithenoughclarityforaspecificfuturecondition.4Measurable: Indicators of quantitative changes in material conditions are not5necessarilyenoughtodentanoutcomeinasustainableway;andindicatorsneedto6measureprogresstowardschangethatcontributestotheTheoryofChange.7Achievable: Inonlyafewcasesarethetargetsunrealistic inthattheprojectdoes8nothavethecapacitytoachievethem.9Relevant:Intermsofoutcomes,despitetheabove-mentioneddrawbacks,theMTR10concludes that the project will, if implemented effectively, make important11contributions towardsnationaldevelopmentpriorities. There are, however, some12needstorealignsometargetsandindicatorstowardscreatingtherequiredchanges.13Time-bound:AllOutcomeshavespecifiedthetargetsattheendofproject.Itwould14have been helpful if the inception process identified time-bound targets and15milestoneswithintheprojectduration(e.g.bymid-term).Thiswouldhaveenabled16betterandquantifiedtrackingofprojectimplementation.17AnassessmentofthedegreetowhicheachindividualtargetorindicatorisSMART18ispresentedinAnnex7.19AtthisstagetheMTRdoesnotrecommendmajorchangestotheLogFramebuthas20alreadynotedthatthisislessanissuewithProjectDesignandmoreanissuewith21opportunities for adaptive management during project inception. The practical22pointisthatfutureimplementationneedstobeclearaboutwhatchangeisrequired23and how to achieve it and avoid just mechanically achieving targets as per the24LogFrame.25Some recommendations regarding adjusting some of the LogFrame targets and26indicators(butnotoutcomesatthisstage)aremadeinSection4.4(andinAnnex6).27Theseincludesomeminoradjustmentsarisingfromthecurrentsection(detailedin28Annex7)butalsochangesrequiredduetoimplementationchallenges(Sections4.2,294.3and4.4).30

5.1.3 AdequacyoftheProjectBudget31Theprojectbudgetisin-linewithitsintendedoutputsandoutcomes.Thereareno32indications that theproject is seriouslyoverorunder funded.Financial resources33availabilityhasnotbeenraisedasaseriousconstrainttoimplementation.Regarding34allocationsfornationaldemonstrationprojects,theUSD200,000foreachPICis,in35general,adequatetoachievetheoutputs/targetsofthenationalProjectLogFrames.36The problem, however, is that when viewed from a national perspective this37allocation is over several years (between 3 and 5) andmakes this (financially) a38small project. Yet the administrative, including monitoring, evaluation and39reporting,burdenatnationallevelcanbeashighasamuchlargerproject(e.g.STAR40

28

projects).ThishasraisedissuesinsomePICsandcontributedtodelaysinstart-up1atnationallevel(seeSection4.3.1below).2TheMTRconcludesthatthisisanimportantprojectthatcandemonstratethatsmall3investments can lead to big improvements.When considering its role within the4overall GEF Pacific R2R Programme, and its intended role in coordination, the5project becomes even more significant. But, unfortunately, in some circles the6importanceofaprojectisoftenequatedtothesizeofitsbudget.7Inhind-sight,analternativemighthavebeentoelevatethisIWR2RProjecttobeing8the Programme, with the STAR projects under its budget as its national9demonstrationactivities.Thatwouldalsohaveresolvedsomeoftheconstraintsthe10projecthasinprogrammecoordination(seeSection4.3.1below).Itislikelythatthis11wasconsideredbutnotfeasibleatthetime.12

5.2 Progresstowardsresults13

5.2.1 Progresstowardsoutcomesanalysis14The project LogFrame does not include mid-term targets except for one (3.1.315requiring"StateoftheCoasts"reportsfinishedandpresentedatsummitsinallPICs16bytheendofyear3).Mid-termtargetsshouldhavebeendiscussedandsetat the17inceptionstage.18Table1presentstheMTRfindingsregardingtheprogressoftheprojecttowardsits19intendedresultsaspertheProjectDocument,usingtheProgressTowardsResults20Matrix and following the Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-21Supported, GEF-Financed Projects. Of the 29 individual targets set by project-end:22nonehaveyetbeenachieved;11areontargettobeachieved,with18notontarget23tobeachieved,andwithanumberof thesenowunachievablewithintheproject’s24current duration. Progress for only two targets is assessed as satisfactory, eight25moderately satisfactory, 12moderately unsatisfactory, six unsatisfactory and one26highlyunsatisfactory. The reasons for, andsolutions to, thispoorperformance to27datevaryacrosstargets.28TheMTRalsoassessedthetargetsand indicators intheLogFrameregardingtheir29compliance to "SMART" (in Section 4.1), and made further recommendations for30adjustmentstosomeofthetargetsandindicatorsresultingfromobservationsand31assessments in thecurrentsection, inAnnex6.TheMTRalsohassome important32observations and recommendations on the approach that the project is taking33towardsachievinganumberofthetargets.34

29

Table1:ProgressTowardsResultsMatrix(achievementofoutcomesagainstend-of-projecttargets)12"Cumulativeprogressreported" isthatreportedbytheRPCUataworkshopinDecember2018andbasedonthe latestPIR3(2018).TheMTRassessmentandratingwasbasedon this information,additional countryreports, interviewsandcountry4visits and independently assessed. Where assessments of progress differ between these two sources justification for the5assessment and ranking is stated. Assessments in this table are based on the current end date of the project (that is, not6factoringinano-costextension).7MLA=Midtermlevelandassessment-IndicatorAssessmentKey:8Green=Achieved Yellow=Ontargettobe

achievedRed=Notontargettobeachieved

9

AR=Achievementrating-Progresstowardsresultsratingscale:Highlysatisfactory(HS);Satisfactory(S);Moderately10satisfactory(MS);Moderatelyunsatisfactory(MU)Unsatisfactory(U);Highlyunsatisfactory(HU).11

12Indicator Baselinelevel Midterm

targetEnd-of-projecttarget

Cumulativeprogressreported MLA AR Justificationforrating

Component1NationalDemonstrationstoSupportR2RICM/IWRMApproachesforIslandResilienceandSustainability

Outcome1.1SuccessfulpilotprojectstestinginnovativesolutionsinvolvinglinkingICM,IWRMandclimatechangeadaptation[linkedtonationalSTARprojectsvialargerPacificR2Rnetwork]

1.1.1Numberandqualityofbaselineenvironmentalstateandsocio-culturalinformationincorporatedinprojectareadiagnostics

1.1.1Baselineenvironmentalandsocialdataisunconsolidated

None 1.1.114nationalpilotprojectareadiagnosticsbasedonR2Rapproachincluding:baselineenvironmentalstateandsocialdataincorporatingCCvulnerabilities;andlocalgovernanceofwater,land,forestsandcoastsreviewed

PIR:Offtrack.

SelfAssessment:Ontrack.

Asaninitialstep,environmentalmonitoringplansweredevelopedinaccordancewiththeapprovedmonitoringguidelines.

RapCAplanningandconductinVanuatu,andplanningforSamoaunderway.

RapCAinSolIs,SamoaandPNG

EnvironmentalmonitoringSOPforcoastal

MU Baselineenvironmentalstate,socialandCCvulnerabilityindictors/metricsandinformationlimited(seenarrative).Plansarein-place,butnoactualdiagnosticsyetatmanysites.

30

Indicator Baselinelevel Midtermtarget

End-of-projecttarget


waterandcompostdeveloped

Environmentalmonitoringfieldproformasfor

-revegetation

-WQ

-compost

-landrehab

Nationaldiagnosticprocedurefinalisedwithreporttemplate–thiscollatessocio-economicbaselineandRapCAdata

Resultreport/projectprogress

Factsheets

-ScienceandPolicy

-HRR

-MYCWP

-RapCAVideoVanuatu

FAQs

BenefitsR2R

Principles

RSC3Resources/Online

1.1.2Stressreductionandwater,environmentalandsocioeconomicstatusindicators*Municipalwastepollutionreduction(Nkg/yr)*Pollutionreductiontoaquifers(kg/ha/yr)*Areaofrestoredhabitat(ha)*Areaofconserved/protectedwetland*Areaofcatchmentunderimprovedmanagement(ha)Numberofpeopleengagedinalternativelivelihoods*StatusofmechanismsforPM&E*

1.1.2Limitedcommunityandcross-sectoralparticipationintheplanningofcoordinatedinvestmentsandstressreductioneffortsinland,forest,waterandcoastalmanagementinPICs.(Baselineforwater,environmentalandsocialeconomic

1.1.214nationalpilotprojectstestmethodsforcatalyzinglocalcommunityaction,utilizingandprovidingbestpracticeexamples,andbuildinginstitutionallinkagesforintegratedland,forest,waterandcoastalmanagement,

PIR:Offtrack.

Self-Assessment:Ontrack.

12PICsareimplementingtheirrespectiveprojects(exceptFijijuststartedandnodataforKiribati).

TrainingonGendermainstreamingwascarriedoutin6PICs(FSM,RMI,Palau,Solomon,Tuvalu,&Vanuatu)

Regionalgendermainstreamingtoolkit

MU Mostnationalprojectdelayedstart-up.Genderanalysisandmainstreamingstillweak.

MostPICS-Itisunlikelythatactionsatprojectsiteswillleadtoverifiablereductionsinstressors(orimprovementsinhabitatquality)byprojectend.

MostPICS-Limited

31




Numberandqualityofdemonstrationprojectsthathaveincorporatedgenderanalysisaspartofthecommunityengagementplans

statusindicatorsformunicipalwastepollution,pollutiontoaquifers,areasofrestoredhabitat,areaofconserved/protectedwetland,areaofcatchmentunderimprovedmanagement,andnumberofpeopleengagedinalternativelivelihoods,willbeobtainedatprojectstart.)

andresultingin:

*Municipalwastepollutionreductionof5,775kgN/yr(6sites)

*Pollutionreductiontoaquiferof23kgN/ha/yr(2sites)6,838haofrestoredhabitat(4sites)

*290haofconserved/protectedwetland(2sites)*25,860haofcatchmentunderimprovedmanagement(7sites)

*30charcoalproducers(40%oftotal)engagedinalternativecharcoalproductionactivities

*Participatorymonitoringandevaluationofenvironmentalandsocioeconomicstatusofcoastalareas(9sites)

*14nationalpilotprojectsdemonstrategenderresponsiveimplementationandresults

*Directnationalpilotprojectbeneficiary

Genderactionplansforcountries

WQbaselineassessmentinTuvalu

evidenceoftestingmethodsetc.bestpracticeexamples,communityaction.

MostPICS-Limitedevidenceofdemonstrationsandformingcommitteesetc.leadingtoactualimprovementsontheground.

MostPICS-Limitedevidenceofadoption

FurtherinformationontimelinesinAnnex12.

Outcome1.2NationaldiagnosticanalysesforICMconductedforprioritizingandscaling-upkeyICM/IWRMreformsandinvestments

32




1.2.1Byendoftheproject,numberofdiagnosticanalysesconductedforprioritycoastalareas

1.2.1ChoiceofsitesforGEFandotherdonorinvestmentinnaturalresourceandenvironmentalmanagementdoesnotadequatelyrepresenttherangeofbiological,environmentalandsocio-economicconditionsinPICs

1.2.114diagnosticanalysisforICM/IWRMandCCAinvestmentsconductedtoinformpriorityareasforscaling-upineachof14participatingPICs

PIR:Ontrack


IDADraftReportwrittenforCookIslands,PNGandPalau.

PreliminaryIDAworkshopsheldinSamoa,CookIslands,FSM

Conceptnotefordiagnosticanalysisprocedure

RFPforcontractortodevelop/deliverdiagnosticanalysis(closes4Jan)

NeedIDAReports

MU OnlyalimitednumberofsomeIDAshavebeendone.Theonlywaytocompleteall14byprojectendwouldnowbetoengageRPCUstaffand/orconsultantstocompletethemwhichunderminescapacitybuilding.

1.2.2NumberandqualityofICM-IWRMinvestmentsincorporatingbaselineenvironmentalstateandsocio-culturalinformationfortheprioritizationofinvestmentsites

1.2.2LackofascientificallysoundandobjectiveprocedurefortheselectionoflocationsforinvestmentinintegratednaturalresourceandenvironmentalmanagementinPICs

1.2.2Upto14ICM-IWRMinvestmentsutilizingmethodologyandproceduresforcharacterizingislandcoastalareasforICMinvestmentdevelopedbytheproject

PIR:Offtrack.

Self-Assessment:NA

Delay.Nonewprogresssincelastreport.

TORforGeospatialscientist

Draftmethodologyforprioritizingandcharacterizingcoastalareas

DatacollectionfromVanuatutotrialmethodology

MU Someprogressismadeindevelopingalistofindicatorsbutthelistissub-optimalforpurpose(seenarrative).Methodologyindevelopmentandtestingbutunlikely14canbecompletedbyprojectend.

33




Outcome1.3Multi-stakeholderleaderroundtablenetworksestablishedforstrengthened‘communitytocabinet’ICM/IWRM

1.3.1Numberoflocalleadersandlocalgovernmentsengagement/participatinginmulti-stakeholderleaderroundtablenetworks

1.3.1Limitedengagementofcommunity-basedgovernancemechanismsinnationalpolicyandplanning

1.3.1Institutionalrelationshipsbetweennationalandcommunity-basedgovernancestructuresstrengthenedandformalizedthroughnational“RidgetoReef”Inter-MinistryCommitteesin14PacificSIDS

PIR:Offtrack.


RoundinguptheseriesofinceptionworkshopsaretheonesinTonga,FSM,Kiribati&RMIheldduringthefirsthalfof2018.RepresentativesfromthevarioussectorsattendedtheworkshopsledbythePICs’implementingagency.

TheIMCsdiscussR2Rtopicsservingasaninterimmulti-stakeholderleaderroundtablenetwork.

CollationofallICMmember–collectionofminutesofmeetingsheld(newlyformedIMC–SolIs)

MU Representativesfromsectorsattendingprojectinceptionworkshopsdoesnotqualifyassubstantialorsustainableengagement.

MostPICShavenotestablished"IMCs"asintendedintheProDoc.CookIslands,VanuatuandPNGhavePSCsspecifictoIWR2RandnojointPSCwithSTARandnoIMC,Fiji,Niue,RMI,TongaandTuvaluhaveaIWR2RPSCsharingfunctionswiththeSTARPSCbutnoclearlyidentifiedIMC;PalauandSamoahaveanIMCthatalsofunctionsasthePSCforIWR2RandSTAR;onlyFSMandSolomonIslandshavebothaPSCandanIMC.NauruplansajointPSC.NodataforKiribati.

FurtherdetailsinthetextSection4.3.1(managementarrangements)

InitsM&E-theRPCUismixingupPSCsandIMCsinitsassessment(seenarrativeinSection4.3.1).

1.3.2NumberofforumsheldtodiscussopportunitiesforgreementsonprivatesectoranddonorparticipationinPICsustainable

1.3.2Lowlevelmobilizationoftheprivatesectorinenvironmental

1.3.2Upto14newnationalprivate-sectoranddonorpartnershipforums

PIR:Offtrack/delay.

Self-Assessment:Delay.Nonewprogresssincelastreport.

U Thereislimitedevidenceofengagementwiththeprivatesectorthathasbeeninitiatedbytheproject

34




development investmentandplanninginPICs

forinvestmentplanninginprioritycommunity-based

ICM/IWRMactions

MuriLagoonActionGroupengagedwithCookIslands,membershipincludesTourismoperatorsofMuri

(exceptinclusionofsomeprivatesectorsindemositesinalimitednumberofPICs–CookIs,SolomonIsandPalau)

Noevidenceofprivatesectorinvestmentstimulatedbytheproject.

Component2Island-basedInvestmentsinHumanCapitalandKnowledgetoStrengthenNationalandLocalCapacitiesforRidgetoReefICM/IWRM

approaches,incorporatingCCadaptation

Outcome2.1NationalandlocalcapacityforICMandIWRMimplementationbuilttoenablebestpracticeinintegratedland,water,forestandcoastal

managementandCCadaptation

2.1.1NumberofPICbasedpersonnelwithpost-graduatetraininginR2Rmanagement.*Datawillbegenderdisaggregated

2.1.1ZeroR2RpostgraduatetrainingcoursesavailablespecifictothePacificRegion.

2.1.1Atleast10peoplewithpostgraduatetraininginR2Rmanagement.*Atleast5peoplewillbewomenAtleast3innovativepost-graduatetrainingprogramsforthePacificRegioninICM/IWRMandrelatedCCadaptationdeliveredforprojectmanagersandparticipatingstakeholdersthroughpartnershipofinternationallyrecognizededucationalinstitutesandtechnicalsupportandmentoringprogrammewithresultsdocumented

PIR:Ontrack


OngoingimplementationofthePostGraduateCertificateinR2RSustainableDevelopmentwithJamesCookUniversity(JCU),with51enroleesoncourseonecosystemdynamicsand44enroleesincoursesonProjectManagementandtoolsforR2R.Overall,52%ofenroleeswerewomen.

Complaintsreceivedfromstudentsespeciallyreprogrammemanagementcourse(responsefromJCUhardlyreceived)

S DuepartlytoanincreasedbudgetallocationfromUNDP,thetargetbyproject-endhasnowbeenexceededintermsofnumbersofpeople.Furthercoursedeliveryisexpectedtobeontarget.

35




2.1.2Numberofcommunitystakeholders(i.e.catchmentmanagementcommittees,CSOs,etc)engagedinR2RplanningandCCadaptationactivities

2.1.2LimitednationalandlocalcapacityforICMandIWRMimplementationconstrainsachievementofbestpracticeinintegratedmanagementinPICs

2.1.2Atleast14communitystakeholdergroups(ie.Catchmentmanagementcommittees,CSOs,etc)engagedinR2RplanningandCCadaptationactivities.*Numberoftrainings(includingtrainingonintegratinggenderintocommunitylevelR2RandCCplanningandimplementation)conductedtobuildcapacityforcivilsocietyandcommunityorganizationparticipatinginICM/IWRMandCCadaptationstrengthenedthroughdirectinvolvementinimplementationofdemoactivitieswithresultsdocumented

PIR:OntrackSelf-Assessment:Ontrack.

Nonewupdateonthisindicator

S

Outcome2.2Incentivestructuresforretentionoflocal‘RidgetoReef’expertiseandinter-governmentaldialogueonhumanresourceneedsforICM/IWRM

initiated

2.2.1NumberofR2Rpersonnelforwhichfunctionalcompetenciesarebenchmarked,trackedandanalyzedNumberofstudiescompletedidentifyingthenationalhumancapacityneedsforR2R(ICM/IWRM)implementationandbenchmarking/trackingcompetenciesofnationalandlocalgovernmentunitsforR2RimplementationNumberofcapacity

2.2.1RequiredfunctionalcompetenciesofnationalandlocalpersonnelforenvironmentandnaturalresourcemanagementinPICcontextsundefinedanduntracked

2.2.1Upto14R2Rpersonnelidentified,withfunctionalcompetenciesarebenchmarked,trackedandanalysedAtleastonestudycompletedidentifyingnationalhumancapacityneedsforR2R(ICM/IWRM)

PIR:Offtrack

Self-Assessment:Delay.

Ofthe44currentlyenrolledintheJCUPGC,15areR2Rprojectpersonnel,while29numberareemployeesofthegov’t.agencywiththetasksofmanaging&implementingprograms&projects.

MU ReportsofcumulativeprogressrefertotheJCUcoursepersonnelthatisnotclearlyrelatedtotheindicatorortargetwhichreferstopersonnelidentified,competenciestrackedbenchmarkedandanalysedandstudiesproduced..

36




buildingsupportsecuredwithresultsdocumented.

implementationandbenchmarking/trackingcompetenciesofnationalandlocalgovernmentunitsforR2Rimplementation.Basedonthestudy,atleast14capacitybuildingsupportprovidedwithresultsdocumented.

Limitedprogress.

Theterminologyandintentofthisactivity/indicator/targetisindeedambiguousinthatitisnotcleariftheprimaryintentionhereistoassess/track/benchmarkactualcapacityneedsortotrainstaff.TheMTRhasfavouredtheformerinterpretationbasedonthestatedbaselinecondition.

2.2.2Numberofrecommendationsonpractitionerretentioninternalizedatnationalandlocalgovernmentlevels

2.2.2Retentionofskilledandexperiencedpractitionersinenvironmentandnaturalresourcemanagementlow,particularlyinprojectbasedinvestments,includinglimiteddialogueonhumancapacityneedsforcross-sectoral

2.2.2Atleast1regionalreportwithrecommendationsforR2Rpractitionerretentionatnationalandlocalgovernmentlevelscompleted.ThereportwillanalyseexistingPublicServiceCommissionsalaryscalesandrequiredfunctionalcompetenciesofkeyR2R(ICM/IWRM)personnel;appropriateguidelinesandincentivestructuresforretentionoflocalR2Rexpertiseproposed.

PIR:NA


Nonewupdateonthisindicatorsincelastreport.

Recruitmentofconsultantthatwilldothecompetencystudy–NOTRFPBECAUSENORPCTOMAKETHEDECISION

MU Noevidenceof"ontrack"-noprogresstowardstarget.

Component3MainstreamingofRidgetoReefICM/IWRMApproachesintoNationalDevelopmentFrameworks

Outcome3.1NationalandregionalstrategicactionframeworksforICM/IWRMendorsednationallyandregionally

3.1.1Numberofsectoralgovernanceframeworkharmonised

3.1.1Constrainedandinadequatesectoral

3.1.1Nationalrecommendationsfor

PIR: MU Noprogressoractivityis

37




andstrengthenedthroughnationalandregionaldevelopmentframeworks

planningandinvestmentofnaturalandsocialsystemsinPICs

14PICsforcoastalpolicy,legalandbudgetaryreformsforICM/IWRMforintegrationofland,water,forest,coastalmanagementandCCadaptationcompiledanddocumentedwithoptionsforharmonizationofgovernanceframeworks

Self-assessment:Ontrack.

Nonewupdateonthisindicatorsincelastreport.

Compilationofexistingnationalpolicy,legislationfor14PICstobecatalogued.

Noactivity.Nonewupdateonthisindicatorsincelastreport.

RegionaldatabaseindevelopmentwithGeo-InformaticsunitasSPCGEM

“Nothing”

SciencetoPolicyInterfaceFactsheets

evident.

3.1.2Inter-ministerialagreementsandstrategicactionframeworkfor14PICsdevelopedandsubmittedforendorsementonintegrationofland,water,forestandcoastalmanagementandcapacitybuildingindevelopmentofnationalICM/IWRMreformsandinvestmentplans

3.1.2LackofnationalandregionalpolicyandplanstosupportthemainstreamingofR2Rapproachesindevelopmentplanning

3.1.2Agreementsandstrategicactionframeworksforthe14PICsendorsedbyleaders

PIR:Offtrack


Awaitingtheresultsofassessments(i.e.IDAandRapCA)

Draftmethodologydevelopedforconsultationwithnationalleadersandstakeholders.

Offtrack.

Awaitingtheresultsofassessments(i.e.IDAandRapCA)

U Giventhestatedlengthoftimetodeveloptheframeworksanddelaysinproductionofsupportinginformation(e.g.IDAs,SoC)thetargetwillnotbemetwithinthetimeline.

38




3.1.3Numberofdemonstrableuseofnational‘StateoftheCoasts’or‘StateoftheIslands’reportsinnationalandregionalactionplanningforR2Rinvestment

applicationofevidence-basedapproachesinPICsnationaldevelopmentplanningintheareasof:freshwateruseandsanitation;wastewatertreatmentandpollutioncontrol;landuseandforestrypractices;balancingcoastallivelihoodsandbiodiversityconservation;hazardriskreduction;andclimatevariabilityandchange

3.1.3National‘StateoftheCoasts’or‘StateoftheIslands’reportsfor14PICscompletedandlaunchedtoPacificLeadersduringNationalCoastalSummits(Yr3)incoordinationwithnationalR2Rprojectsanddemonstratedasnationaldevelopmentplanningtool,includingguidelinesfordiagnosticanalysesofcoastal

PIR:Offtrack

Self-Assessment:Delay.Nonewupdateofthisindicator.AwaitingtheresultsofIDAandRapCA,whichareinputsfortheSoC/SoI.

RFPforcontractortodevelop/deliverSoCReportsfor4countries–inprocurementprocess

U IDAs,SoCsarewellbehindscheduleandhavenotbeenfinishedonschedulemeaningthattheirdemonstrateduse/impactisextremelyunlikelybyprojectend.

39




areas

Outcome3.2CoordinatedapproachesforR2Rintegratedland,water,forestandcoastalmanagementandCCadaptationachievedin14PICs

3.2.1NumberofnetworksofnationalR2Rpilotprojectinter-ministerialcommitteesformedandlinkedtoexistingnationalIWRMcommittees

3.2.1NationalIWRMtaskforcesandlocalcoordinatingcommitteesin12countriesandaneedexistsforstrengthenedcoordinationofIWRMplanimplementationwithinbroaderR2Rframeworks

3.2.1Upto14nationalnetworksofR2R(ICM/IWRM)nationalpilotprojectinterministrycommitteesformedbybuildingonexistingIWRMcommitteesandcontributingtoacommonresultsframeworkattheprojectandprogrammelevels

PIR:Ontrack


ExceptKiribati,13PICshavetheirIMCestablishedandfunctional.

HighlightedinthisreportisthatbothSTARandIWhaveJointIMCsinthe7PICsnamely:Cook,FSM,Fiji,RMI,Samoa,Palau&Tuvalu

U TheMTRnotesthatIMCsaredifferenttoPSCs-theRPCUisbasingprogressonPSCs.MostPICshavenotestablishedIMCsasaresultoftheproject(butparallelinstitutionsexist).

Thereislimitedevidenceon"national"IWRMcommittees(therearesomelocal/catchmentones).

Thereisnoknown/demonstrated"network"(initiatedbytheproject)currentlyfunctionalforR2Rstrengtheningandnoknown"broaderR2Rframeworks"establishedbytheprojectexceptinPalau(butparallelframeworksdoexist).

Seenarrativeforfurtherexplanation.

3.2.2Numberofpeopleparticipatingininter-ministrycommittee(IMC)meetingsconductedincludingscopeanduptakeofjointmanagementandplanningdecisions*Participationdatatobedisaggregatedbygender

3.2.2LimitednumberandvarietyofstakeholdersparticipatinginnationalcoordinatingbodiestoensurecommunitytoCabinet

3.2.2ThenumberandvarietyofstakeholdersparticipatinginperiodicIMCmeetingsin14PICSaredoubled,with

PIR:Ontrack.


Asmentionedin3.2.1,onlyKiribatistillneededtoestablishitsIMC.Contrarytowhathasbeenstatedintheindicator,theprojectshalladvocateforafunctionalIMC

U Seeabovecommentson"IMCs"

40




planningofinvestmentinsustainabledevelopmentofPICs

meetingresultsdocumented,participationdataassembledandreportedtonationaldecision-makersandregionalforums*50%ofparticipantswillbewomen,youth,and/orfromvulnerablegroups

withmulti-sectoralandmulti-disciplinarymembershipincludingrepresentativesfromLGUs,community-basedorganizations,NGOs,privatesector,etc.

3.2.3Numberofnetworksestablishedbetweencommunityleadersandlocalgovernmentfrompilotprojects

3.2.3Limitedexchangebetweencommunitiesonbestpracticesinenvironmentandnaturalresourcemanagement

3.2.3Communityleadersandlocalgovernmentcreateatleast14networksvianationalandregionalround-tablemeetingscomplementedbycommunitytechexchangevisits

PIR:Offtrack.


Theplannedcommunitytechexchangevisitsdidnotmaterialize.Nofurtherupdateforthisindicatorsincelastreport.

Theplannedcommunitytechexchangevisitsdidnotmaterialize.Uponfurtherinvestigation,itwasn’tfeasibleastherewasnofunctionalpiggeryinRMIbutalternativetechnicalvisitsareplanned.

MU Sofarthereislimitedevidenceof"networks"beingestablished.

3.2.4Numberofinter-ministrycommitteemembersmeetingwithinthe4pilotPICsthatisengagedinlearningandchangeinperceptionthroughparticipatorytechniques*Participationdatatobedisaggregatedbygender

3.2.4Limitedlearningoneffectivenessofinvestmentsincountry-drivenapproachestodevelopmentassistanceinPICs

3.2.4Atleast20ICMmemberstotalfromthe4pilotPICs(sub-regional,mixofhighisland,atollsettings)gaugeinlearning,leadingtochangeinperceptionthroughparticipatorytechniques.

*50%ofparticipantswillbewomen,youth,and/orfromvulnerablegroups

PIR:Ontrack.Ontrack.


Aone-dayMSC(MostSignificantChange)TechniquetrainingwasheldinTongawith18participantsfromSTARandIWprojects.

DuringtheclustermeetingsinNovemberandDecember2017,andtherecruitmentofthenewprojectmanagers,theMSCtechniquewasagainpresented.Duringthesemeetings,fourcountriesvolunteeredtoapplytheMSCtechniquenationally(CookIslands,Palau,Samoa,Vanuatu).

MU Seeearliercommentson"IMCs"andfurtherdiscussiononIMCsinSection4.3.

AlthoughMSCtraininghasoccurred-althoughnotnecessarilywithmembersofIMCs-thereisnoevidencethatthishasledto"changeinperceptionthroughparticipatory

41




Thisindicatorbefullyreportedattheendoftheproject.

techniques".

Component4RegionalandNational‘RidgetoReef’IndicatorsforReporting,Monitoring,AdaptiveManagementandKnowledgeManagement

Outcome4.1Nationalandregionalformulationandadoptionofintegratedandsimplifiedresultsframeworksforintegratedmulti-focalprojects

4.1.1NumberandqualityofnationalandregionalindicatorsetwiththeproposedtargetsandoutcomesoftheR2Rprogramme

4.1.1CallsfromPacificleadersforstrengthenedemphasisonresultsintheplanningandfinancingofdevelopmentinPICs

4.1.11simpleandintegratednationalandregionalreportingtemplatesdevelopedbasedonnationalindicatorsetsandregionalframeworktofacilitateannualresultsreportingandmonitoringfrom14PICs

PIR:Ontrack.


CCMEArecruitedinNovember2017.Variousplanningandreportingtemplatesweredeveloped(suchastheAnnualProgressReporting,Mid-TermReport,andResults-OrientedPlanningTool(multi-yearcostedworkplan).

ParticipationatSustainableDevelopmentGoals(SDG)ForumandVoluntaryNationalReport(VNR)workshopinTanoa,Nadi.

MS Thisisoneareawheretheprojecthasmadeprogress-sincetherecruitmentoftheCCMEA.TheMTRteamhasreviewedadraftofanearlystageintegratedandsimplifiedresultsframeworkforintegratedmulti-focalprojects.

4.1.2LevelofacceptanceoftheharmonizedresultstrackingapproachbytheGEF,itsagenciesandparticipatingcountries

4.1.2LackofresultstrackingandreportingapproachtestedviaGEFPacIWRMproject,includingtrainingofacadreofnationalWatSansectorstaff

4.1.21unified/harmonizedmulti-focalarearesultstrackingapproachandanalyticaltooldeveloped,endorsed,andproposedtotheGEF,itsagenciesandparticipatingcountries

PIR:Ontrack.

Self-Assessment:OnTrack

Withthefocusof-harmonizingresultsreportingalongtheGEFFocalAreas,asimpleHarmonizedResultsReporting(HRR)templateandcorrespondingguidancedocumentwasprepared,andwillbepresentedtotheRSTCandtheRSC3.HRRFactsheetandtemplate.

AdvocacyIWC9;SAMOAPathway

MS

42




NeedfollowupfromRPCUandUNDP

4.1.3NumberofNationalplanningexercisesin14PacSIDSconductedwithparticipantsfromrelevantministrieswithamandatetoembeddingR2Rresultsframeworksintonationalsystemsforreporting,monitoringandbudgeting

4.1.3AnincreasinglylargemyriadofnationallevelreportingrequirementsfornaturalresourceandenvironmentagenciesconstrainsthetimelyandaccuratereportingofresultsofdevelopmentassistanceinPICs

4.1.3Upto14nationalplanningexercisesin14PacSIDSconductedwithparticipantsfromrelevantministrieswithamandatetoembedR2Rresultsframeworksintonationalsystemsforreporting,monitoringandbudgeting

PIR:Ontrack.

Self-Assessment:Ontrack

RequestfromUNDPSTARprojectsfororientationand/ortrainingonResultsBasedManagementwassupported.Theimportanceoflinkingplanning-monitoringandreportingresultswerehighlightedduringtheorientation/trainingsessions.

MS

Outcome4.2NationalandregionalplatformsformanaginginformationandsharingofbestpracticesandlessonslearnedinR2Restablished

4.2.1Regionalcommunicationsstrategydevelopedandnumberofpartnershipwithmediaandeducationalorganizations

4.2.1Absenceofpublic-privatepartnershipinsupportofcommunicatingbenefitsofIWRMinitiatedviaGEFPacIWRMproject

4.2.1Regional‘ridgetoreef’communicationsstrategydevelopedandimplementedandassistanceprovidedtonationalR2Rprojectincludingatleast10partnershipswithnationalandregionalmediaandeducationalorganizations

PIR:Ontrack.


ThecommunicationstrategyandguidetodevelopingnationalcommunicationsplanssupportsbothSTARandIWprojectsindesigning/formulatingtheirrespectivecommunicationplansandimplementation.

ProjectManagerTrainingSocialMediaRSC3

MS

4.2.2NumberofIW:LEARNexperiencenotespublished

4.2.2LimitedregionalandglobalsharingofinformationonbestpracticeandlessonslearnedfromtheGEFPacificAlliancefor

4.2.2ParticipationinIW:LEARNactivities:conferences;preparationofatleast10experiencenotesandinter-linkedwebsiteswith

PIR:Ontrack.

Self-Assessment:

ParticipatedintheIWLearneventsthatwereheldinCapeTown(Nov-Dec.2017)andinBangkok(April-May2018).

MS

43




Sustainability combinedallocationof1%ofGEFgrant

Atleast3experiencenotespublishedbyIWC2018.

IWC9

SAMOAPathway

RPCUparticipatedinIWLearnandIWC

4.2.3Numberofusers,volumeofcontentaccessed,andonlinevisibilityofthe‘PacificR2RNetwork’

4.2.3Needformediaplatformsandtargetedcommunicationsinsupportofeffortstoharnesssupportforinter-ministerialcoordinationandpolicyandplanningelementsoftheR2Rprogramme

4.2.3PacificR2RNetworkestablishedwithatleast100usersregistered,onlineregionalandnationalportalscontainingamongothers,databases,rostersofnationalandregionalexpertsandpractitionersonR2R,registerofnationalandregionalprojects,repositoryforbestpracticeR2Rtechnologies,lessonslearnedetc.

PIR:Ontrack.


TheR2RWebsitethatwaspreviouslyestablishedisundergoingenhancementtoensureitsoptimumfunctionality.NegotiationisongoingwithaserviceproviderandaproposalsubmittedtoRPCUinOctober2017.

RFPWebsite/associateddatabases

IncludedheretheweblinktothecurrentwebsiteandR2RNetwork.

https://pacific-r2r.org/

MS

Component5Ridge-to-ReefRegionalandNationalCoordination

Outcome5.1EffectiveprogrammecoordinationofnationalandregionalR2Rprojects

5.1.1programmecoordinationunitrecruitedandstaffretained

5.1.1Nocoordinationunitandfulltimepersonnelestablished

overallR2Rprogrammecoordinationunitwithalignmentofdevelopment

PIR:Offtrack.

Self-Assessment:delay

TheprojectsufferedseveralsetbackswiththeresignationoftheRegionalProgrammeCoordinator.CKMAwasOfficer-in-ChargeofRegionalProjectandRPCUwithnorelieverfortheCKMAfunctionasitwasuncertainofthereturnoftheRPC

HU Althoughtheprojectnowhasafullstaffcomplement,thehistoryofrecruitmentofRPCUstaffandcateringforperiodsofvacanciesinkeypositionsishighlyunsatisfactory.

44




workerpositionscontributingtocoordinatedeffortamongnationalR2Rprojects(Year1)

CCMEAwashiredinNov.2017.

AconsultantwasalsocommissionedtoactasinterimPSL.

SinceMay2018,theDirectorofGEM-SPCactedastheinterimRegionalProgrammeCoordinator.

RegionalProgrammeCoordinatorandScienceandnationalprojectleadernowinplacesinceFebruary2019

5.1.2Numberofrequestsforregionallevelsupporttonationalprojectdeliveryandmanagementmetbyprogrammecoordinationunit

5.1.2Limitednationallevelexperienceandcapacityindeliveryoflargeintegratednaturalresourceandenvironmentprojectsandprograms

5.1.2Technical,operational,reportingandmonitoringUnitisoperationaltoprovidesupporttonationalR2Rprojects,asmayberequestedbyPICs,tofacilitatetimelydeliveryofoverallprogrammegoals.Atleast14requestsperyeararemeteffectively.

PIR:Ontrack.


RPCUprovidedtechnicalandmanagementsupporttothe12PICsinreviewingtheirquarterlyandannualplansandprogressreports.

MU Theprojecthasrespondedtosomerequestsforsupport-butmainlyfromnationalIWR2Rdemoprojects.ThereislimitedsupporttoSTARprojects-otherthantrainingonM&EandRBMonanad-hocbasisandminorjointsupportbetweenIWandSTARatnationallevel(e.g.waterqualityassessmentinTuvalu).ButingeneraltheRPCUhasnotsupportedSTARprojects-althoughthisisknowntobelargelyduetoabsenceofrequestsfromSTARprojects.ThereareanumberofexamplesofwhereSTARprojectshavedeliberatelyside-steppedtheRPCUwhenseekingtechnicalsupport.

5.1.3NumberofR2Rstafftrainedresultingineffectiveresultsreportingandonlineinformationsharing

5.1.3Low-levelfamiliaritywithGEFminimumstandardsforresults-basedmanagement,monitoringand

5.1.3Atleast14R2Rstaffaretrained(inharmonizedreportingandmonitoringandotherregionalandnationalandcapacity

PIR:Ontrack.


Asmentionedin4.1.3,RBMtrainingconductedforbothSTARandIWhighlightingtheimportanceoflinking

MS

45




evaluation,andfinancialandprogressreportingrequirementsofGEFanditsimplementingagencies

buildingmodules,amongothers)resultingineffectiveresultsreportingandonlineinformationsharing.

planning-implementation-monitoringandreporting.

PreRPCandfollowupthroughcountryvisits:

-SI

-Nauru

-Samoa

-FSM

-RMI

-Palau

-Fiji

5.1.4Volumeandqualityofinformationanddatacontributedbyprogrammestakeholderstoonlinerepositories

5.1.4ExistingGEFIWRMinteractivewebsitewithacadreofnationalprojectstakeholderstrainedinitsoperation

5.1.4Atleast4qualityinformationand/ordatacontributed/updatedperyear(totalofatlast16throughouttheproject)totheonlinerepository,asaresultofsupportprovidedtoPICsforthedevelopmentandoperationofthePacificR2RNetworkandregionalwithnationalR2Rwebpagesasarepositoryofinformation,documentationandforsharingbestpractices

PIR:Ontrack.

SelfAssessment:Ontrack

Consolidationofavailableprogrammeinformationandcommunicationsproductsintothewebsiteconducted.

ContinuingenvironmentalmanagementdatabasesystemwithconsultantledworkshopinFebruaryandongoingwithSPC.

MS

5.1.5Numberofplanningandcoordinationworkshopsconductedfornationalprojectsteamstoensuretimelinessandcost-

5.1.5Limitedsub-regionalandregionalcoordinationandplanningworkshops

5.1.5Atleast4(1peryear)planningandcoordinationworkshopsconducted

PIR:Ontrack.

Self-Assessment:

U Despiteactivitiestosupport"coordination"(aslisted)-theMTRnotesthatthecriterionforsuccessof

46




effectivenessofIWpilotprojectandSTARprojectcoordination,deliveryandreporting

conductedinassociationwithintergovernmentalmeetingsforcostefficiencypurposes

fornationalprojectteamsinthePacificR2Rnetwork

FurthertotheusualtechnicalandmanagementbackstoppingsupporttothePICs,theRPCUalsoheldclustermeetingsinNovemberandDecember2017,aimedtosupporttheprojectmanagersintheirrespectivetasks.

RPCUstaffprovidestechnicalsupporttoUNDPprojects(STARprojectmanagersandcoordinators)byactingasresourcepersoninplanningandmanagementmeetings,orientation,andworkshops.

TobeplannedandcarriedoutafterMTR(preRSC)

CommssupportandtrainingforPMs

RSC3

thisis"toensuretimelinessandcost-effectivenessofIWpilotprojectandSTARprojectcoordination,deliveryandreporting".TheMTRconcludesthatby-and-largethereisnowanalmostcompleteseparationbetweenSTARprojects,IWdemoprojectsandseriousabsenceof"coordination"bytheproject.Seenarrativeforfurtherdiscussiononthispoint.

Markedasredandunsatisfactorytoflagthisasaproblemareafortheproject.

1

47

ThefollowingisasummaryoftheMTRfindingsbycomponent,outcomeandtarget,1asappropriate:2

Component1:NationalDemonstrationstoSupportR2RICM/IWRMApproaches3forIslandResilienceandSustainability4

Outcome 1.1 Successful pilot projects testing innovative solutions involving linking5ICM, IWRM and climate change adaptation [linked to national STAR projects via6largerPacificR2Rnetwork]7

Thereintendedtobe14nationaldemonstrationprojects,oneineachPIC.Progress8amongthesevariessignificantly.InformationonKiribatiiscurrentlymissing.Some9havealmostcompleted(e.g.Palau,Tuvalu),othershaveonlyjuststarted(e.g.Fiji),10and in others implementation picked up only in 2018. Further details on11milestones, timelines and reasons for delays are presented in Section 4.3.112(Management Arrangements), below. Only Samoa, Vanuatu and Niue are13progressing with their original national project LogFrame. In all other cases the14activities and targets of LogFrames of national projects have been adjusted from15theiroriginalsintheProjectDocument.Thiswasusuallydoneinthelightofeither16changeincircumstancessinceprojectdesign,localpracticalrealitiesand/oraftera17re-assessment of national priorities and/or institutional mandates. However, all18remain consistentwith the project's intended outcomes and objectives. TheMTR19team supports such adjustments as a good example of adaptive management.20However,itremainsuncleartotheMTRwhichrevisednationalprojectLogFrames21wereapprovedbythenationalPSCsandRSC,andwhichnot.22

Recommendation 1: The RPCU, together with National Project23Managers, should review and update all current national project24LogFramesandensure that, ifnotalreadydoneso,each isapprovedat25thenextnationalPSCandRSCmeetings.26

(TheMTR team considers such approval should be a formality and the objective27hereisnottodelayanyactivitiesbuttoensurethattheprojectterminalevaluation28assesses the national projects against approved revised LogFrames, not the29originals,whereappropriate).30

Insomecases,thereisevidencethatIWR2Rnationaldemonstrationprojectshave31stimulated broader R2R thinking. Although the extent to which this can be32attributed to the current project or the previous IWRMproject can be difficult to33determine, thecontinuationofefforts tomainstreamR2Rapproaches isapositive34outcomeandcontinuingneed.35

Twelve PICS have produced and/or are finalising and/or implementing plans for36their respective demonstration projects that test methods for catalyzing local37community action, utilizing and providing best practice examples (etc.) as per38Target1.1.2.Fijihasonly juststarteditsnationaldemonstrationprojectandthere39are no data forKiribati.Most of the demonstration projects involve planning and40promotinglocalandcommunity-basedintegratedresourcesmanagementactivities.41Mostareatanearlystageduetodelaysinprojectstart-up(seeSection4.3.1)andit42

48

is too early to expect that they will have a measurable impact on actual stress1reduction and/or contribute to measurable improvements in environmental2condition. It is, therefore, premature to assess progress towards the quantified3stress reduction (or outcome) targets/indicators as per target 1.1.2. The4Targets/indicatorsin1.1.2alsoneedtoberevisedinthelightofchangestonational5LogFrames (see Annex 6). Nevertheless,many PICS (including Cook Islands, FSM,6Nauru, Niue, PNG, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga and Vanuatu) have started7implementing some direct stress reduction measures at their sites that include8habitat restoration, re-vegetation for coastal protection or water quality9improvement,wetlandhabitatmanagement and/or improvedwastemanagement.10National demonstrations in Palaumainly support planning andmanagementwith11limiteddirectstressreductionactivitiesundertakendirectlybytheprojectitself.In12Tuvalustressreductionmeasureshavebeendemonstrated(re.drylitterpiggeries)13but it is still too early to assess actual implementation of the measures by14communities.Again,evenfortheactualimplementedstressreductionmeasuresitis15too early to evaluate if they are impacting environmental conditions as per the16Target/indicator1.1.2.17

A significant weakness of the demonstration projects is that most rely on18"demonstrating", or "testing" R2R approaches, but the critical test of success is19uptakeorbroaderadoptionoftheapproach.Forexample,inTuvalu,the"drylitter"20approach to pig manure management is a highly logical solution to reducing21stressorsonwaterqualityandhas thesignificantbenefitof closingnutrient loops22throughusing thewaste to support family farming,which also has the significant23advantage of improving food security, livelihoods and the island economy. The24TuvaluIWR2Rnationalprojecthasdoneagoodjobindemonstratingthefeasibility25ofthisapproachbutsofarthereislimitedevidenceofcommunityuptake,without26which it will be difficult to justify significant investment in up-scaling. In its27remainingtimetheprojectwillbefocussingonthispoint.Asimilarobservationcan28be made for many of the national demonstrations of improved catchment29management where various community and local/national level structures and30processeshavebeen, or arebeing, establishedbut so far there is no evidence yet31that they are being effective in improving management outcomes in practice,32includingreducingstressors,northattheyaresustainable.33

There is clear evidence that the previous GEF IWRM Project (2009-2014) had34positive impacts. However, theMTR teamwas alerted to relevant experiences on35sustainabilityofitsdemonstrationprojects.Forexample,inTuvaluakeyoutputof36theIWRMprojectwastodemonstratetheuseof"dry"toilets("Ecosan")whichwas37followedbyinvestment(fromtheEuropeanCommission)inup-scalingEcosanto4038households.Butin2019onlytwoEcosantoiletsareknowntoremain.Similarly,in39Tonga, sustainability of Ecosan is questioned due to lack of consumer acceptance40(e.g., labour-intensiveness and inconvenience due to no easy access to leaves for41compost). In Vanuatu and Palau, the IWRM project successfully demonstrated42catchment management planning approaches and the established various43community and local/sub-national governance arrangements for the Sarakata44Catchment on Santo Island and the Airai State Watershed, respectively. In both45

49

cases, in 2019 practically nothing remains in either catchment (including IWRM1governancearrangements).However,inbothcasessomelessonswerelearnedfrom2the previous catchments and are now being implemented in new catchments by3theirIWR2RProjectnationaldemonstrationprojects.Vanuatucounterpartsmade4theusefulobservationthatprojectsshould"startwithaplan,notfinishwithone".5

SustainabilityofprojectbenefitsisacommonissuewithmostprojectsinthePICs.6TheMTRcertainlygottheimpressionthatsomeoftheoutcomesoftheGEFIWRM7Projectareindeedmoresustainablethanisthenorminthisregion.ButsincetheIW8R2R Project is a continuation of previous investments these experiences with9sustainabilitywithsomeoftheGEFIWRMProjectoutputspointtoopportunitiesfor10the IWR2RProject tobuildvery important lessons learnedon thebasisofanow11longertimehorizon.12

Such observations on sustainability also question the criteria of "success" of13demonstrationsofthecurrentIWR2Rproject.Itisreasonabletoexpectthatitwill14taketimeforR2Rapproachestodeliversustainableoutcomesandthattheneedfor15demonstrationsandprojectsupportwillcontinueintothefuture.Butitisnowover1610yearssincethe"R2R"approachwasfirstpromotedthroughGEFsupport(bythe17IWRM project in 2009) and it is reasonable to expect that after 10 years of18significant investments thereshouldbeaclearerpictureofuptake,up-scalingand19impact.ThecurrentprojectLogFrameandprojectstrategyruntheriskofrepeating20amistakemadebyIWRM:thatademonstrationaloneisnotameasureofsustained21impactorsuccess.Thispointreinforcestheconclusionalsomadeelsewherethata22criticallyimportantandvaluableoutputoftheprojectis“lessonslearned.”23

Recommendation2:TheRPCU,incollaborationwithnationalagencies,24should review the impact of previous IWRM, ICM and R2R (if any)25investments, and particularly the GEF IWRMProject, based on current26realities and with the objective of deriving further lessons learned,27particularlyregardingimpact,up-scalingandsustainability.28

SustainabilityoftheoutcomesoftheIWR2RProjectisdiscussedfurtherinSection294.4.30

The MTR has noted much progress in the IW R2R national demonstrations in31integratingbetterwithon-goingactivities/processesontheground.These include32integrating with local and national planning mechanisms, processes and33institutional arrangements as well as with other relevant projects. Palau34successfully brokered the membership of Airai State into the Belau Watershed35Alliance through an Airai State formal resolution. Vanuatu had its Tagabe River36Management Plan launched as a national document, but is looking for more37sustainablefinancingbyhavingitintegratedintoaregularpublicfinancing.Mostof38the countries have also initiated efforts in this direction and are exploring extant39opportunities for such integration. For example, several countries have started40aligningtheircoastal,catchmentandprotectedareaestablishmentandmanagement41planningwiththeprovisionsofnationallaw:PNGinthedeclarationofTunaBayas42anMPA,RMI in thepreparationof theLaura IntegratedCoastalManagementPlan43

50

through the Reimaanlok process supporting the country’s National Conservation1Area Plan; Samoa in having the Letongo Fagalii Catchment Management Plan2endorsedbytheCabinet,parliamentandHeadofState;SolomonIslandsinensuring3the Mataniko Catchment Management Plan supports the implementation of its4Conservation Act; Tuvalu is working on having its 8,000 head dry-litter piggery5projectincludedinitsnextNationalStrategyforSustainableDevelopmentfor20216onwards;FSMislookingatcomposingitsFreshwaterManagementPlanforKosrae7in collaboration with the Micronesian Red Cross – Kosrae Chapter and the8Community Water Resources Management Plan it’s implementing; Tonga is9planning to engagewith itsHealthDepartment for its Ecosan component and the10Coastal Division of its Natural Resources Department for its fishery refuge11component; Niue is exploring synergies/complementarities with related projects12such as the EU and GIZ Wastewater Project and, Cook Islands is exploring13mainstreaming relevant approaches into infrastructure permitting systems and14investments plans to build infrastructure resilience in the face of climate change.15However,thereremainfurtheropportunitiesandneedsforintegrationamongsome16oftheprojectsandPICs.17

Recommendation 3: Each national demonstration project should re-18evaluate its linkages to and relationships with other relevant projects19and activities at local and national level, and with local planning20mechanismsandinstitutionalarrangements,toensurethat itsactivities21and outputs are coherent with, and build upon and strengthen, these22otheractivitiesandgovernancesystems.23

MostNationalProjectManagers focusmainlyoncomponent1 (thedemonstration24projects)despite themhavinga role incomponents3,4and5 (asper theProject25Document and usually in their own terms of reference). This is discussed further26below.27

Therearesomeimportantobservationsregardinghowthenationaldemonstration28projectsare"linkedtonationalSTARprojectsvia largerPacificR2Rnetwork"that29are discussed further under component 5 (below) and in Section 4.3 on30coordination.31

Outcome 1.2 National diagnostic analyses for ICM conducted for prioritizing and32scaling-upkeyICM/IWRMreformsandinvestments33

ItremainsuncleartotheMTRteamwhythisoutcomeisincludedunderComponent341sinceallmodelsshowitinputsintoComponent3andassuchisdiscussedfurther35underthatComponent(below).36

Outcome 1.3 Multi-stakeholder leader roundtable networks established for37strengthened‘communitytocabinet’ICM/IWRM38

The national projects have had overall limited progress (so far) in establishing39multi-stakeholder leader roundtable networks for strengthening R2R. Current40mechanismsfor"communitytocabinetICM/IWRM"includeestablishinglocalsite-41level management committees and various forms of project steering committee42arrangements. Most of these centre on the implementation of the local43

51

demonstrationprojectsand it isunclearhowthey "network" through to "cabinet"1level. FormostPICs, there is currentlyno clearproject strategy fordelivering the2prescribed "network" (nor in factwhat that actuallymeans, or for engagement at3thehigherlevelsofnationalplanning,e.g.atMinistrylevel).4

In several components and outcomes, including this one, the establishment of5"inter-ministerial committees" (IMCs) is referred to. These are regarded as high6level structures/institutions, and not site-based local structures/institutions, and7notthesameasProjectSteeringCommittees.Thistopicisdiscussedfurtherunder8coordination (inter-ministerial committees) in Section 4.3.1, with9recommendations,thatprovidesmoredetailforindividualPICs.10

There isalso limitedevidenceofsubstantialengagement todiscuss"opportunities11foragreementsonprivatesectoranddonorparticipation"(indicator1.3.2)andno12clearorcomprehensiveprojectstrategytodeliverthisatpresent. TheMTRnotes13the efforts of some PICs, albeit still limited, to engage with the private sector at14demonstration site level (for exampleanelectricpower company inVanuatu, and15withthetourismsectorinPalau,CookIslands,andSolomonIslands).SomePICs(e.g16Cook Islands) note that the national project has neither the resources nor the17influencetoengageseriouslywiththeprivatesector,notingthattherearehowever18otherprocessesdoingthisthatcouldbeaccessed.Thistopicreferstotheobjective19of the project to mainstream R2R and is discussed further under Component 320(below).21

Component2Island-basedInvestmentsinHumanCapitalandKnowledgeto22StrengthenNationalandLocalCapacitiesforRidgetoReefICM/IWRM23approaches,incorporatingCCadaptation24

TheMTRnotes thatonlyoutcomes2.1and2.2(discussedbelow)are listed in the25LogFrame but that the main capacity building activities of the project arise, or26potentiallyarise, fromitsactivities("onthe job")undercomponents1,3,4and5.27ThiscouldbebetterreportedbytheprojectandlinkedtoComponent2.28

Outcome2.1Nationaland localcapacity for ICMandIWRMimplementationbuilt to29enablebestpracticeinintegratedland,water,forestandcoastalmanagementandCC30adaptation31

Post-graduate training (indicator 2.1.1) has progressed well through the custom32designedcoursesatJamesCookUniversity(JCU),Australia.Therewere51enrolees33in the course on ecosystem dynamics and 44 enrolees in courses on project34management and tools for R2R. Overall, 52% of enrolees were women. A fourth35courseongovernance ison-going.AllPICsof theGEFPacificR2RProgrammeare36represented in thiscourse.Cook Islandshassent themostnumberofparticipants37with8,whileSamoaonlyhas1enrolee;FSMandNiuehavesent5students;Tuvalu38has4;Fiji,Nauru,Palau,PNGandTongaeachhave3students;whileRMI,Solomon39andVanuatueachhas2.40

Those staff interviewed (Annex 1) that had undertaken or were currently41undertaking the courses expressed overall satisfactionwith the usefulness of the42

52

courses.Oneevenmentionedthataninitiativethatheintroducedinhisprojectsite1was a course output from JCU. A number remarked about having difficulties2balancing course requirements and actual project related-functions. This is3especially the case for late entrants. The poor internet connections in the islands4was also cited as amajor concern since theprogrammes areofferedonline.Most5participants commented that they especially appreciated themodule on practical6tools for R2R,with some reporting uptake of this knowledge already into project7implementation. In terms of course content. It was remarked that the project8management course was weak on adaptive management. The MTR team also9observe that the ecosystem dynamics course is very natural sciences based and10wouldbenefit frombetter inclusionofecosystemgoodsandservicesandbridging11naturalandsocialsciences.Alternatively,subjecttotimeandresourcesavailability12and PIC demand, there is opportunity to add a course on ecosystem goods and13servicesandrelatedeconomics.14

Outcome 2.2 Incentive structures for retention of local ‘Ridge to Reef’ expertise and15inter-governmentaldialogueonhumanresourceneedsforICM/IWRMinitiated16

Thisisaproblematicoutcomeintermsoforiginaldesign.Itiscertainlythecasethat17highstaff turnover isa seriousconstraint toprojectoutcomesustainabilityacross18thePICSingeneral,notjustregardingR2R.However,changingincentivestructures19tomitigatethisprobleminvolvesmajorgovernmentandsocietalchange,acrossthe20entiregovernmentsector.ItisunrealistictoexpectthattheIWR2Rprojectcanhave21a significant influence on this; although it can contribute to existing dialogues on22this topic where they arise. However, theMTR supports the activities under this23outcomerelatedto identifyingcapacitybuildingneeds forR2R(partlyundertaken24sofarbytheprojectregardingdesignoftheJamesCookUniversitycoursecontent25withmorestilltobedone).Consequently,theMTRhasmaderecommendationsto26changetheindicatorsandtargetsunderthisoutcomeinAnnex6.27

Component3MainstreamingofRidgetoReefICM/IWRMApproachesinto28NationalDevelopmentFrameworks29

Outcome 3.1 National and regional strategic action frameworks for ICM/IWRM30endorsednationallyandregionally;andOutcome3.2CoordinatedapproachesforR2R31integratedland,water,forestandcoastalmanagementandCCadaptationachievedin3214PICs33

Thereareanumberofdiscussiontopicspromptedbythiscomponentthatarecross-34cuttingoutcomes3.1and3.2andhaveabearingonotherprojectcomponentsand35outputs including: the Rapid Coastal Assessment (RapCA)/Island Diagnostic36Analysis(IDA)/StateoftheCoast(SoC)process;thescientific/technicalapproachof37the project to these and other outcomes; the status and role of "inter-ministerial38committees" (IMCs); and, community to cabinet (C2C) approaches. The latter two39(IMCs and C2C) are discussed further in section 4.3 (findings on Project40ImplementationandAdaptiveManagement).41

To guide assessment of project performance under this component (and related42components),andtoidentifywaystoimproveprojectdelivery,referenceismadeto43

53

the title of this component. This makes it clear that its purpose, against which1outcomes,outputsandactivitiesunderitshouldbeassessedandimplemented,isto2mainstreamR2R intoNationalDevelopment Frameworks. TheMTR concludes3that (as quoted just previously) this is a critical objective and contribution of the4project.5

Outcome 3.1 refers to developing and subsequently endorsing "National and6regional strategic action frameworks for ICM/IWRM".The subsequent indicators,7targetsandactivitiesremainopen to loose interpretationand the titleofoutcome83.1, might suggest that the project should develop "stand alone" strategic action9frameworks on R2R. The MTR does not know if this was the intention but does10concludethatthedevelopmentofa(separate)strategicactionframework"onR2R"11is inconsistent with an R2R approach (which requires integration across policies12andsectorsandnotthecreationofanindependentorparallelmechanism)andwith13the concept of mainstreaming R2R approaches into national development14frameworks (which, likewise, requires mainstreaming R2R into existing15frameworks, not creating new parallel frameworks). But the nature and inter-16relations of these frameworks varies among the PICs, as do needs to promote17"specific"R2Rframeworks.18

TheMTRconcludesthatthebaselineassumptionofoutcome3.1.2("Lackofnational19and regional policy and plans to support the mainstreaming of R2R approaches in20development planning application of evidence-based approaches in PICs national21development planning in the areas of: freshwater use and sanitation; wastewater22treatment and pollution control; land use and forestry practices; balancing coastal23livelihoods and biodiversity conservation; hazard risk reduction; and climate24variability and change") is incorrect. In fact, although terminology varies among25them, all the PICs havemultiple existing frameworks for considering all of these26topics (andmore). For example, all PICs have signed up to the 2030 Agenda for27Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals, or have28equivalent supportivenational agendas that steernational action, includingon all29the topics mentioned in 3.1.2. All countries have a "national sustainable30developmentplan"oritsequivalent.Allcountriesalsohaveanationaldisasterrisk31reductionplanandclimatechangeadaptationplan(oftencombined)andanational32biodiversity strategy and actionplan. Crucially,most of these are currentlyunder33revieworfurtherdevelopmentandmajor investmentsdecisionsarealreadybeing34madeorplanned.Asthisisself-evident,thisshouldhavebeennotedandaddressed35atprojectinception.36

The project is over-focussed at present on delivering strategic action frameworks37(indicator 3.1.1 and 3.1.2), or impacts on national development frameworks,38primarily through the route of undertaking the IDA/SoC process to underpin39nationalandregionalconsensusbuildingonR2R(indicator3.1.3).Thisisunlikelyto40work (see discussion on SoCs later) and results in more important immediate41opportunitiestomainstreamR2Rbeingmissed.42

54

It is crucial that the project activelymainstream R2R into these existing and on-1goingprocessesanddoessonow.Theprojectdoesnotappeartocurrentlyhavea2cleardeliverymechanismforthis.3

Recommendation4:TheRPCUincollaborationwithnationalagencies4should:(i)mapexistingnational(andregional)sustainabledevelopment5planning processes (including climate change adaptation and disaster6risk reductionandacrossall sectors)andrelatedcurrentactivities; (ii)7identify immediate, short- and medium-term opportunities for8mainstreaming R2R approaches into these frameworks; (iii) develop a9clearandcoherentapproachtodelivermainstreamingneeds intothese10frameworks, prioritising immediate opportunities based on existing11scientific/technicalknowledgeandpracticalexperience(withoutwaiting12for IDAs or SoCs); (iv) discourage activities that result in the13developmentofneworparallel "strategic frameworks forR2R"orR2R14planning mechanisms or frameworks, and instead build on existing15processes; and (v) consider how the intended functions of "inter-16ministerial committees" (asper theProjectDocument) fitwithexisting17planningandcoordinationprocessesandgovernancearrangementsand18identifymeasurestodeliverIMCfunctionsby,asfaraspossible,building19onexistinggovernancestructuresandprocessesandbuildingnewones20onlywhereclearlyneeded(seealsoSection4.3).21

[The latter point (v) is appended to this recommendation following22discussionofIMCsunderSection4.3].23

24

Interestingly, the lessons learned identified by the Tonga STAR project Terminal25Evaluation include:“Workingdirectlythroughexistinggovernmentstructuresbrings26dividends and that doing so has proved very successful not only in empowering27government by providing experience and training, but also in developing effective28government ‘ownership’, engagement, participation and motivation, thereby29promotinglong-termsustainabilityoftheproject’sachievements.”30

Theproject'sscientificandtechnicalapproach31

Referringtothetitleoftheproject,thepurposeoftestingtheIntegrationofWater,32Land,Forest&CoastalManagementistoPreserveEcosystemServices,StoreCarbon,33ImproveClimateResilienceandSustainLivelihoods; and technically the latter three34are ecosystem services, or services dependent. In addition, the goal of the Pacific35RidgetoReefProgramme(underwhichtheIWR2Rprojectsits)istomaintainand36enhancePacificIslandcountries’ecosystemgoodsandservices.Inaddition,underthe37project's risksandassumptions(ProjectDocument, section2.5,Tableonpage62)38"......appropriately valued [emphasis added] coastal environmental services39[emphasis added] supporting food security, tourism and blue carbon have the40potential to yield sustainable financing opportunities" is a response to the risk of41insufficient up-scaling of R2R investments. Therefore, ecosystem goods and42services(EGS)isalreadythetechnicalframeworkmandatedinprojectdesign.The43

55

currentprojectapproachis,however,almostwhollylackingattentiontoEGSandis1notfit-for-purposeforassessingEGS.2

The scientific and technical approach of the project is dominated by a natural3sciences-based approach and is very weak on socioeconomic-based criteria and4indicators. The focus is on the environment as the end point of assessments, not5people.Thiswillresultinsub-optimalinfluencesuponpolicythattendstorespond6to social and economic factors - not "environment" as such. For example, the end7pointofanIDAis identifying impactsontheenvironment(listedasDeforestation,8Losses in species and ecosystem integrity and Desertification/land degradation),9not impacts on people (source - the GEF-R2R- Developing and Islands Diagnostic10Analysis ver. 2). The suggested indicators list for the SoC does indeed refer to11"governance", "environment" and "socioeconomic" indicator categories. But of the12latter,mostrefertosocio-economicparametersasdriversofenvironmentalimpact13(e.g.populationpressures).Fewrefertobenefits(that is,EGS)suchas livelihoods,14food/water security, natural resources dependency (except for fishing but that15againisregardedasadriverofimpacts).16

The scientific approach to indicators adopted by the project is DPSIR framework17(Driver,Pressure,Status,Impact,Response).Itisdebatablewhetherthisframework18isbestforpurpose.OneproblemisthattheDPSIRframeworkisrestrictiveandnot19good at capturing ecosystem benefits. A good example is for agriculture (food20production)-isthisD,P,S,IorR?AttentiontoagriculturethroughouttheIDA/SoC21processisveryweak,ifnotalmostabsent.Itarguablymightbeincludedunder"land22use". As such, the current approach has it listed as either a Driver or Pressure.23However, the agriculture sectorwould probably regard sustainable agriculture as24eitheraResponseoraspositiveland-usechange.Sustainableagriculturecandeliver25substantialandmultiplebenefits,includingnotleastfoodsecuritybutalsosediment26control andwater security. It is also often the dominant landuse (and therefore27oftenthesourceof land-basedEGS).Forexample, theCookIslands IDAnotes that28over50percentofhouseholdsrelyon family farming(but isweakonrecognising29howfamilyfarmingdeliversEGS).Thelackofmoreexplicitandsignificantattention30toagricultureintheIDA/SoCprocessalsoillustratesthatitisyettoembraceafull31landscape/seascape/R2R approach (and that the agriculture sectormay not have32beenfullyinvolvedinIDA/SoCformulation).33

AnEGSframeworkforassessmentwouldbemuchmoreappropriateandeffective.34In an EGS framework ecosystem components (e.g. "habitat", "land", "shorelines",35"wetlands")areviewedprimarilyfromtheviewpointoftheirfunctionality-thatis,36theirabilitytodeliverbenefitstopeople(thatis-EGS).Inaneconomic/accounting37sense,natural(environmental)assetsareregardedasnaturalcapitalthatgenerates,38orcangenerateafuture,economicbenefit("interest"ineconomicterms)thatisthe39EGS. The purpose of policies aimed at sustainable natural resources use is to40maintain,orenhance,thoseEGSsothattheymeethumanneeds(nottosustainthe41"environment" as such). EGSarenotdeliveredonlybynatural landscapes and in42mostdevelopedareasmostEGSaredeliveredbymanagedlandscapes.EGSdelivery43canbemanagedandsomeEGSenhancedthroughmanagementchange(notablyin44

56

farmingandurbanenvironments).ValuationofEGSenableseconomicbenefitsand1lossestobequantifiedandidentified,andtowhomthesebenefitsandlossesaccrue2and therefore what incentives are required, enabling policies to promote3sustainableeconomicdevelopmenttobeidentified(whichiswhatwewant).4

The current end point of the IDA/SoC process is impacts on the environment.5AssessmentswillthenhavetoretrofitEGSintotheconclusionsinordertoidentify6sociallyandeconomicallyrelevantpolicyadvice.Thiswillbechallenging.Betterto7integrateEGSattheoutset.ThisappliestotheRapCA,IDAandSoCoutputs,butalso8shouldbeintegratedacrossthewholeProject(andprogramme)approach.9

There isalso theneed,andopportunity, to integrateanEGS framework/approach10intonationaldemonstrationprojects.Forexample,inFiji,wherethedemonstration11project has only just started, the problem addressed is the impacts of upper12catchmentactivities (principallymining)ondownstreamusers.Significantnatural13and physical capital assets are in-play: these include community buildings14underminedbyriver-bankerosionandawatertreatmentplant(highcapitalvalue)15vulnerable to siltation. This is a classic integrated catchment (R2R)management16problem, ripe for the applicationof anEGS approach. Inparticular, EGSvaluation17would identify current beneficiaries and losers in the catchment and therefore18pathwaystoidentifyincentivestoreducesystemlossesandtherebymovetowards19integratedsustainablecatchmentmanagement.A similaropportunityexists in the20Cook Islands where a small, degraded catchment leaches sediments into Muri21Lagoon (a high value natural capital asset), exacerbated by the conversion of a22wetland, todomestichousing, thatpreviously formedabufferzone. Infrastructure23options are to be assessed. These would potentially include restoration of the24wetland(asgreenornaturalinfrastructure),andbydefaultpotentialcompensation25forremovalofthehouse(amongotherpotentialoptions).EGSvaluationwouldhelp26identifytheeconomiccostsandbenefitsofthese,andother,infrastructureoptions.27ProbablymostofthePICsalsohavesimilarneedsandopportunities.28

It isalsounclearhowthecurrentprojectstrategywilladdress"resilience"(asper29the title of Component 1 and as referred to in several other places including30numeroustargetsandindicators). TheMTRobservesthatthisterm"resilience"is31often used loosely and can prove difficult to define (and the GEF Scientific and32TechnicalAdvisoryPanel has been trying to shed light on this). It does, however,33under any reasonable interpretation, include both ecosystem and social34(community)dimensions and is, therefore,more amenable to anEGSapproach.A35similarconclusioncouldbedrawnforassessing"climatechangeadaptation".36

37

Recommendation5:Theprojectshouldadoptanecosystemgoodsand38services framework as the foundation of its scientific and technical39approachby:(i)integratingecosystemgoodsandservicesindicatorsinto40theRapCA,IDAandSoC,notasa"supplement"toexistingindicatorsbut41as their foundation; (ii) integrating an ecosystem goods and services42approach/contextasthebasisforallrelevantprojectactivitiesincluding43

57

for R2R planning,mainstreaming and policy; (iii) testing an ecosystem1goodsandservicesandvaluationapproachastheentrypointinalimited2number of appropriate demonstration projects that have yet to3commenceorhaveonly recentlycommenced(subject tocountryneeds4and buy-in); (iv) commencing basic training on ecosystem goods and5services (including valuation) for national capacity building, including6considering a dedicated module on this topic as part of the on-going7post-graduate training delivered through an appropriate institution8(subjecttoresourcesavailability).9

TheIDAandSoCprocess10

The proposed IDAs (including under outcome 1.2) are designed, inter alia, to11provide technical inputs for the identificationof priority areas for scaling-upR2R12investmentsandtechnicalbackgroundforthedevelopmentoftheSoCs,whicharein13turn designed to be incorporated into reports on national and regional action14planning for R2R investment (indicator 3.1.3). The LogFrame requires that all 1415SoCs(andthereforesupportingIDAs)becompletedbytheendofyear3inorderto16allowforatwo-yearperiodforthemtoinfluencenationalandregionalplanningand17investment.Atmid-term,noSoCreporthasbeenfinishedandonlythreedraftIDAs18(CookIslands,Palau,PNG)wereavailable.Thereisnowthedangerthattheproject19maybepressuredintoexpeditingSoCdelivery,evenunderanextendedtime-frame,20through a process that is incompatible with the desired function of a SoC (to21influencepolicy).Forthatfunctiontobefulfilled, it isessentialthatIDAsandSoCs22be country led/drivenandwith their fullparticipation.Without that, it isunlikely23that IDAs or SoCs will influence policy. Neither will the process build national24capacity (which is effectively the same as concluding they will be ineffective).25Nevertheless,forthePalauandPNGIDAreportsdesktopresearchwasdonebythe26NationalProjectManagerswithfurtherliteraturereviewandwrite-updonebythe27RPCU in Suva. In-country stakeholder consultationswerenot conducted for these28countriesbecauseoftimeconstraints,overlappingschedulesandlogisticalsetbacks29(source-consultancyreportbyRonSimpson,2018).InthecaseofPalau,additional30clarificationrevealedthattheRPCUwasinformedthatin-countryworkshopsneed31notbeheldbecausetheyhadalreadybeenconductedundertheSTARProject.Itwas32agreedthenthattheoutputofthoseworkshopswouldbeincorporatedintotheIDA33beingwrittenby theRPCUConsultant.Additionally, noSOChadbeenplanned for34Palau because they had requested not to partake because of their comprehensive35StateoftheEnvironment(SoE)report.SincetheIDAstillproceededthissignalsthat36theIDA-SOCprocess,at least inthiscase,hasnotnecessarilybeencountry-driven,37and has not approached the IDA from an integrative mainstreaming perspective38fromthestart.39

TherearefurthertechnicalissueswiththecurrentIDA/SoCprocess(otherthanthe40absenceof anEGS frameworkas above).Mostnational staff interviewed consider41the term "Coast" to mean "marine". Over-emphasising one part of the42landscape/seascapeisnotconsistentwithanR2Rapproach.Althoughtheapproach43takenbytheprojectissomewhatbroaderthanthisbasedontheIDA/SoCindicators44

58

list,guidanceontheirpreparationandtheirtableofcontents,amarinebiasinthe1process/approach is still evident. For example, throughout, land-based activities2tend to be assessed in terms of their impact on the coast (as pressures)whereas3underR2Rland-basedactivitiesneedtobeassessedirrespectiveofimpactsonthe4"coast". The SoC draft Table of Contents has a section "Risks at the Coast" (e.g.5shorelineerosion)butnoequivalentsectiononrisksinland.Thiscouldbeduetothe6intention to broaden the scope of the previous IWRM Project approach to more7explicitlyincludecoast/marinebut,ifso,itseemstohavegonetoofar.8

There are parallel activities and processes on-going in the PICs that are highly9relevant to the IDA/SoCs. Notably, most PICS have a "State of the Environment"10(SoE) report. Previously these were supported by the Secretariat of the Pacific11RegionalEnvironmentProgramme(SPREP).SPREPisalsocurrentlyupdatingSoEs12inanumberofPICS(butnotall).ThesecondmeetingoftheRegionalScientificand13Technical Committee (January 2018) discussed the relationship between the SoC14and SoE reports. Few conclusions were drawn but it was opined that "from the15communications point of view, SoE versus SoC, and since most of the islands are16coastal,thentherelevanceofSoCishigheranditissynonymouswiththeStateofthe17Islands". This is incorrect. As already stated, almost unanimously in PICs "coast"18means marine. Furthermore, it is notable that despite the spectacular marine19environment that PICs are endowed with (which is truly an asset of global20biodiversitysignificance)mostoftheprioritynaturalresourcesissuesfacedbythe21PICs are land-based: for example, drinkingwater quality, land productivity, food,22water and energy security. In fact, the smaller the land area, themore important23land becomes because of increasing pressures on it. The Cook Islands IDA, for24example, prioritises natural resources issues as: deterioration of water quality;25stress on ground and surface water resources; deforestation, riparian and26vegetation clearance; ecosystem degradation – near shore, terrestrial and surface27water,inlandfloraandfauna,lagoonfloraandfaunaandwetlands;eutrophication;28and, solid and liquid waste management. Few of these are particularly a "coast"29problem.30

AnumberofPICsalsocommentedthattheirinformationrequirementsweredriven31bydeadlinesinotherprocesses:theneedtogatherinformationinordertocompile326th national reports to the Convention on Biological Diversity being commonly33referred to (the deadline for which has already passed). SoCs, therefore, are34sometimesseenasasourceofinformationforreportingpurposesandnotprimarily35asawaytoinfluencepolicy(whichistheirpurpose).36

TheMTR concludes that the project needs to pause and re-assess its strategy on37IDAsandSoCs.TheMTR isnot sufficientlyknowledgeable about the IDAandSoC38statustopre-determinewhichIDAs/SoCsshouldstop,startorfinish.TheMTRdoes39howeveridentifythefollowingrelevantcriteriaforre-assessingthestrategy:40

Recommendation 6: Theproject should re-assess its strategyon IDAs41andSoCsbasedonthefollowingcriteria:42

59

i. Focus on objectives/outcomes; the IDA or SoC is not an1outcome,theoutcomerequiredismainstreamingR2R;2

ii. Identify and prioritise existing opportunities to mainstream3R2Rwithouthavingan IDAorSoC(asoutlined furtherabove)4(important short-term opportunities are currently being5missed);6

iii. The absolute priority is capacity building; this in turn7determines the impact of an IDA or SoC on policies; this8requiresownershipofandparticipationofPICsintheIDA/SoC9process; IDAs/SoCsmust be country- driven;where countries10seeanIDAor"SoC"asanecessaryorpriorityneed–theprocess11cangoahead,butifthisisabsentbewareofdoingtheSoC;12

iv. ThepriorityisfortheIDAand/orSoCtobeintegratedwithand13build on, add value to, existing activities and processes at14national level (notably the State of Environment reporting15processandsimilarundertakings);16

v. Theprocessneednotnecessarilyresult inastand-alone"SoC"17report but it can achieve its purpose equally as well through18integration of information generated into other19reports/processes;20

vi. Timing of outputs needs to be compatiblewith timescales for21information needs (particularly for informing on-going policy22processes);23

vii. Focusonqualitynotquantity;reduceoutputsaccordingly;24

viii. Where all the above criteria are met consider proceeding;25where any isnotmet there is limited justification for the SoC,26and27

ix. Re-assesstheneedandopportunitiesforanIDAand/orSoCin28PSCs and re-present the IDA/SoC strategy to the RSC for29discussionandreview.30

TheMTRhasincludedrecommendedadjustmentstotheIDA/SoCrelatedtargetsin31Annex6.32

TheMTRisnotconvincedthatSTARprojects(ingeneral)arethemainsourceofSoC33datadueto:(i)theirscopeand(ii)timing.NeitherisaccesstoSTARprojectdataa34constrainttodoingtheIDAorSoCbecauseatnationalleveltheydohaveaccessto35STARdata(it istheirproject/data)."Access"toSTARdata(re.IDAs/SoC)isonlya36

60

problem if the SoC process is centralised at the RPCU,which is inconsistentwith1capacitybuildingandwillbecounterproductiveanyway.2

TheSustainableDevelopmentGoals-R2Rasanimplementationtoolandlinking3projectoutcomestothedevelopmentagenda4

There is a significant opportunity for the project to address how it relates to the52030AgendaforSustainableDevelopmentandtheSustainableDevelopmentGoals6(SDGs).Thesewereadoptedpost-projectdesignandarethereforenotmentionedin7the Project Document. But they should have been discussed in detail during the8inception process, because the SDGs are now a major vehicle driving national,9regional and international sustainable development policies and strategies and,10therefore,anopportunityforR2Rmainstreaming.Therehasbeensomediscussion11oftheSDGsinprojectdocumentsandmeetingsbutnotinasystematicway.Whatis12on record suggests a somewhat limited understanding of relevant linkages: for13example,attentiondominatedbySDGs14and15,withlimitedrecognitionofothers,14e.g.foodandnutrition(goal2),water(goal6),disasterriskreduction(goal11),etc.15This process would immediately highlight the shortcomings of the current16indicators in use for the IDAs and SoCs and strengthen resolve on using an EGS17framework. However, more importantly, the MTR notes that the objectives and18purposeoftheR2Rapproachistopromotesustainablenaturalresourceuseacross19landscapes and seascapes in an integrated fashion. The SDGs also promote such20integration (in that all SDGs are to be delivered collectively and mutual21interdependencebetweenthemisexplicit).TheMTRnotesthat"R2R"iseffectively22atooltoachievethenaturalresources-basedSDGs,collectively.Itisintheproject’s23intereststoassessthisrelationshipmoreeffectivelyandtousethelinksidentified24as a means to communicate the strategic position of R2R and so improve the25visibilityandrelevanceoftheproject.26

In addition, as pointed out in Section 4.1 (on project design) the current set of27outcomes,targetsandindicatorsintheLogFramedonotdirectlyaddresstheactual28changeasrequiredintheobjectiveoftheproject(whichistoimprovesustainable29developmentoutcomesviasustaining livelihoodsandpreservingecosystemgoods30andservices).AssuggestedinSection4.1,ratherthanrevisingtheLogFrameatthis31latestage,ameanstoaddressthispointistoassesshowtheprojectcontributesto32theSDGs,includingtryingtoidentifyanyrelevantindicatorsthatmaybecurrently33inuse(thatis,existinguseatregional/nationallevelbyotherprocesses).34

Recommendation 7: The project should, with national counterpart35participation, map its potential contributions to the SDGs, identify36relevant linkages and interdependencies (includingpotential indicators37currently in use), explore the extent towhich R2R is a tool to achieve38integrateddeliveryof, andhas alreadydelivered, thenatural resources39basedordependentSDGsandusethisprocessasameansto:(i)testthe40relevanceof its approaches; (ii)promotevisibilityand relevanceof the41project;and(iii)identifyandpotentiallymonitorthecontributionofthe42projecttosustainabledevelopmentoutcomes.43

61

1

Component4RegionalandNational‘RidgetoReef’IndicatorsforReporting,2Monitoring,AdaptiveManagementandKnowledgeManagement3

Outcome 4.1 National and regional formulation and adoption of integrated and4simplifiedresultsframeworksforintegratedmulti-focalprojects5

ThisoutcomereferstosimplifiedresultsframeworksforGEFintegratedmulti-focal6projects. It is not clear if this is the same as "R2R". But this outcome has7transferabilitytootherGEFmulti-focalareaprogrammesandprojects.8

After a slow start (given that theCountryCoordinatorMonitoring andEvaluation9Adviser came on board only in November 2017), the digitised (in MS EXCEL)10integrated results framework is now progressing. This, so far, is based on11integratingallofthemonitoringandevaluationframeworks(usingindicators)from12multiple sources including the IW Regional R2R Project, the STAR Projects,13includingprogressindicatorsforGEFfocalareasandotherGEFrequirements.The14processhasalsobeensupportedbycapacitybuildingonresults-basedmonitoring15(RBM), including training, and RBM approaches are being integrated into16frameworkdesign.17

However, the framework isyet toshowanysignsofbeing"simplified"(ref. target184.1.1).Itisearlytoconcludebut,sofar,creatingadatabaseforanintegratedresults19frameworkisjustdigitisingexistingcomplexity.TheMTRanticipatesthatitwillbe20difficulttosimplifybecauseitisbasedonmandatoryM&ErequirementsoftheGEF21and existing M&E requirements in project LogFrames. The pertinent question is22whethertheprojectwillbeabletoidentifymeanstosimplifyreporting;forexample,23throughidentifyingbetterandintegratedindicatorsthatwillreducethenumberof24indicatorsinuse.Butifso,thiswillbeausefulandtransferablebenefittootherand25futuremulti-focalprojects,andnotthecurrentone(becauseitsindicatorsandM&E26mightbedifficulttochange).27

Acommoncomplaintatnationallevelisthattheintegratedresultsframeworkbeing28developed is too complicated. However, this is mainly because the activity only29exposes an already "too complicated" underlying reporting framework (one30currently on paper). Some national counterparts have rightly observed that the31developing results framework has extended its scope: for example, by including32indicatorsforcontributionstotheAichiBiodiversityTargetsortheSDGs,whereas33countrieshaveparallelreportingmechanismsforthese.Suchconcernsappeartobe34more vocal among the IWR2Rnational project staff (as opposed to STARproject35staff) although this was not quantifiably assessed. This is unsurprising. Many36nationalIWR2Rpersonnelrightlyobservethata$200,000nationaldemonstration37project isbeingexpectedtohavesimilarM&Eobligations(andconsequenthuman38resourcescommitment)asamulti-million-dollarSTARproject.39

PICs are already over-burdened with M&E and reporting requirements for many40processesandprojects, theR2RProgramme isbut justone. Theapproachof this41

62

component must be to seek ways of reducing national M&E and reporting1requirements,notincreasingit.2

However,thebiggerissueatpresentisthelackofreportinginthefirstplace;thatis,3delivery of information to input into the results framework. The RPCU is not4currentlybeingoverwhelmedwith reporting suggesting that thebottleneck isnot5theabsenceofadatabaseor framework. It isunlikely that creatingonewill solve6thisproblem.Thisrelates toprogrammecoordinationdiscussed further insection74.3(below).8

Therewasconsiderableworkdoneonaresults-basedmanagementframeworkfor9theGEF-fundedIWRMprojectandanexistingweb-siteonthis(http://www.pacific-10iwrm.org/results/). TheMTRteamhavenotseenanassessmentofhowwell this11functioned and, importantly, why it now appears to be dormant. Again, this12reinforces the observation (and recommendation) made earlier that the project13shouldcriticallyre-assessthelessonslearnedfromthepreviousIWRMProject.1415Outcome4.2Nationalandregionalplatformsformanaginginformationandsharing16ofbestpracticesandlessonslearnedinR2Restablished17

ThereareanumberofR2Rrelatedwebsitesincluding:thePacificIntegratedWater18Resources Management (IWRM) Network 19(https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/partnership/?p=7696)thatappearstobe20somewhat defunct now; IUCN have a facility to support Ridge to Reef including21informationdisseminationandexchange(https://www.iucn.org/theme/water/our-22work/current-projects/ridge-reef); and there is already aweb-based platform for23Pacific R2R hosted by the current project (https://www.pacific-r2r.org). Further24R2R website development should address why previous websites have not been25sustained(notablytheIWRMone).26

Activities under this outcome relating to website and associated databases27development(activity4.2.3)runahighriskofexpandingbeyondwhatisrequiredin28theProjectDocumentandLogFrame.Thescopeof thisactivity, and itsassociated29databases and website development, is limited to developing a network of R2R30practitioners(perhapsmoreappropriatelytermeda"communityofpractice")anda31platformtosharelessonslearnedonR2R.Itisnotintendedtobedevelopingintoan32environmental management information system (EMIS) and the RPCU have33confirmedthisisnotintended.34

The current proposals for the website and associated databases are potentially35complicated by the inclusion of operability regarding the integrated results36reporting frameworkasoutlined inoutcome4.1 (above).Theuser groups for the37integratedframeworksformulti-focalGEFprojectsarespecificandlimitedmainly38toGEFandassociatedagencypractitionersandprojectmanagers. It isprimarilya39reporting and M&E tool, not a communication tool. It is highly likely that in the40longer-term the two activities will diverge and should the R2R platform be41sustainedbeyondtheproject,itisunlikelythatitsmanagerswouldbemotivatedto42maintaintheintegratedresultsreportingframeworkcomponent(unlessfinancially43

63

supportedbyGEF).TheMTRthereforecautionsastotheadvisabilityofdeveloping1these two products under the same platform. At the very least, facility for easily2separatingthetwoshouldbein-builtfromtheoutset.3

Other regional processes are supporting national and regional database4development including EMIS related. For example, a large GEF funded project at5SPREP,theINFORMproject,hasdevelopedexcellentonlinerepositoriesfornational6governments to use to house environmental reports and eventually data. The IW7R2R Project is promoting the use of these. Any related regional database8development by the project should: (i) be country driven; (ii) prioritise national9over regional capacity building; (iii) build upon and avoid duplication of other10efforts.11

Recommendation 8: The RPCU should ensure that the website and12associateddatabasesdevelopedunderactivity4.2.3iskeptassimpleas13possible, primarily builds on existing efforts, learns from previous14efforts, and is limited to the purpose of communicating and sharing15lessons learned on R2R and supporting the development of a network16(orcommunityofpractice)onR2R.17

Recommendation 9: The project should re-assess the advisability of18integratingtheintegratedresultsframeworkformulti-focalGEFprojects19underthesameplatformasthecommunication/networkingplatformfor20R2R. If it continues as such then the ability to separate the two21functionalitiesmustbein-built.22

Thecurrentprojectactivitiesunderactivity4.2.3areallregional,centredonSPCin23Suva.24

Recommendation 10: The project should identify how it is going to25deliver outcome 4.2 (in particular activity 4.2.3) at national level, as26required in the outcome description, and present this plan to the next27RSCmeeting.28

There is currently no obvious strategy for generating and compiling the lessons29learned (ref. 4.2.3) from the previous IWRM Project or the current Pacific R2R30Programme (at least in any systematic way). Although a key purpose of project31terminalevaluationsistoderivelessonslearned,theycanbevariableindetailand32sometimes have a tendency to over-focus on projectmanagement issueswhereas33the more important information relates to overcoming challenges to actual R2R34implementation.Terminalevaluationsalsoaredeliverednearprojectendoraftera35project finishes. It isnoted thatalthough the IWR2RProject focuses currentlyon36national demonstration sites, the major lessons learned are from the overall37programmeandparticularlytheSTARprojects.These,collectively,representatotal38investmentapproaching450millionUS$(includingco-financing).Inmostcasesitis39likely themostvaluableoutcome(inaddition tocapacitybuilding)willbe lessons40learned. There is a clear need and opportunity for the RPCU to become actively41involved in promoting lessons learned across the programme and deriving (or42compiling)lessonslearnedfrompreviousIWRM/ICM/R2Rinvestments.Thiswould43

64

include providing guidance to current projects (STAR and IW) regarding which1lessonsneedtobederivedandhowtodoit.Thiswouldalsobeausefulfunctionof2the RPCU regarding its coordination role under component 5 and as discussed3further in section 4.3. It would also be amajor contribution to the regional R2R4platformonlessonslearnedfromR2R(4.2.3).Itisalsounreasonabletoexpectthe5creation of a facility to share lessons learned (4.2.3) will automatically result in6lessons being compiled for sharing. Stakeholders will need help in preparing the7lessonstoshare.8

TheMTRTeamnotes,forexample,thatsomeofthekeylessonstobelearnedinR2R9approaches include conflict resolution, trade-off analysis, incentivemeasures, and10theimpactsoflandtenureandlandownershiprights.Interestingly,thesechallenges11appear tohavebeen reportedononlybya fewcurrentnational IWR2Rprojects.12For example, PNG and Samoahave raised customary landownership issues in the13managementplanningof theirmarineMPAandwatershed, respectively.Theyare14sayingthiswilllengthentheplanningandsubsequentapprovalprocessbecauseof15required intensive consultations and negotiations. The trade-offs involved,16conflicting uses and stakes between customary landowners, conservationists,17tourism operators and informal settlers are being seriously dealt with by the18nationalcounterpartsbecause theyconsiderresolving thesecrucial to introducing19sustainablemanagement and to sustaining the project results. But the absence of20thisattentioncouldbe indicativeof thestill limitedextent towhichsomeprojects21haveactuallyadvancedtodeliveringsitelevelmanagementchange.22

Recommendation11:TheRPCUshouldplayaleadcoordinatingrolein23developing or compiling lessons learned on R2R, including from the24previousIWRM/ICM/R2Rinvestments, includingbyprovidingguidance25tocurrentR2Rprojects(STARandIWR2RProjects)inorderforthemto26beginnowtomaximiseextractionoflessonslearnedfrominvestments.27

Component5Ridge-to-ReefRegionalandNationalCoordination28

Outcome5.1EffectiveprogrammecoordinationofnationalandregionalR2Rprojects29

A number of aspects of this component relate to Project and programme30management and are discussed further below in Section 4.3 (Project31ImplementationandAdaptiveManagement-ManagementArrangements).32

The current section refers to specific points relating to the targets and indicators33underthiscomponent.Furtherremediestoimprovemanagementandcoordination34areincludedinSection4.3.35

Regarding indicator 5.1.1 (programme coordination unit recruited and staff36retained), the targetwas to have a fully staffed and functioning coordinationunit37(RPCU) and staff established at national levelwithin year 1. There are significant38failingsinthisregard.TheRPCUonlyachieveditsfull(andoperational)staffingin39February 2019. There were also delays in getting national staff in positions in40almost all PICs, and frequent staff turnover. Fiji, for example, only appointed its41National Project Manager in late October 2018. Further discussion is included in42

65

Section 4.3. However, atMTR therewas an almost complete staffing complement1across the project. For this reason, this activity is marked "on track" but graded2"mostunsatisfactory".3

Activity 5.1.2 relates to the RPCU providing technical backstopping across the4programme,tobothnationalIWR2RprojectsandRegionalPacificR2RProgramme5(STAR)projects.Theprojecthasproducedsomegoodguidancetosupportprojects6and PICs; for example, training on results-based management, most significant7change, and monitoring and evaluation, and the production of a wide range of8technicalsupportdocumentssuchascommunicationstrategiesandapproachesand9methodologies for RapCA, IDAs and SoCs. The project has responded to some10individual requests for support, butmainly from national IWR2R demo projects.11However,anumberofPICsreportedthattheyreceivedminimalfeedbackfromthe12RPCUduringthefirstthreeyearsoftheproject,particularlyregardingguidanceon13changes toLogFrames.Thiswasmainlyduringaperiodof instabilityat theRPCU14(seesection4.3)andlikelyexacerbatedbytheabsenceofasubstantiveprogramme15Coordinator taking decision-making authority. There has been limited support to16STARprojects.AknownexceptionistrainingonM&EandRBMonanad-hocbasis17andminorjointsupportbetweenIWandSTARatnationallevel(e.g.waterquality18assessment in Tuvalu). But in general the RPCU has provided minimal technical19support to STAR projects. However, this is partly due to the absence of requests20fromSTARprojects.ItisclearthattheRPCU(andSPC-SOPAC)arenotautomatically21the first point of call for assistance to STAR projects. There are a number of22examples of where STAR projects have deliberately side-stepped the RPCUwhen23seekingtechnicalsupport.Forthesereasonsthisactivityisassessed"notontrack"24and"moderatelyunsatisfactory";althoughitisnotedthataprimaryreasonforthis25is challenges in programme coordination which is not necessarily of the current26RPCU'smaking(seeSection4.3).27

Activity5.1.4referstothevolumeandqualityofinformationanddatacontributed28by programme stakeholders to online repositories. Although this is on track, the29MTR notes that the target for this (at least 4 quality information and/or data30contributed/updated per year, total of at last 16 throughout the project) is31unambitious for a programmeof this size that also has five years of the previous32IWRM project experience to build on. Interestingly, the target also refers to33contributions to "theonline repository, ..., for thedevelopmentandoperationof the34PacificR2RNetworkandregionalwith[Sic]nationalR2Rwebpagesasarepositoryof35information, documentation and for sharing best practices". Since this activity is36assessed as "on track" by the RPCU (and 2018 PIR) it confirms that such online37repositoriesandnetworksalreadyexist(iftheydon't,thenthisactivityisofftrack).38This raises the question of how do these repositories and networks relate to the39proposedwebsite/databaseactivitiesunder4.2(see furtherdiscussionunder that40itemabove).41

Activity 5.1.5 refers to building coordination across the Program. Based on the42target (At least4,1peryear,planningandcoordinationworkshopsconducted for43nationalprojectteamsinthePacificR2Rnetwork),theprojecthasmadeprogress.44

66

Forthisreason,boththe2018PIRandtherecentRPCUself-assessmentassessthis1activity as on-track. However, the MTR draws attention to the indicator for this2whichrequiresthattheworkshops".....ensuretimelinessandcosteffectivenessofIW3pilot project and STAR project coordination, delivery and reporting". Without the4latter,thetargetismetnumericallybutnoteffectively.ItisabundantlyclearthatIW5pilotprojectandSTARprojectcoordination,deliveryandreportingremainsoneof6themost significant challenges facing the project under its Program coordination7role. For this reason, this activity is assessed “not on track” and “unsatisfactory”,8primarilytoflagthisasanarearequiringattention.TheMTRnotesthatthecurrent9RPCU has not been responsible for this current situation. Section 4.3 contains10furtherdiscussiononProgramcoordination.11

5.2.2 Remainingbarrierstoachievingtheprojectobjective12

Some challenges to implementation regarding a number of the activities and13outcomes, and recommendations as tohow to respond to them to get theproject14backontrack,havealreadybeenmadeasabove(Section4.2.1).15

The project has been affected by serious challenges in project/programme16managementfromthestart,includinginleadership,recruitingandmaintainingstaff17(includingatnationallevel).TheRPCUnowhasafullstaffingcomplement,although18with remaining skill gaps, andanear full complementof IWR2R staff at national19level. This history of staffing and management constraints has caused significant20delaysinimplementation.Butnowthatstaffingappearstohavestabilised,theMTR21concludes that the project is positioned to accelerate implementation and can be22givenanextendedopportunitytodoso.Thisappliesinparticulartoattemptingto23deliver the full suite of outcomes formost of the national IWR2Rdemonstration24projects.25

Recommendation 12: The project should have a no-cost extension26subjecttoimplementationofthefurtherrecommendationsoftheMTR.27

Aprovisionalestimateofthenewprojectenddateis31December2021,basedon28expenditure figuresprovidedby theRPCU.Thisestimateneeds tobecheckedand29refinedbasedonupdatedexpenditures(atthetimeofcalculation),anexact figure30for thecostof theoverheadsagreedtobepaidtotheSPCandtheagreementthat31thoseoverheadswillnotbeappliedtonationalprojectbudgets.32

Thiswill address someof the time constraints to achievingmanyof the activities33andoutcomes(asabove).Regardingthenationaldemonstrationprojects,mostare34on-going and still way off finishing as per their LogFrames. For these, there is35confidencethatano-costextensionwillenablethemtoachievetheirtargetsasper36their revised LogFrames. A few, however, are more advanced. National projects37should,therefore,re-assesstheirworkplanningandLogFramesoncethenewfinal38end date is calculated and where necessary identify priorities for the remaining39duration.Itshouldbeborneinmindthat inadditiontoimplementingthenational40demonstration(site-based)projects,nationalstaffhaveacontinuingroletoplayin41R2Rmainstreaming,building lessons learnedand contributing tooverallProgram42coordination. Therefore, even where some national demonstration projects are43

67

already well advanced there remains still much work to do. Revised plans, as1appropriate, should be discussed and approved at the next national PSC and RSC2meetings.3

There are some activities and outcomes based on the current LogFrame thatwill4still be challenging, if not impossible, to achieve by project end, even with an5extension. Solutions to some of these challenges are introduced above including6proposalsinsomecasestochangetargetsforsomeactivities(inAnnex6).7

Thereremainsomesignificantproject/programmemanagementchallengesthatare8discussedfurtherinSection4.3(below)thatalsoidentifiesadditionalresponsesand9measurestoaddressthosechallenges.Someofthesecross-cutmanyoftheproject10components, outcomes and activities and include in particular component 511regardingprogrammecoordination. 12

5.3 ProjectImplementationandAdaptiveManagement13

5.3.1 ManagementArrangements14

Self-assessmentbytheRPCU15

The RPCU held a self-assessment workshop in December 2018. Its conclusions16regardingmanagementchallengesandroadblocksincluded;17

i. Capacity of the RPCU - a full complement of science and technical18staff/consultants (with clear deliverables and appropriately19resourced) is needed to enable implementation; key capacity gaps20include environmental/natural resources governance, project21management and skills in capacity building/training to cater to22components2and3;23

ii. Leadership and Management – there is a lack of coordination and24individuals tend to work independently without sharing or25understandingeachother’scontributions; there isaneed foramore26“stable and caring” management or project oversight; leadership is27also needed to ensure delegation and to operationalise the R2R28Strategy;29

iii. Internal coordination– regular staffmeetings andupdating sessions30arenotheld;31

iv. ProcurementProcesses – are ambiguous and inconsistent and cause32delays in recruitment, leading to the lack of staff; procurement33personnel of SPC tend toquestion the technical content of thework34ratherthanfocusingontheprocurementprocess;35

v. Approvals/Signing–workishamperedbydelaysinsigning/approval36ofrequests; thereareseveral layersofapprovals–PM,DD/Director,37Finance(GEM)-withfurtherdelaysduetotherebeingnoRPCandthe38interimmanagerbeingbusyorawayfromoffice;39

68

vi. Information flow – no systems and procedures for sharing of1information from countries; where they exist (e.g. technical and2financialprocessflow),theyarenotreligiouslyandconsistentlybeing3used;4

vii. Capacity of Project Managers – the RPCU has no control over the5selection of National Project Managers (PM); apart from irregular6induction workshops, there is no consistent capacity7building/learningforPMs;8

viii. Communications and Knowledge Management – limited capacity of9PMs in this area (planning, visibility/branding, writing), limited10resourcingtofullyoperationalisethestrategies;and11

ix. Lack of Project Management tools (planning/reporting;12communications/KM,etc.);thereisnopushfromRPCtoestablishPM13tools(onlinesystemsuggested).14

Intheirdiscussions,staffhighlightedtheneedfortransparency,trust,courtesyand15respect, indicatingadeepneedforpositive leadershipandguidance.TheMTRhas16notedtheseimportantobservationsand,whereagreedwith,reflectedthem,where17appropriate,below.18

Delaysinnationallevelimplementation19

Therehavebeensignificantdelaysinprojectstart-upatnationallevelalthoughthe20lengthofdelaysandreasons for themvarysomewhatbetween thePICs.The June212018 Project Implementation Review notes that "several delays at the PICs level22could be attributable to either the inability of the lead agency to hire competent23project managers, or resignation of project managers, and/or prolonged inception24periodduetovariousreasons.Thesedelaysresultedinpoorprojectperformanceand25lowfinancialdisbursements.”26

Project milestone dates (signing of the Memorandum of Agreement - MoA -27betweenSPCandthePIC, first fundstranchetransfer, inceptionmeeting,hiringof28National Project Manager) are provided in Annex 12. In most cases national29demonstration projects started subsequent to the hiring of the National Project30Manager,afterfamiliarisationwithnationalLogFramesandtrainingfromtheRPCU.31

Thelengthoftimebetweentheofficialprojectstartdate(August2015)andsigning32oftheMoAwas1yearormore(upto1year8months)for9PICs.Thequickestwas338 months with four PICs taking 10 months (data in Annex 12). It would not be34expected that a projectwith a national budget of onlyUS$ 200,000 (over several35years) would be given the highest priority at senior government level (including36Finance Ministries) but normal administrative delays only partially explain the37more lengthy delays in start-up. Additional factors contributing to delays inMoA38signinggivenbynationalprojectstaffandcounterpartsinclude:39

69

i. Poor support from the SPC and RPC in helping explain the purpose and1contextoftheproject(incaseswhereseniorofficialswerenotfamiliarwith2theprojectandthepreviousIWRMproject);3

ii. Lackof clarityonwhat theprojectcouldachievewithsuch limited funding4andconsequentialdelaysinapprovalatseniorgovernmentlevel;and5

iii. Delays inrevisingnationalprojectLogFrames,exacerbatedbyresistance to6adaptive management by the RPC (which contributed to constraints to7gettingsenior levelapprovalandbuy-in)and limitedsupport fromtheRPC8duringprojectstart-up.9

OncetheMoAwassigned,7PICsmanagedtohiretheirProjectManagerswithin610months,4hiredthemwithin10or11monthswithone(Vanuatu)takingayearand11another(Fiji)takingayearand7months(datainAnnex12;datanotavailablefor12Kiribati). In most cases these delays were typical of normal staff recruitment13proceduresatnationallevel.FijiandVanuatuarebothoutliersintheseregardsand14in both cases recruitment was abnormally delayed due to on-going changes to15governmentpublicserviceprocedures. Inmostcases,onceProjectManagerswere16inplacenationalimplementation(demoprojects)startedtopick-up.17

OncetheMoAwassigned,9PICsheldtheirinceptionworkshopswithin6monthsor18less(with2PICsholdinginceptionworkshopsbeforeMoAsweresigned)and3PICs19heldthembetweenayearandayearand5monthsaftertheMoAwassigned,with20one(Fiji)held2yearsand2monthsaftertheMoAwassigned.Inmanycasesthese21delayswere due to delays in hiringNational ProjectManagers but in some cases22therewere still lengthy delay between appointingNational ProjectManagers and23holdinginceptionworkshops(datainAnnex12).Theinceptionprocessisnormally24undertakenbetween1to3monthsafterstart-up.Thesedelaysremainunexplained.25

In most cases the availability of project funds to national level projects was26relatively expeditious (Annex 12) and not a significant cause of delay. Some PICs27report some delays in funds transfer (replenishments), after start-up, but at a28reported "up to threeweeks" this isnot considered tobeanunusually significant29constraint.30

Inadditiontodelaysinstart-upatnationallevel,somePICs(e.g.,CookIslandsand31Nauru) had further delays caused by resignations of their Project Manager after32initialappointment.33

Further constraints to national level implementation once national projects34commencedinclude:35

i. Lack of national capacity particularly in communications and project36management skills including knowledge and availability of project37managementtools(althoughthiswasknowninprojectdesignandoneofits38coreactivitiesistobuildcapacity);and39

ii. StaffingconstraintsandlossofearlymomentumattheSPC/RPCUleadingto40sub-optimalsupportandencouragementofPICnationalprojects.41

70

PICs have partly addressed these delays and constraints by implementing their1nationalactivitiesatdifferentratesandaccordingtotheirownnationalchallenges2andcircumstances.But thishasnowled toa log-jamofmostPICsnowbeingwell3behind in implementation. The LogFrame was probably over-ambitious in its4timelinesandexpectationsfornationalprojectdelivery,especiallyascapacity(both5technical andhuman resources turnover) iswell recognised as a key challenge in6theProjectDocument.7

The project was designed to build upon human resources infrastructure and8capacitycreatedatnational levelbythepreviousIWRMproject.Butalthoughthat9capacity (in terms of personnel) is assumed to still largely exist, the institutional10settingsoftheIWRMprojectandIWR2Rprojectarenotnecessarilythesameandin11anycasewouldbeexpectedtohaveevolvedovertime.Delaysbetweentheclosure12oftheIWRMProjectandstart-upoftheIWR2RProjecthavenodoubtmadeitmore13difficultfortheIWR2Rprojecttoslot-inandtakeoverthepreviousIWRMProject14infrastructure.TheMTRwasnottaskedwithreviewingthepreviousIWRMProject15butarecommendationthattheIWR2RProjectshouldre-evaluatethelegacyofthe16IWRMProjecthasalreadybeenmade(above).17

Asolutiontothesedelaysatnationallevelisano-costextension,althoughthisdoes18notaddress theunderlyingcausesofsuchdelays. TheMTRconcludesthatwitha19no-cost extension there is every expectation that national projects will (where20relevant)getbackon-trackregardingimplementationandachievetheirtargets(as21per their revised LogFrames) by project end. This is provided that there are no22furthersignificantconstraintsthroughstaffturn-overandthattheRPCU,nowfully23staffed,willbeabletoaccelerateitssupporttoPICs.24

ProjectandProgramCoordination:25

Thisisidentifiedasanareaofmajorconcernandchallenges.26

According to its Project Document, the IW R2R project is intended to be the27programme support for the Pacific R2R Program and expected to coordinate the28implementationofthenationalR2Rprojects(includingSTARprojects,andtheLDCF29project) in termsof capacitybuilding,knowledgemanagementandharmonization30oftechnicalmethodologiesfortheintegratedmanagementofforest,landandwater31management. Coordinating these through IWR2Rprojectnational level activities32andalongwiththeUNDP,UNEPandFAOSTARPacificprojectsisconsideredvitalto33thesuccessofR2R.34

IntheIWR2RProjectLogFrame,themostrelevantcomponentis5"Ridge-to-Reef35Regional and National Coordination" with one Outcome "5.1 Effective programme36coordination of national and regional R2R projects"; although it can be surmised37from the project description (in the Project Document) that the coordination38functionsarealsoimplicitlyintegratedintootherrelevantoutcomes.However,the39targets and indicators under this outcome refer to establishing the programme40coordinationunit,numberofrequestsforsupportreceived,numberofstafftrained,41volumeandqualityofinformationcontributed,andnumberofcoordinationrelated42workshopsheld(allexcept the firstbeingpassive).There is, therefore,an implicit43

71

assumption that the STAR projects are going to automatically and voluntarily be1"coordinated"bytheRPCU.2

To ensure "adequate coordination between and among GEF supported national3investments",eachnationalSTARprojecthasbeenresourcedwithGEFInternational4Waters funding (US$150,000 per participating country). These resources are to5enable: representatives of national STAR projects to participate in Inter-Ministry6Committeeandregionalmeetings;effectivenationalandregionallevelcoordination7ofthecommunicationofSTARprojectresultsandexamplesofbestpractices;STAR8projectstakeholderparticipationinprogrammecapacitybuildingexercises;aswell9assupportinggoodprogrammegovernance,includingknowledgemanagementand10sharing.ConsideringthescaleofSTARbudgetscomparedtotheIWbudgets,andthe11fact that under the programme (and in many STAR project documents) STAR12projectsaresupposedtobedoingthisanyway,areasonableassumptionisthatthis13money reflects an understanding that such coordination needs additional14encouragement.15

However, STARprojects are independentlynationally executed. It isunrealistic to16expect thatatnational levelamulti-million-dollarSTARprojectwill automatically17be coordinated by or significantly liaise with a national IW R2R demonstration18project with a budget of only $200,000, not to mention in many cases the two19projects having different sites and focus. There is no obvious incentive or20enforceableobligationforSTARprojectstobe"coordinated".Whilstthisconstraint21could have been identified during programme and project formulation, more22importantly it should have been identified at the project inception stage. For23example, STARprojectwillingness tobecoordinatedby the IWR2RProject could24have been identified under risks and assumptions for this outcome at inception.25Remedial measures could then have been taken under adaptive project26management.27

Partlyasa resultofnot implementingsuchadaptivemanagement,andvery likely28exacerbated by failings in work planning in the early stages of the project (see29Section 4.3.1 below), this is now a major challenge area for the project. Some30examples of "coordination" do exist: e.g. the RPCU has been supporting STAR31projectsondemandregardingmonitoringandevaluationandprovidedtraining in32resultsbasedmanagement; therearesomeexamplesofSTARand IWR2Rproject33joint activities (such as water quality testing in Tuvalu and Palau); sharing of34resourcesandexpertisealsoinPalau;someSTARprojectsprovidingIWR2RProject35national demonstrations opportunities to promote their activities and R2R (e.g.,36FSM,Tonga).But,overallthereiseffectivelyanalmostcompleteseparationbetween37STARandtheIWR2Rprojectsinmostcountries(comparedtowhatwasintended).38To help coordination, Memoranda of Agreements with national governments39stipulate that IW R2R demonstration projects and STAR projects have the same40ProjectSteeringCommittee.Veryfewnowdo.Nationalcounterpartshaveobserved41inmanycasesthatitdoesnotmakesensetohavejointPSCswhereprojectsoperate42atdifferentsitesandoftenwithdifferentactivities. Butthereisa lackofcommon43"programme"thinkingacrosstheportfolioofprojects(exceptinPalau).44

72

ThereissomeawarenessamongsomenationalIWR2RProjectstaff,andveryfew1STARprojectstaff, that theRPCUhasacoordinatingrolebutevensowith limited2understandingofhowitissupposedtowork.Hencethisisallbutignored.Although3the delivery mechanism for coordination at both national and regional levels is4unclear from the IW R2R Project Document, the RPCU, and inception workshop,5havenotidentifiedhowfulldeliveryofcoordinationwillbeachieved.6

TheoverallprogrammeatbothnationalagencyandregionalUNsystemlevelshas7an inordinate number of staff in "coordination" roles. Yet the coordination of the8programmeremainsaweakness.Thereisroomtoimprovecommunicationbetween9the implementing agencies and the RPCU (for example, the RPCU is not10automaticallysentcopiesofSTARprojectMTRs);althoughthisislikelyalegacyof11thelongabsenceofaRegionalProgramCoordinator.Thereisclearlyscopetoclarify12coordinationfunctions,reportinglines,communicationsandresponsibilitiesacross13theprogramme.14

AconstrainttostrengtheningtheabilityoftheRPCUtocoordinatetheprogramme15is the somewhat fluidgovernance responsibilitiesand reportingarrangements for16theprogramme.TheProjectDocumentstatesunder"ProgrammeGovernance"that17"CoordinationandGovernanceoftheRegionalProgrammeFrameworkoftheNational18R2R STAR Projects and the IW R2R Regional Project will be undertaken by the19Programme Coordination Group (RPCG) (comprised of the three Implementing20Agencies,UNDP,FAOandUNEP)whowillmeetannuallyduringtheIWR2RRegional21Project SteeringCommitteemeeting.A representative of theGEF Secretariatwill be22invited at these meetings". However, according to the minutes of its meetings,23although theRPCGhasbeenmadeawareof seriouscoordination issues ithasnot24solvedthem;forexample,atitsmeetingatthethirdRSCmeetingitsimply"noted"25the problem exists. However, only recently has there been a substantive and26functional Regional Programme Coordinator in position. Also, since the STAR27projects are all nationally implemented, the ability of the RPCG to "govern"28coordinationmaybemorelimitedthanitstitlesuggests.29

ExpectationsofcoordinationfunctionsbytheRPCUshouldbekeptwithinrealistic30andfeasiblelimits.Forexample,theRPCUhasaclearroleinsupportinginformation31management and communications, which some might argue is technically not32"coordination". But "coordination" in terms of managing STAR project activities,33given the institutional structures in play, is unlikely to be realistic. Technical34supportfromtheRPCUshouldbeondemandandwithinresourcelimits.35

TheMTR and a now fully staffed RPCU create the opportunity to try to improve36programmecoordination:37

Recommendation 13: The Regional Programme Coordination Group38should strengthen technical information sharing and reporting links39betweentheimplementingagenciesandtheRPCU.40

Recommendation 14: The Regional Programme Steering Committee,41withthesupportof theRegionalProgrammeCoordinationGroup,at its42nextmeeting, should clarifywhat is required from theRPCU regarding43

73

programme coordination, and identify the reporting channels and1responsibilities between STAR projects, IW R2R national projects, the2RPCU and the implementing agencies (UNDP, FAO and UNEP), and3specify themodalities throughwhich the desired coordination is to be4delivered.5

IthasalreadybeenconcludedinSection4.2thatakeyroleoftheRPCUshouldbeto6generate lessons learned fromR2R including previousR2R activities (notably the7previous GEF IWRM Project), national IW R2R demonstration projects and in8particular the STAR projects. Recommendation 11 refers to this. Thiswould be a9significant, and potentially feasible, contribution to improved programme10coordination.11

Inter-ministerialcommittees(IMCs)12

Theprojectlogframemakesnumerousreferencesto"inter-ministerialcommittees"13(IMCs) across a number of activities. Fundamentally, an IMC has, among other14functions,animportantcoordinationrole.Thereis,however,nouniversalapproach15acrosstheprojecttowhatan"IMCs"is,itsstatusandrole.16

SomeguidanceisprovidedintheProjectDocument.Forexample,"Component3will17build on the existing mechanisms [developed by the GEF IWRM project] by18supportingtheexpansionofexistingnationalAPEXbodiesforIWRMtoInter-Ministry19Committees (IMCs) comprised of representatives of agencies responsible for land,20water, forests and coastal management. The IMCs will oversee, inter alia, national21levelcoordinationoftheRidgetoReefProgramme[emphasisadded],theplanningof22nationalpilotactivitiesplannedunderComponent1andtheassociatednationalSTAR23projects, the coordinationof inputs to thepreparationof Stateof theCoasts reports24andassociatednationalStrategicActionFrameworks,andmonitoringandevaluation25ofR2RProgrammeresultsat thenational level.Secretariatsupportwillbeprovided26bynationalleadagenciestofacilitatequarterlymeetingsofthesegroups.Theroleand27effectivenessof IMCsascentralnationalbodies for theplanningandcoordinationof28environmentalandnaturalresourcemanagementwillbetestedviaIMCsbeingtasked29withthenational-levelplanningoftheuseofGEFSTARfundingavailabletothePacific30PICSthroughtheGEF’ssixthreplenishment."31

Oneproblemisterminology.SinceanyR2Ractivityinvolvesmorethanonesector,32or ministry, any body established under it would by definition be inter-33departmentalorinter-ministerial.Therefore,catchmentmanagementorganisations34orProjectSteeringCommittees(PSCs)are"inter-ministerial".Butaccordingtothe35Project Document, the IMCs and PSCs are not the same. The aforementioned36description of some IMC functions differ from the terms of reference for a PSC.37Figure7(page94)intheProjectDocumentisdefinitiveandclearlyshowstheIMC38(although referred to as the National Inter-Ministry Sustainable Development39Committee) functioning at the highest level of national coordination (in the R2R40Programgovernance structure).TheMTRdoes,however, recognise that thereare41indeed potential ambiguities in the Project Document, and particularly its42LogFrame,regardingIMCs.43

74

Of13PICS(datanotavailableforKiribati):3(CookIslands,VanuatuandPNG)have1PSCsspecifictotheIWR2Rnationaldemonstrationprojectwithnoofficialsharing2of roleswith STAR PSCs (although this does not imply that national IWR2R and3STARstaffdonotcooperateorcommunicatewitheachother)andinall3IWR2R4staffwerenot familiarwith the concept, needorpurposeof an IMC;5 (Fiji,Niue,5RMI, Tonga and Tuvalu) have a IW R2R demonstration project PSC (or "Board")6sharingfunctionswiththeSTARPSC(or"board")butnoclearlyidentified"IMC"and7inall cases theattendancebystakeholders fromboth IWR2RandSTARhasbeen8lessthanideal;2(PalauandSamoa)haveanIMCthatalsofunctionsasthePSCfor9IWR2R and STARbut its function aremore to dowithproject coordination than10strategicormainstreamingR2R intobroadergovernmentpolicy;only2 (FSMand11Solomon Islands) have both a "PSC" and an IMC, in the case of FSM the PSC is12referredtoasaTechnicalAdvisoryCommitteewhichisjointwiththeSTARproject,13and Solomon Islands do not have a STAR project. Nauru plans a joint PSC (Joint14NationalBoard)withSTARbutthishasyettomaterialise.15

Thus,theMTRfoundonlytwoPICsthathaveclearlyestablishedthedesiredIMC16structureseparatefromthePSC(asdescribed,intendedandtermedintheProject17Document):FSMandSolomonIslands.FSMhaswhatitcallsajointTechnical18AdvisoryCommitteewithSTARatthestatelevel(Kosraewherebothoperate)that19functionsmainlyasaPSC,butalsohasajointIMCthatisbyintentbroaderin20membershipandhigherlevelbecauseitissupposedtobringintheR2Rperspective21intonationalagenda-settinganddecision-making.SolomonIslandsinitiallythought22theIMCandPSCwereoneandthesamebutuponadvicebytheRPCU,establishedas23higher-levelIMCforR2R.ItsPSCusedtobetheNationalCoordinatingCommittee24fromthepreviousIWRMthatwasrevivedtodealmainlywithIWR2Roperational25matters.ThereisnotyetclearevidencesofarthatthesetwoIMCshavefully26mainstreamedR2R,orstrengthenedR2R.27

AccordingtoMoAs(betweenSPCandPICs)therearetobejointPSCsforSTARand28IWR2Rprojects.ReasonsgivenfornothavingjointPSCsincludedifferentstart-up29timesofIWR2RandSTARProjectsanddifferentmandates/objectivesandworking30indifferentlocations(andinsomecasesregions).Manynationalprojectstaffregard31IMCs, catchment management bodies and/or PSCs to be the same thing. Some32others are either not aware of the requirement for IMCs or regard them as33redundantsincetherearealreadynationallevelcommitteesorforumsperforming34thesefunctions.Theseambiguitiescausemuchconfusionandmakeitchallengingto35assessprogressoftheprojectregardingIMCsandtheirroleinproject/programme36coordination.Forexample,theRPCUhasself-assesseditsprogressonoutcome1.3.137as"ontrack"butassumedthatPSC'squalifyasIMCs,whereastheMTRhasassessed38thisasoff-trackusingthecontraryinterpretation(Table1).39

Palau appears tohavemade themostprogresson this outcome so far, because it40wasabletoleveragethesocialcapitalfromexistingsimilarnetworksandstructures41(e.g.,NationalEnvironmentalProtectionCouncil andConservationConsortium) to42strengthenR2R.ItestablishedajointIWR2RandSTARIMCthatfunctionsbothas43an IMC and PSC. It ismulti-stakeholderwith effective civil society representation44

75

and chaired by the Minister of Natural Resources, Environment and Tourism1(MNRET).Itfunctionsbothforcross-sectoralcoordinationofprogramsandprojects2(principallywithintheMNRETgovernanceregimewhich includesalsoAgriculture3and Fisheries) and to steer STAR and IW R2R operations. Cross-sectoral4coordinationisdonetoensureallprojectssignedontobytheMNRETarealigned5with, and add value to, national priorities and goals, and each contributes to6advancing national and local capacities for sustainable NRM and tourism. Cross-7projectcoordinationisdoneformoreefficientinstitutionalresourcesmanagement8(avoidingduplication,rationalizingtheengagementofessentiallythesameplayers,9optimizing resource sharingandconsolidating contributions to sharedgoals).The10main benefit of the joint IW R2R and STAR IMC is considered to be how it has11brought in a lot of perspectives and how it has helped stakeholders see the12connectionofdifferentactivitiesandprojects.13

The MTR recognises that most PICS have small populations and compact14governancestructures.Inmanycaseseverybodyknowseverybodyelse.Thereisa15dangerofover-engineeringgovernancestructuresandmechanisms.Itisrecognised,16therefore, that assessing the way in which governance is structured, and17information flows, fromcommunity throughtocabinet,andhow"networks"work18andR2Rismainstreamed,ischallengingusingthecurrentterminologyandcriteria19laiddownintheprojectdocument.Giventhiscontextitisnotsurprisingthatsome20PICs have applied adaptive management to interpreting "IMCs" and PSCs. What21needs to be monitored is how "community to cabinet", networking and22mainstreamingR2Racrossscalesisworking.Thisrequiresamoreflexiblecountry23specific approach that embraces country specific circumstances, existing24governancestructuresandterminology.25

What an "IMC" is intended to achieve is improved integrated resources planning26(R2R) outcomes, including through improved participatory decision making. But27suchactivities/outcomescanandwilloccuratdifferentscalesorlevels(site, local,28catchment, national, regional). The issue is actually about how well governance29structures function across landscapes and seascapes, how well they manage30information flow from one level to another (top-down and bottom-up) and how31meaningful, effective and equitable participation in decision-making is achieved32across theentiregovernancestructure. Itwouldhelp if these structures and their33functions were better mapped and different terms were used for34structures/mechanisms at different levels (instead of labelling everything as an35"IMC").However,thiswilldifferwidelybetweenPICs.36

The MTR concludes that in order to make progress, where necessary, on inter-37ministerial coordination, community tocabinetapproaches to, andmainstreaming38R2RtheRPCUandnationalcounterpartsoftheIWR2RandSTARprojectsshould:39

(i) First and foremost - recognise that there is potential confusion and40ambiguity regarding IMCs across the project and programme and41differing interpretationsamongcountries; thismeans that the intended42functionalroleofIMCsmaynotbebeingachieved;43

76

(ii) Although the organisational/planning status of "IMCs" will differ1amongcountries-theyarenotcatchmentmanagementbodiesorProject2SteeringCommittees(orBoards);theyfunctionatahigherlevel;and3

(iii) Rather than attempt to achieve consistency in terminology and4approachacrossthePICs(andchangetheIWR2RRegionalLogFrame),5focus instead on identifying the intended functional role of IMCs,6prioritising their role in mainstreaming and coordinating R2R across7relevantpolicies,ndineachPICidentifyhowthisfunctionalrolecanbe8achieved through existing planning and coordination mechanisms,9strengthening these and building additional mechanisms only where10required.11

The same conclusion regarding working with existing national planning and12coordinationmechanismswasdrawninSection4.2andareferencetoconsidering13IMCs(asabove)hasbeenappendedunderitsrecommendation4.14

Communitytocabinetapproaches15

Much is made in the Project Document of the importance of the "community-to-16cabinet"(andback)approach;althoughtheMTRnotesthattheconceptisnotwell17defined.ThisislargelybasedontheexperiencesofthepreviousGEFIWRMProject.18TheMTRnotes,however, that it isunclearhowcommunity-to-cabinetapproaches19are integrated into the LogFrame nor what the delivery mechanism is. There is20involvement with "communities" in most national demonstration projects but21unclearmechanisms for linking information fromcommunity tocabinet level.The22MTR flags that this point needs to be considered by the projectwhen addressing23coordination issues, such as IMCs, and explore how to ensure information flows24fromoneleveltoanother(andback)underaparticipatorygovernanceframework.25Palaumay be cited as an exception for demonstrating an organic and integrative26processforpolicyagenda-settinganddecision-makingacrossthenaturalresources,27environment, agriculture, fisheries and tourism sectors, which effectively28incorporates civil society and community perspectives. This participatory29governanceframework,however,isnotnecessarilytheresultoftheIWR2RProject30and STAR initiatives per se, or the IWRM before these, but all of these certainly31contributed to, and were in turn benefitted by, this level of institutional32development.33

OtherperformanceoftheExecutingAgency(SPC-SOPAC,RPCU)34

TechnicalexpertiseoftheRPCU35

There is adisconnectbetween the technical expertiseof theRPCUTeam(with its36biastowardsnaturalsciences)andthescopeoftheproject.Foraprojectessentially37dealing with governance, institutional change and influencing policies it is38surprising the RPCU does not have specific expertise in environment/natural39resourcesmanagement/governance/institutional change/economics etc. TheMTR40does not recommend any changes at this stage and recognises the value and41opportunityofhavingafullteamnowinplacethatneedstobesustainedandhaving42

77

its confidence and teamwork built. If vacancies occur through natural processes,1thenthis imbalancecouldbeaddressed.ButtheMTRconcludesthatthistechnical2backgroundisadverselyinfluencingtheprojectapproach/strategy.Knowledgegaps3needtobeaddressedthroughamoretargeteduseofconsultants.4

Adaptivemanagement5

AsnotedinSection4.2,particularlyregardingprojectcomponent1,thereareample6examplesofpracticalandsensibleadaptivemanagementatnationaldemonstration7project level by national counterparts in all PICs. For example, most national8LogFrameshavebeenadjusted, inmostcasesduringnationalproject inception, to9caterforchangesinprojectassumptionsandrisksandtherealitiesofon-the-ground10implementation.OnlythreePICs(Samoa,VanuatuandNiue)arestillimplementing11theiroriginal logframes.Providedthatnationalprojectsremainwithinthebounds12of theprojectobjectives,componentsandoutcomes(whichtheydo),such is tobe13welcomed.14

There is, however, limited evidence of adaptivemanagement at regional IW R2R15projectlevel,thatis,bytheRPCU.Themostcompellingexampleistheabsenceofan16effective inception process that, as noted above, is a root cause of many of the17challenges the project now faces. An inception process should explicitly involve a18participatory and detailed critical analysis of the projects' Theory of Change and19LogFrame, including its assumptions and risks, checkmechanisms for delivery of20project outcomes and objectives and assess the project's targets and indicators21(includingidentifyingmid-termorothertime-boundtargetsormilestones).Project22documents and their LogFrames are never perfect and are written on the23assumption that an inception process will double-check the practicalities and24changessince formulation.Thiswasparticularly important for thecurrentproject25duetoitscomplexity,timelineforpreparation(seeSection4.1)andsomesignificant26changesintheinternational(includingnotleasttheadoptionoftheSDGs),regional27andnationalpolicylandscapes.Theinceptionreport(ostensiblycombinedwiththe28reportofthefirstRSCmeeting,October2016)doesnotcontainanycriticalanalysis29oftheLogFrameatall(exceptminorcommentsonnationalLogFrames).30

Acentralisedand"top-down"projectmanagementapproach31

There is sufficient evidence for the MTR to conclude that the Executing32Agency/RPCU has introduced or inherited a centralised and "top-down"33managementstyle.Examplesinclude:34

i. feedback from a sufficiently significant number of national project35counterparts(andinsomecaseSTARprojectsaswell);36

ii. the above mentioned adaptive management to adjust national project37LogFrames was, in most cases, achieved despite discouragement from the38RPCU;39

iii. some of the Islands Diagnostic Assessments have progressed without full40national level participation (see Section 4.2) and in at least one case after41

78

feedbackfromnationallevelindicatingitwillberedundantduetoon-going1similarprocesses(i.e.,SOE);2

iv. theProject’s take onR2R, as translated into itsTheoryof Change,wasnot3explainedtoNationalProjectManagersuntilthethirdRSCMeetingin2018;4and5

v. a "workshop" held in February 2018 to scope the project database6developmentattendedonlybymembersoftheRPCU.7

TheMTRnotesthatcapacitybuildingshouldbetheover-archingdrivingprincipleof8theproject even if resulting in compromises in scientificqualityand timelinessof9delivery of outputs. This requires that relevant national counterpart staff be10includedinallrelevantprojecttechnicalandmanagementprocessesanddecisions.11

Recommendation 15: The project should implement all its activities12fromacapacitybuildingperspective,evenifresultingincompromiseson13scientificqualityand/ortimelines.14

SupportprovidedbytheImplementingAgencyandUNDP-GEFRegionalOfficeand15nationalagenciesinPICs16

It is clear from the minutes of the RSC meetings that the Implementing Agency17(UNDPSuvaOffice)andUNDP-GEFRegionalOffice(UNDP-GEFRegionalTechnical18Adviser)havetaken,andcontinuetotake,anactiveinterestintheprogrammeand19project. Both have also attended a number of other programme/project related20meetingswhereenthusiasmandsupportfortheprogramme/projectisself-evident.21The MTR team has gained a similar impression through the MTR process. Some22suggestionsforimprovingcommunicationsandgovernanceoftheprogrammeand23projectweremadeabove.24

The MTR Team has been impressed at the quality and support of national level25counterpartsandagencies.Therehavebeensomesignificantdelaysinprojectstart-26upinmostcountries,andchallengeswithstaffturn-overinsome,butthesearenot27known to be due to a lack of interest in the project. All the PICs have made28adjustments in their national LogFrames in the light of national priorities.29Discussionswereexplicitlyheldwithnationalcounterpartsandagenciesregarding30alignment of the project objectives with national priorities and confirmation of31coherencereceivedinallcases.32

TheRegionalScientificandTechnicalCommittee33

The Project Document establishes a Regional Scientific and Technical Committee34(RSTC) responsible for ensuring that scientific and technical aspects of the R2R35programme [emphasis added] meet international standards; although its36subsequent description (page 93) refers exclusively to scientific and technical37components of the Regional IW R2R Project. It appears to be dominated by the38physical/natural sciences and light on social sciences (particularly economics,39governance and creating institutional change/institutional development). It40apparently also has limited representation from the national PICs’ scientific41

79

community (somemembers are fromPICs but not representing them). TheMTR1acknowledgesthecapacitychallengesamongthePICs.Thisincludestheavailability2ofscientificandtechnicalexpertise,butsuchdoesexistifsought.Nevertheless,the3current composition of, and approach to, the RSTC as an "independent" body, is4certainly at odds with the concept of capacity building among the PICs and the5principle of full and effective participation of national stakeholders in project6decision making. Given that the RSTC presumably needs to be maintained at a7manageable size, one additionalway of achieving these broader capacity building8and participation objectivesmight be for larger andmore inclusive scientific and9technical meetings (workshops) to be held under the oversight of the RSTC. In10addition, therearequestionsas tohowRSTC functions for regionalR2Rmightbe11sustainedaftertheprojectfinishes.12

Recommendation 16: The RPCU and RSC should: (i) re-assess the13compositionandmodusoperandioftheRSTCinthelightofthescientific14and technical scopeandneedsof theproject, specifically strengthening15its social and economic expertise; (ii) as far as feasible, put more16emphasis on opportunities to build scientific and technical capacity17among thePICsbyproviding for improvedengagementofnationalPIC18science stakeholders in project/programme science and technology19decision making; (iii) explore how the R2R network and platform20(component 4.2) might contribute to the sustainability of science and21technology support to PICs after the project finishes; and (iv) explore22opportunities forexpanding inter-activeworkshopsandtrainingonthe23project'sscienceandtechnologyagendaunderRSTCoversight.24

5.3.2 Workplanning25

TheprojectinceptionreportwasnotproduceduntilOctober2016(ifatall,asitwas26partofthefirstRSCmeeting,seeabove).Thiswas14monthsafterstart-up,whereas27it is normal to produce itwithin the first threemonths. Reasons provided to the28MTRmissionincludewaitingfornationalprojectmanagerstobeinplace.Buteach29PIChadanidentifiedfocalpointand/oractingprojectcoordinatorinplaceatstart30up.Thisdelaywasunjustified.31

Therewereseriousproblemswithstaffrecruitmentandturn-overattheRPCUthat32affected project implementation particularly regarding the Regional Programme33Coordinator and Science Leader. According to data provided by the RPCU, the34original ProgrammeCoordinatorwas in position fromMay 2015 butwas on sick35leavefromMarchtoOctober2017andendofcontractleavefromMarch2018.The36new(current)ProgrammeCoordinatorwasnot inpositionuntilFebruary2019(a37oneyeardelayinrecruitment).TheoriginalScienceLeaderresignedinMarch201738andwas not replaced until February 2019 (almost two years). Therewere acting39coordinators in place during these periods of absence or position vacancies but40neverthelesstheseareextendedperiodsoffluxinseniormanagement.Consultants41wereengagedtofillsomegaps,particularlyfortheScienceLeader,butthisissub-42optimal. The country coordination,monitoring and evaluation adviserwas not in43postuntilNovember2017.Amediaandgraphics adviserwasnot appointeduntil44

80

April 2016, resigned July 2016, a replacementwas appointed in January 2017 to1December 2017 and the current incumbent was appointed in May 2018. The2current Science Officer, Communications and Knowledge Management Officer,3ProjectAccountant andProgrammeAdministratorhavehoweverbeen inposition4sincerelativelyearlyintheproject.Intheabsenceofasubstantivecoordinator,and5science leader, the remaining RPCU staff members report they were largely6workingonsilos.7

Despitethis,theRPCUstaffmadeagoodefforttotrytokeeptheprojectmoving:for8example, its communications strategy, gender mainstreaming strategy, lessons9learned, stakeholder engagement strategy, commencement of work on the10integratedand simplifiedmulti-focal area results framework, implementationof a11multi-year costedwork programme and the production of technical backstopping12products.13

It canbe expected that staff challenges canhappenduring anyproject's life span.14But the SPC is a mature agency and its senior management could reasonably be15expected to be able to cater for such needs in a more expeditious and efficient16manner.17

The staffing constraints at the RPCU and at national level (as above) are now18overcomeandtheprojectispositionedtoaccelerateitsoverallperformance.19

Theprojecthasdevelopedaveryusefulandinfluentialmulti-yearcostedworkplan20(MYCWP)approachtoworkplanning.Underthis,nationalprojectstaffhastoplan21and cost futurework that encourages them to focuson theirLogFramesandplan22accordingly inorder toreceiveadvance funding.Nationalprojectsarereimbursed23onthebasisofquarterlyexpenditurereportsagainstagreedactivities.Thishasbeen24instrumental in focusing national project managers on output delivery. One25downside of the approach is that it tends to concentrate attention on costed26activities, whereas a number of the important project activities involve no, or27limited,costs;forexample,R2Rmainstreaming.28

The MYCWP is directly linked to the national project LogFrame. In addition, the29project has implemented training on results-based management. There is some30confidence, therefore, that, after a slow start, national level activities aremoving31towardsresults-basedplanning.32

The above mentioned self-assessment workshop held by the RPCU in December332018, conducted in the absence of a Regional Programme Coordinator, is34commended as an excellentwork planning initiative of the team. TheMTRnotes,35andalso commends,UNDP-Suva (the countryoffice focalpoint) for attending and36contributingtodiscussions.However,theMTRnotesthatseniorSPCmanagement,37who could resolve many of the challenges identified, was absent due to other38commitments.TheMTRconcludes that,particularlynowtheRPCU is fully staffed,39suchmeetingsshouldcontinueandonaregularbasis.40

81

5.3.3 Financeandco-finance1

The project was subject to a recent audit and the MTR has not assessed project2accounting in detail. The accounting and budget administration and procedures3appear to be satisfactory, helped considerably by the MYCWP. Some minor4commentsfromnationalprojectmanagersrefertoearlierdelaysinreimbursements5or replenishments with some still regarding the procedures as taking too long.6However,financialtransfersusuallygoviaaUSA-basedbankandwhenarrivingat7national level can then still have to travel through national budget/accounting8processes (transfers arenot alwaysdirectly intoproject accounts). Therefore, the9reported up to two-week (even three-week) delay from submission of10replenishmentrequeststoprojectsreceivingtop-upsisconsideredtoberelatively11efficientbasedontheMTRTeam'sownexperiences.12

TheRPCUself-assessmentpoints tosignificantprocurementdelaysatSPC-SOPAC;13referring to inconsistent, ambiguous and over bureaucratic procedures that in14particularcauseexcessivedelaysinappointingstaffandthatprocurementstafftend15to question technical aspects of requests rather than focusing on expediting16procurement.17

TheProjectDocumentarguesthatitsapproachiscost-effectivebecause:18

i. a multi-focal, multi-Trust Fund, multi-Agency Program encompasses an19integrated cross sectoral environmental management approach that is20ideallysuitedtotheuniquescaleandclimaticchallengesofthePICsbutalso21providesthemostcost-effectivedeliverymechanisminacapacitychallenged22region;23

ii. theprojectwillbeabletocoordinatedelivery,reportingandlessonslearned24to more cost-effectively transfer knowledge inter- and intra- nationally25improvingprojectoutcomesandreducingenvironmentalstress;26

iii. the recently completed GEF Pacific IWRM Project was able to establish27functionalnationalinter-ministerialcommittees,localdemonstrationproject28steering committees and project management units that this project can29buildontobemorecost-effectiveinitsimplementationthroughamorerapid30project start and delivery. Another successful strategy of the GEF Pacific31IWRM Project was the efficient use of the Annual Regional Steering32CommitteeMeetings to turnambitions into regional andcountry strategies33andplans;34

iv. the unique counterpart support provided through the project will be cost35effective due to economies of scale as the SPC based project provides36technical services to 14 dispersed PICs and an effective extension and37supportofaPacificRidgetoReefNetwork.Thiswillprovidethefoundation38foracost-effectivesimplifiedsharedsystemofreporting;and39

v. the regional education programme [training programme] will be cost-40effective as the contact requirements will be met on the fringes of the41regional and sub-regional meetings ensuring that participation becomes a42

82

marginalcost.Atthenationalandlocallevel,vocationaltrainingprogramme1cost-effectivenesswillbeachievedthroughtheirsharingacross14PICs.2

TheMTRconcludesthat,inprinciple,thesecosteffectivemeasuresandapproaches3remainvalidbutnotesthefollowing:4

i. clearly, the cost-effectiveness of the measures depends on the extent to5which they are delivered and, so far, delivery/implementation for many6outcomeshasbeensignificantlyofftrack(seeSection4.2);7

ii. theextent towhich thecurrentprojecthasactivelybuiltuponmanyof the8referredtomeasures, institutionsandoutcomesofthepreviousGEFPacific9IWRMProject it isnot yet clearor established; indeed it isnot established10whether some of these still exist and reference is made to reviewing this11pointinSection4.2(andRecommendation2)above;12

iii. mostimportantly,Section4.2notesthatbyfarthemostvaluableoutcomesof13the project are capacity-building and the lessons learned from R2R14approaches and investments; it is therefore critical to realising the cost-15effectivenessofthisprojectthatMTRrecommendationsonthesepointsare16implemented.17

Basedonfeedbackfromtheproject'sco-financingpartners,providedbytheRPCU,18the MTR co-financing monitoring Table is provided in Annex 8. Based on these19figuresco-financingexpenditureis1.17%asofJune2019.Theprojectteammeets20co-financingpartnersregularly.21

5.3.4 Project-levelmonitoringandevaluationsystems(M&E)22

MonitoringtoolsinusepotentiallyprovidetherequiredM&Einformationbutthey23are complex, time consuming and inefficient particularly regarding reporting for24nationallevelcomponents.Mostnationalprojectmanagerscomplainatthelevelof25monitoringandreportingrequired forsuchasmall (IWR2Rnationalcomponent)26projectnotingtherequirementissimilartothatofthemuchbetterresourcedSTAR27projects.However,component4outcome4.1expresslyseekstostreamlineM&Efor28suchmulti-focalareaGEFfundedprojects(seefurthercommentsinSection4.2).As29already noted, M&E is moving towards clearer results-based approaches and the30projectisprovidingtrainingonthis.31

ProjectM&Eisnotclearlyalignedormainstreamedintonationalsystemsanduntil32simplifieditisnotclearthatitshouldbe.Mostnationalcounterpartsnotethatthe33M&E expectation is a significant burden on national resources and some are34concerned that activities under outcome 4.1 are showing signs of increasing that35burdenandrunningtheriskofduplicatingeffortorcreatingparallelmechanismsto36nationalsystems.SeeSection4.2(Outcome4.1)forfurtherdiscussionanditsnote37that the project's M&E activities should seek to reduce, not increase, national38reportingburdens. Itwillbeessential thatnational counterpartsandagenciesare39fullyandeffectivelyinvolvedinoutcome4.1ifitistobeeffective.40

83

TheprojecthasaclearlyidentifiedbudgetforM&Eunderitscomponent4.Resource1allocationforthisappearstobeadequate.2

Reporting3

Although M&E tools are in place, and the project has a component specifically4targetedatimprovingthese,therearesignificantconstraintstoactualreporting.As5noted in Section 4.2 (component 4), although the project is actively engaged in6creating a simplified integrated results reporting framework, together with an7internetbasedplatformtoenableon-linereporting,thecurrentproblemisnotthe8framework or IT/software development but the lack of actual reporting. This9appliestonationaldemonstrationprojectsandinparticularSTARprojects.10

ReportingvarieswidelyamongthePICs,forexample:11

i. consistencyofreportingthroughquarterlynarrativereports,e.g.,Palauhas12full cover and Vanuatu has almost full cover whereas they are absent for13Kiribati,withmostPICshavinggapsinreportingperiods;14

ii. all PICswere asked to providemid-term reports to assist theMTR; oddly,15only those PICS actually visited by the MTRmission (plus Niue) provided16these, with Palau noting that it did so in case they were not visited (they17were); these reports proved to be very useful to the MTR mission which18wouldhavebenefittedgreatlyfromreportsfromtheother8PICs;and19

iii. annualreports,byPICs,werenotavailabletotheMTRmission.20

TheprojecthasbeensubjecttotwoProjectImplementationReviews(PIRs)in201721and2018.The first containednoratings (insufficientdata)but thesecond (2018)22wasratedbyUNDPasunsatisfactoryandwithsubstantialoverallrisks.23

GEFreportingrequirementsarecoveredalsounderM&E(above).Component4of24the project seeks to improve (and simplify) these GEF reporting requirements.25Despitemultiple requests, theMTRmissionwasnotprovidedwith the completed26GEFIWTrackingToolatMTR.27

There is no clear record or consolidation of how adaptive management changes28havebeenreportedtotheProjectBoard(RSC)apart fromadjustmentstonational29LogFrames;althoughasnotedabovefortheRegionalIWR2RProjecttherehasbeen30limitedadaptivemanagement.31

Similarly, lessons learned from the project have so far not been systematically32compiled,sharedorcommunicated.AsperRecommendation11,theMTRconsiders33thatthisshouldbeapriorityactivityfortheRPCUintheremainingperiod.34

5.3.5 Stakeholderengagement35

A good deal of stakeholder analysis was incorporated into project design. Most36national demonstration projects, dealing with cross-sectoral integration (e.g.37catchment management), have undertaken further stakeholder analysis at their38projectinceptions.TheRPCUhasprovidedagooddealtechnicalbackstoppingand39guidancetothemonundertakingthisincluding:aStakeholderEngagementStrategy40

84

andtools,trainingprovidedtonationalprojectmanagersatthefirstRSCandduring1countryvisits.2

National demonstrations overall are country driven activities and national3LogFrames have been adapted to reflect this. A high level of national and local4support for the project objectives is evident. There are some capacity constraints5among national project managers, as identified by the RPCU, notably for project6management skills. Some training has been undertaken, and further training7planned,toalleviatethisproblem.8

Theproject'smainstakeholdersatnationalandregional levelare indicated in the9Project Document and summarised in Section 3 (above). National stakeholders10(therelistedprimarilyaslineagencies)continueahighlevelofinvolvementinthe11project at national level. Many of the regional level stakeholders are invited to12annualRSCmeetingsbutthelevelofengagementofthesehasnotbeenquantified.13As the project starts to focus on lessons learned and mainstreaming R2R (as14proposedearlier)thentheRPCUwillneedtoensureitbuildseffectiveengagement15withthis,andabroader,stakeholdercommunity.16

Asnotedabove,thereismorelimitedinvolvementbynationallevelstakeholdersin17steeringtheregionallevelactivitiesandinvolvementinprojectdecision-making.18

5.3.6 Communications19

The RPCU has been effective in delivering technical assistance on strategic20communicationstonationalprojectsinanumberofwayssuchas:21

i. training NPMs on preparing strategic communication plans related to22promotingthenationaldemonstrationprojectsthroughahands-on,learning-23by-doing approach, and providing specific technical advice related to24communications campaigns – e.g., script writing for radio talk shows25discussing environmental issues, development of Project Progress Reports26andguidanceondraftingexperientialnotes;27

ii. Socialmediatrainingandsyndicationofupdatesonnationalproject28activities,developmentofcommunicationsmaterialfornationalproject29communicationsandoutreach(posters,booklet,productbriefs,foldersetc.);30

iii. Videoproduction(e.g.VanuatuRapCA2018,TuvaluWaterQuality31Monitoringexercise2019);and32

iv. Mediareleases33

However, the Project does not have a communications strategy for raising34awarenessonR2Ramongdifferentaudiences:NPMs,localcommunities,PSC,IMCor35itsequivalent.36

Many of the communication outputs witnessed or reviewed by the MTR refer to37individualactivities(suchastreeplanting)thatarepositionedwithinabroaderR2R38framework. The project communications strategy needs to be vigilant that its39primary role is to communicateabout theprojectobjectivewhich isR2R, andde-40

85

emphasise micro-scale activities (although such can be good1communication/promotionalopportunitieswheresuccessful).2

Theproject'sRapCAàIDAàSOCàSAFPolicy-InterfaceModellimitsandleaves3strategiccommunicationtowardsthetail-endoftheprocess.Itnarrowlyconstrues4thetaskofstrategiccommunicationasdocumentpublicationand“selling”theend-5product to policy-makers for endorsement and adoption. But strategic6communicationshouldfromtheverybeginninginputintohowtheassessmentand7strategy framework could be better aligned with existing priorities and planning8processes, to enhance the chances these are adopted as national documents. For9example,hadcommunicationsbeenconsideredasarelevantstrategicplanningtool10at the outset it is highly likely theprojectwouldhave adopted amore ecosystem11goods and services perspective from the outset and focussed on supporting12mainstreaming intoexistingmechanismsand frameworks insteadof creatingnew13ones.14

ThelackofcommunicationofprojectsuccessesandprogresswasnotedintheRPCU15self-assessment(December2018)asasignificantfactorinthelackofappreciation16orawarenessoftheprojectbythewiderSPCandintheregioningeneral.17

The project/programme has a Pacific R2R web-based platform18(https://www.pacific-r2r.org). TheMTR has not assessed the functionality of this19nor its effectiveness (e.g. quantifying hits, visits, downloads etc.). However,20recommendation8 refers to theneed for theRPCU to assess its functionality and21effectivenessaspartofproposalstoupgradethisunderSection4.2Outcome4.2.22

Recommendation 17: Communications should be considered and23integrated into project activities (e.g. IDA-SOC/R2R, mainstreaming24plans etc.) from their very beginning and be used to identify target25audiences, influence the nature of data collected and indicators being26usedand improve theunderstandingofhowconstraints toR2Ruptake27canbereducedtoincreasetheimpactoftheprojectonpolicy.28

5.3.7 GenderandDevelopment(GAD)MainstreamingStrategy29

TakingguidancefromtheUNDPGenderMainstreamingStrategy2014-2017,andin30consideration of lessons learned from the GEF Pacific IWRM Project, the IW R2R31Projectpreparedits“PacificR2RGenderMainstreamingStrategy”(includingaWork32Plan)thatoutlinestheentrypointsforintegratinggenderequalityintoitsoutcomes33areas. The strategy quite rightly recognises that a key aspect of successful R2R34towardssocially-justandinclusivesustainabledevelopment,isgenderequalityand35womenempowerment.Moreover,itacknowledgesthatprojects,whengender-blind,36often contribute to perpetuating and even widening gender gaps, which in the37context of most PICs, deprive firstly and mostly women of their rights to access38natural resources and undervalue or overlook their contribution in natural39resourcesmanagement, despite widespread recognition that women have always40played a critical role in water, land and coastal management. The strategy thus41attemptstoensurethattheProjecttakesintoconsiderationthedifferentialneedsof42itswomenandmenpartnersat the regional,national, localandcommunity levels43

86

suchthattheyareaffordedequalpowerandaccesstodecision-making,choicesand1resources.ThisstrategywaspresentedanddiscussedindetailduringthefirstRSC2meeting.3

Gender mainstreaming was to be done through two pathways - gender4mainstreaming in programme activities and targeted gender analysis of national5demonstrationprojects.TheprovisionofGADmainstreamingassistancewasattwo6levels:RPCUstaffandNationalProjectManagers(NPM),bothsupposedlytodevelop7facilitation competencies on mainstreaming a GAD perspective into regional and8national component design and management, and into those national and local9governance institutions involved in the Project’s implementation. Competency10developmentisalmostpresumedattheleveloftheRPCU,andattheveryleastthey11were expected to take the UNESCO online course on GAD mainstreaming.12IndicationspointtomostrelevantpublicstakeholdersinvolvedintheProjecthaving13hadpreviousrelatedtraining,and/orhavingnationalmachineriesforwomen.14

The capacity needs identified by NPMs and reported at the 2nd RSC meeting15constitute core tasks of GAD mainstreaming: conducting gender assessments of16project and other national documents, identifying areas for gender inclusion,17updatingLogFramesanddevelopinggenderactionplanstoreflectgenderinclusion,18implementingactivities that increasegenderequality,monitoringandreportingof19gendermainstreamingactivities.Toaddressthesegaps,theProjectcommissioneda20Gender Consultancy to develop templates for gender assessment and action21planning and collection and reporting of sex-disaggregated data across the five22project components, develop and deliver training for PICs on implementation of23genderactionplansandconductgenderassessmentanddevelopcoordinated (IW24andSTARR2RProjects)genderactionplans for fourPICs,presumablytoserveas25modelfortheotherPICs.26

Six PICs (FSM, Vanuatu, RMI, Palau, Solomon, Tuvalu) were trained on Gender27Mainstreaming,anditisassumedthatthiscamewith,orwasprecededbyaGender28Sensitivity Seminar. The ConsultancyReports, andGenderAction PlanTemplates,29showamainlyliterature-basedreviewofGADmainstreamingstatusatthenational30level (e.g., accession to GAD-related conventions, agreements, platform for action,31existence of national machineries for women, women representation in politics,32traditions andmyths that keepwomen in subordinated positions, etc.). Two PICs33have completed action plans (Palau and Samoa) and Vanuatu and Tuvalu have34versions of their “engendered” LogFrames, although it is unclear if these have35supersededtheoriginalLogFrames.Thespecificgenderassessmentandanalysis(in36fact,periodicgenderassessmentandanalysis)toinformthenationaldemonstration37projectswasmadepartof the targetedactivitiesof theActionPlan.However, the38prepared templates to guide gender analysis feeding into gender action planning39andmainstreamingarenotcost-effective investments; theyareof thegeneric,off-40the-shelf nature, which cannot be mechanically applied without adequate41sensitisationandhands-onguidanceofthoseusingthem.Itisnotthatthenational42level gender analyses undertaken were irrelevant, for sure they are useful for43informinglong-termnationalpolicyandstructuralbasedreforms,butthisisnotthe44

87

main focus of the project. The targeted gender analysis at the level of the1demonstration projects are as important because the demonstration projects are2the loci of community participation, which are expected to be sustained and up-3scaledbeyondtheprojectlife.Gendermainstreaminggainsatthislevelcanthusbe4programmaticallytargetedtocontributetobroaderdevelopmentbenefits,basedon5currentandlocalisedproblemanalysis.6

The regional LogFrame targets the increasedparticipation ofwomen in activities,7consultative fora and decision-making structures. In addition, while the national8LogFramesprovidedtotheMTRTeamdonotclearlyandconsistentlyshowgender-9specific targets, interviews indicate efforts to track women participation in10meetings,consultationsandactivitiesrelatedtothenationaldemonstrationprojects11andRapCA+ IDAactivities. Sex-disaggregateddataonattendance toactivitiesare12reported by PICs in QPRs as required by the Stakeholder Engagement Strategy.13However, because targeted gender analysis has not yet been systematically14undertaken inmost PICs, it is unclear how the attendance ofwomen andmen in15theseactivitiesindicatelinkstotheProject’sspecifictargetedregionalandnational16objectives. ItisnotablethatasearlyasthesecondRSCinTongain2017:“women17comprise45%oftheparticipantsatstakeholdereventsacrosstheregionwithPalau18beingthecountrywiththehighestproportionofwomenattendingevents. Itmust19benoted that this isonlyrepresentativeof thecountries thathavebeenrecruited20andbegunprojectactivities,arereportingwhenrequiredandarereporting inthe21correct format. The true figures may be significantly different” (Gender22Mainstreaming Progress Report). Attendance, membership and nominal23participation (presence or absence) are foundational data for indicating24participationand inclusionbut theydonotprovidemuch insightonthequalityof25theparticipationofbothwomenandmenandtheireffects.Itisnotonlyimportant26that thequalityofparticipation iscaptured, itmustbeensured that thequalityof27participation can be empirically-linked to relevant outcomes matching the28embeddedproblemanalysisinthegenderanalysis.29

In fact, the Project’s Gender Mainstreaming Strategy identifies examples of30indicators of gender-responsiveness beyond attendance (e.g., attendance at31stakeholder engagement is at least 30% women, attendance at participatory32environmental monitoring is at least 30% women, membership in steering33committee/ProjectBoard,membership in project related community groups) that34canbeplausiblylinkedtohigherleveldevelopmentoutcomes.Itlistsindicatorsthat35target women’s practical needs (e.g., hours of work – reduced or increased) and36strategicneeds(increasedproportionofwomenattendingdecisionmakingevents,37numberoftimeswomen’sneedsandprioritiesareincludedindecisions,capacityto38participate in decision making at the community level) or both (benefits of the39projects,accesstorelevantinformationtomakemeaningfulcontributionstoproject40activities,amountofresourcesallocatedtoaddresswomen’sneedsandpriorities,%41ofincreasedaccessofproductiveresources,proportionofwomen,increasedaccess42orlossofaccesstonaturalresources).Butagain,itistargetedgenderanalysisthat43will render them empirically-specific and relevant to the stress reduction and44habitatmanagementmeasurestobe,orthatarebeing,undertakenbythePICs.45

88

Targetingincreasedparticipationofwomeninmajordecision-makingstructuresis1alwaysaworthygoal.Related to this, targetingparticipationofwomen in the JCU2course is seen as a key investment to enhancing the inclusion of women’s3knowledge and voices in natural resources management planning and decision-4makinginthePICs.However,thegendercompositionofIMCsorPSCsareafunction5ofwhoarethevotedandappointedincumbentsinthePICs,andcurrentlytheseare6male-dominated.ItiswithinthispurviewthatitisunrealistictoexpectthisProject7to influence increased participation of women public servants in IMCs or PSCs,8unless the Project directly targets influencing national and local policy regarding9this.Moreover,where an "IMC" functions at ahighpolicy level, it is unrealistic to10expect participants from youth and/or vulnerable groups, but representation of11theirviews isrequired.Where theycandirectlyparticipate, itmustberecognized12that therewillnotbeaquick fix formatchingtheirparticipationwithappropriate13amounts of authority vis-à-vis the official authority vested in public actorswithin14thisProject’s lifetime.Thiscanstillbetargetedbutonaprogrammaticbasis, fora15successionofrelatedprojectstobuilduponeachother’sgains.16

Mostnationaldemonstrationprojectsareintheirearlystagesofimplementationor17still about to start. The catchment management plans, water management plans,18coastal resourcesmanagementplans,protectedareamanagementplans,dry-litter19piggery, improvedsanitationimplementationplansetc.shouldbegender-analysed20(for baseline and periodically to monitor changes) to ensure on-site project21management is gender-responsive in specific ways relevant to these plans’22objectives and that the identified gender-responsive actions plausibly link to23broader development outcomes addressing both practical and strategic needs.24Setting-up baseline and periodic gender assessments, analyses and re-planning of25thenationaldemonstrationprojectsmustbedoneincollaborationwiththenational26machineriesforwomenorrelatedoffices.Likewise,thecompletedRapCAsandIDAs27must be gender-audited before they are incorporated in the SoC, and gender-28analysedasnecessary(forthesamerationaleasabove),andanEGSperspectivewill29helptobetterlinkecosystem/environmentalbenefitstosocio-economicoutcomes.30TheSoCsandStrategicActionFrameworksthemselvesmustbegender-analysed.31

Recommendation 18: The national demonstration plans and activities32that are still currently being prepared should be gender-analysed to33ensureon-siteprojectmanagementisgender-responsiveinspecificways34anchoredon theobjectivesof these theseplans.ThecompletedRapCAs35andIDAsmustbegender-auditedbeforetheyareincorporatedintheSoC.36TheSoCsandStrategicActionFrameworks themselvesmustbegender-37audited.38

To have more focused impact on enhancing inclusion of women and other39vulnerablegroupsinhigh-leveldecision-making,i.e.,inIMCs,theProjectmayassess40howvariousgovernancestructuresatdifferentscales(localtonational,community41to cabinet) function collectively to deliver effective participation by42communities/women/vulnerable groups and deliver effective, equitable and43coordinatedR2Rplanningoutcomes.ThismeansstrengtheningofIMCsbyincluding44full and effective inputs of communities, women, youth and vulnerable groups45

89

through transparent and participatory dialogue from local through to national1levels, rather thantargeting in the immediateproject lifetime, just theirnumerical2participation in IMCs (etc.). In addition, any R2R communications materials3targeting thePSCsand IMCs(or theirequivalents)mustembedgender-sensitising4messages coming from the project’s gender-analysis at the national and5demonstrationsitelevels.6

OverallRating:ProjectImplementationandAdaptiveManagement7

Project Implementation andAdaptiveManagement

Description

3 ModeratelyUnsatisfactory

Implementationofsomeofthesevencomponents(managementarrangements,workplanning,financeandco-finance,project-levelmonitoringandevaluationsystems,stakeholderengagement,reporting,andcommunications)isnotleadingtoefficientandeffectiveprojectimplementationandadaptivemanagement,withmostcomponentsrequiringremedialaction.

8

95.4 Sustainabilityofprojectoutcomes10

Assumptionsareconditionsor factorsassumed toexist thatarenecessary for the11projectoutcomestobeachievedorsustained.Risksareineffecttheprobabilityof12anassumptionnotbeingcorrectornotbeingmet.13

There are two broad categories of risks and assumptions associated with the14project.First,thosethatrelatetonecessarypre-conditionsofprojectsuccessbutare15outsidethedirectinfluenceoftheprojectorwhereadefinedoutcomeisexpectedto16arise from the fulfillment, or continued existence, of an assumption. This is the17morecommonapproachto"risksandassumptions"inaproject'stheoryofchange18or LogFrame. Second, risks to implementation of the project that are under the19control of the project and affect project deliverables and therefore sustainability.20TheprojectLogFramerisksandassumptionsarelargelyinthelattercategory.21

TherisksidentifiedintheProjectDocumentandLogFrameareimportantbutmost22identifiedrisksaresimplythenegativerestatingofassumptionsandareissuesthat23clearlycanbecontrolledbytheproject,bothatprojectdesignleveland/orduring24execution. Similarly, most refer to barriers to implementing R2R that the project25actuallyseekstoaddressthroughitsinterventions.Forexample,underactivity1.3.126- "Existing tensions between land-owners and government agencies may limit27communityleaderparticipation"butanR2Rproject is,orshould,bedesignedwith28thespecificpurposeofreducingthosetensions.29

The2017ProjectImplementationReviewdoesnotgiveanoverallriskratingdueto30lackofdata. Itdoes,however,underSectionE(CriticalRiskManagement) identify31the extended leave of the Program Coordinator and retention of the Project and32ScienceLeaderasrisksandtheexpansionofscopeofaconsultantandplacementof33an OIC as riskmanagementmeasures. The 2018 Project Implementation Review,34however,identifies:(i)thesameriskswithsimilarmanagementmeasures;(ii)lack35

90

of appropriately qualified national staff available to provide adequate secretariat1supporttoIMCwork;and(iii)thattheRPCUhasnoformalauthoritygoverningthe2activities of the STARprojects following the programmatic approach and that the3RPCG and theRSCwerenotified about this as a critical coordination issue by the4RPCU. Therefore, it appears that the project has some mechanisms in place to5identifyemergingrisks(regardingprojectexecution)but limitedability toresolve6them.The2018PIRgivesanoverallrisksratingas"substantial".Butthisprobably7refers to the risks that the project is off-track in terms of execution and not that8underlyingrisksandassumptionshavechanged.9

Asnotedearlier,projectrisksandassumptionsshouldhavebeentestedatproject10inception.Somerecommendationsforaddressingsomerisksandassumptionshave11beenincludedelsewhere(e.g.:re-orientingtheprojectapproachtowardsecosystem12goodsandservices;aligningIMCsetc.withexistinggovernancestructuresetc.).13

Observations on the overall, general, project risks and assumptions as per the14project document (its Section 2.5, table on its page 62) are provided in the table15below.Observations on themoredetailed list of project risks and assumptions in16the LogFrame are provided in Annex 11. Some important general observations17include: that a foundational assumption refers to the project building on the18institutional arrangements and capacity built by the previous GEF Pacific IWRM19Project.Itis,therefore,extremelyhighriskifthesearrangementsareerodedorno20longerexistespeciallyafteralongtime-lagbetweenthetwoprojects.Forthis,and21otherreasons,arecommendationismadeinSection4.2thattheprojectre-evaluate22thecurrentsituationregardingsustainabilityofpreviousIWRMinvestments.23

MTRRiskRatings24

MTRobservationsontheRiskratingsandresponsesintheProjectDocument(itspage62)Risk

Rating

impact/

probability ResponseidentifiedinPRODOC MTRobservationcomments

CapacityLimitsofPICsinstitutional andhumanresources

I=3P=5

Capacity determines implementation scope andpace. Project design recognizes this and there areseveralinnovativeapproachesproposedtopromoterapid learning whilst doing. This approach wassuccessfully demonstrated in the PacIWRM projectand the current proposal progresses the approachstill further. A significant lesson learnt in thePacIWRMwas thevalueof a technically strongandsupportive regional PCU that is able to assist andmentor national counterparts this lesson has beenrecognized in thedesignof thecomplementof staffinthePCU.

This isnotarisk.Lackofcapacity isanidentifiedassumptionthattheprojectisdesigned to address through capacitybuilding.

Continuedpoliticalwilland capacity of thePICs at different levelstoremaincommitted/involved in the furtherintegrationofwater,land and coastalmanagement.

I=3P=2

The engagement of the regional and sub-regionalorganizationsreducestheriskofafailuretoengageat a national level. The PacIWRM has successfullyestablished functional inter-ministerial committees,which can readily be expanded to include a higherlevelofrepresentationfrominstitutionsresponsiblefor Land and Coastal management. In manyinstancestheseagenciesarealreadyrepresentedbuttheir status needs to be increased. The Projectdesign emphasizes leadership development and

The project is designed to sustain orimprovesuchpoliticalwillandassumesthe project implementation adopts anapproach that seeks to integrate itsoutcomes into existing local/sub-national/state/nationalgovernanceandmanagement mechanisms andprocesses.

91

MTRobservationsontheRiskratingsandresponsesintheProjectDocument(itspage62)Risk

Rating

impact/

probability ResponseidentifiedinPRODOC MTRobservationcomments

awarenesstodrivehigh-levelsupport.R2RisacceptedataNational Level as alegitimatecoordinationframework for a multifocal area approach todemonstrateintegrated water, landand coastalmanagement

I=3P=2

TheR2Rconceptisnotentirelynewinmanyofthecountries where PacIWRM has watershed baseddemonstration projects. But R2R is in general notwell understood and the project design addressesthis through investing significantly in publiceducation and awareness approaches to rapidlydevelop a fundamental knowledge of the conceptand to garner widespread support. This approachhasprovedsuccessfulinthePacIWRMproject.

Theproject isdesignedtopromoteandimprove such acceptance (asimmediatelyabove).

Successfuladaptationdemonstration notsustained or scaled updue to a lack offinancialresources

I=3P=2

Therearemanyopportunitiespresentedbyclimatechangefinancingmechanismstodevelopsustainablefinancing arrangement for PICs, In additionappropriately valued coastal environmental servicesupporting food security, tourism and blue carbonhave the potential to yield sustainable financingopportunities

This assumes that the projectimplementation adopts an approachthat values coastal environmentalservices (= ecosystem goods andservices) see Section 4.2 onrecommendationsthattheprojectadoptsuchanapproach.

ICM is recognized asbeingmulti-sector andinvolve the whole ofcommunity

I=2P=2

A community to cabinet andback approachwill befostered at all levels of project development andimplementationsoastoensuremulti-sectorandfullcommunityparticipation.Thiscombinedwithtimelyand targeted media awareness campaigns willminimizetheriskofsectorsilosdeveloping.

Sector silos already exist. This is thereasonforhavingtheproject.The project is designed to address therequiredparticipationetc.(asabove)TheMTRwouldrate thisas impact=5sincewithout such recognition there isnoR2R; but probability is low (1 or 2)asitisalreadyquitewellrecognised.The issue is not whether R2R is"recognised"butwhetheritworks.

Communities andwiderstakeholders arewillingtoparticipateinPolicydevelopment andDemonstrationprojects;

I=2P=1

The lesson learnt from PacIWRM is that earlyengagementwith community in diagnostic analysisassists in building local level ownership that isreadilymaintainedintoprojectdesignandimplementation provided effective and genuinecollaboration is developed. This project designestablishesthesameprovenapproachandthereforetheriskisviewedaslow.

The project is designed to encouragestakeholderparticipation.TheMTRwouldrate thisas impact=5sinceintheabsenceofsuchwillingnessthere is no R2R; but probability isindeedlow.

Civil society isconcernedaboutwater,landandcoastalmanagement;

I=2P=1

Civil Society attitudes are important drivers ofleadershipresponse.Theprojectdesignhasadopteda push pull approach to achieving change. Bytargeting leadership at National and Communitylevels plus the delivery of well resourced publiceducation and awareness campaigns sufficientenergy should be created to ensure acceptance ofthe need to effectively manage water, land andcoasts.

The impact of this should be rated 5because with no civil society concernthere is no incentive for R2R.Probability is however very low (orclosetonil).Civilsocietyisalreadyveryconcerned.However,thereal issueiswhetherR2Raddressestheconcerns.

Effects of ClimateChangeon water, land andcoastand the effectivenessofmeasures

I=2P=5

Climatechangecouldsubstantiallyaffectvulnerablewater, landandcoasts.Theprojecthasasaspecificfocus improvingthemanagementonaR2Rbasistoenableadaptivestrategiesthatincrease resilience to climate change. Attention isbeing given to promoting ecosystem services forresilience.Climatechangewillonlydemonstratetheneed for appropriate adaptive responses thatstrengthenR2Rresilience.

UNDP-GEF projects accept climatechange science (as per IPCC) andthereforeClimateChangeisnotarisk.Itisacertainty.There isno"could"affectvulnerable...etc.Itis"will"affect.The "effectiveness of measures"remainsavalidpointbut theproject isdesignedtoidentifyeffectivemeasures.

12

92

5.4.1 Financialriskstosustainability1

As a result of the lackof detailed verifiable co-financial information, theMTRhas2observedhighuncertaintyaboutthelikelihoodoffinancialandeconomicresources3beingavailableonceGEF’sassistanceends.However, inprinciple,R2Rapproaches4aretobemainstreamedacrossgovernmentsectors,institutionsandpolicies.Inthe5longerterm,R2Rshouldnotrequireadditionalfinancialresourcesbutshouldinfact6resultinoverallfinancialsavingsduetoimprovedinvestmentefficiencies.Itisnot,7however,knownhowlongthiswilltake.Forthisreasontheprojectneedstofocus8on demonstrating that R2R approaches result in overall improvements in system9performance and the efficiency and sustainability of ongoing government10investments.11

At project start-up, the ExecutingAgency (SPC) did not receive overhead costs. It12has been agreed that a 10% fee for overhead costs is to be applied on direct13expendituresincurredbytheprojectfrom1July2018.PICshavebeenassuredthat14thiswill not impact national project budgets. The net impact of thiswill be that15therewill bemore than 10% reduction in the regional budget. Thiswill have an16impact onnational level activities because the regional budget is to support PICs.17Thisdecisionhasalreadybeentaken(ref.minutesofthethirdRSC)andisincluded18hereforreportingpurposes.19

5.4.2 Socio-economicriskstosustainability20

In some cases, a risk is "community fatigue" at project site implementation using21communityparticipatoryapproaches.Thiswas specificallymentioned in theCook22Islands whereby local communities are overwhelmed with project interventions23and, insomecases, limitedprogress toshowfor it. It is likely this isaproblem in24someotherPICs.25

26AsmentionedinSection4.3above,itisunclearhowthemuchlauded"communityto27cabinet"approach in theProjectDocument is translated into tangibledeliverables28and coordination mechanisms through project implementation. Comments on29"coordination"inthesamesectionreferfurthertothis.3031InsomePICs,projectshavedemonstratedR2Rapproachesbut this isnotauseful32indicatorofR2Rsuccess.FarmoreimportantisadoptionofR2Rapproachesand/or33up-scaling,particularlybeyondprojectsites.SeeSection4.2forfurtherdiscussion.3435TheMTRfoundnoevidenceabouttheexistenceoftoolsandactionstosystematize36lessons learned, to document these on a continuous basis and/or for these to be37sharedortransferred.DiscussioninSection4.2,andrecommendation11,refers.38

5.4.3 Institutionalframeworkandgovernancerisksto39sustainability40

TheMTRfoundnolegalframeworks,policies,governancestructuresandprocesses,41whichcanposerisksto,orjeopardize,thesustenanceofprojectbenefits.Required42

93

mechanismsforaccountability,transparency,andtechnicalknowledgetransferare1not strongly in place and this can pose risks to, or jeopardize, sustainability of2projectbenefits.3

TheMTRnotestheoftenwidedisconnectbetweenpolicyandimplementation.For4example,integratingR2Rintomajornationalandregionalpolicyframeworksdoes5not guarantee implementation of R2R. As yet, there is no evidence of R2R being6integratedintonational legislations,norindeedthesameforecosystemgoodsand7services as the foundation of planning and impact assessment requirements. It is,8however,tooearlytoexpectmajoradvancesinthisarea.9

5.4.4 Environmentalriskstosustainability10

TheMTRhasnotdetectedanyenvironmentalrisksthatmayjeopardizesustenance11ofprojectoutcomes.Theprojectisinfactdesignedtoreduceenvironmentalrisksto12sustainabledevelopment.13

5.4.5 RatingsforSustainability14

"Sustainability" of the project outcomes needs to be placed in context. Lack of15sustainabilityofprojectgainsafterdonor fundingceases isa systemicproblem in16many PICs, partly due to a relatively high dependency on ODA (Section 3).17Moreover, some PICs rely on external donor funding for replicating/up-scaling18demonstratedmeasures. BecauseR2Rinvolvesinstitutionalandsocietalchangeit19involvesa long timehorizon toexpect it tobeachieved comprehensively.The IW20R2R project is also "testing" R2R approaches and therefore intended to guide or21influencefutureinvestments.Asalreadynoted(Section4.2),thetwomostvaluable22outcomes of the IW R2R Project and GEF Pacific R2R Programme are capacity23buildingandlessonslearned.24

Given this context, taking a capacity-building andmainstreaming approach to the25delivery/implementationofalltheprojectcomponentsandtheiractivitiesprovides26the best chance of sustaining Project gains. For this reason, the MTR places the27highest emphasis andpriority on capacity building and lessons learned inproject28deliveryanditsrelevantrecommendationsintheseregards.29

The following rating takes this context into account and assumes that the MTR30recommendationsareimplemented(includingtheno-costextension).31

SustainabilityRating32

SustainabilityRating Description3 ModeratelyLikely(ML)

Moderaterisks,butexpectationsthatatleastsomeoutcomeswill be sustained due to the progress towards results onoutcomesattheMidtermReview

33

94

6 Conclusionsandrecommendations1

Conclusions and Recommendations of the MTR have been integrated into the2previous sections. A Recommendations Summary Table has been provided in the3ExecutiveSummary.4

5

7 Annexes6

7

95

Annex1:ListofStakeholdersMetandInterviewed51

2

Name Designation OfficeAddress/ContactDetailsDateandVenue

ofMeetingUNDPSuva1 FloydRobinson

ProgramAnalyst UNDPinPacificOfficeinFiji

KadavuHouse414VictoriaParadeSuva,Fiji

14March2019,MeetingRoom,7thFloor,UNDPOffice2 KevinPetrini

Resilience&SustainableDevelopment,TeamLeaderandClimateChangeProgrammeSpecialistinthePacific

UNDPinPacificOfficeinFijiKadavuHouse414VictoriaParadeSuva,Fiji

3 WiniferetiNainoca EnvironmentSpecialist,DeptTeamLeader-ResilientSustainableDevelopment(RSD)

UNDPinPacificOfficeinFijiKadavuHouse414VictoriaParadeSuva,[email protected]

4 JosuaTuraganivalu

EnvironmentProgrammeAssociate,ResilienceandSustainableDevelopment(RSD)

UNDPinPacificOfficeinFiji,KadavuHouse414VictoriaParadeSuva,[email protected]

5 RusiateRatuniata

ProgramAnalystandUNDPSTARCoordinatorforFiji

UNDPinPacificOfficeinFiji,KadavuHouse414VictoriaParadeSuva,[email protected]

5April2019MeetingRoom,7thFloor,UNDPOffice

SPC6 AndrewJones Director

Geoscience,EnergyandMaritime

SPC241MeadRoad,Nabua,SuvaCity

14March2019Director’sOffice,SPC241MeadRoad,Nabua,SuvaCity

7 RhondaRobinson DeputyDirector,DCRPandActingProjectManagerRegionalIWR2R(August2018-January2019)

SPC241MeadRoad,Nabua,SuvaCity

5Inaddition,Mr.JosePadilla,UNDP-GEFRegionalTechnicalAdviser,providedavaluableinterviewandguidance,byphone,totheMTRteampriortotheMTRcommencing.

96

Name Designation OfficeAddress/ContactDetails

DateandVenue

ofMeetingRegionalR2RProjectCoordinatingUnit8 PeterCusack

RidgetoReefProgrammeCoordinator

RPCU-SPC241MeadRoad,Nabua,SuvaCity

14March2019MeetingRoom,RPCU-SPC241MeadRoad,Nabua,SuvaCity

9 JoseAntonio CountryCoordination,M&EAdvisor

RPCU-SPC241MeadRoad,Nabua,SuvaCity(+679)7359223(+679)[email protected]

10 SamasoniSauni ScienceandNationalProjectLeader


11 NavneetLal

WebandPrintGraphicMultimediaAssistant


12 EmmaNewland ScienceOfficer RPCU-SPC241MeadRoad,Nabua,[email protected]

13 FonongaMangisi-Mafileo

CommunicationsandKnowledgeManagementOfficer


14 SarojniDevi ProjectAccountant


15 VerenaisiBakani ProgramAdministrator


RMINationalImplementation16 JuliusLucky

NationalIWR2RProjectManager

RMIEnvironmentalProtectionAuthorityP.O.Box1322Majuro,MarshallIslands,96960E-mail:[email protected]:+6926253035/5203Mob:+6924551924SkypeID:tupaclolo

19MarchViaphone/skype

17 JenniferdeBrum

ProjectManager

RMIRidgetoReefProjectOfficeofEnvironmentPlanningandPolicyCoordination5thFloor,MIDevelopmentBank(MIDB)MajuroAtoll96960,MH,MarshallIslandsTel:+6926257944Mob:+6924564700


97


DateandVenue

ofMeeting18 FataEtiMalolo

PrincipalWatershedOfficer,NationalIWR2RProjectManager

WaterResourcesDivisionMinistryofNaturalResourcesandEnvironmentPrivateMailBag,Apia,SamoaE-mail:[email protected]:+68567200Mob:+6857751609


TongaNationalImplementation19 SiliaLeger


MinistryofLandsandNaturalResourcesPOBox5,VunaRoad,Nuku’alofa,TongaEmail:[email protected]:+67625508Mob:+6767711799SkypeID:SiliaLeger


20 PaulaMa'u

ChiefEnvironmentOfficer

MinistryofMeteorology,Energy,Information,DisasterManagement,Environment,ClimateChangeandCommunicationsP.O.Box917,Nuku'Alofa,TongaEmail:[email protected]:+67628170

Viaemailcorrespondence

FSMNationalImplementation21 FaithAlexandra

Siba

IWR2RProjectManager

Dept.ofEnvironment&EmergencyManagement,P.O.BoxPS-69,Palikir96941,PohnpeiE-mail:[email protected]:+6913703673Mob:+6919701600Skype:FaithSiba.


22 RosalindaYatilman

FSMRidgetoReefProjectManager

OfficeofEnvironment&EmergencyManagement,P.O.BoxPS-69,Palikir96941,Pohnpei,E-mail:[email protected]:yatilmanTel:+6913208814/8815Mob:+6919254053


NauruNationalImplementation23 PhaedoraHarris

NationalR2RProjectCoordinator

DepartmentofCommerce,IndustryandEnvironment,GovernmentBuilding,YarenDistrict,RepublicofNauruE-mail:[email protected],[email protected]:+6745572960

21March2019Viaphone/skype

98


DateandVenue

ofMeetingMob:+6745567917

SolomonIslandsNationalImplementation

24 SammyAirahui


MinistryofEnvironment,ClimateChange,DisasterManagementandMeteorologyPOBox21,Honiara,SolomonIslands


NiueNationalImplementation25 CrispinaKonelio

NationalGEFIWR2RProjectManager

MinistryofNaturalResourcesNiueGovernmentAlofi,NiueE-mail:[email protected]:+6834018Mob:+6836635


26 JosieTamate

Director MinistryofNaturalResourcesNiueGovernmentAlofi,Niue

PNGNationalImplementation27 SensonMark

NationalGEFIWR2RProjectManager

ConservationandEnvironmentProtectionAuthorityPOBox6601,Boroko,NCD,PapuaNewGuineaEmail:[email protected]:+(675)3014500Mob:+(675)71861101/76714588


CookIslandsNationalImplementation28 Mr.NgaPuna

Director,NES,GEFFocalPoint

CookIsNationalEnvironmentServiceRarotonga(682)70778(682)21256

18-22March2019,Rarotonga

29 HeimataLouisaKarika

Manager-IslandFuturesDivision,GEFOperationalFocalPoint

CookIsNationalEnvironmentServiceRarotonga(682)70778(682)[email protected]

30 MariaTuoro NationalSTARR2RCoordinator

CookIsNationalEnvironmentServiceRarotonga(682)51589(682)[email protected]

99


DateandVenue

ofMeeting31 JaimeShort IWR2RProject

Coordinator,previousIWR2RProjectManager

InfrastructureCookIslandsRarotonga(682)54302(682)[email protected]

32 DianeCharlie-Puna

Secretary,CookIslandsInfrastructure

InfrastructureCookIslandsRarotonga(682)54302(682)20321

33 TeresaManarangi-Trott


InfrastructureCookIslandsRarotonga(682)54302(682)20321

34 MiiKauvai Chairperson MuriEnvironmentCare(MEC)Rarotonga

VanuatuNationalImplementation

35 EricksenPackett IWR2RProjectManager

DeptofEnvironmentalProtectionandConservationPortVila(678)5372122/7803(678)25302/[email protected]

26March2019MeetingRoomDeptofEnvironmentalProtectionandConservationPortVila

36 DavidLoubser VanuatuPEBACCProjectManager

[email protected]


37 ErieSami Chairperson,TagabeRiverManagementCommittee/HydrologyOfficer

[email protected]

27March2019MeetingRoomWaterResourcesDeptPortVila

38 NelsonBakokoto

AreaSecretary

IfiraMarineManagement(IMM)PortVila

27March2019*MetduringthefieldvisittotheTagabeWaterCatchmentProjectSite

39 TateHanington ProjectManager, VanuatuSTARProject,FAODeptofEnvironmentalProtection

27March2019MeetingRoom

100


DateandVenue

ofMeetingandConservation

DeptofEnvironmentalProtectionandConservationPortVila

40 RolenasBaereleoTavue

IWR2R(OversightofIWprojectManager)

DepartmentofEnvironmentalProtectionandConservationPortVila(678)7776000(678)[email protected]


TuvaluNationalImplementation41 TaualoPenivao ChiefOperating

OfficerFunafutiKaupuleFunafutiKaupuleOffice

1April2019FunafutiKaupuleOfficeFunafuti

42 HamoaHolona AssistantSecretary

MinistryofHomeAffairsGovernmentBuilding,Funafuti,Tuvalu

1April2019MinistryofHomeAffairsOfficeGovernmentBuilding,Funafuti

43 FaatasiMaloologa DirectorLandDepartment

DepartmentofLandsGovernmentBuilding,Funafuti,Tuvalu

1April2019DepartmentofLandsOfficeGovernmentBuilding,Funafuti

44 UateaVave AgricultureOfficer

DepartmentofAgricultureGovernmentBuilding,Funafuti,Tuvalu

2April2019IWOffice(VaiakuFusi)Funafuti

45 WalterKaua

Directorof DepartmentofWasteManagementGovernmentBuilding,Funafu45ti,Tuvalu


46 IvyTumua R2RSTAR-coordinator


47 PesegaLifuka TuvaluIWR2RProjectManager

DepartmentofWasteManagementGovernmentBuilding,Funafu45ti,[email protected]


101


DateandVenue

ofMeeting48 Faoliu.Teakau Environment

OfficerDept.ofEnvironment,TuvaluGovernmentPartnershipHouse


49 LanuolaFaasiai GenderOfficer GenderDepartmentGovernmentBuildingFunafuti,Tuvalu


50 PisiAfaaso WaterandSanitationSupervisor/FormerIWRMDemonstrationProjectManager

PublicWorksDepartmentTuvaluGovernment


FijiNationalImplementation51 TavenisaLuisa IWR2RProject

ManagerMinistryofWaterways&Environment,Suva(679)9376238(679)[email protected]

22March2019MeetingRoom,RPCU-SPC241MeadRoad,Nabua,SuvaCity

52 EleniTokadua7.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 P

rincipalEnvironmentOff

MinistryofWaterways&Environment,SuvaTel:+679-3311699/330680,Fax:+679-3312879Email:[email protected]

5April2019ConferenceRoomMin.ofLocalGovernment,Housing&Environment

102


DateandVenue

ofMeetingicer

53 BeverlySadole NationalR2RProjectCoordinator

MinistryofWaterways&Environment,Suva(679)7115008(679)[email protected]

5April2019ConferenceRoomMin.ofLocalGovernment,Housing&Environment19McGregorRoad,Suva

54 SemiTekiviliSauliga

ConservationOfficer

NaitasiriSub-OfficeNaitasiriProvincialOfficeNausori,Suva

5April2019NaitasiriProvincialOfficeNausori,Suva

55 SemitiBukiamasa AssistantRokoTui

NaitasiriSub-OfficeNaitasiriProvincialOfficeNausori,Suva

5April2019NaitasiriProvincialOfficeNausori,Suva

56 SimeliNakalevu AssistantRoko LowerNaitasiriNaitasiriProvincialOfficeNausori,Suva

5April2019SawaniVillageHallNausori,Suva

57 MeliVunakece TuraganiKoroSawani

SawaniVillageNausori,Suva

5April2019SawaniVillageHallNausori,Suva

PalauNationalImplementation

58 LeenaMesebeluu ProjectManagerNationalIWR2RProjectinPalau

MinistryofNaturalResourcesEnvironment&Tourism,2nd

Floor,ExecutiveBuildingNgerulmud,PW96940(680)[email protected]

24April2019PalauHotel

59 F.UmiichSengebau

Minister Min.ofNaturalResources,EnvironmentandTourism

24April2019Min.ofNaturalResources,EnvironmentandTourismKoror,Palau

60 UmaiBasilius Policy& PalauConservationSociety 25April2019

,

103


DateandVenue

ofMeetingPlanningManager

(680)[email protected]

MeetingRoomPalauConservationSocietyOfficeKoror,Palau

61 Abolade(Bola)Majekobaje

ExecutiveDirector

PalauConservationSocietyP.O.Box1811BaiRaMaibrelKororPalau96940(680)4883993

25April2019MeetingRoomPalauConservationSocietyOfficeKoror,Palau

62 KingSam OperationalFocalPoint

Min.ofNaturalResources,EnvironmentandTourism(680)7673125/[email protected]

25April2019MeetingRoomMin.ofNaturalResources,EnvironmentandTourismKoror,Palau

63 CharleneMersai NationalEnvironmentCoordinatorandSecretariat

NationalEnvironmentalProtectionCouncilSecretariatMinistryofFinance

25April2019MeetingRoomMin.ofNaturalResources,EnvironmentandTourismPalauCapitolMelekeok

64 GwendalynKingtaroSisior

NationalR2RProjectCoordinator

Min.ofNaturalResources,EnvironmentandTourismPalauCapitolMelekeok(680)7754936(680)[email protected]

25April2019MeetingRoomMin.ofNaturalResources,EnvironmentandTourismPalauCapitolMelekeok

65 JoyAntonio ConservationOfficer

NgardokNatureReserveCenterMelekeokState,Palau(680)654-2967

26April2019NgardokNatureReserveVisitors’Center

66 LomalindaGabriel

ConservationSupervisor

67 OmarFaustino PANCoordinator1

2

104

Annex2:TermsofReferencefortheMid-termReview1

2Consultancy Title:Team Leader: IntegratedWater ResourceManagement (IWRM) /Integrated Coastal ZoneManagement(ICM)Specialist.MidTermEvaluationofRegionalRidgetoReefProject.

ProjectName: RegionalRidgetoReefProject

Duty Station:Home-basedandselecteddutystation.Teamofconsultantsareexpectedvisit the following islands:Fiji,Tuvalu,Vanuatu,Cook IslandsandPalau. Consultantsexpected tohavebriefingswithUNDPPacificOfficeandSecretariatofthePacificCommunityinSuva.

DurationoftheContract:Durationofcontract:34dayswithin16weeksperiodStartingdate:30January2019Completiondate:10May2019

ConsultancyProposalshouldbesentviaemailtoetenderbox.pacific@undp.orgnolaterthan4thJanuary,2019(FijiTime) clearly stating the title of consultancy applied for. Any proposals received after this date/timewill not beaccepted. Any request for clarification must be sent in writing, or by standard electronic communication toprocurement.fj@undp.org.UNDPwillrespondinwritingorbystandardelectronicmailandwillsendwrittencopiesoftheresponse, includinganexplanationofthequerywithout identifyingthesourceof inquiry, toallconsultants.Incomplete,lateandjointproposalswillnotbeconsideredandonlyoffersforwhichthereisfurtherinterestwillbecontacted. Failure to submit your application as stated as per the application submission guide (ProcurementNotice)ontheabovelinkwillbeconsideredincompleteandthereforeapplicationwillnotbeconsidered.

105

1

Objectives:ThisistheTermsofReference(ToR)fortheUNDP-GEFMidtermReview(MTR)ofthefull-sizedprojecttitledRidgetoReef - Testingthe IntegrationofWater,Land, Forest&CoastalManagementtoPreserveEcosystemServices, StoreCarbon,ImproveClimateResilienceandSustainLivelihoodsinPacificIslandCountries–RegionalRidgetoReef(R2R)(PIMS#5221) (Atlas#92601) implemented through Pacific Community (SPC) which is to be undertaken in January2019.Theproject startedon the31August2015and is in its thirdyearof implementation.ThisToR follows theUNDP-GEFGuidanceonMTRs.ThisToRsetsouttheexpectationsforthisMTR. TheMTRprocessmustfollowtheguidance outlined in thedocumentGuidance For ConductingMidtermReviews ofUNDP-Supported, GEF-FinancedProjects.(http://web.undp.org/evaluation/documents/guidance/GEF/mid-term/Guidance_Midterm%20Review%20_EN_2014.pdf). RefertoAnnexHforProjectLogframe.

NOTE:

Thereviewteamwillconsistof2consultants:aTeamLeader/IntegratedWaterResourceManagement(IWRM)orIntegrated Coastal Zone Management (ICM) Specialist and a Governance and Development Specialist. TheIntegratedWaterResourceManagement (IWRM)or IntegratedCoastal ZoneManagement (ICM) Specialistwillbetheteamleaderandwillberequiredtoworkwith theGovernanceandDevelopmentSpecialist insubmittingonecombinedMTRreport.Bothconsultantswillbeexpectedtotraveltotravelto3PacificIslandCountries(PICs)eachasagreedbetweentheteammembers,UNDPandSPC.

Both consultants shall have prior experience in evaluating ‘Ridge to Reef’ promoting programmatic approach toecosystemgovernance,orsimilarprojects.ExperiencewithGEFfinancedprojectsisanadvantage.(Theteamleaderwill be responsible for finalizing the report). The evaluators selected should not have participated in the projectpreparationand/orimplementationandshouldnothaveconflictofinterestwithprojectrelatedactivities.

106

PROJECTBACKGROUNDINFORMATIONGiventhecloseinter-connectionsbetweenland,waterandcoastalsystemsinSmallIslandDevelopingStates(SIDS),the integration of freshwater watershed management with coastal area management is considered essential tofoster effective cross-sectoral coordination in the planning and management of land, water and coastal uses. InPacificSIDS, such integratedapproaches to freshwaterandcoastalareamanagementhavebeen termed ‘Ridge toReef’ to emphasize the inter-connections between the natural and social systems from themountain ‘ridges’ ofvolcanic islands, through coastal watersheds and habitats, and across coastal lagoons to the fringing ‘reef’environments associated with most Pacific SIDS. Inherent in the approach is the philosophy of cross-sectoralcoordination in theplanning andmanagement of freshwater use, sanitation,wastewater treatment and pollutioncontrol, sustainable land use and forestry practices, balancing coastal livelihoods and biodiversity conservation,hazardriskreduction,andclimatevariabilityandchange.Similarly,theintegrationofcommunities,stakeholders,andnationalgovernmentswithinsuchacross-sectoralplanningframeworkisdescribedbyPacificSIDSasa‘CommunitytoCabinet’approach.

To support the ongoing development of ‘Ridge to Reef’ and ‘Community to Cabinet’ approaches in Pacific SIDSthrough the abovementioned multi-focal area R2R Programme, the GEF Council approved the development ofan International Waters project entitled “Ridge to Reef: Testing the Integration of Water, Land, Forest andCoastal Management to Preserve Ecosystem Services, Store Carbon, Improve Climate Resilience and SustainLivelihoods in Pacific Island Countries”. This regional project will be implemented by the United NationsDevelopment Program through the AppliedGeoscience and TechnologyDivision of the Secretariat of the PacificCommunityinpartnership withthe14PacificIslandCountries(PICs)toimprovetheintegrationofwater,land,forestandcoastalmanagement requiredto fashionsustainablefutures for islandcommunities.Theprojectalsoaimstoaddress the recent high-level recognition and calls for results-based approaches to the management ofdevelopment assistance programmes and projects, and will provide support in areas of coordination, capacitybuilding,technicalassistance,andmonitoringand evaluationfortheoperationofthebroaderPacificR2RProgramme.

Importantly, theprojectwill buildonnascentnationalprocessesbuilt in thepreviousGEF IWRMproject to fostersustainability and resilience for each participating island nation through: reforms in policy, institutions, andcoordination; building capacity of local institutions to integrate land,water and coastalmanagement; establishingevidence-basedapproachestoICMplanning;andimprovedconsolidationofinformationanddatarequiredtoinformcross-sectorR2Rplanningapproaches.Theseprocessesarebeingsustained.Itisenvisagedthatthisprojectwillalsofocus much attention on harnessing support of traditional community leadership and governance structures toimprovetherelevanceofinvestmentinintegratedland,water,forestandcoastalmanagement.ThisprojectwillalsoprovidecoordinationfunctionsandlinkageswiththenationalGEFSTARmultifocalprojectsandLDCFprojectandwillfacilitatedialogueandactionplanningthroughnationalInter-MinistryCommitteesonresponsestoemergingissuesand threats inenvironmentandnatural resourcemanagement.Similarly, itwill facilitatecoordinatedexchangesofexperienceandresultsoftheGEFportfolioof investmentsinabroaderregionalR2RProgrammeforPICs.Linkageswithco-financedactivitiesonwaterresourceandwastewatermanagement,coastalsystemsandclimateadaptationand disaster risk management will ensure more targeted capital investment in coastal infrastructure within anintegrated management framework. Similarly, the project will foster solidarity among the PICs, particularly withrespecttothepoliticalwillrequiredtosupportmoreintegratedapproachestoR2Rinnaturalresourcemanagement.

The purpose of the project is to test the mainstreaming of ‘ridge-to-reef’ (R2R), climate resilient approaches tointegratedland,water,forestandcoastalmanagementinthePICsthroughstrategicplanning,capacitybuildingandpilotedlocalactionstosustainlivelihoodsandpreserveecosystemservices.Thisregionalprojectprovidestheprimarycoordination vehicle for the national R2R STAR Projects that are part of the Pacific R2R Programme, by buildingon nascentnationalprocessesfromthepreviousGEFIWRMprojecttofostersustainabilityandresilienceforeachisland through: reforms in policy, institutions, and coordination; building capacity of local institutions to integrateland, water and coastalmanagement through on-site demonstrations; establishing evidence-based approaches toICM planning;improvedconsolidationofresultsmonitoring,andinformationanddatarequiredtoinformcrosssectorR2R planning approaches. This project will also focus attention on harnessing support of traditional communityleadership and governance structures to improve the relevance of investment in ICM, including MPAs, from‘community to cabinet’.

107

Scopeofwork/ExpectedOutput

OBJECTIVESOFTHEMTRThemodifiedMTRwillassessprogresstowardstheachievementoftheprojectobjectivesandoutcomesasspecified intheProjectDocumentandassessearlysignsofprojectsuccessorfailurewiththegoalofidentifyingthenecessary changes to be made inorder to set the project on-track to achieve its intended results. It will focus on the effectiveness,efficiencyandtimelinessofprojectimplementation,highlightissuesrequiringdecisionsandactions,and presentinitiallessonslearnedaboutprojectdesign,implementationandmanagement.TheMTRwillalsoreviewthe project’sstrategyand its risks tosustainability.Findingsof thisreviewwillbeincorporatedasrecommendationsfor enhancedimplementationduringthefinalhalfoftheproject’sterm.

The MTR should provide evidence-based information that is credible, reliable and useful. The MTR reviewer will reviewrelevantsourcesofinformationincludingdocumentspreparedduringthepreparationphase(i.e.PIF,UNDP InitiationPlan,UNDPEnvironmental & Social Safeguard Policy, the Project Document, project reports including Annual Project Review/PIRs, projectbudget revisions, lesson learned reports, national strategic and legal documents, the projectwebsite and anyothermaterialsthat the reviewer considers useful for this evidence-based review). TheMTR reviewer will review the baseline GEF focal areaTrackingToolsubmittedtotheGEFatCEOendorsement,andthe midtermGEFfocalareaTrackingToolthatmustbecompletedbeforetheMTRfieldmissionbegins.

TheMTR team is expected to follow a collaborative and participatory approach1 ensuring close engagementwith the ProjectTeam, government counterparts (the GEF Operational Focal Point), the UNDP Country Office(s), UNDP-GEF RegionalTechnicalAdvisers,andotherkeystakeholders.

Engagementof stakeholders is vital to a successfulMTR.2Stakeholder involvement should include interviewswith stakeholderswhohaveproject responsibilities, includingbutnot limited toAnnex1 listprovided;executingagencies, seniorofficialsand taskteam/ component leaders and project managers, key experts and consultants in the subject area, Project Board, projectstakeholders, academia, local government andCSOs, etc.Additionally, theMTR review is expectedtoconduct fieldmissionstodifferent government agencies in the 3 selected Pacific Island countries currently implementing the project (2 Polynesiancountries and 1 Melanesian country). While visiting these countries, the following implementing partners will also be visitednational and regional R2R partners on the ground and stakeholders including SPC. Moreover, at least 8 other PICs will becovered by teleconferences. The PICswill be determinedjointlybyUNDPandSPC.

The final MTR report should describe the full MTR approach taken and the rationale for the approach making explicit theunderlyingassumptions,challenges,strengthsandweaknessesaboutthemethodsandapproachofthereview. RefertoAnnexBforguidelinesoncontentofMidtermReviewReport.

Between themselves, the team of consultants are expected visit the following islands: Fiji, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Cook IslandsandPalau.DETAILEDSCOPEOFTHEMTRThe MTR review will assess the following four categories of project progress. See the Guidance For Conducting MidtermReviewsofUNDP-Supported,GEF-FinancedProjectsforextendeddescriptions.i.ProjectStrategyProjectdesign:• Review the problem addressed by the project and the underlying assumptions following the Theory of Change

process. Review the effect of any incorrect assumptionsor changes to the context to achieving theprojectresultsasoutlinedintheProjectDocument.

• Review the relevance of the project strategy and assess whether it provides the most effective route towardsexpected/intendedresults.

• Were lessons from other relevant projects properly incorporated into the project design? Review how the projectaddressescountrypriorities.Reviewcountryownership.Wastheprojectconcept

1ForideasoninnovativeandparticipatoryMonitoringandEvaluationstrategiesandtechniques,seeUNDPDiscussionPaper:InnovationsinMonitoring&EvaluatingResults,05Nov2013.2FormorestakeholderengagementintheM&Eprocess,seetheUNDPHandbookonPlanning,MonitoringandEvaluatingforDevelopmentResults,Chapter3,pg.93.

108

inlinewiththenationalsectordevelopmentprioritiesandplansofparticipatingcountries?• Review decision-making processes: were perspectives of those who would be affected by project decisions, those who could

affect the outcomes, and those who could contribute information or other resources to theprocess, taken intoaccountduringprojectdesignprocesses?

• Reviewtheextenttowhichrelevantgenderissueswerecapturedintheprojectdesign.Makesuggestions forhowrelevantgenderissues can be better incorporated and monitored in the project. See Annex 9 of Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews ofUNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects for further guidelines.

• Iftherearemajorareasofconcern,recommendareasforimprovement.ResultsFramework/Logframe:• Undertake a critical analysis of the project’s logframe indicators and targets, assess how “SMART” the midterm and end-of-

project targets are (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Time-bound), and suggest specific amendments/revisions to thetargetsandindicatorsasnecessary.

• Are the project’s objectives and outcomes or components clear, practical, and feasible within its time frame?• Examine if progress so far has led to or could in the future catalyse beneficial development effects (i.e. income generation,

genderequalityandwomen’sempowerment, improvedgovernanceetc.) that should beincludedintheprojectresultsframeworkandmonitoredonanannualbasis.

• Ensure broader development and gender aspects of the project are being monitored effectively. Develop and recommend SMART‘development’indicators,includingsex-disaggregatedindicatorsandindicatorsthatcapture developmentbenefits.

ii. ProgressTowardsResults

ProgressTowardsOutcomesandOutputAnalysis:• Reviewthelogframeindicatorsagainstprogressmadetowardstheend-of-projecttargetsusingthe ProgressTowardsResultsMatrix

and following theGuidanceForConductingMidtermReviewsofUNDP- Supported,GEF-FinancedProjects; colour codeprogress ina “traffic light system” based on the level of progress achieved; assign a rating on progress for each outcome; makerecommendationsfromtheareas markedas“Notontargettobeachieved”(red).

Table.ProgressTowardsResultsMatrix(AchievementofoutcomesagainstEnd-of-projectTargets)

• IndicatorAssessmentKey

Green=Achieved Yellow=Ontargettobeachieved Red=Notontargettobeachieved

3PopulatewithdatafromtheLogframeandscorecards4PopulatewithdatafromtheProjectDocument5Ifavailable6Colourcodethiscolumnonly7Usethe6pointProgressTowardsResultsRatingScale:HS,S,MS,MU,U,HU

ProjectStrategy

Indicator3 BaselineLevel4

Levelin1stPIR(self-reported)

MidtermTarget5

End-of-projectTarget

MidtermLevel&Assessment6

AchievementRating7

JustificationforRating

Objective: Indicator (ifapplicable):

Outcome1:

Indicator1: Indicator2:

Outcome2:

Indicator3: Indicator4: Etc.

Etc.

109

Inadditiontotheprogresstowardsoutcomesanalysis:• Compare and analyse the GEF Tracking Tool at the Baseline with the one completed right before the Midterm

Review.• Identifyremainingbarrierstoachievingtheprojectobjectiveintheremainderoftheproject.iii. By reviewing the aspects of the project that have already been successful, identify ways in which the projectcan

furtherexpandthesebenefits. ProjectImplementationandAdaptiveManagement

ManagementArrangements:• Review overall effectiveness of projectmanagement as outlined in the Project Document. Have changes been made and

are theyeffective?Areresponsibilitiesandreporting linesclear? Isdecision-making transparentand undertakeninatimelymanner? Recommendareasforimprovement.

• Review thequality of execution of the Executing Agency/Implementing Partner(s) and recommend areas forimprovement.

• Reviewthequalityofsupportprovidedby the ImplementingAgency/GEFPartnerAgency (UNDP)and recommendareasforimprovement.

• ReviewthequalityofsupportofthenationalagenciesinPICsintheimplementationofagreednationalpriorities, outputsandactivities.

WorkPlanning:• Reviewanydelaysinprojectstart-upandimplementation, identifythecausesandexamineiftheyhave been

resolved.• Are work-planning processes results-based? If not, suggest ways to re-orientate work planning to focus on results?• Examinetheuseoftheproject’sresultsframework/logframeasamanagementtoolandreviewanychanges madetoit

sinceprojectstart.

Financeandco-finance:• Consider the financial management of the project, with specific reference to the cost-effectiveness of

interventions.• Reviewthechangestofundallocationsasaresultofbudgetrevisionsandassesstheappropriatenessand relevance

ofsuchrevisions.• Does the project have the appropriate financial controls, including reporting and planning, that allow

managementtomakeinformeddecisionsregardingthebudgetandallowfortimelyflowoffunds?• Informedbytheco-financingmonitoringtabletobefilledout,providecommentaryonco-financing: isco- financing

being used strategically to help the objectives of the project? Is the Project Team meeting with all co-financingpartnersregularlyinordertoalignfinancingprioritiesandannualworkplans?

Project-levelMonitoringandEvaluationSystems:• Reviewthemonitoringtoolscurrentlybeingused:Dotheyprovidethenecessaryinformation?Dotheyinvolve keypartners?

Are they aligned ormainstreamedwith national systems? Do they use existing information?Are they efficient? Are theycost-effective?Areadditional toolsrequired?Howcouldtheybemademore participatoryandinclusive?

• Examinethefinancialmanagementoftheprojectmonitoringandevaluationbudget. Aresufficientresources beingallocatedtomonitoringandevaluation?Aretheseresourcesbeingallocatedeffectively?

StakeholderEngagement:• Projectmanagement:Hastheprojectdevelopedandleveragedthenecessaryandappropriatepartnershipswith directand

tangentialstakeholders?• Participationandcountry-drivenprocesses:Dolocalandnationalgovernmentstakeholderssupportthe objectivesofthe

project? Dotheycontinuetohaveanactiveroleinprojectdecision-makingthatsupports efficientandeffectiveprojectimplementation?Dostakeholdershaveappropriatecapacitydevelopedtoproperly managetheproject?

• Participationandpublicawareness:Towhatextenthasstakeholderinvolvementandpublicawareness contributedtotheprogresstowardsachievementofprojectobjectives?

110

Reporting:• Assesshowadaptivemanagementchangeshavebeenreportedbytheprojectmanagementandsharedwiththe

ProjectBoard.• AssesshowwelltheProjectTeamandpartnersundertakeandfulfilGEFreportingrequirements(i.e.howhave

theyaddressedpoorly-ratedPIRs,ifapplicable?)• Assesshowlessonsderivedfromtheadaptivemanagementprocesshavebeendocumented,sharedwithkey

partnersandinternalizedbypartners.• Assessthevisibilityoftheprojectthroughtheprojectwebsitecontent

Communications:• Review internal project communicationwith stakeholders: Is communication regular and effective? Are

therekeystakeholdersleftoutofcommunication?Aretherefeedbackmechanismswhencommunicationis received? Does this communication with stakeholders contribute to their awareness of projectoutcomesandactivitiesandinvestmentinthesustainabilityofprojectresults?

• Review external project communication: Are proper means of communication established or beingestablishedtoexpresstheprojectprogressandintendedimpacttothepublic(isthereawebpresence,forexample?Ordidtheprojectimplementappropriateoutreachandpublicawarenesscampaigns?)

• For reportingpurposes,writeonehalf-pageparagraph that summarizes theproject’sprogress towardsresultsintermsofsustainabledevelopmentbenefits,aswellasglobalenvironmentalbenefits.

Sustainability

• Validate whether the risks identified in the Project Document, project quarterly progress report,Annual Project Review/PIRs and the ATLAS RiskManagementModule are themost important andwhethertheriskratingsappliedareappropriateanduptodate.Ifnot,explainwhy.

• Inaddition,assessthefollowingriskstosustainability:

Financialriskstosustainability:• WhatisthelikelihoodoffinancialandeconomicresourcesnotbeingavailableoncetheGEFassistance

ends (consider potential resources can be from multiple sources, such as the public and privatesectors, incomegeneratingactivities,andotherfundingthatwillbeadequatefinancial resourcesforsustainingproject’soutcomes)?

Socio-economicriskstosustainability:

• Arethereanysocialorpoliticalrisksthatmayjeopardizesustainabilityofprojectoutcomes?Whatistheriskthatthe levelofstakeholderownership(includingownershipbygovernmentsandotherkeystakeholders)willbe insufficient toallowfor theprojectoutcomes/benefits tobesustained?Do thevariouskey stakeholders see that it is in their interest that theprojectbenefitscontinue to flow? Istheresufficientpublic/stakeholderawarenessinsupportofthelong-termobjectivesoftheproject?Are lessons learned being documented by the Project Team on a continual basis and shared/transferredtoappropriatepartieswhocould learn fromtheprojectandpotentially replicateand/orscaleitinthefuture?

InstitutionalFrameworkandGovernanceriskstosustainability:

• Dothelegalframeworks,policies,governancestructuresandprocessesposerisksthatmayjeopardizesustenanceofprojectbenefits?Whileassessingthisparameter,alsoconsideriftherequiredsystems/mechanismsforaccountability,transparency,andtechnicalknowledgetransferareinplace.

Environmentalriskstosustainability:

• Arethereanyenvironmentalrisksthatmayjeopardizesustenanceofprojectoutcomes?

111

Conclusions&Recommendations

TheMTRreviewwillincludeasectionofthereportsettingouttheMTR’sevidence-basedconclusions,inlightofthefindings.8

Recommendations shouldbe succinct suggestions for critical intervention thatare specific,measurable, achievable,and relevant. A recommendation table should be put in the report’s executive summary. See the Guidance ForConductingMidtermReviewsofUNDP-Supported,GEF-FinancedProjectsforguidanceonarecommendationtable.

TheMTRreviewshouldmakenomorethan15recommendationstotal.Recommendationsshouldoutlinecorrectiveactionsforthedesign,implementation,monitoringandevaluationoftheprojectandshouldfocusonactionstofollowuporreinforceinitialbenefitsfromtheproject.

Ratings

TheMTRreviewwillincludeitsratingsoftheproject’sresultsandbriefdescriptionsoftheassociatedachievementsinaMTRRatings&AchievementSummaryTableintheExecutiveSummaryoftheMTRreport.SeeAnnexEforratingsscales.NoratingonProjectStrategyandnooverallprojectratingisrequired.

Table.MTRRatings&AchievementSummaryTablefor

“RidgetoReef-TestingtheIntegrationofWater,Land,Forest&CoastalManagementtoPreserveEcosystemServices,StoreCarbon,ImproveClimateResilienceandSustainLivelihoods

inPacificIslandCountries”Measure MTRRating AchievementDescriptionProjectStrategy N/A ProgressTowardsResults

ObjectiveAchievementRating:(rate6pt.scale)

Outcome 1AchievementRating:(rate6pt.scale)



Etc. ProjectImplementation&AdaptiveManagement

(rate6pt.scale)

Sustainability (rate4pt.scale) 8Alternatively,MTRconclusionsmaybeintegratedintothebodyofthereport.

112

• TIMEFRAMEThetotaldurationoftheMTRwillbeapproximately(34)daysoveratimeofapproximately16weeksstarting(January30,2019),andshallnotexceedfivemonthsfromwhentherevieweriscontracted.ThetentativeMTRtimeframeisasfollows:

TIMEFRAME ACTIVITY 4January2019 Applicationclosure 15January2019 SelectMTRTeam 30January2019 Contractsigning 1-11February2019 PreparationoftheMTRTeam(handoverofProjectDocuments) 12–14February2019 InceptionMeetingwithUNDPandSPCviaSkype/Teleconference 15-20February,2019 DocumentreviewandpreparingajointMTRInceptionReport 21–26February PreparationandSubmissionofjointInceptionReport 7–23March2019 MTRmission(17days):stakeholdermeetings,interviews,fieldvisits 25-26March2019 PresentationofinitialfindingstoUNDPandSPCinSuva,Fiji 10April2019 SubmissionofjointDraftMTRReport 11-21April2019 ReviewoftheDraftMTRReportbyUNDPandSPC 22April2019 FinalizationofjointMTRreportincorporatingaudittrailfromfeedbackon

draftreport. 1May2019 SubmissionofjointFinalMTRReport 10May EndofContract

113

• MIDTERMREVIEWDELIVERABLES

MTRARRANGEMENTS

• Deliverable Description Timing Responsibilities• MTRInception

ReportMTR team clarifies

methods of MidtermReview

No later than 2beforeMTR(26

February2019)

MTRteamsubmitsthe

Commissioning Unitproject

management• Presentation InitialFindings End of MTR

mission (23March2019)

reviewerpresents to projectmanagement andthe CommissioningUnit

• FinalReport

Full report (usingguidelines on contentoutlined in Annex B)withannexes

Within 3 weeksof the MTRmission (10April2019)

Sent to theCommissioning Unit,reviewed by RTA,Project CoordinatingUnit,GEFOFP

• FinalReport* Revised report withaudit trail detailinghow all receivedcomments have (andhave not) beenaddressed in the finalMTR report. Includespower presentation ofMTR.

Within 1 weekreceiving

UNDPcomments on

2019)

theCommissioningUnit

114

Engagement of the consultants should be done in line with guidelines forhiringconsultants in the POPP:https://info.undp.org/global/popp/Pages/default.as

IntegratedCoastalZoneManagement(ICM)SpecialistandDevelopmentManagementandGovernanceSpecialist.TheIntegratedWaterResourceManagement(IWRM)orIntegratedCoastalZoneManagement(ICM)Specialistwillbethe team leader andwill be required to work with theDevelopmentManagement and Governance Specialist insubmittingonecombinedMTRreport.Bothconsultantswillbeexpectedtotraveltotravelto3PacificIslandCountries(PICs)eachagreedbetweentheteammembers,UNDPandSPC.

Both consultants shall have prior experience in evaluating ‘Ridge to Reef’ promoting programmatic approach toecosystemgovernance,orsimilarprojects.ExperiencewithGEFfinancedprojectsisanadvantage.(Theteamleaderwill be responsible for finalizing the report). The evaluators selected should not have participated in the projectpreparationand/orimplementationandshouldnothaveconflictofinterestwithprojectrelatedactivities.

ResourcesProvidedTheconsultantsareexpectedtoprovidetheirowncomputers

Supervision/ReportingTheTeamLeaderwillreportdirectlytoUNDPHeadofResilienceandSustainableDevelopmentUnitand/orher/hisrepresentativeandUNDPRegionalTechnicalSpecialist/AdvisorbasedinSuva,Fiji/Bangkok,Thailand.TheTeamLeaderwillalsoprovideregularreportingtoUNDPandGovernmentPermanentSecretarytogetherwiththeProjectImplementationUnit.TheTeamLeaderisexpectedtoproduceafinalreportuponsuccessfulcompletionofactivitiesaccordingtotheagreedschedules.

115

Annex3:Listofdocumentsanddatabasesconsulted.

Documentname1. GuidanceForConductingMid-termReviewsofUNDP-Supported,GEF-Financed

Projects2014

2. UNDPEvaluationGuidelines2019

3. UNEGCodeofConductforEvaluationsintheUNSystem2008

4. UNEGEthicalGuidelines2008

5. UNEGQualityChecklistforEvaluationReports2010

6. RegionalIWR2RProjectdocument

7. GEFPacificRidgetoReefProgrammeFrameworkDocument

8. ProjectCooperationAgreement(PCA)betweenUNDPandSPC

9. PacificCommunityStrategicPlan

10. STARProjectDocuments(AllPICs)

11. TerminalEvaluationTongaSTARProject

12. PacificRidgetoReefRBMManual(draft)

13. RegionalIWR2RProject–GEFTrackingTool2014(RegionalIWR2RProject–GEFTrackingTool2019notprovided)

14. QuarterlyProgressReportsforPICs(asavailable)

15. ProgressImplementationReport2017

16. ProgressImplementationReport2018

17. RegionalIWR2RProject–AnnualWorkplans2016,2017,2018

18. RegionalIWR2RProject–AuditReports

19. RegionalIWR2RAccumulatedprojectexpenditurereports

20. RegionalIWR2RProject–QuarterlyFinancialReports

21. Highlights/MinutesofMeetingsoftheRSC

22. Highlights/MinutesofMeetingsoftheRSTC

23. Highlights/MinutesofMeetingsoftheRPCG

24. Highlights/MinutesofMeetingsoftheRPCU

116

25. MOAbetweenSPCand14PICs

26. PICs/CountryoriginalandrevisedLogFrames

27. Mid-termreportsofCookIslands,Fiji,Palau,Niue,Tuvalu,Vanuatu(othersN/A)

28. OverallDirectoryofProjectContactsinthe14PICs

29. MultiYearCostedWorkplan(MYCWP)ofPICs

30. NationalIWR2RBooklets

31. CountryvisitsTravel/MissionReports

32. ToRMid-TermReview

33. ToRMTRTeamLeader:IWRM/ICMSpecialist

34. ToRMTRMember:Governance&DevelopmentSpecialist

35. ToRRPCUCountryFocalPoints

36. BaselineMonitoringGuidelines(abridgedversion)

37. BaselineAssessment/Diagnostic/RapCAReportTemplate

38. Technicalbriefs(Revegetation,DLT,PEME,Habitat)

39. EnvironmentalMonitoringPlan,GuideNotes,WorkplanandTemplates,CompostandWastewaterMonitoring

40. StandardOperatingProceduresforCoastalMonitoring,CompostandWastewaterMonitoring.

41. Fieldproformas

42. EnvironmentalMonitoringReportTemplate

43. EnvironmentalMonitoringPlans(asavailable)

44. ConceptnotesforRapCAandSoCandlistofindicators

45. TuvaluWaterQualityAssessmentReport

46. GenderAssessmentandActionPlans

47. GenderMainstreamingStrategy

48. GenderMainstreamingToolkit

49. StakeholderEngagementStrategy

50. StakeholderAssessmentToolkit

117

51. NationalProjectStakeholderAnalysis(Niue,Palau,PNG,SI,Tuvalu,Vanuatu)

52. IDAConceptNotes

53. DiagnosticReportToCandTemplate

54. DiagnosticWorkshopDocuments

55. DraftIDAs-CookIslands,PNG,Palau

56. SciencetoPolicySchema

57. GeospatialSystemsOfficerToR

58. Inceptionreports:Fiji,Palau,PNG,Samoa,SolomonIslands,Tuvalu,Vanuatu

59. PostGraduateCertificatewithJamesCookUniversity

60. PostGraduateCertificateDashboard

61. JamesCookUniversityReports

62. ConceptNoteforSoCdatabaseandGIS

63. SoCIndicatorsList

64. SoCTableofContents

65. GenericIMCToR

66. SolomonIslandsIMCmeeting

67. PacificR2RProgrammeDashboard

68. RegionalIWR2RDashboard

69. CommunicationStrategy

70. Conceptnoteforlessonslearned

71. LessonsLearnedJournal

72. NetworkingandPartnerships(guidance)

73. DevelopmentofNationalCommunicationsPlan

74. PacificR2RBranding;Photography;Checklist

75. CommunicationsandKEPlanning

76. R2ROutreach;Youtube;Facebook;Twitter

77. Experiencenotetemplate

78. Experiencenotes(Tuvalu,Vanuatu,)

118

79. IWLearnTripReport;IWCMoroccoTripReport

80. R2RWebsite;StatusofWebsite;OnlineRegister;KMStrategy

81. AssessmentandPlanningWorkflowsandAssessmentForms

82. R2RActivityMonitoringSystem

83. R2RDashboardPrototype

84. RBMTraininginduction

85. WorkflowsandAssessmentForms

86. R2RActivityMonitoringSystem

87. R2RDashboardPrototype

88. ReportAssessmentForms

89. MinutesofClusterMeetings

90. ProjectManagerInduction

119

Annex4:Mid-TermReviewInterviewGuide

1. PROGRESSV.RESULTSFRAMEWORK(cross-referencetonationalcountryresultsframework)

1.1. Isyournationalresultsframeworkaspertheoriginalprojectdesign(intheprojectdocument)orhasitbeenchanged?HowandWhy?

1.2. Basedonyourresultsframework,howareyoudoing?Whatprogresshaveyoumadesofarinrelationtotheendofprojecttargets?What

havebeenyourconstraints?

1.3. Givenyourprogresssofar,andconsideringadjustments(ifany),doyouthinkyouwillachieveyourend-of-projecttargetsgiventheremaining

time?Whatwouldberequiredtodothis?

1.4. Wereyouinvolvedinformulatingthisresultsframework?Towhatextentwereyouinvolvedintheprojectdesignformulation?Howdid

youparticipateandwhatwereyourinputs?

2. INCLUSIVITYOFTHEPROJECT

2.1. HowinclusiveistheProject?Whoaretheotherstakeholders,includingthosefromtraditionalgoverningstructures,thatwereconsidered

and/orinvolvedinformulatingtheProjectdesign?Inthevariousother

stagesoftheProject–implementation,monitoring,evaluation,

learningexchange?Howarethesestakeholdersnowinvolvedinthe

project?

3. PROJECTIMPACTONMAINSTREAMINGTHER2RAPPROACH3.1. WhatimpacthasthisProjectmadebeyond/outsidetheNational

DemonstrationorSTARProjects?

3.2. CanyouciteconcreteexamplesofhowR2RorIWRMorICZMisbeingmainstreamedbylocalgovernments,nationalgovernment,private

sector,localcommunities,otherdonor-fundedProjects,finance

agencies(e.g.developmentbanks)(Note:ProjecttargetsPICs

endorsingaRegionalStrategicFrameworkforR2Randthe

mainstreamingofR2Rintonationalplanningprocesses)?

3.3. Whatisthestatusoftheinter-ministerialcommittees?Whatisittheydo?AretheybeingsuccessfulinmainstreamingR2R,IWRM,ICZM

outsidetheProjectareas?Arethereothermechanisms/institutionsin

yourcountrythatachievethesame(orbetter)purposeoroutcomesas

theIMCs?

4. PROJECTIMPLEMENTATIONANDADAPTIVEMANAGEMENT4.1.RELATIONSHIPWITHSTARPROJECTS

4.1.1. WhatistherelationshipbetweentheNationalIWR2RprojectanditsdemonstrationprojectandtheSTARProjects?

120

4.1.2. WhyisthereaneedforNationalIWR2RtocoordinatewithSTARandviceversa?Dotheydoit?

4.1.3. HowdotheSTARsteeringmechanism,includingthedecision-makingstructureandprocesses,comparedwiththatofthe

NationalIWR2R?Dotheyhaveseparategovernance

structures?Howfunctionaliseach?

4.1.4. WhataretheadvantagesofhavingajointSTARandR2RNationalProjectSteeringCommittee?

4.1.5. IfthewholepointofourProjectislearningbydoing,howmuchofthelessonslearned(technical,management,etc.)from

STARProjectsisbeingdocumentedandfed-backtoRegional

R2Randviceversa?

4.2.RELATIONSHIPWITHRPCU-SPC

4.2.1.WhatsortsofsupportareyougettingfromSPC?

4.2.2 Havetherebeenanyproblemsregardingthese?Anyproblems

withfinancialarrangements?Reportingrequirements?

4.2.3 WhatdoyouneedfromRPCUthatyouarenotcurrently

getting?

4.2.4 WhatabouttechnicalsupportfromSPC,howhasthishelped

you?Whatothertechnicalsupportdoyouneed?

4.2.5 HowinvolvedisSPCininfluencingnationalProjectdecision-

making?

5. STRATEGICCOMMUNICATIONSSTRATEGY5.1. WhatisthenationalleveldoingtostrategicallycommunicateR2Rto

variousstakeholders?

5.2. HowisRPCU-SPChelpingyouhere?Whatsupportareyougetting?

6. THEFUTURE

6.1. Whenthisprojectends-doyouthinkwhattheprojectistryingtoachievewillhavebeenaccomplishedandsupportinthisareacan

cease-ORdoyouthinktherewillbeaneedtocontinuetohave

supporttoworkonR2Rrelatedactivities(ofanysort)inthelonger-

termafterthisprojectfinishes?

6.2. ForgettheprevioushistoryoftheIWRMprojectandthecurrentR2Rproject-intheareaofintegratedmanagementofland,waterand

coasts/reefs-whatdoyouthinkthenextphaseofactivitiesshould

focuson?

121

6.3. Iftheprojectweretobeextendedforayear-whatwouldyoudoitthatyear(appliestoR2RIWProjectstaffonly)

122

Annex5:ThestandardisedEvaluationMatrix

EvaluationCriteria&Focus

EvaluativeQuestions Indicators Sources Methodology

i.ProjectStrategyRelevanceofProjectStrategy:TowhatextentistheProjectStrategyrelevanttocountrypriorities,countryownership,internationally-agreedgoalsandthebestroutetowardsexpectedresults?Internationally-agreedgoals–sustainabledevelopment,environment,climatechangeadaptationandmitigation(CCAM),disasterriskreductionandmanagement(DRRM)

1- Whatrelatedinternationalandregionalagreements/conventionsdoestheProjectmainstream?Withregardstoeach:- HowdoestheProjectrelatetotheseinternationalgoals?Inwhatway/sdoestheProjectcontributetothegoal/s?- DoestheProjectadaptthegovernanceandmanagementframeworks(e.g.,R2R,IEM,ICZM,IWRM)thataredeemedbygroundedtheoryandgoodpracticetobeappropriateforitsobjectivesanddesign?Havetheadaptedprinciples,frameworks,andsystemsbeeneffectivelyoperationalisedonthegroundsofar?Inwhatways?

- CoherencebetweentheProject’sobjectives,managementframework/sandresultswithidentifiedinternationally-agreedgoals/conventions/frameworks- Evidenceofcontributionstointernationally-agreedgoals

- TextsofRelevantInternationalAgreements/ConventionsandIntegratedManagementFrameworks- ProjectDocuments(ProgressReports,TechnicalStudies)

- DocumentsReview

UNandGEFsystem

2- HowistheProjectsupportiveoftherelevantcountry,sectoralandprogrammeobjectivesoftheUNDP?UNEP?FAO?

3- HowistheProjectsupportiveofGEF?4- HowhastheProjectbeenleveragingthegainsfromprevious(e.g.,GEFIWRM)andexistingGEFprojectsintheregionandinthePICs(e.g.,RegionalR2RProgramme,STARProjects)?- Forinstance,howhastheProjectbeenintentionallybuildingonthenascentnationalprocessesestablishedinthepreviousGEF-

- CoherencebetweentheProject’sobjectivesanddesignand- Country,Sectoral,CorporateandProgrammeObjectivesofUNDP/UNEP/FAO- GEFTrackedOutcomes(inGEFTrackingTools)- RegionalR2RProgrammeFocalAreaOutcomes- STARMulti-FocalProjectOutcomes

- Contributionstotheobjectivesof

- InterviewResults- UNDP/UNEP/FAO/GEFDocuments(Strategic,ProgrammeandProjectDocuments,UNDAFs)- STARDocuments- ProjectDocumentsincludingsub-projectLogFramesof14

- DocumentsReview- Interviewswith:- repsofUNDP,UNEP,FAOinSuvaandPICs- RegionalTechnicalAdviser(BKK)- R2RFocalPointsand

123



IWRMproject?- Howhasitimprovedthelinkagesandcoordinationofthemulti-focalSTARandRegionalR2Rcountrysub-projectswithinanR2Rcontext?

UNDP,UNEP,FAO,GEF,RegionalR2RProgramme,STARs?

PICs STARreps- NationalProjectManagers

PICs’nationalpoliciesandpriorities

5- ProvidethehistoricalcontextforeachPIC’sinvolvementintheProject.IntheProjectdesignstage:- HowdideachPICgetinvolvedandwhy?Whichinstitutionsandstakeholdergroupswereconsulted?- Whatwerethespecificinputs/contributionsofthevariouscountrystakeholderstotheProjectdesign?- HowandtowhatextentaretheProjectdesignandobjectivesalignedwiththecountry’sowndevelopmentandenvironmental,CCAMandDRRMpolicies,prioritiesandneeds?- HastheProjectinitsdesigntakencognizanceofthespecificrisksandassumptionspresentwithinthecountry?- Howwasthenationalimplementingpartnerchosen?Otherpartners?

- Congruence/ResponsivenessoftheProject’stheoryofchange(ToC)/design/interventionstotheresultsofnational,sectoralandlocalsituationanalyses(e.g.,statusofgovernancepreparedness,levelsofabsorptivecapacity,stateofecosystems,vulnerabilityandrisks)- CoherenceofProjectobjectiveswiththenational,sectoralandlocalgoalsofthePICs- ExpressedconcreteinputsofnationalimplementingpartnerandotherstakeholdersintotheProjectDesign- ExtentPilotedand/orUpscaledICM,IWRM,CCAMandDRRMinnovationsandinvestmentsarebasedonnationaldiagnosticanalyses,SOCA,RapCA

- AppropriatenessofthescaleoftheProject’sinterventions,(e.g.,R2R,riverbasin,district,regionordistrict,landscape)vis-à-vistherequirementsoftargetedoutcomes(e.g.,sustainableecosystemsprovisioning,securingsustainablelivelihoods,biodiversityconservationandclimateresilience,disasterriskreduction)

- InterviewResults- ProjectDocuments- TextsofCountryPolicies,NationalFrameworkStrategies,PhysicalandDevelopmentPlans,SectoralPlans,LandUsePlans

- DocumentsReview

- ParticipantObservation

- Interviewswith:- RPCU-SPCandrepsfromUNDP

- R2RFocalPointsandSTARreps

- OfficialsandkeystafffromNationalImplementingPartnersrepssittingininter-ministerialcommittees

- NationalProjectManagers

InProjectmanagement:- HowandtowhatextentistheProjectimplementationcountry-ownedandcountry-driven?

- Towhatextentisthereawarenessand/oracceptanceofR2Rasanapproachtothesustainabledevelopmentandmanagementofthecountry’secosystemsandresources

124



bykeypublicdecision-makers,plannersandimplementers?

- DidtheProjectcorrectlyassessthecountry’sgovernancepreparednessrelatedtoadaptingR2Rasanapproach?HastheProjectbeencorrectlytargetingtheseareasofcapacitydevelopment,involvingtherightpeople,andfocusingontheneededpolicy,institutionalandsystemsreforms?

- WhathavetheProjectresultssofarcontributedtotherelevantnational,localandsectoralgoalsofthePIC?HowdoestheProjectsynergizewithotherrelatedProjectsinthePICtocontributesharedimpacttothecountry’snational,sectoralandlocalgoals?

- Waysthecoordination/cooperationinfrastructureisdesignedaroundthespecificpolitical/culturalandotherrealitiesonthegroundineachPIC

- ExpressionsofacceptanceandappreciationofProjectvalue-addedandcontributionssupportedbyconcreteempiricalexamples

- ExtentofinvolvementofrelevantinstitutionsandpersonalitiesinProjectmanagement;Evidenceoftheirinvolvementandresourcecontributionsconsistentwithorganizationalmandates

- ExpressionsofdissatisfactionoveranyaspectoftheProject/Extentof(non)familiaritywithor(non)supportoftheProjectsupportedbyempiricalinstantiation

- ExtenttheProjectobjectives,processesandmechanismsaresharedbynationalimplementingpartnersandmainstreamedintotheirmanagementsystems

- DegreeofownershipofProjectresultsaswellasaccountabilityoverdeliveredandnon-deliveredresults

- SuggestionsabouthowtheProjectcouldhavebeendesignedmoreappropriatelyinconsiderationofthespecificcontextofeachcountry

- Relevantcoverageofcapacitydevelopmentprovided(basedon

125



nationalcapacityneedsassessment);- Extentcapacitydevelopmenttargetedgenderparity

PartnerCommunities,Partner-BeneficiariesandotherLocalPartners

6- HowinclusiveistheProject?- Intermsofitsdecision-makingprocessesandmechanisms?

- AretheProject’sobjectives,designandinterventionsresponsivetotheneeds,demands,issuesandproblemsoflocalcommunitiesandpartner-beneficiaries?

- HowhavetheProject’sinterventionsconsideredthespecificcontextsandneedsofthosemost-affectedbytheissuesandproblems(includingwomen)theyattempttoaddress?

- Areitsapproaches,strategies,andtoolssubstantivelyparticipatory,multi-stakeholderandinclusive,ratherthantokenistorparticipatorymainlyinrhetoricandform?

7- HowhastheProjectharnessedlocalsupportinthevariousstagesofmanagement?- HowdidtheProjectinvolvetraditionalcommunityleadership,localcommunitiesandpartner-beneficiaries,theacademia,otherrelevantcivilsocietyorganizationsandtheprivatesectorinplanning,implementation,monitoringandevaluation?

- HowandtowhatextenthavelocalstakeholderscontributedresourcestotheProject?Whatresourceshavelocalstakeholdersinvestedintheprojectandwhy?

- Relativetosubsidiarity,extentandhowtheProject’smanagementanddecision-makingmechanismsandprocessesaccommodatedandengagedrelevantstakeholders(relevantly-mandatedgovernmentinstitutions,othersustainabledevelopmentorganisations,academia,researchinstitutionsandscientists,localcommunitiesinallProjectmanagementstagesandfunctions- Extentpartner-beneficiariesandotherinvolvedstakeholderswereenabledtoarticulatetheirdemandsandpositions,providefeedbackandinputs,partakeindecisions,andproductivelyparticipateinactivities.- Empiricalevidence,accountsandclaimsofhowsubstantiveparticipationaddeddistinctvaluetowardstheefficientandeffectivegenerationofrelevantProjectresults- Inrelationtocoverage,proportion,andhow,thosevulnerable,at-riskandmostaffectedincludingwomen,weretargetedandaccommodatedininterventiondesign- Levelofawarenessof/Buy-intoandpopularsupportoftheProjectbypartner-beneficiariesandotherlocal

- Resultsofinterviews,FGDs,groupinterviews- ProjectDocumentsincludingmost-significant-change(MSC)stories,minutesofmeetingsofdecision-makingbodies

- Interviews,GroupInterviews,FGDsofpartner-beneficiarygroupsandotherstakeholders

- DocumentsReview

126



stakeholders

ii.ProgresstowardsresultsEffectivenessorProgressTowardsResultsandEmergingOutcomes:TowhatextenthavetheexpectedoutcomesandobjectivesoftheProjectbeenachievedthusfar?RealisationofPhasedTargetsandMilestones

8- HavetheProject’skeyoutputsbeenestablishedinthetargetedquantities,qualityandtimingsuchthatuptakeandusebyrelevantstakeholdersareongoinganduptostandard,andthusfacilitatingprogresstowardstheachievementofend-of-projectoutcomes?(e.g.,Landscape/Ecosystem/NationalDiagnosticsAnalysis,SOCA,RapCA,WQMprotocols,CCandDRvulnerabilityandriskassessmentprocessesandtools,integratedR2Rorspatialanddevelopmentplanningprocessesandtoolsatlandscape,localandnationallevels,RegionalStrategicR2RFramework,PolicyRegimeandInstitutionalFramework,CapacityDevelopmentAssessmentandPlan,TrainingModules,stressreductionandsustainablelivelihoodspilots,softwareandhardwareforGISuse,WQM,rainfallmonitoring,etc.)

9- Giventemporalstandards/requirementsforthegenerationoftheseProjectoutputs/outcomes,basedonconsiderationsofscience,technology,absorptivecapacitiesaswellasotherlocalrealities-social,cultural,politicaldynamics(monitoredrisksandassumptions),whatarethechancesthe

- ReportedandObservedVarianceinProgressvis-à-vistargetsandmilestones,andexplanationsofvariancepointingoutattributionlinkstoProjectmanagementandhowrisksandassumptionsweremanagedtostrengthenachievability

- Completenessandtruthfulnessofriskandassumptionanalysis

- QualityandTimelinessofNational/EcosystemDiagnosis,StateofResourcesAssessments,RiskandVulnerabilityAssessmentsvis-à-visstandardsingroundedtheoryandgoodpractice,includinghowassessmentsmainstreamanR2Rperspective;Also,extentandhowattendantprocesses,systemsandtoolsoperationalizedstandardsingoodpracticeandgroundedtheory

- Evidenceofuseofextensiveknowledgesources(science,localknowledge,existingknowledgeaboutfastcyclemeasurables,resultsofrisksandassumptionsmonitoring)toinformlogicalphasingandsequencingof

- ResultsofInterviews,FGDs,groupinterviews- ProjectandPICsub-projectDocuments(FrameworkDocuments,LogFrames,Quarterly,AnnualandMid-Termreports,Technicalstudies,KPs,AssessmentToolsandtheirresults,PreparedPlans,PolicyInstruments,PartnershipMOAs,FinancialReports,minutesanddecisions)

- DocumentsReviewwithContentAnalysisofGeneratedDocumentOutputs

- ParticipantObservation

- FieldInspection- Interviewswith:- RPCU-SPCandrepsfromUNDP

- R2RFocalPointsandSTARreps

- OfficialsandkeystafffromNationalImplementingPartners

- repssittingininter-ministerial

127



targetedoutputsandoutcomeswillstillberealizedintheremainingProjectlife?

10- Ingeneral,whatarethefactorsthatfacilitatedeffectiveimplementationoftheProjectcomponentsinyourcountry?Hinderingfactors?HowcanthehinderingfactorsbeovercometoimprovethechancesthatProjectoutputsandoutcomesmaystillbeachievedatProject-end?

activities,aswellasthedoabilityofworkpackages

- Statedandfield-verifiedclaimsaboutexistenceandstrengthofimplementationfacilitatingandhinderingfactors(includingperceptionsreeffectofvacancyintheProjectManagementpositiontolevelofProjectaccomplishment)

- ClarityandFeasibilityofProject’sToCwithinitstimeframe;ContinuingplausibilityoftheProject’sToC,orvalidityoftheProjectdesign,givencurrentlevelofaccomplishmentandremainingProjectlife

committees- NationalProjectManagers

- FGDs/GroupInterviewsofBeneficiariesandotherProjectstakeholders(traditionalcommunityleaders,privatebusiness,academia,involvedNGOs)

EmergingOutcomes

11- InwhatconcretewayshastheProjectimprovedyourcapacityforenvironmentalgovernance(includingENRmanagement,CCAMandDRRM)withinanR2Rapproach?Whyorwhynot?

12- HastheProjectfacilitatedlinks,mutualaccess,cooperationandlearningexchangesbetweentherelevantnational,sectoralandlocalpublicagenciesand:- Credible(Regional/National/Local)sourcesofknowledgeandexpertise(technicalassistance,advisoryservices,research,continuoustraining)toassistindiagnosticsexercises,preparationofSOCreports,RapCAs,fieldresearch,vulnerabilityandriskassessments,sustainablelivelihoodsdevelopment,planning,monitoringand

- Evidenceofchangesinthetargetedcapacityareas(knowledge,attitudesskillsofrelevantindividuals;policy,institutionalstructural,managementsystemsandproceduralreforms)intermsofdecisionsandactionstakenanddocumentaryoutputsthatthePIC:- HasboughtintoR2Rasalocal,landscape-wide,nationalandregionalapproachtomanagingtheenvironment/ecosystemsandnaturalresourcesforsustainabledevelopment

- canandhasparticipatedintheformulationofaRegionalStrategicFrameworkforR2R

- canandhasundertakenanalysisofthe

128



evaluatingstressreductionandimprovedcatchmentmeasureswithinanR2Rapproach?- Sourcesoffinancialandotherresourcesincludingpotentialprivatesectorinvestors,forENR,CCAMandDRRMwithinanintegratedR2Rapproach?

13- IstheProjectrealisinggainsfromsynergies/complementaritieswithotherUNDP/UNEP/FAOandGEFprogrammesandprojectsinthePICsandviceversa?CanthesegainsbeattributedtotheProject’scoordination?Whyorwhynotandhow?

relevantpolicyregime,identifiedareasofcomplementarityandconflictandrecommendedpolicyactions;canandhasenacted(oramended)legislationtosupportanintegratedR2Rapproachtonational,sectoralandlocalphysical(landuse)anddevelopmentplanning?

- canandhas(re)organizedgovernancestructuresthatallowcross-sectoralandcross-levelenvironment/ecosystem/naturalresourcesmanagementwithoutsubstantialpoliticalandadministrativejurisdictionalbarriers

- hasmobilisedtherelevantpublicagencieswiththepersonnelcomplement(withsecuretenure)abletousethemanagementtoolstheProjecttrainedthemon(e.g.,GIS-basedmappingandplanning,diagnosticstool,RapCAs,SOCA,projectmanagement);

- hasputinplaceanincentivestructureandcredentialingsystemtoretainthoseassistedbytheProjectintheiradvancedstudiesrelatedtoR2Rapproach

- hasinvestedintheattendantsoftwareandhardwarerequirementsforENRunderanR2Rapproach

- canandhasinitiated,catalyzedandencouragedconvergentand

129



collaborativeworkofvarioussectoragenciesandtheGEFR2RSTARprojects,betweengovernments,communities,andcivilsocietyandtheprivatesector

- canandhasreplicated,upscaledandledfull-cycleENRmanagement,includingdiagnosticsandassessments,planningmanagementstrategieswithinanR2Rframeworkinvolvingrelevantstakeholders(localcommunitiesincludingtraditionalgovernancestructures,thepoorest,womenandotherminorities,NGOs,business),coordinatingimplementation,monitoring,evaluatingandlinkingforlearning

- bettertargetandinvolvethemost-affected,mostat-risk,andmostvulnerablegroupsinENRprogrammingandmanagement

- canprepareandimplementtargetedcommunicationstrategiesandusethesetomobilisemulti-stakeholdersupportforthevariousconcernsofENRmanagement,CCAMandDRRMwithinanR2Rframework?

- Evidencethatthestressreductionmeasuresandsustainablelivelihoodscomponentsareworkingandgeneratingtheexpectedresults

- Expressedclaimsofattributionofspecificvalue-addedresultsto

130



complementarities/synergiesfromcoordinatingwithotherprojectsinthePICs

- Expressedclaimsofattributionofspecificvalue-addedresultstotheadoptionofanR2Rapproachcomparedtopreviousmorespatially/sectorally-delimitedprojects

ii.ProjectImplementationandAdaptiveManagementEfficiencyofProjectImplementationandAdaptiveManagement:HastheProjectbeenimplementedefficiently,cost-effectively,andbeenabletoadapttoanychangingconditionsthusfar?TowhatextentareProject-levelmonitoringandevaluationsystems,reportingandprojectcommunicationssupportingtheProject’simplementation?ProjectManagementandCooperationInfrastructureforAdaptiveManagement

14- AretheregionalandnationalProjectmanagementandadvisorysupportstructuresinplace?- AreProjectmanagementbodiesatregionalandnationallevelsadequatelyandcorrectlystaffed,andfunctional?

- ArethenationalPSCsnowsetuptojointlysteertheProjectandSTAR?HowdothePSCsdealwithProjectissuesingeneral?HowaccurateandeffectivearethefeedbacklinksbetweenPSCandRPCU?Howtimelyaretheresponsecycles?Whataretheeffectsonimplementation?Forinstance,howwasthevacancyinProjectManagementtakenbyPSC,thedelaysinimplementation,theunder-utilisationoffunds?

- TowhatlevelofdetailandhowoftenaretheNationalEnvironmentCouncilsinformed

- ConsistencybetweenProjectobjectives,designandmanagementrequirements(approaches,strategies,tools)andtheorganizationalmandates,resourcesandcapacityofthenationalimplementingandotherpartners- Theextenttheorganisational-structuralattributes(authority,decision,communication,coordinationandworksystemsandprocesses)ofthevariousimplementingpartnersarecompatiblewitheachother;clarityoftermsofpartnershipandcollaborative/coordinationmechanisms- Quality,adequacy,sequencingandtimelinessoftheprovisionofinputs(technical,financial,etc.)bythe

- InterviewResults- ProjectDocuments(PartnershipMOAs,PIRs,MinutesofMeetings,Documentscommunicatingdecisions)

- DocumentsReviewwithContentAnalysis- ParticipantObservation- Interviewswith:- RPCU-SPC- UNDP- R2RFocalPointsandSTARreps- OfficialsandkeystafffromNationalImplementingPartners- repssittingin

131



aboutProjectprogress(orlackof)?TowhatextentdotheyparticipateinProjectdecision-making?

- DoProjectinformationanddecisionseverreachthecountry’sCabinet-levelMinisters?Whathasbeenthevalue/advantagesofinvolvinghigh-levelofficialsinProjectdecision-making?

- Aretheinter-ministerialcommitteesfunctional?HowarethenetworksofnationalR2Rinter-ministerialcommitteesinvolvedintheProject?HowhavetheyimprovedmanagementofcomponentsoftheProject,coordinationofGEFProjectsnationallyandregionally?

- HastheUNDPandRPCUprovidedadequatetimelytechnical,coordinative,financialandotherassistanceasneeded?

- TowhatextentaretraditionalandlocalgovernancestructuresinvolvedintheProject?Howhastheirparticipationenhancedthedesign,managementandprogress/performanceoftheProject?

responsibleProjectactors(e.g.,UNDP,RPCU,PICmanagementstructures,traditionalgovernancestructuresinPICs,consultants,etc.)andhow(in)efficientdeliveryaffectedeffectiveness- Quality,feasibilityandtimelinessofProjectdecisionsandchoicesgiventheProject’schangingcontext

inter-ministerialcommittees- NationalProjectManagers- otherProjectstakeholders(traditionalcommunityleaders,privatebusiness,academia,involvedNGOs)

Knowledge-ManagingMonitoring,Evaluation,andLearningforAdaptiveManagement

15- Areframeworkdocuments(Projectandsub-projectdocumentsandLogFrames,MELPlan,PIRs,keydecisions)sharedamongtherelevantProjectstakeholdersintendedtodirectlycontributetotherealizationofoutputsandoutcomes?Dothesedocumentsprovideagoodbasisforalignmentofactivitiesofallinvolvedtowardssharedimpact?

16- IsthereagoodbalancebetweenMEL

- TransparentsharingofLogFramesandtheiruseasamanagementtool(implementationguide,basisforM&E);

- ExistenceanduseofasharedM&EPlanforadaptivemanagement,learninganddefiningaccountability,linkedtotheM&Esystemsofinvolvedinstitutionalpartners;SMART-nessofM&Eindicators;allocationoffundingforM&Eandlearningactivities

- InterviewResults- ProjectDocuments(LogFrames,M&EPlan,PIRs,KPs,MinutesofMeetings,Documentscommunicatingdecisions)

- DocumentsReviewwithContentAnalysis- ParticipantObservation- Interviewswith:- RPCU-SPC- Key(M&E)stafffrom

132



andon-the-groundimplementationactivities?DoestheMELsupportadaptivemanagementforeffectiveimplementation?- Howmuchtime,attheregional,nationalandlocallevels,arespentfor–- Annualplanningandbudgeting- Quarterlyandannualprogressreporting,includingonthegroundmonitoring

- SemestralProjectSteeringCommitteeMeetings?

- Doyouthinkthisamountoftimeisreasonabletoenablelearningandadaptivemanagement?Doadministrativetaskstakeanythingawayfromdirectproductiveactivitieson-the-ground,orvice-versa,relativetotargetedmilestones?

17- IstheProject’sM&EsystemcoherentlylinkedwiththeM&Esystemsofpartner-institutions?Isittransparentandaccessibletoallconcernedstakeholders?

18- Areprogressreportsinstructivefordecision-making?Havequalitativeandtemporalstandardsbeensetforworkpackagesbasedonscience,institutionalframework,political,socialandculturalcontextualdynamics(risksandassumptions)uniquetothecountry/locality?Dotargetsandmilestonesreflectthesestandardssuchthattheyareusefulguidesforphasing/pacingimplementation?Aredecisionsandadjustmentsroutinelyandtimelymadebasedonthecontentofmonitoringreports?Aredecisionssystematicallydocumentedand

- Quality,timelinessandtruthfulnessofProgressImplementationReports,usefulnessfordecision-makingwithfocusonresults;Responsivenessofmanagementtoimplementationproblems;Extentfollow-upactionsandimplementationadjustmentsweretimelymadeasinstigatedbymonitoringresults

- Completenessandrealismofriskandassumptionanalysisandtheirregular/systematicmonitoring

- Proportionoftimespentforimplementingproductiveactivitiesandadministrativesupporttasks

- Relevanceofknowledgeproductstotheneedsofimplementation;QualityandAppropriatenessofknowledgeproductstotargetedusers;Evidenceofpracticaluseofknowledgeproductsinmanagingtheinterventions

NationalImplementingPartners- NationalProjectManagers- Repsfromotherimplementingpartners

133



shared?19- Arerisksandassumptionsbeing

systematicallymonitoredandmanaged?Howandwhathavebeentheeffectonimplementation?

20- Areknowledgeproductsgeneratedtofacilitatelearningatvariouslevels-locally,nationally,regionally,inter-sectorally,amongrelevantpublics?DolearningsimmediatelyfeedbacktoProjectimplementation,torelatedprogramming,topolicy?

FinancialManagementandotherAdministrativeSystemsinsupportofAdaptiveManagement

21- Ingeneral,doestheProjectbudgetsupporttheLogFrame?HowdoestheProjectdefineefficiencyandcost-effectivenessasappliedtobothadministrativeanddirectimplementationcosts?

22- Havepartnersprovidedcounterpartsascommittedinatimelyfashion?Whyorwhynot?Whatweretheeffectsonimplementation?

23- HastheProjectinstitutedafinancialmanagementsystemthatisnotinconflictwiththefinancialmanagementsystemsofotherstakeholderscontributingresources?Arethenecessarysub-systemsinplaceandfunctioning?Isthesystemtransparent?Hasthesystemeverbeenareasonforimplementationdelays?How,whyandtowhateffect?

- Timelydeploymentofresourcesforintendedpurposes;spendinglevelsandvariancebetweenforecastsandexpenditures

- Costsandbenefitsoftheactions;Value(formoney)ofinvestments

- Spendingcognisantofcoststandards,value-formoneyconsiderations,cost-effectivenessstandards

- Soundnessoffinancialmanagementpolicies,systemsandpractices(decision-making,treasury,bookkeepingandaudit,includingbidding,canvassingandprocurement);extentfinancialmanagementsystemsofimplementingpartnersarecompatiblewitheachother

- Financialfeasibility(financial,material,human,technologicalresourcerequirements)oftheinterventionsgivenscale,approach,andfunding

- InterviewResults- ProjectDocuments(LogFrames,Budget,Financial(FinancialBooks,Statements,AuditReportsandProgressReports,FinancialManagementPoliciesandManual,MinutesofMeetings,Documentscommunicatingdecisions)

- DocumentsReviewDocumentsReview- Interviewswithfinancialofficersof:- RPCU- PICs- Otherinstitutionalpartnerswithfinancialcounterparts

134



environment- Transparencyoffinancialtransactions- Complianceofreportingwithqualityandtimelinessrequirements

- SoundnessofmanagementresponsetoAuditandotherfinance-relatedfindings

iv.SustainabilityIndicationsofSustainability:Towhatextentaretherefinancial,institutional,socio-economicand/orenvironmentalriskstosustaininglong-termProjectresults?Political,Technical,Social,EnvironmentalandFinancialSustainability

13- AretheProjectinvestmentsinstressreductionandcatchmentimprovementmeasures,andreformsingovernanceinstitutions,mechanisms,processesandmanagementsystems,nowbackedbypolicypromulgations/legislation?

14- AretheProject-preparedplansmainstreamedintopublicphysicalanddevelopmentpublicplansatvariouslevelsandsectors?IsR2Radoptedasaplanningapproachbythenationalandlocalgovernments?

15- HavethemanagementtoolsandsystemsdevelopedbytheProjectbeenmainstreamedintothesystemsofinvolvedgovernmentagenciesatvariouslevels?AretheProjectinvestments,products,resources,toolsandsystemslodgedwiththeappropriateinstitutionsfortheiruseandmaintenance?

- PresenceofSupportivePolicyContextforR2RandtheProject’svariouscomponents;PolicypromulgationsbynationalimplementingpartnersmainstreamingProjectinterventionsintotheirregularmandate

- EndorsementofRegionalStrategicFrameworkforR2Rbytherelevanthigh-levelofficialsinPICs

- AdoptionofR2RinthePICs’mandatedphysicalanddevelopmentplanningprocesses

- ConcretedemonstrationofProjectcomponentsandactivitiesbeingtakenoverbynationalimplementingpartnersandotherimplementingpartner-institutions

- Replicatedandupscaledactivities- ExpressionsandEvidenceofcommitments(financial,human,

- InterviewResults- Visitedsitesandoffices- ProjectDocuments- PronouncementsbyPICs

- DocumentsReview- ParticipantObservation- Interviewswith:- RPCU-SPC- OfficialsandKeystafffromNationalImplementingPartners- NationalProjectManagers- Repsfromotherimplementingpartners- Repsfrom(potential)

135



16- Isthereintentionalefforttobuildandusein-situ/localexpertise,onrelatedtechnicalareasofpolicyandprogrammingpost-project?ArethereindicationsofcommitmentfromthosetakinghigherstudiesinR2Rtoservetheircountries?HaveincentivestructuresandcredentialingsystemsfortheR2Rpositionsbeenputinplace,especiallyinpublicagencies?

17- HastheProjectcreatedwidespreadsupportandbuy-inforR2RandotherProjectadvocaciesamongtherelevantstakeholders?HastheProjectproducedchampionsfortheProject’sadvocaciesacrosslevelsandsectorsofgovernance,andamongcivilsocietyandprivatesectoractors?

18- ArethereindicationstheProjectcomponentsandgainswillbebuiltuponbynationalandlocalstakeholdersbeyondtheProjectlife?Replicated?Upscaled?Willfinancingbypublicagencies,privatesectorandlocalcommunitiesfortheinvestmentsstartedthroughtheProjectbesustained?

19- WhatarethekeyconstraintsandchallengestoProjectcomponentsandgainsbeingsustainedbeyondtheProjectlife?

equipment,knowledge,etc.)fromnationalimplementingpartnersandotherstakeholders(internationaldonors,localcommunities,privatesector)tosupportthevariouscomponentsafterProjectend

- PresenceofPro-activenessofChampionsinlobbyandadvocacyactivitiesrelatedtotheProject

- ExtentProjectfosteredsolidarityamongthePICsparticularlywithrespecttothepoliticalwillrequiredtosupportmoreintegratedapproachestoR2RinNRM.

donors- FGDs/GroupInterviewsofbeneficiarygroups

136

Annex6:RecommendedadjustmentstothetargetsandindicatorsintheProjectLogFrame.Deletionsaremarkedasstrikethroughtext,additionsaremarkedasunderlinedanditalicisedtext.

OriginalIndicator/Revisedindicator

Originalprojecttarget/Revisedprojecttarget Explanation


1.1.114nationalpilotprojectareadiagnosticsbasedonR2Rapproachincluding:baselineenvironmentalstateandsocialdataincorporatingCCvulnerabilities;andlocalgovernanceofwater,land,forestsandcoastsreviewed

Nochange

1.1.2Stressreductionandwater,environmentalandsocioeconomicstatusindicators*Municipalwastepollutionreduction(Nkg/yr)*Pollutionreductiontoaquifers(kg/ha/yr)*Areaofrestoredhabitat(ha)*Areaofconserved/protectedwetland*Areaofcatchmentunderimprovedmanagement(ha)*Numberofpeopleengagedinalternativelivelihoods*StatusofmechanismsforPM&E*Numberandqualityofdemonstrationprojectsthathaveincorporatedgenderanalysisaspartofthecommunityengagementplans*Numberofpeople(orgeneralsocietal)benefitingfromdefined,quantifiedandverifiedimprovementsinecosystemcondition

1.1.214nationalpilotprojectstestmethodsforcatalyzinglocalcommunityaction,utilizingandprovidingbestpracticeexamples,andbuildinginstitutionallinkagesforintegratedland,forest,waterandcoastalmanagement,andresultingin:*Municipalwastepollutionreductionof5,775kgN/yr(6sites)*Pollutionreductiontoaquiferof23kgN/ha/yr(2sites)6,838haofrestoredhabitat(4sites)*290haofconserved/protectedwetland(2sites)*25,860haofcatchmentunderimprovedmanagement(7sites)*30charcoalproducers(40%oftotal)engagedinalternativecharcoalproductionactivities*Participatorymonitoringandevaluationofenvironmentalandsocioeconomicstatusofcoastalareas(9sites)*14nationalpilotprojectsdemonstrategenderresponsiveimplementationandresults*Directnationalpilotprojectbeneficiariesequitablyshared

Fortargets-asunderlined-ToberevisedinaccordancewithrevisedandPSC/RSC-approvednationalprojectLogFramesThesetargets/indicatorsareamixtureofprocess(e.g."areasunderimprovedmanagement")andoutcome(e.g.nitrogenpollutionreduction).Itcantakequitesometimebeforesomestressreductionmeasuresdeliverimprovementsintheenvironment.Forexample,catchmentrehabilitationtakestime,insomecasesseveralyears,beforewaterqualityimproves.Forsomeofthesetargets/indicatorstherearetechnicalissueswithmeasurements.ForexampleinTuvaluthereareseveralsourcesofnitrogenpollutioninadditiontopigwastesoitcanbechallengingtolinkanyimprovementsinpigwastemanagementtochangesinNitrogenloads.Despitetheseissuesthetargets/indicatorsshouldbemaintainedtokeepfocusonenvironmentaloutcomes.Forindicators:thepurposeofreducingstressorsistoimprovetheabilityofecosystemstodeliverbenefits(ecosystemservices).Currentlytheindicatorsrefertoprocessesthatreducestressors,orenvironmentalparameters,withoutidentifyingimprovementsinbenefits.Additionofthenewindicatorwillencouragetheprojecttomonitorandinterpretstressreductionasimprovementsinbenefits.


1.2.1Upto14diagnosticanalysisforICM/IWRMandCCAinvestmentsconductedtoinformpriorityareasforscaling-upineachof14participatingPICs

Fortarget-seeSection4.2.DiagnosticanalysesthataredoneshouldcomplywiththecriteriaforcontinuingorstartingananalysisaspertherecommendationsoftheMTRontheprocess/strategyforconductingdiagnosticanalyses.

1.2.2NumberandqualityofICM-IWRMinvestmentsincorporatingbaselineenvironmentalstateandsocio-culturalinformationfor

1.2.2Upto14ICMIWRMinvestmentsutilizingmethodologyandproceduresforcharacterizingislandcoastalareasforICMinvestmentdevelopedbytheproject.

SeeSection4.2.

137



theprioritizationofinvestmentsites1.3.1Numberofnational,localleadersandlocalgovernmentsengagement/participatinginmulti-stakeholderleaderroundtablenetworksLevelofsatisfactionoflocalcommunitiesintheirinfluenceonpolicies.


Effectiveparticipationofcommunitiesinnationalgovernmentpolicymakingstrengthened.

SeeAnnex7.

1.3.2NumberofforumsheldtodiscussopportunitiesforagreementsonprivatesectoranddonorparticipationinPICsustainabledevelopmentNumberofinvestmentplanningforumsheldthatexplicitlydiscussopportunitiesforR2RinvestmentsinPICsustainabledevelopment

1.3.2Upto14newnationalprivate-sectoranddonorpartnershipforumsforinvestmentplanninginprioritycommunity-basedICM/IWRMactionsAtleast14Nationalprivate-sectorand14donorpartnershipforums(oneineachPICrespectively)forinvestmentplanningreflectdueconsiderationofprioritycommunity-basedICM/IWRMactions

Forumsneednotbe"new".MuchbettertomainstreamR2Rintoexistingdiscussionforums(wherebeingheld).Thepurpose(indicator)istopromoteR2Ropportunities(previouslymissing).SeealsoAnnex7.


2.1.1Atleast10peoplewithpostgraduatetraininginR2Rmanagement.*Atleast5peoplewillbewomen,Atleast31innovativepost-graduatetrainingprogramsforthePacificRegioninICM/IWRMandrelatedCCadaptationdeliveredforprojectmanagersandparticipatingstakeholdersthroughpartnershipofinternationallyrecognizededucationalinstitutesandtechnicalsupportandmentoringprogrammewithresultsdocumented

Projectdocumentreferstoonlyoneprogramme.Butitisunderstoodthata"programme"willincludeseveraltopics/modules(threeofwhicharealreadydeliveredandonerecentlycommencedwithJCU).

2.1.2Numberofcommunitystakeholdersgroups(i.e.catchmentmanagementcommittees,CSOs,etc)engagedinR2RplanningandCCadaptationactivities


Nochange(excepteditorialonindicator).

2.2.1NumberofR2Rpersonnelforwhichfunctionalcompetenciesarebenchmarked,trackedandanalyzedNumberofstudiescompletedidentifyingthenationalhumancapacityneedsforR2R(ICM/IWRM)implementationandbenchmarking/

2.2.1Upto14R2Rpersonnelidentified,withfunctionalcompetenciesarebenchmarked,trackedandanalysed.AtleastonestudycompletedidentifyingnationalhumancapacityneedsforR2R(ICM/IWRM)implementationandbenchmarking/trackingcompetenciesofnationalandlocalgovernmentunitsforR2Rimplementation.Basedonthestudy,atleast14capacitybuildingsupportprovidedwithresultsdocumented.

Thetargetbearslimitedrelationshiptotheoutcomethatrefersto"incentivestructures"whereasthetargetreferstopersonnel.

"upto"isambiguousandnotadefinedquantifiedtarget.(Seeannex7).TheMTRdoesnotunderstandwhatismeantbyan"R2Rpersonnel"andproposesitsdeletion-alsobecauseitalsomaintainsthatR2R

138



trackingcompetenciesofnationalandlocalgovernmentunitsforR2RimplementationNumberofcapacitybuildingsupportsecuredwithresultsdocumented

capacityneedsmainstreamingintoexistingpersonnel.


2.2.2Atleast1regionalreportwithrecommendationsforR2Rpractitionerretentionatnationalandlocalgovernmentlevelscompleted.ThereportwillanalyseexistingPublicServiceCommissionsalaryscalesandrequiredfunctionalcompetenciesofkeyR2R(ICM/IWRM)personnel;appropriateguidelinesandincentivestructuresforretentionoflocalR2Rexpertiseproposed.

SeeAnnex7.Proposeddeletionofthetargetandindicatorbecauseachievingthisisbeyondtheabilityoftheproject(seesection4.2).Inaddition-theMTRnotesthattheproject'sobjectiveistomainstreamR2RandthereforebuildR2Rcapacityacrossallgovernmentlevelsandnottocentralisesuchcapacityinindividual"R2Rpractitioners".

3.1.1NumberofsectoralgovernanceframeworksharmonisedandstrengthenedthroughincorporationofR2Rintonationalandregionaldevelopmentframeworks

3.1.1Nationalrecommendationsfor14PICsforcoastalpolicy,legalandbudgetaryreformsforICM/IWRMforintegrationofland,water,forest,coastalmanagementandCCadaptationcompiledanddocumentedwithoptionsforharmonizationofgovernanceframeworks

Indicator:needstobeexplicitthattheharmonisationandstrengtheningrelatestoincorporatingR2R.

3.1.2Inter-ministerialagreementsandstrategicactionframeworksfor14PICsdevelopedandsubmittedforendorsementonintegrationofland,water,forestandcoastalmanagementandcapacitybuildingindevelopmentofnationalICM/IWRMreformsandinvestmentplans3.1.2Integratedland,water,forestandcoastalmanagementandcapacitybuildingandnationalICM/IWRMreformsandinvestmentplansintegratedintointer-ministerialagreementsandstrategicactionframeworksfor14PICs.

3.1.2Agreementsandstrategicactionframeworksforthe14PICsendorsedbyleaders3.1.2Atleastonerelevantagreementand/orstrategicactionframeworkthatincorporatesR2Rendorsedbyleadersineachofthe14PICs

Seesection4.2.ThepriorityshouldbetointegrateR2Rintoexistinginter-ministerialagreementsand/orstrategicactionplans.

3.1.3Numberofdemonstrableuseofnational‘StateoftheCoasts’or‘StateoftheIslands’reportsorinformationinnationalandregionalaction

3.1.3Upto14National‘StateoftheCoasts’or‘StateoftheIslands’reportscompleted,oruptakeofrelatedinformationintoparallelorrelatedreportmechanisms,andlaunchedtoPacificLeadersduringNationalCoastalSummits(Yr3)incoordinationwithnationalR2Rprojectsanddemonstratedasanationaldevelopment

Seesection4.2.

139



planningforR2Rinvestment planningtool,includingguidelinesfordiagnosticanalysesofcoastalareas

3.2.1NumberofnetworksofnationalR2Rpilotprojectinter-ministerialcommitteesstrengthenedorformedandlinkedtoexistingnationalIWRMcommittees

3.2.114nationalnetworksofR2R(ICM/IWRM)nationalpilotprojectinter-ministrycommitteesformedbybuildingonexistingIWRMcommitteesandcontributingtoacommonresultsframeworkattheprojectandprogrammelevels14inter-ministrycommittees(oneineachPIC)strengthenedorformed,buildingonexistingstructures,includingIWRMcommitteeswherefeasible,thatcontributetoacommonresultsframeworkforR2Rattheproject,programmeandnationallevels.

SeeAnnex7.Notecommentsinsection4.3oninter-ministerialcommitteesanditsrecommendationsonhowtheyshouldbeimplemented.Revisionofthistarget/indicatorshouldbependingfurtherclarificationandconsiderationofIMCsasrecommendedinsection4.3.Theindicatorshouldbere-assessedandre-alignedtotheoutcomesofthisprocess.


3.2.2ThenumberandvarietyofstakeholdersparticipatinginperiodicIMCmeetingsin14PICSaredoubled,withmeetingresultsdocumented,participationdataassembledandreportedtonationaldecision-makersandregionalforums*50%ofparticipantswillbewomen,youth,and/orfromvulnerablegroups

Seecommentsabove(target/indicator3.2.1),inAnnex7andinsection4.3oninter-ministerialcommittees.Target/indicatorshouldberevisedsubsequenttoproposedconsultationamongPICs.



Seecommentsabove(target/indicator3.2.1),inAnnex7andinsection4.3oninter-ministerialcommittees.Target/indicatorshouldberevisedsubsequenttoproposedconsultationamongPICs.

3.2.4Numberofinter-ministrycommitteemembersmeetingwithinthe14pilotPICsthatisengagedinlearningandchangeinperceptionthroughparticipatorytechniques*ParticipationdatatobedisaggregatedbygenderNumberofinter-ministrycommitteemembersmeetingwithinthe14pilotPICsandthosethathavechangedtheirperceptiononR2Rasaresultoftheproject*Datatobedisaggregatedbygender.

3.2.4Atleast20ICMMCmembersintotalfromthe14pilotPICs(sub-regional,mixofhighisland,atollsettings)engagegaugedinlearning,leadingtochangeinperceptionthroughparticipatorytechniques.*50%ofparticipantswillbewomen,youth,and/orfromvulnerablegroups

Editorialcorrections.Seecommentsabove(target/indicator3.2.1),inAnnex7andinsection4.3oninter-ministerialcommittees.Target/indicatorshouldberevisedsubsequenttoproposedconsultationamongPICs.Seeannex7forchangetoindicator.AsnotedinAnnex7.Thetargetreferstochangeinperception.Soshouldtheindicator.



Nochange.

4.1.2Levelofacceptanceoftheharmonizedresultstracking

4.1.21unified/harmonizedmulti-focalarearesultstrackingapproachandanalyticaltooldeveloped,endorsed,andproposedtotheGEF,its

Nochange

140



approachbytheGEF,itsagenciesandparticipatingcountries

agenciesandparticipatingcountries


4.1.3Ondemand,Upto14nationalplanningexercisesin14PacSIDSconductedwithparticipantsfromrelevantministrieswithamandatetoembedR2Rresultsframeworksintonationalsystemsforreporting,monitoringandbudgeting

Activity/targetshouldrespondonlywherethereisnationalleveldemand.


4.2.1Regional‘ridgetoreef’communicationsstrategydevelopedandimplementedandassistanceprovidedtonationalR2Rproject,including,atleast10asrelevant,partnershipswithnationalandregionalmediaandeducationalorganizations

Themedialandscapehaschangedsinceprojectconception.Partnershipswithnationalandregionalmediaandeducationalorganisationsshouldbepromotedbutanumericaltargetonthisdependsonthepracticalitiesandfeasibilityofthecommunicationsstrategyonacase-by-casebasis.

4.2.2NumberofIW:LEARNexperiencenotespublishedAsecondindicatorshouldbeadded:PercentageallocationofGEFgrantexpendedonparticipationinIW:LEARNandpartnerships

4.2.2ParticipationinIW:LEARNactivities:conferences;preparationofatleast10experiencenotesandinter-linkedwebsiteswithcombinedallocationof1%ofGEFgrant

Nochangetotarget(However,theMTRregardsthistargetasunambitiousandtheprojectshouldaimforalotmore)Additionalindicatoradded(fromAnnex7).



"Registered"removedbecausenumbercanbetrackedelectronicallyfromdownloadsetc.TheRPCUhassuggestedchangingthisto38(from100)usersbasedonacalculationofthenumberofprogrammestaffcurrentlyactivelyinvolved(UNDP/FAO/UNEP/GEF,STARandIW).ButtheMTRconcludesthisfacilityshouldgowellbeyondthislimitedscopeofusersandnotesthatthe"100"isunambitiousinthisregard.

5.1.1Programmecoordinationunitrecruitedandstaffretained

5.1.1overallR2RprogrammecoordinationunitwithalignmentofdevelopmentworkerpositionscontributingtocoordinatedeffortamongnationalR2Rprojects(Year1)

Nochangebutseesections4.2and4.3regarding"coordination"


5.1.2Technical,operational,reportingandmonitoringUnitisoperationaltoprovidesupporttonationalR2Rprojects,asmayberequestedbyPICs,tofacilitatetimelydeliveryofoverallprogrammegoals.Atleast14requestsperyeararemeteffectively.


5.1.3NumberofR2Rstafftrainedresultingineffectiveresultsreportingandonlineinformation

5.1.3Atleast14R2Rstaffaretrained(inharmonizedreportingandmonitoringandotherregionalandnationalandcapacitybuildingmodules,amongothers)resultingineffectiveresultsreporting


141



sharing andonlineinformationsharing.5.1.4Volumeandqualityofinformationanddatacontributedbyprogrammestakeholderstoonlinerepositories



5.1.5Numberofplanningandcoordinationworkshopsconductedfornationalprojectsteamstoensuretimelinessandcost-effectivenessofIWpilotprojectandSTARprojectcoordination,deliveryandreporting

5.1.5Atleast4(1peryear)planningandcoordinationworkshopsconductedfornationalprojectteamsinthePacificR2Rnetwork


142

Annex7:AnalysisoforiginalprojecttargetsasS.M.A.R.T.andtheappropriatenessoforiginalindicators

(S=Specific:mustuseclearlanguage,describingaspecificfuturecondition;M=Measureable:musthavemeasureableaspectsmakingitpossibletoassesswhethertheywereachievedornot;A=Achievable:mustbewithinthecapacityofpartnerstoachieve;R=Relevant:mustmakeacontributiontoselectedprioritiesofthenationaldevelopmentframework;T=Time-bound:neveropen-ended;thereshouldbeanexpecteddateofaccomplishment).

Note:theseadjustmentsarisefromtheanalysisoftargets/indicatorsasperoriginalprojectdesign.Furtheradjustmentstotargetsandindicatorsariseasaresultofthereviewofprogresstowardsresults.RecommendedadjustmentstotargetsandindicatorsfrombothsourcesarereflectedinAnnex6.

Target Indicator TargetsSMART? Notes

S M A R T


Outcome1.1SuccessfulpilotprojectstestinginnovativesolutionsinvolvinglinkingICM,IWRMandclimatechangeadaptation[linkedtonationalSTARprojectsvialargerPacificR2Rnetwork]

1.1.114nationalpilotprojectareadiagnosticsbasedonR2Rapproachincluding:baselineenvironmentalstateandsocialdataincorporatingCCvulnerabilities;andlocalgovernanceofwater,land,forestsandcoastsreviewed


✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Sincebaselineenvironmentaldataarerequiredbeforeinterventionsstartthe"T"forthistargetshouldbeearlyintheproject(year1).

1.1.214nationalpilotprojectstestmethodsforcatalyzinglocalcommunityaction,utilizingandprovidingbestpracticeexamples,andbuildinginstitutionallinkagesforintegratedland,forest,waterandcoastalmanagement,andresultingin:

*Municipalwastepollutionreductionof5,775kgN/yr(6sites)

*Pollutionreductiontoaquiferof23kgN/ha/yr(2sites)6,838haofrestoredhabitat(4sites)

*290haofconserved/protectedwetland(2sites)*25,860haofcatchmentunderimprovedmanagement(7

1.1.2Stressreductionandwater,

environmentalandsocioeconomicstatusindicators*Municipalwastepollutionreduction(Nkg/yr)*Pollutionreductiontoaquifers(kg/ha/yr)*Areaofrestoredhabitat(ha)*Areaofconserved/protectedwetland*Areaofcatchmentunderimprovedmanagement(ha)Numberofpeopleengagedinalternativelivelihoods*StatusofmechanismsforPM&E*Numberandqualityofdemonstrationprojectsthathaveincorporatedgenderanalysisaspartofthecommunityengagementplans

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

143


S M A R T

sites)

*30charcoalproducers(40%oftotal)engagedinalternativecharcoalproductionactivities

*Participatorymonitoringandevaluationofenvironmentalandsocioeconomicstatusofcoastalareas(9sites)

*14nationalpilotprojectsdemonstrategenderresponsiveimplementationandresults

*Directnationalpilotprojectbeneficiary


1.2.114diagnosticanalysisforICM/IWRMandCCAinvestmentsconductedtoinformpriorityareasforscaling-upineachof14participatingPICs


✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

1.2.2Upto14ICM-IWRMinvestmentsutilizingmethodologyandproceduresforcharacterizingislandcoastalareasforICMinvestmentdevelopedbytheproject

1.2.2NumberandqualityofICM-IWRMinvestmentsincorporatingbaselineenvironmentalstateandsocio-culturalinformationfortheprioritizationofinvestmentsites

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔


1.3.1Institutionalrelationshipsbetweennationalandcommunity-basedgovernancestructuresstrengthenedandformalizedthroughnational“RidgetoReef”Inter-MinistryCommitteesin14PacificSIDS


x x ✔ x ✔ Theterm"institutionalrelationships"isvagueanddifficulttodefineandthereforeproblematictomeasure.

Theoutcomerefersto"established"butasnotedinthetextsuch"roundtablenetworks"alreadyexistinmanyPICs.

Anadditionalindicatormightbe:Levelofsatisfactionoflocalcommunitiesintheirinfluenceonpolicies.

1.3.2Upto14newnationalprivate-sectoranddonorpartnershipforumsforinvestmentplanninginprioritycommunity-basedICM/IWRMactions

1.3.2NumberofforumsheldtodiscussopportunitiesforagreementsonprivatesectoranddonorparticipationinPICsustainabledevelopment

x ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ThetargetshouldreflectthatitwouldbemoreeffectiveandefficienttomainstreamR2Rintoon-goingandfuturePPParrangements/forums."Upto"isalsoambiguous.Itcouldbebetterstatedas:Atleast14Nationalprivate-sectorand14donorpartnershipforums(oneineachPICrespectively)forinvestmentplanningreflectdueconsiderationofprioritycommunity-basedICM/IWRMactions

ThecurrentindicatorisneitherSnorRasitdoesnotrefertoR2R-onlytoPICsustainabledevelopment.Itwouldbebetter

144


S M A R T

as:NumberofinvestmentplanningforumsheldthatexplicitlydiscussopportunitiesforR2RinvestmentsinPICsustainabledevelopment

Component2Island-basedInvestmentsinHumanCapitalandKnowledgetoStrengthenNationalandLocalCapacitiesforRidgetoReefICM/IWRMapproaches,incorporatingCCadaptation

Outcome2.1NationalandlocalcapacityforICMandIWRMimplementationbuilttoenablebestpracticeinintegratedland,water,forestandcoastalmanagementandCCadaptation

2.1.1Atleast10peoplewithpostgraduatetraininginR2Rmanagement.*Atleast5peoplewillbewomenAtleast3innovativepost-graduatetrainingprogramsforthePacificRegioninICM/IWRMandrelatedCCadaptationdeliveredforprojectmanagersandparticipatingstakeholdersthroughpartnershipofinternationallyrecognizededucationalinstitutesandtechnicalsupportandmentoringprogrammewithresultsdocumented


✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔



✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Aneditorialpoint-theindicator(andtarget)shouldbe:Numberofcommunitystakeholdersgroups(i.e.e.g.catchmentmanagementcommittees,CSOs,etc)engagedinR2RplanningandCCadaptationactivities

Outcome2.2Incentivestructuresforretentionoflocal‘RidgetoReef’expertiseandinter-governmentaldialogueonhumanresourceneedsforICM/IWRMinitiated

2.2.1Upto14R2Rpersonnelidentified,withfunctionalcompetenciesarebenchmarked,trackedandanalysedAtleastonestudycompletedidentifyingnationalhumancapacityneedsforR2R(ICM/IWRM)implementationandbenchmarking/trackingcompetenciesofnationalandlocalgovernmentunitsforR2Rimplementation.Basedonthestudy,atleast14capacitybuildingsupportprovidedwithresultsdocumented.

2.2.1NumberofR2Rpersonnelforwhichfunctionalcompetenciesarebenchmarked,trackedandanalyzedNumberofstudiescompletedidentifyingthenationalhumancapacityneedsforR2R(ICM/IWRM)implementationandbenchmarking/trackingcompetenciesofnationalandlocalgovernmentunitsforR2RimplementationNumberofcapacitybuildingsupportsecuredwithresultsdocumented.

x ✔ ✔ x ✔ Thetargetbearslimitedrelationshiptotheoutcomethatrefersto"incentivestructures"whereasthetargetreferstopersonnel.

"upto"isambiguousandnotadefinedquantifiedtarget.

2.2.2Atleast1regionalreportwithrecommendationsforR2Rpractitionerretentionatnationalandlocalgovernmentlevelscompleted.ThereportwillanalyseexistingPublicServiceCommissionsalaryscalesandrequiredfunctionalcompetenciesofkeyR2R


✔ ✔ x ✔ ✔ Theintentionofthetarget(toimprovesustainabilityofprojectresultsthroughimprovedcapacityretention)isimportant.Butitisunrealisticforsuchasmallproject(onitsown)tobeabletohavemuchinfluenceonincentivestructures.

145


S M A R T

(ICM/IWRM)personnel;appropriateguidelinesandincentivestructuresforretentionoflocalR2Rexpertiseproposed.



3.1.1Nationalrecommendationsfor14PICsforcoastalpolicy,legalandbudgetaryreformsforICM/IWRMforintegrationofland,water,forest,coastalmanagementandCCadaptationcompiledanddocumentedwithoptionsforharmonizationofgovernanceframeworks

3.1.1Numberofsectoralgovernanceframeworkharmonisedandstrengthenedthroughnationalandregionaldevelopmentframeworks

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

3.1.2Agreementsandstrategicactionframeworksforthe14PICsendorsedbyleaders


✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔


✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔


3.2.1Upto14nationalnetworksofR2R(ICM/IWRM)nationalpilotprojectinter-ministrycommitteesformedbybuildingonexistingIWRMcommitteesandcontributingtoacommonresultsframeworkattheprojectandprogrammelevels


x ✔ ✔ x ✔ Thetargetrefersto"forming"IMCswhereasinmostcasesthese(orequivalent)alreadyexist.Alsouseof"upto"isambiguous.Itisalsounclearwhat"nationalnetworks"means.

AccordingtotheProDoc"IMCs"aretofunctionatahigherlevelthansitebasedcommitteesandserveprimarilytopromoteuptakeofR2Ratnational/regionalpolicylevel.ButthestatusandfunctionofIMCshasvariedinterpretationsacrosstheproject.Seefurtherdiscussioninsection4.3.1whichalsorecommendsthattheprojectre-assessitsapproachtoIMCs.

Thetargetmightbebetteras:14inter-ministrycommittees(oneineachPIC)strengthenedorformed,buildingonexistingstructures,includingIWRMcommitteeswherefeasible,thatcontributetoacommonresultsframeworkforR2Ratthe

146


S M A R T

project,programmeandnationallevels.Buttheprojectshouldre-assesshowitisinterpretingandimplementingIMCs.

3.2.2ThenumberandvarietyofstakeholdersparticipatinginperiodicIMCmeetingsin14PICSaredoubled,withmeetingresultsdocumented,participationdataassembledandreportedtonationaldecision-makersandregionalforums*50%ofparticipantswillbewomen,youth,and/orfromvulnerablegroups


x x ✔ x ✔ Seethepointsraisedabove(target3.2.2)regardingthestatusandinterpretationof"IMCs).WithoutclarityonwhatanIMCisandthelevelatwhichitfunctionsthistarget/indicatorisproblematictoassess.Animprovedapproachwouldbetore-assessdecision/consultationmechanismsatdifferentscales(site,local,national)andhaveaclearerterminologyforgovernancestructuresateachlevelinsteadofusing"IMCs"forallcases.

Wherean"IMC"functionsatahighpolicylevelthenitisunrealistictoexpectparticipantsfromyouthand/orvulnerablegroups,butrepresentationoftheirviewsisrequired.

Itisalsounclearwhethertheeffectivenessofmeetingsbearsarelationshiptothenumberofpeoplepresent.

Whatisactuallyrequiredistoassesshowvariousgovernancestructuresatdifferentscales(localtonational,communitytocabinet)functioncollectivelytodelivereffectiveparticipationbycommunities/women/vulnerablegroupsanddelivereffective,equitableandcoordinatedR2Rplanningoutcomes.

Theprojectshouldre-assessitsinterpretationandstrategyforIMCs(seesection4.3.1).BasedonaninterpretationthatanIMCfunctionsatahighernationalpolicylevelthetargetmightbebetteras:NationaldecisionmakingonR2RstrengthenedineachPICthroughthestrengtheningorestablishmentofIMCsthatincludefullandeffectiveinputsofcommunities,women,youthandvulnerablegroupsthroughtransparentandparticipatorydialoguefromlocalthroughtonationallevels.

Improvedindicatorsmightbe:(1)shiftsinpolicydecisionmakingmechanismstowardsmoreinclusiveapproaches,fromlocalthroughtonationalscales,andtowardsanR2Rapproach;(2)satisfactionofcommunities,women,youthandvulnerable

147


S M A R T

groupswiththeirfullandeffectiveparticipationindecisionmaking.



x x ✔ x ✔ Seecommentsabove(targets3.2.1and3.2.2)on"IMCs".

Itisnotclearwhat"network"means.Thelogicalinterpretationisthatitreferstolinkagesfromsitethroughlocaltonationallevelinparticipationandinformationflowtoenablebetter,moreinclusive,decision-makingandR2Rpolicyoutcomes.Assuchthetarget/indicatorwouldbebetterifitreflectedthis.Theproposalsfortarget3.2.2(above)attempttocapturethisaspectandifadoptedwouldenablethistargettobedeleted.

"Communityexchangevisits"areagoodideaandshouldbemaintainedbutrefertocapacitybuildingandshouldbemovedtoundercomponent2.

3.2.4Atleast20ICMmemberstotalfromthe4pilotPICs(sub-regional,mixofhighisland,atollsettings)gaugeinlearning,leadingtochangeinperceptionthroughparticipatorytechniques.

*50%ofparticipantswillbewomen,youth,and/orfromvulnerablegroups


✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ThetargetisSMARTaswrittenbutnotecommentsaboveonthestatusandnatureofIMCs.

TheindicatorisneitherSnorRspecificallyfromtheperspectiveofmeasuring"changeinperception"referredtointhetarget(itonlymeasuresthoseparticipatinginchangeinperceptionactivities).Abetterindicatorwouldbe:Numberofinter-ministrycommitteemembersmeetingwithinthe14pilotPICsandthosethathavechangedtheirperceptiononR2Rasaresultoftheproject*Datatobedisaggregatedbygender.Thiswouldneedtobemeasuredthroughapre-andpost-training/activityassessment(probablythroughstructuredquestionnaires).





✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

148


S M A R T

4.1.21unified/harmonizedmulti-focalarearesultstrackingapproachandanalyticaltooldeveloped,endorsed,andproposedtotheGEF,itsagenciesandparticipatingcountries


✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

4.1.3Upto14nationalplanningexercisesin14PacSIDSconductedwithparticipantsfromrelevantministrieswithamandatetoembedR2Rresultsframeworksintonationalsystemsforreporting,monitoringandbudgeting


x ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ "Upto"isnotspecific.Thetargetshouldbe:14nationalplanningexercises(oneineachPIC)conductedwithparticipantsfromrelevantministrieswithamandatetoembedR2Rresultsframeworksintonationalsystemsforreporting,monitoringandbudgeting

Outcome4.2NationalandregionalplatformsformanaginginformationandsharingofbestpracticesandlessonslearnedinR2Restablished

4.2.1Regional‘ridgetoreef’communicationsstrategydevelopedandimplementedandassistanceprovidedtonationalR2Rprojectincludingatleast10partnershipswithnationalandregionalmediaandeducationalorganizations


✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

4.2.2ParticipationinIW:LEARNactivities:conferences;preparationofatleast10experiencenotesandinter-linkedwebsiteswithcombinedallocationof1%ofGEFgrant

4.2.2NumberofIW:LEARNexperiencenotespublished ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Asecondindicatorcouldbeadded:PercentageallocationofGEFgrantexpendedonparticipationinIW:LEARNandpartnerships



✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔



5.1.1overallR2RprogrammecoordinationunitwithalignmentofdevelopmentworkerpositionscontributingtocoordinatedeffortamongnationalR2Rprojects(Year1)

5.1.1Programmecoordinationunitrecruitedandstaffretained

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

5.1.2Technical,operational,reportingandmonitoringUnitisoperationaltoprovidesupporttonationalR2Rprojects,asmayberequestedbyPICs,tofacilitatetimelydeliveryofoverallprogrammegoals.Atleast14requests


✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

149


S M A R T

peryeararemeteffectively.

5.1.3Atleast14R2Rstaffaretrained(inharmonizedreportingandmonitoringandotherregionalandnationalandcapacitybuildingmodules,amongothers)resultingineffectiveresultsreportingandonlineinformationsharing.

5.1.3NumberofR2Rstafftrainedresultingineffectiveresultsreportingandonlineinformationsharing

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔



✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

5.1.5Atleast4(1peryear)planningandcoordinationworkshopsconductedfornationalprojectteamsinthePacificR2Rnetwork

5.1.5Numberofplanningandcoordinationworkshopsconductedfornationalprojectsteamstoensuretimelinessandcost-effectivenessofIWpilotprojectandSTARprojectcoordination,deliveryandreporting

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

150

Annex8:Co-financingoftheprojectasofthetimeoftheMTR.

BasedfiguresprovidedbytheRPCUJune2019.Sourcesofco-financing

Nameofco-financer

Typeofco-financing

AmountconfirmedatCEOendorsement(US$)

ActualamountcontributedatstageofMidtermReview(US$)

Actual%ofExpectedAmount.

UNDPTrustFund UNDP Inkind 8,300,000 Corebudgetandrelatedprojects/programmes

SPC/AGTD Inkind 31,481,555 425,872 1.35%

Consolidatedrevenue

CookIslands Inkind 1,675,736 7,724.30 0.46% Fiji Inkind 3,674,640 35,040 0.95% FSM Inkind 560,474 300 0.054% Kiribati Inkind 7,321,797 213 0.003% Nauru Inkind 1,448,275 - - Niue Inkind 1,887,967 1,500 0.08% Palau Inkind 1,110,000 40,909 3.69% PNG Inkind 3,000,000 100,000 3.33% RMI Inkind 3,060,925 - - Samoa Inkind 3,200,000 189,153 5.9% Solomon

IslandsInkind 5,353,042 17,443.54 0.33%

Tonga Inkind 3,500,000 202,142.03 5.8% Tuvalu Inkind 2,900,094 2,330.40 0.08% Vanuatu InKind 9,233,655 4,734.28 0.05%

Sub-Total(national) 47,926,605 601,489.55 1.26% Totals: 87,708,160 1,027,361.44 1.17%

151

Annex9:Performanceratingsandtheirdescriptions

ProjectImplementation&AdaptiveManagement:(oneoverallrating) #6HighlySatisfactory(HS).Implementationofallsevencomponents–managementarrangements,workplanning, �financeandco-finance,project-levelmonitoringandevaluation systems, stakeholder engagement, reporting, and communications – isleadingtoefficientandeffectiveprojectimplementationandadaptivemanagement.Theprojectcanbepresentedas“goodpractice”. � #5Satisfactory(S). Implementationofmostof thesevencomponents is leadingtoefficientandeffectiveprojectimplementationandadaptivemanagementexceptforonlyfewthataresubjecttoremedialaction.� #4ModeratelySatisfactory(MS).Implementationofsomeofthesevencomponentsis leading to efficient and effective project implementation and adaptivemanagement,withsomecomponentsrequiringremedialaction.� #3 Moderately Unsatisfactory (MU). Implementation of some of the sevencomponents is not leading to efficient and effective project implementation andadaptive,withmostcomponentsrequiringremedialaction.� #2 Unsatisfactory (U). Implementation of most of the seven components is notleadingtoefficientandeffectiveprojectimplementationandadaptivemanagement.� #1HighlyUnsatisfactory(HU).Implementationofnoneofthesevencomponentsisleadingtoefficientandeffectiveprojectimplementationandadaptivemanagement.� RatingsforSustainability:� #4 Likely (L). Negligible risks to sustainability,with key outcomes on track to beachieved by the project’s closure and expected to continue into the foreseeablefuture� #3 Moderately Likely (ML). Moderate risks, but expectations that at least someoutcomeswillbesustainedduetotheprogresstowardsresultsonoutcomesattheMidtermReview� #2ModeratelyUnlikely (MU).Significant risk thatkeyoutcomeswillnot continueafterprojectclosure,althoughsomeoutputsandactivitiesshouldcontinue� #1Unlikely(U).Severerisksthatprojectoutcomesaswellaskeyoutputswillnotbesustained�

152

Annex10:Mainstakeholdersandtheirrole(fromtheProjectDocument)

Stakeholder

(identifiedatprojectstart-up)ProjectImplementationRoles

A.NationalGovernmentAgencies• CookIslands:MinistryofInfrastructureand

Planning

• FSMicronesia:KosraeIslandResourceManagementAuthority

• Fiji:LandandWaterResourceManagementDivisionoftheMinistryofPrimaryIndustry

• Kiribati:MinistryofPublicWorksandUtilities

• MarshallIslands:TheRepublicoftheMarshallIslandsEnvironmentalProtectionAuthority(RMIEPA)

• Nauru:MinistryofCommerce,IndustriesandResources(CIR)

• Niue:DepartmentofEnvironment

• Palau:OfficeofEnvironmentalResponseandCoordination(OERC)

• PapuaNewGuinea:DepartmentofEnvironmentandConservation

• Samoa:MinistryofNaturalResourcesandEnvironment

• SolomonIslands:MinistryofEnvironment,ConservationandMeteorology

• Tonga:MinistryofLands,Survey,NaturalResourcesandEnvironment

• Tuvalu:DepartmentofEnvironment-MinistryofNaturalResources,EnergyandEnvironment

• Vanuatu:MinistryforClimateChangeAdaptation,Meteorology,Geo-Hazards,Environment,EnergyandDisasterManagement

NationalImplementingPartnersofNationalActivitiesandPilotProjects

B.NGOsInternationalUnionforConservationofNature(IUCN)

Nationallevelprogrammepartnerandmemberofthe

RegionalScienceandTechnologyCommittee

PacificIslandsNewsAssociation

Regionalorganisationrepresentingtheinterestsofmedia

professionalsinthePacificregion.Itlinksradio,television,newspapers,magazines,onlineservices,nationalassociationsandjournalismschoolsin23PacificIslandwillassistProjectincoordinationofR2R

153

Stakeholder(identifiedatprojectstart-up)

ProjectImplementationRoles

messagingatnationallevel

LiveandLearn

NationalLevelEnvironmentalEducationandAwareness

PacificWater&WastesAssociation(PWA)

ThemembershipcomprisesPacificIslandwaterand

wastewaterutilitiesaswellasinternationalwaterauthorities,privatesectorequipmentandservicessupplycompanies,contractorsandconsultantsassistingtheprojectincoordinating

PacificIslandsAssociationofNon-Governmental

Organisations(PIANGO)

NationalNGOparticipationinPilotR2RProjects

PanPacificandSoutheastAsiaWomen'sAssociation

(PPSEAWA)

RegionalnetworkofNationalNGOfocalpointsbasedin22PacificIslandcountriesandterritoriesassistingtheprojectincoordinatingNationalNGOparticipationinPilotR2RProjects

PacificFoundationfortheAdvancementofWomen

(PACFAW)

Willassisttheprojecttopromotecooperationamongthewomenofthepacificregion.RegionalorganisationthatwillassisttheprojectinadvocacyandcoordinationofactivitiesfortheadvancementofwomeninthePacific.

PacificYouthCouncil Regionalnon-governmentalyouthorganisationthatwillassisttheprojectinadvocacyandcoordinationofNationalYouthCouncilsacrossthePacificregion

D.Academicorganizations:

• UniversityoftheSouthPacific(USP)• UniversityofPapuaNewGuinea(UPNG)• UniversityofGuam• UniversityofHawaii• InternationalWaterCenter(IWC)

Partnersinprojectscapacitybuildingcomponentandresourceforscientificandtechnicalsupport.

E.GEFAgenciesintheR2RProgramme:

UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme(UNDP)

ProjectImplementingAgencyandIAforNationalSTARR2RProjectsforFSM,Tuvalu,Samoa,Tonga,Niue,CookIslands,Vanuatu,Nauru,PNG,Fiji.

FoodandAgricultureOrganisation(FAO)

IAforNationalSTARR2RProjectsforSolomonIslands,KiribatiandTonga

UnitedNationsEnvironmentProgramme(UNEP)

IAforNationalSTARR2RProjectsforPalauandMarshallIslands

UnitedNationsEducational,ScientificandCultural

Organization(UNESCO)

GroundwaterassociatedactivitiesataNationalLevel

UnitedNationsChildren'sFund(UNICEF) NationallevelpartnerinWASHassociatedActivitiesF.Multilateralorganizations

AsianDevelopmentBank

IAfortheCoralTriangleandNationalLevelInfrastructuredevelopmentsinvitedparticipantat

154

Stakeholder(identifiedatprojectstart-up)

ProjectImplementationRoles

AnnualRSC

WorldBank

IAforseveralregionalDisasterRiskManagementand

BuildingClimateChangeResiliencewillcontinuecooperativepartnershipestablishedintheIWRMProject

EuropeanUnion(EU) DevelopmentpartnerforNationalLevelInfrastructure

developmentsinvitedparticipantatAnnualRSC.

G.PacificRegionalOrganisations

SecretariatofthePacificRegionalEnvironmentProgramme(SPREP)

CooperativepartnerinthejointDisasterRiskManagementandthePacificClimateChangestrategy.InvitedparticipantatAnnualRSC

155

Annex11:MTRassessmentofthestatusofrisksandassumptionsintheprojectLogFrame.

Indicator RisksandassumptionsaspertheprojectLogFrame MTRobservation/comments


Outcome1.1SuccessfulpilotprojectstestinginnovativesolutionsinvolvinglinkingICM,IWRMandclimatechangeadaptation[linkedtonationalSTARprojectsvialargerPacificR2R

network]


1.1.1 Data and information required to conduct diagnostic analyses may not be shared by local government agencies

Sharedwith"whom"?

Ifthisoutcomeisnationally-driven,thenthesharingwouldbewithinnational/localagenciesandcouldbereasonablyassumedtotakeplace.

Theriskasstatedismorelikelyifdiagnosticsareproducedremotely-whichisnotcompatiblewithcapacitybuilding.

1.1.2Stressreductionandwater,environmentalandsocioeconomicstatusindicators*Municipalwastepollutionreduction(Nkg/yr)*Pollutionreductiontoaquifers(kg/ha/yr)*Areaofrestoredhabitat(ha)*Areaofconserved/protectedwetland*Areaofcatchmentunderimprovedmanagement(ha)Numberofpeopleengagedinalternativelivelihoods*StatusofmechanismsforPM&E*Numberandqualityofdemonstrationprojectsthathaveincorporatedgenderanalysisaspartofthecommunityengagementplans

1.1.2(a) Development pressures may result in adoption or revision of land-use policies by national or local governments which are incompatible with activities at pilot sites 1.1.2 (b) Challenges and costs associated with demonstrating environmental stress reduction benefits of technologies and management measures may constrain replication and upscaling 1.1.2 (c) Sufficient commitment from Pacific leaders to address gender issues and promote mainstreaming.

1.1.2(a)activitiesatpilotsitesshouldbefactoringincurrentandfuturedevelopmentpressures.

1.1.2(b)impliesthattheprojectmustdeveloplowcoststressreductionmeasures.

1.1.2(c)impliesthattheprojectmusthaveatleasttargetedactivitiesonthegendersensitisationofPacificleadersandthedevelopmentofgenderChampionsamongthem.



1.2.1 Data and information required to conduct site characterizations of coastal areas may not be shared by relevant sectoral agencies or other institutions

Sharedwith"whom"?

Ifthisoutcomeisnationally-driven,thenthesharingwouldbewithinnational/localagenciesandcouldbereasonablyassumedtotakeplace.

Theriskasstatedismorelikelyifdiagnosticsareproducedremotely-whichisnotcompatiblewithcapacitybuilding.

1.2.2NumberandqualityofICM-IWRMinvestmentsincorporatingbaselineenvironmentalstateandsocio-culturalinformationforthe

1.2.2 Engaging appropriate expertise to facilitate consensus on the selection of physical, biological

Thisisundertheinfluenceoftheproject.

156


prioritizationofinvestmentsites and social variables to be used in characterization of PIC coastal areas



1.3.1 Existing tensions between land-owners and government agencies may limit community leader participation

ThisishighriskinthePICs.

Theprojectneedstoestablishmeasurestoreducetensionswherefeasible-e.g.applyingconflictresolution,trade-offanalysisandincentivemeasurestools.

1.3.2NumberofforumsheldtodiscussopportunitiesforagreementsonprivatesectoranddonorparticipationinPICsustainabledevelopment

1.3.2 Limited private sector presence, or alignment of donor investment strategies with proposed actions, at priority R2R locations

Tosomeextentthisisundertheinfluenceoftheproject.

Component2Island-basedInvestmentsinHumanCapitalandKnowledgetoStrengthenNationalandLocalCapacitiesforRidgetoReefICM/IWRMapproaches,incorporatingCC

adaptation

Outcome2.1NationalandlocalcapacityforICMandIWRMimplementationbuilttoenablebestpracticeinintegratedland,water,forestandcoastalmanagementandCCadaptation


2.1.1 Internationally recognized institute (or consortium) able to deliver a cost effective postgraduate training course which is both accredited and regionally appropriate

Nocomment.


2.1.2 Adequate resourcing from national STAR projects available to support STAR project stakeholder participation in training and capacity building activities

TheimportantriskhereisthattheIWR2RprojectdoesnothaveinfluenceovertheSTARprojects.

Outcome2.2Incentivestructuresforretentionoflocal‘RidgetoReef’expertiseandinter-governmentaldialogueonhumanresourceneedsforICM/IWRMinitiated

2.2.1NumberofR2Rpersonnelforwhichfunctionalcompetenciesarebenchmarked,trackedandanalysed;NumberofstudiescompletedidentifyingthenationalhumancapacityneedsforR2R(ICM/IWRM)implementationandbenchmarking/trackingcompetenciesofnationalandlocalgovernmentunitsforR2Rimplementation;Numberofcapacitybuildingsupportsecuredwithresultsdocumented

2.2.1 Securing advice and support from human resource specialist familiar with systems of government and barriers to sustainable development in PIC contexts

Nocomment.


2.2.2 Sufficient commitment from Pacific leaders to address human resourcing issues for natural resource and environmental management

Beyondtheabilityoftheproject-recommendeddeletion(seeSection4.2).



3.1.1Numberofsectoralgovernanceframeworkharmonisedandstrengthenedthroughnationalandregionaldevelopmentframeworks

3.1.1 Government agencies may be unwilling to participate in processes for the harmonization of

Toalargeextentthisisundertheinfluenceoftheproject.

157


policy and legislation


3.1.2 Consultative processes will not elicit adequate stakeholder input and commitment of support from national networks to proposed priority strategic actions

ToalargeextentthisisundertheinfluenceoftheprojectandparticularasitpromotesandsupportsIMCswhicharespecificallytargetedintheLogFrametosupportinstitutionaldevelopment.


3.1.3 Strong and high-level government commitment is generated, sustained and willing to use ‘StateofIslands’reporting as an instrument for change

Theassumptionhereisthata"StateoftheIslands"isrequiredtopromotechange.TheriskisthatfocusingontheSOIoutputdistractstheprojectfromidentifyingimmediateopportunitiesformainstreaming.



3.2.1 Provincial and local governments may perceive IMC approach as being driven by central government

SeediscussiononIMCsinSection4.3


3.2.2 Appropriately qualified national staff available to provide adequate Secretariat support to IMC work

Nocomment


3.2.3 Adequate cooperation is fostered among IW pilot project and national STAR project staff to build stakeholder confidence in benefits of integration



3.2.4 R2R is accepted at the national level as a legitimate framework for a multi focal area approach to GEF investment for PIC sustainable development

ThisisalreadyagreedsincePICshaveendorsedthePacificR2RProgrammewhichintendstodoexactlyasstated.

TheactualriskisthatR2RwillnotbetakenupasaframeworkforfutureGEFinvestment.




4.1.1 (a) Design of national STAR projects include targets and related indicators aimed at achievement of R2R programme goals and outcomes; (b) legal agreements between national lead agencies and GEF


Thisleavesthequestionofhowwill"legalagreements"beenforced?

158


implementing agencies for STAR projects include explicit requirement for project management units to meet R2R programme reporting requirements

SeeSection4.3oncoordination.


4.1.2 Sustained commitment of senior government officials with oversight of IW and STAR projects to develop and test a harmonized results approach for GEF investment in PICs



4.1.3 National planning and finance ministry staff are sufficiently well engaged in national planning exercises

TheactualassumptionhereisthattheR2Rresultsframeworkiscompatiblewithandsupportsnationalsystemsforreporting,monitoringandbudgeting.Tosomeextentthisisunderthecontroloftheproject.


4.2.1 (a) Willingness of regional and national media outlets prepared to partner with R2R programme implementation; and (b) adequate resourcing from national STAR projects to the development of media products required to effectively communicate the benefit of integrated R2R approaches

AriskhereisthattheIWR2RprojectdoesnothaveinfluenceovertheSTARprojects.

4.2.2NumberofIW:LEARNexperiencenotespublished 4.2.2 Retention of national and regional level staff required to resource the documentation of experiences and lessons learned as IW:LEARN experience notes

Nocomment.


4.2.3 Interconnectivity in national and regional project offices is adequate to support the efficient online compilation and sharing of information and data

TosomeextentthisisundertheinfluenceoftheprojectsincedesignofITsupportshouldtakeintoaccountsuchadequacyandthe"sharingofinformationanddata"shouldbekeptwithinthelimitsofoutcome4.2(seeSection4.2).



5.1.1Programmecoordinationunitrecruitedandstaffretained 5.1.1 Regional executing agency ability to recruit and retain appropriately qualified staff for programme coordination unit

ThereisanassumptionthattherangeoftechnicalexpertiseoftheRPCUisappropriatetothatrequiredtoexecutetheproject.

See4.3particularlysub-sectiononOtherperformanceoftheExecutingAgency(RPCU) TechnicalexpertiseoftheRPCU


5.1.2 Adequate resourcing available to programme coordination unit to meet support requests of national STAR projects

Theprojectisdesignedsothatithasadequateresourcing.ItsRPCUalreadyhassuchsupportinitsToRanditisassumedthatthebudgetreflectsthis.

5.1.3NumberofR2Rstafftrainedresultingineffectiveresults 5.1.3 IW pilot and STAR project [staff] are retained to Itisassumedthatthisrefersto-withinthetimeduration

159


reportingandonlineinformationsharing enable the longer-term development and local exchange of national project management and reporting capacity

oftheproject.Thereaftertherewillbenoprojectstaff.


5.1.4 Internet connectivity in national and regional offices of programme/project stakeholders adequate to support use of online training tools

TosomeextentthisisundertheinfluenceoftheprojectbecausetheITsystemdevelopedbytheprojectshouldtakeintoaccountinternetconnectivityetc.

5.1.5NumberofplanningandcoordinationworkshopsconductedfornationalprojectsteamstoensuretimelinessandcosteffectivenessofIWpilotprojectandSTARprojectcoordination,deliveryandreporting

5.1.5 National and regional organisations assign sufficient importance to engagement with planning and coordination initiatives of the project

Tosomeextentthisisundertheinfluenceoftheproject.

160

Annex12:Milestonesfornationallevelimplementationoftheproject.TheofficialstartdateoftheprojectwasAugust2015.

InitialhiringoftheProjectManagerreferstothedateofappointmentofthefirst

ProjectManager(insomecasesprojectmanagersresignedandhavebeenreplaced).

PIC TimelineofMilestones Lengthofdelayfromprojectstart

CookIs MOAsigning ? Sep15,2016 1year

FirstFundTranche ! Sep28,2016

InceptionMeeting " Sep2017perQ32017GEFPacificR2RProgressReport

2year

InitialHiringofPM C Feb27,2017 1year6months

DemoProject ¥ ManagementofMuriLagoon-wastemanagement,PPP,knowledgeandcapacityonstressreductionmeasures

Fiji MOAsigning # Mar10,2017 1year7months

FirstFundTranche ! Oct6,2017

InceptionMeeting " Oct2017perQ32017GEFPacificR2RProgressReport

2year2months

InitialHiringofPM C Oct29,2018. 3year2month

DemoProject ¥ CatchmentManagement(Waimanu)includingpreparationofcatchmentmanagementplan

FSM MOAsigning # Dec28,2016 1year4months

FirstFundTranche ! Oct6,2017

InceptionMeeting " Feb2018perQ12018GEFPacificR2RProgressReport

2year6months

InitialHiringofPM C Nov27,2017 2year3months

DemoProject ¥ DryLitterPiggerydemonstrationinLelutocontrolecolicontaminationofwatercatchmentandTerracing/SALTfarmingtechnologytocontrolsedimentsinTofol,Kosrae.PreparationofCommunityWaterResourcesManagementtobeintegratedintoanoverallstatelevelFreshwaterManagementPlanforKosrae.

Kiribati MOAsigning # Mar10,2017 1year7months



1year6months

InitialHiringofPM C N/A N/A

DemoProject ¥ N/A N/A

Nauru MOAsigning # May26,2016 8months

161

FirstFundTranche ! Aug5,2016


6months

InitialHiringofPM C Jun13,2016. 10months

DemoProject ¥ DryLitterPiggery(Interview)Coastalre-vegetationwithSALTanddroughttolerantspeciesat10criticalsites(Interview)

Niue MOAsigning # Feb7,2017 1year6months

FirstFundTranche ! Mar16,2017

InceptionMeeting " Sep2017perQ32017GEFPacificR2RProgressReport

2years


DemoProject ¥ Reductionofmunicipalwasteandreductionofpollutiontoaquifers

Palau MOAsigning

# June13,2016 10months

FirstFundTranche ! Jun20,2016

InceptionMeeting " Oct2016perQ32017GEFPacificR2RProgressReport

1year2months

InitialHiringofPM C Oct9,2016 1year2months

DemoProject ¥ SupporttoBelauWatershedActionPlanningandImplementationPMEPlanningandImplementationforNgardokNatureReservePublic-privatepartnershipsforecotourismcompliantwithnationalguidelinesforIWandCoastalLandManagement

PNG MOAsigning # Jan9,2017 1year5months

FirstFundTranche ! Mar2,2017

InceptionMeeting " May2017perQ32017GEFPacificR2RProgressReport

1year9months

InitialHiringofPM C Nov9,2017 2year3months

DemoProject ¥ HabitatRestoration-MPADeclarationofTunaBayofPortMoresbyCBDAreaincludingMPAManagementPlanning

RMI MOAsigning

# Jun13,2016 10months

FirstFundTranche ! Jun20,2016

InceptionMeeting " Mar2018perQ12018GEFPacificR2RProgressReport

2year8months

InitialHiringofPM C Jun27,2017 1year10months

DemoProject ¥ ReductionofpollutionofcoastalwaterandgroundwaterinLauraandMaujurothruDryLitterPiggerytechnology,includingformulationofIntegratedCoastalManagement

162

PlanforLaurainformedbyaStateoftheCoastassessment

Samoa MOAsigning # Mar10,2017 1year8months


InceptionMeeting " Nov2017perQ32017GEFPacificR2RProgressReport

2year3months

InitialHiringofPM C Sep11,2017 2year1month

DemoProject ¥ Improvedcatchmentmanagement,includingrevegetationofmangrovesandformulationofWatershedManagementPlanforLetongoFagali'lCatchment

Solomon MOAsigning

# Sep1,2016 1year1month

FirstFundTranche ! FundreleasedonJan10,2017

InceptionMeeting " Jan2017perQ32017GEFPacificR2RProgressReport

1year5months


DemoProject ¥ Managementofwetlandhabitat(MatanikoRiverwhichisamajorriverinKovi/KongulaiCatchment.),includingformulationofMatanikoCatchmentManagementPlanfor100hasWaterqualitymonitoringFormulationofecotourismdevelopmentplan(Interview)

Tonga MOAsigning # Sep1,2016 1year1month



2year6months

InitialHiringofPM C Aug1,2017 2year

DemoProject ¥ ReductionofmunicipalwasteandreductionofpollutiontoaquifersthroughECOSANWaterQualityMonitoringConservation/protectionoffishhabitatthroughMPA/refugeestablishment

Tuvalu MOAsigning

# Jun1,2016 10months

FirstFundTranche ! Nov2,2016

InceptionMeeting " Dec2016perQ32017GEFPacificR2RProgressReport

1year4months

InitialHiringofPM C Aug1,2016 1year

DemoProject ¥ DryLitterPiggerydemonstrationtoreducepollutiontoaquifers(Interview)

163

FormulationofMYCWP . UpdatedonJul30.2018(PerfilecopysharedbyRPCUtotheMTRTeam)

Vanuatu

MOAsigning # Jun1,2016 10months

FirstFundTranche ! Jul12,2016

InceptionMeeting " Dec2016perQ32017GEFPacificR2RProgressReport

1year4months

InitialHiringofPM C Sep6,2018 3years

DemoProject ¥ ImprovedcatchmentmanagementincludingformulationoftheTagabeCatchmentManagementPlan,capacitybuildingforparticipatorymonitoringandevaluationandrevegetationofbufferareasWaterQualityMonitoring

164

Annex13:Tasksidentifiedtobeundertakeninpreparationfor,andissuestobeconsideredby,thenextRegionalSteeringCommitteeMeeting.Task WhoNecessarypriortotheRSC:Check and where necessary update each national project

LogFrame including targets. Check status of approval by RSC

(inwriting/officialrecords)

RPCU and National Project

Managers

Compile relevant national LogFrames for approval (if

necessary)atnextRSCRPCU

Mapexistingnational (and regional) sustainabledevelopment

planning processes (including climate change adaptation and

disaster risk reduction and across all sectors) and related

currentactivities.

Identifyimmediate,short-andmedium-termopportunitiesfor

mainstreamingR2Rapproachesintotheseframeworks.

Identifyapproachestodelivermainstreamingneedsintothese

frameworks.

RPCU and national project

counterparts (and where feasible

nationalPSCs)

Compileandsynthesiseresultsoftheabovemapping(etc.)into

acoherentstrategyformainstreamingR2Randpresenttothe

RSC

RPCU

Consider how the intended functions of "inter-ministry

committees" (IMC) as per the Project Document fit with

existing planning and coordination processes and governance

arrangements and identifymeasures to deliver IMC functions

by, as far as possible, building on existing governance

structures and processes and building new ones only where

clearlyneeded.

RPCU and national counterparts

(andwherefeasiblenationalPSCs)

CompilenationalsituationsandproposalregardingIMCsvis-a-

visprojectrequirementsandpresenttotheRSC

RPCU

Assess the current situation, needs and opportunities for an

IDAand/orSoCvis-a-visotheron-goingefforts (e.g. SoE)and

with regards to the timing of information needs for other

processes.

RPCU, national counterparts and

nationalPSCs.

CompilethestrategyforIDAsandSoCsandpresenttotheRSC RPCUIdentify the strategy for delivering outcome 4.2 at national

levelandpresenttotheRSC

RPCU

Optional-timeandresourcespermitting.

(1) Organise training on Ecosystem Goods and Services

approachesandvaluationataregionalworkshopattheRSC

(2) Organise training workshop at the RSC on mapping the

potential contributions of the project to the SDGs, identifying

relevant linkages and interdependencies and investigating

commonorrelevant indicators inusebyboth theprojectand

theSDGs.

RPCU

TopicstobeconsideredbytheRSC:Consider and approve current national LogFrames (as

necessary).

RSC

Consider and approve the mapping of existing national (and RSC

165

Task Whoregional) sustainable development planning processes

(including climate change adaptation and disaster risk

reductionandacrossallsectors)andrelatedcurrentactivities,

immediate, short- and medium-term opportunities for

mainstreaming R2R approaches into these frameworks and

approaches to deliver mainstreaming needs into these

frameworks.

Considerandapprovestrategiesandproposals todeliver IMC

functionsbytheproject.

RSC

ConsiderandapprovetherevisedIDA/SoCstrategy RSC

Consider and approve the strategy to deliver outcome 4.2 at

nationallevel.

RSC

Discuss and agree on: what is required from the RPCU

regarding programme coordination; identify the reporting

channels and responsibilitiesbetweenSTARprojects, IWR2R

nationalprojects,theRPCUandtheimplementingagencies;the

modalities through which the desired coordination is to be

delivered.

RSC,RPCGandRPCU

166

Annex14:TheMTRMissionSchedule

Missionmember Location DatesCoates+Lucero ArriveFiji 13March2019

Coates MissionFiji 14-15March2019

Coates MissionCookIslands 16-23March2019

Lucero MissionFiji 14-23March2019

Coates+Lucero MissionVanuatu 24-30March2019

Coates+Lucero MissionTuvalu 31March-04April2019

Coates+Lucero MissionFiji 05-09April2019

Coates+Lucero ProgressupdateFiji (08April2019)

Coates+Lucero Hometravel 10April2019

Lucero MissionPalau 23-27April2019

167

Annex15:BriefBIOSoftheMTRTeamDavidCoates

David Coates is an independent consultant on environment and sustainable development

with30+yearsofbroadexperience.HehasbeenProjectManagerand/orChiefTechnical

Adviserofnumerousnatural resourcesmanagementprojects (forFAO,UNDP,GEF-World

Bank and Mekong River Commission). Has 25+ years experience working in developing

countries (Africa, South Asia, South-East Asia, Pacific). 25 + years experience in project

design, implementationand review (forUNDP,FAO,MekongRiverCommission,DANIDA)

including resultsbasedmanagement.Recentlyhe spent13years at the Secretariat of the

Convention on Biological Diversity where he was: thematic leader for water, food and

energy;focalpointfortheFAOandRamsarConvention;representativeonUN-Water;Chair

of the Partnership on Environment and Disaster Risk Reduction; mainstreaming

biodiversity/ecosystem services into the elaboration of 2030 Agenda for Sustainable

DevelopmentandtheSDGs;buildingcapacityfordevelopingcountryParties. Heisauthor

orco-authorofextensivepublications includingrecentlyon: theeconomicsofecosystems

and biodiversity; nature-based solutions for water security; biodiversity and water

resourcesmanagement; foodsystemsandsustainableagriculture;ecosystemservicesand

disasterriskreduction;inlandfisheriesandfisheriesmanagement.HehasaBSc(FirstClass

Honours)Zoology;MSc(TropicalMarineEcology);andPhD(AppliedFreshwaterBiology).

Ma.Susan(Bebot)J.Lucera

Ma.SusanJLuceroisanindependentdevelopmentpractitionerwhosebodyofworkspans

almost30years.Inthese30years,shehaspracticedinthecapacityofeducator,researcher

andpolicyanalyst,managerialandtechnicaladvisor/consultant,projectappraiser,monitor,

evaluator,andmanager-implementer.MostofMs.Lucero’sdevelopmentpracticehasbeen

devoted to promoting good environmental governance and institution development. She

has worked extensively in the sectors of Sustainable Rural Development and Poverty

Alleviation,Environment,NaturalResources,AgricultureandAgrarianReform, Integrated

Conservation and Development/Protected Area Management, Climate Change Resiliency

and Disaster Risk Reduction and Management, and Community-Based Livelihood

Development. She is also aGender andParticipatoryDevelopment expert,with extensive

experience in all stages of education and training curriculum development and delivery

through formal, non-formal and informal modes. Ms. Lucero has worked with donors,

governmentagencies,andcivilsocietyorganisationsbasedmostlyinthePhilippinesandin

somecountriesabroad(Netherlands,Pakistan,Afghanistan,IndiaandBangladesh).Parallel

to her development practice, Prof. Lucero has also been an active academician. She has

taught at the graduate programmes on Development Management and Public Affairs

Management of the University of the Philippines at Los Baños and is currently, Assistant

Professor and Research Associate at the De La Salle College of St. Benilde - School of

Diplomacy and Governance.Ms. Lucero is a PhD Candidate in Public Administration, has

completeddoctoralcourseworkinPoliticalScience,hasaMaster’sDegreeinDevelopment

Management,andaBachelor’sDegreeinAgriculturalEconomics.

168

Annex16:MTRConsultantAgreementForms

Annex 2: Management responses to the Recommendations of the MTR mission

No. MTR Recommendations

Management Response Implicat ions of the recommendations for national STAR and IW

projects

Act ion Requested from RSTC

Action Requested from RPCG

Action Requested from RPSC UNDP – SPC Consensus

1 Review and update of logframes

The RPCU, together with National Project Managers, should review and update all current national project LogFrames and ensure that, if not already done so, each is approved at the next national PSC and RSC meetings.

• SPC will advocate for and support national logframe reviews to ensure that outputs (and outcomes) contribute directly to the achievement of the Regional IW R2R project, and plausibly to the GEF Pacific R2R programme outcomes.

• SPC and UNDP note that review and update of national logframes is determined by national processes and current framework conditions.

• Revised national IW R2R logframes should be submitted to national steering committees/ project boards for approval no later than 3rd quarter.

• Available national IW R2R logframes to be submitted to Regional Steering Committee for information.

• IW Project Managers, agency heads and stakeholders review and update the national logframe, particularly the end of project targets and corresponding update their MYCWP. This should be presented at the Pre-RPSC meeting in Nadi.

• Review and advise on the methods and standards used to estimate quantitative measures and revised targets

• Review the ‘Theory of Change’ or measurable changes underpinning end of project targets, and provide advice on its technical feasibility and plausible contributions to the Regional IW R2R Project outcomes.

• RPCG to determine that each GEF implementing agency (UNDP, UNE and FAO) commit to and promote the GEF Pacific R2R program approach in all Project Steering Committee or Project Board meetings.

• RPCG to provide the operational clarity required for SPC to effective coordinate regional IW R2R project indicators requiring inputs from the child projects of the GEF Pacific R2R program,

• Specifically IAs will convey to the STAR projects (Coordinators and Agencies) the need to proactively collaborate with SPC by providing/ sharing information.

Notes

• The original logframes were endorsed at the First Regional Steering Committee in Nadi, Fiji and reviewed during respective national inception workshops.

• Updating the national logframes has been ongoing. During QTR 2 each national project was asked to reassess the overall relevance of the logframes and targets against current priorities and conditions. Updates are to consider the plausibility and technical soundness of the various planned development measures and potentially recalibrating and/ or adjusting these to respond national priorities.

• National projects requested to present updated logframes during the pre-RSC workshop. It is fundamental that the logframes are endorsed by the national implementing agency and approved by the respective national project steering committees. RPSC is not the body to approve national logframes.

• RPCU has compiled the revised targets of the respective national stress reduction targets. This has been reported in the GEF IW Tracking Tool.

Action requested

• Accept the amended indicators of the Regional IW R2R project and the corresponding, consolidated end of project targets.

2 Review of/ lesson learned from previous related investments

The RPCU, in collaboration with national agencies, should review the impact of previous IWRM, ICM and R2R (if any) investments, and particularly the GEF IWRM Project, based on current realities and with

• Agreed. Parallel to the review of national logframes, SPC will document and/ or review lessons learned and best practice from previous separate IWRM and ICM investments considering current realities and opportunities, with the objective of deriving further lessons learned, particularly regarding impact, upscaling and sustainability, and opportunities

• Under the guidance of the RPCU, IW national Project Managers and national stakeholders will collect data and information on the impact of previous IWRM, ICM and R2R investments and identify opportunity/ ies for

• Endorse the recommendation and SPC’s response.

GEFIWR2RRSC4_4



projects




the objective of deriving further lessons learned, particularly regarding impact, upscaling and sustainability.

for mainstreaming R2R into national planning and policies.

• National Project Managers will be provided a unified ToR for mapping and review of investments. SPC will oversee the conduct of the reviews and ensure the technical feasibility of outcomes.

• Development of lessons learned documents reflected in IW R2R regional project AWP

mainstreaming R2R given current national priorities and resources. The results of this review (report) will be made available in the period August to December 2019.

3 L inkages with other national act iv it ies and processes.

Each national demonstration project should re-evaluate its linkages to and relationships with other relevant projects and activities at local and national level, and with local planning mechanisms and institutional arrangements, to ensure that its activities and outputs are coherent with, and build upon and strengthen, these other activities and governance systems.

• Agreed while recognising that there is a need to overcome barriers to linkages and relationships between relevant projects and activities at local and national level. These are internal matters but obviously impact on successful implementation of project activities and achieving deliverables.

• SPC will advocate such review in parallel or consequentially with the implementation of recommendations numbers 1 and 2.

• In parallel with recommendation 2, and under the guidance of the RPCU, IW national Project Managers and national stakeholders will determine areas of collaboration with other national projects, ensuring alignment to national priorities. Results of this activity will provide input to the revised logframe and are expected to be incorporated in the MYCWP (see recommendation 1).

• Identify strategic areas of regional or external intervention appropriate to better strengthen and improve linkages and relationships with other relevant projects at national and local level. For instance, SPC can collaborate with other CROP agencies and development partners who are implementing similar projects in countries.


• Specifically IAs will convey to the STAR projects (Coordinators and Agencies) the need to proactively collaborate with SPC by providing/ sharing information.

• Advocate for joint activity plans for STAR and IW projects).

• Consider the recommendation in light of SPC’s response and the advice of the RSTC and RPCG, and endorse as appropriate.

4 Mainstreaming R2R

The RPCU in collaboration with national agencies should: (i) map existing national (and regional) sustainable development planning processes (including climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction and across all sectors) and related current activities; (ii) identify immediate, short- and medium-term opportunities for mainstreaming R2R approaches into these frameworks; (iii) develop a clear and coherent approach to deliver mainstreaming needs into these frameworks, prioritising immediate opportunities based on existing scientific/ technical knowledge and practical experience (without waiting for IDAs or SoCs); (iv) discourage activities that result in

• Agree, this will be undertaken in parallel with recommendations number 1, 2 and 3.

• SPC will work towards documenting and publishing:

- PICs strategic plans and planning processes and relevant policies

- Opportunities for mainstreaming R2R in the short-medium-long term.

- Possible options for actually mainstreaming R2R.

• The abovementioned information could be the basis for crafting a Regional IW R2R knowledge product: “Options for mainstreaming R2R in Planning and relevant Policies in the Pacific” consistent with Recommendation 4 (iii)

• IW Project Managers and STAR Coordinators will facilitate and support the RPCU in the conduct of mapping to determine options for effective national mainstreaming of R2R. The schedule for this activity will be determined after the RPSC meeting.

• The Theory of Change WP seeks RSTC endorsement of SPC technical responses to these recommendations.

• The Committee may discuss and provide advice on technical means by which R2R mainstreaming could be more effective towards the end the project, benefitting from lessons learnt and best practice.

• RSTC is requested to discuss the proposition that immediate and short or medium term opportunities for mainstreaming R2R can be challenging because of insufficient compelling scientific evidence.

• RPCG to determine that IAs will convey to the STAR projects (Coordinators and Agencies) the need to proactively collaborate with SPC by providing/ sharing information.

• Consider the recommendation in light of SPC’s response and the advice of the RSTC and RPCG, and endorse as appropriate

GEFIWR2RRSC4_4



projects




the development of new or parallel "strategic frameworks for R2R" or R2R planning mechanisms or frameworks, and instead build on existing processes; and (v) consider how the intended functions of "inter-ministerial committees" (as per the Project Document) fit with existing planning and coordination processes and governance arrangements and identify measures to deliver IMC functions by, as far as possible, building on existing governance structures and processes and building new ones only where clearly needed.

5 Adopting an Ecosystems Goods and Services Approach

The project should adopt an ecosystem goods and services framework as the foundation of its scientific and technical approach by: (i) integrating ecosystem goods and services indicators into the RapCA, IDA and SoC, not as a "supplement" to existing indicators but as their foundation; (ii) integrating an ecosystem goods and services approach/ context as the basis for all relevant project activities including for R2R planning, mainstreaming and policy; (iii) testing an ecosystem goods and services and valuation approach as the entry point in a limited number of appropriate demonstration projects that have yet to commence or have only recently commenced (subject to country needs and buy-in); (iv) commencing basic training on ecosystem goods and services (including valuation) for national capacity building, including considering a dedicated module on this topic as part of the on-going post-graduate training delivered through an appropriate institution (subject to resources availability).

• Agreed. SPC recognises the value of the EGS approach both in achieving Regional IW R2R project outcomes and GEF Pacific R2R Program outcomes. EGS has been and will be incorporated in various technical studies and science-based initiatives.

• EGS outcomes will be key to R2R mainstreaming. As a result of the study in recommendation number 4 will guide the entire mainstreaming process of R2R in the Pacific. A knowledge product mentioned in number 4 above would be useful. This will also serves as basis in crafting the Regional Strategic Action Framework (Regional SAF) which is an expected output of the Regional IW R2R project.

• The experience in the methodologies and tools used for testing stress reduction measures and the other science based initiatives such as IDA, RAPCA, and SOC will serve as inputs and evidence of the project outcomes (assuming the data/ results from testing/ demonstration are available within the project timeframe).

• This will be undertaken with due consideration of the results from the implementation of recommendations number 1 to 4.

• IW and STAR projects will facilitate, make data accessible, and provide inputs to the development of knowledge products depicting experience and lessons from GEF Pacific R2R Program implementation. The framework for joint knowledge products will be made available by the RPCU.

• The protection of ecosystem goods and services are central elements of the goal and objective of both the R2R program and R2R IW project.

• The recommendation is seeking the adoption of an EGS framework as the foundation of the R2R IW project scientific and technical approach, as set out in Recommendation 5(i) – (iv).

• RSTC to consider and advise on the recommendation in light of the current state of implementing IW R2R project activities.

• Consider the recommendation in light of SPC’s response and the advice of the RSTC, and endorse as appropriate

GEFIWR2RRSC4_4



projects




6 Re-assessing IDA-RAPCA-SOC-SAF-SAP continuum

The project should re-assess its strategy on IDAs and SoCs based on the following criteria: (i) Focus on objectives/outcomes - the IDA or SoC is not an outcome, the outcome required is mainstreaming R2R; (ii) Identify and prioritise existing opportunities to mainstream R2R without having an IDA or SoC (important short-term opportunities are currently being missed); (iii) The absolute priority is capacity building - this in turn determines the impact of an IDA or SoC on policies - this requires ownership of and participation of PICs in the IDA/SoC process; (iv) IDAs/SoCs must be country-driven, where countries see an IDA or "SoC" as a necessary or priority need the process can go ahead, but if this is absent beware of doing the SoC; (v) The priority is for the IDA and/or SoC to be integrated with and build on, add value to, existing activities and processes at national level (notably the State of Environment reporting process and similar undertakings), the process need not necessarily result in a stand-alone "SoC" report but it can achieve its purpose equally as well through integration of information generated into other reports/ processes; (vi) Timing of outputs needs to be compatible with timescales for information needs (particularly for informing on-going policy processes); (vii) Focus on quality not quantity reduce outputs accordingly; (viii) Where all the above criteria are met consider proceeding - where any is not met there is limited justification for the SoC; and (ix) Re-assess the need and opportunities for an IDA

• Agreed. SPC has reassessed the Theory of Change for R2R mainstreaming following the IDA-RAPCA-SOC-SAF-SAP technological continuum, as the basis for national testing and demonstration.

• As a results of the assessment, SPC has prepared a paper for consideration by RSTC (WP6.b). The paper seeks endorsement of the revised strategy (ToC) including the following:

- Participatory process

- R2R mainstreaming

- capacity building

• SPC also notes Recommendation 6 (viii), which states that where any criteria are not met there is limited justification for the SoC, and that in (ix), requiring presenting the IDA/SOC strategy to the RSC for discussion and review.

• IW national projects will need to indicate their willingness to support the implementation of the IDA-RapCA-SoC-SAF continuum. The entire process requires that national projects will facilitate and fully support (i.e. in terms of project managers’ time and expertise) the formulation process as outlined in the “Theory of Change”.

• RSTC to review SPC’s proposed Theory of Change and advise on its viability/ feasibility in the Pacific context and current project duration and resources.

• RSTC to consider WP – Theory of Change, and discuss the specific details and methods used, in light of Recommendation 6, which suggests the project should re-assess its strategy on IDAs and SoCs, and maintain focus on delivering R2R mainstreaming as a desired project outcome.

• RSTC to discuss and provide guidance specific to Recommendation 6 (viii) “Where all the above criteria are met consider proceeding - where any is not met there is limited justification for the SoC”; and (ix) “Re-assess the need and opportunities for an IDA and/or SoC in PSCs and re-present the IDA/SoC strategy to the RSC for discussion and review.”


• Specifically IAs will convey to the STAR projects (Coordinators and Agencies) the need to proactively collaborate with SPC by providing/ sharing information

• Advocate for joint activity plans for STAR and IW projects.


GEFIWR2RRSC4_4



projects




and/or SoC in PSCs and re-present the IDA/SoC strategy to the RSC for discussion and review.

7 Mapping R2R contr ibution to SDGs

The project should, with national counterpart participation, map its potential contributions to the SDGs, identify relevant linkages and interdependencies (including potential indicators currently in use), explore the extent to which R2R is a tool to achieve integrated delivery of, and has already delivered, the natural resources based or dependent SDGs and use this process as a means to: (i) test the relevance of its approaches; (ii) promote visibility and relevance of the project; and (iii) identify and potentially monitor the contribution of the project to sustainable development outcomes.

• Agree. Although this recommendation contradicts the MTR findings (see page 61 line 28 onwards), SPC finds this recommendation appropriate. Mapping the potential contributions to SDG is captured in the Harmonized Results Reporting (HRR) tool, as well as the Aichi Targets.

• The integrated delivery is and will be dependent on the IMC and/or the national project steering committees including the mandated/focal agencies for reporting SDGs. This is to ensure sustainability (note: exit plan).

• Points raised in the recommendations related to the project results framework and national logframe targets are relevant in mapping out potential contributions to the SDGs

• STAR national Coordinators complete the Harmonized Results Reporting tool which covers the respective project contributions to the SDGs and submits them to RPCU.

• RSTC to discuss the project’s potential contributions to the SGDs in light of current progress or may defer consideration to a later stage, when project activities are successfully completed and milestone targets achieved.

• Taking account of MTR findings the RPCG may consider the challenges of delivering targets on timelines, and provide advice to the RPSC.


8 Website structure and purpose

The RPCU should ensure that the website and associated databases developed under activity 4.2.3 is kept as simple as possible, primarily builds on existing efforts, learns from previous efforts, and is limited to the purpose of communicating and sharing lessons learned on R2R and supporting the development of a network (or community of practice) on R2R.

• Agree. The associated database is a separate platform from the Regional IW R2R project website.

• Also, the schematic of this website with multi-focal area features was presented to the RSTC and RPCG in Townsville. Both bodies have indicated no objection to the Regional IW R2R project building this website.

• IW project provides inputs in populating their respective national sub-pages.

• Endorse the recommendation and SPC’s response

9 Re-assessing mult i - focal website features

The project should re-assess the advisability of integrating the integrated results framework for multi-focal GEF projects under the same platform as the communication/ networking platform for R2R. If it continues as such then the ability to separate the two functionalities must be in-built.

• Agreed, but with some modification

• Following up on recommendation number 8, the multi-focal reporting (Harmonized Results Reporting) is necessary and will be incorporated as an ‘in-built’ feature of the enhanced website.

• As indicated above the structure and purpose of the website has previously been endorsed by RSTC and RSPC (Townsville).

• IW project provides inputs in populating their respective national sub-pages.

• STAR project submit the completed Harmonized Results Reporting tool (see also recommendation 7).

• RPCG to determine that IAs will

convey to the STAR projects (Coordinators and Agencies) the need to proactively collaborate with SPC by providing/ sharing information.

• Consider the recommendation in light of SPC’s response and the advice of the RPCG, and endorse as appropriate

GEFIWR2RRSC4_4



projects




10 Del iver ing Outcome 4.2

The project should identify how it is going to deliver outcome 4.2 (in particular activity 4.2.3) at national level, as required in the outcome description, and present this plan to the next RSC meeting.

“4.2.3 indicator: Pacific R2R network established with at least 100 users registered, online regional and national portals containing among others, databases, rosters of national and regional experts and practitioners on R2R, register of national and regional projects, repository for best practices R2R technologies, lessons learned, etc.”

• Agree. SPC has initiated the process of establishing the Regional IW R2R project website that will support the achievement of this indicator.

• IW projects provide inputs in populating their respective national sub-pages.

• STAR projects submit the completed Harmonized Results Reporting tool (see recommendations 7 and 9).

• Endorse the recommendation and SPC’s

response

11 Compil ing lessons learned

The RPCU should play a lead coordinating role in developing or compiling lessons learned on R2R, including from the previous IWRM/ICM/R2R investments, including by providing guidance to current R2R projects (STAR and IW R2R Projects) in order for them to begin now to maximise extraction of lessons learned from investments.

• Agreed. SPC is willing to play this role, but requires full cooperation of STAR to do so.

• On the basis of existing communication and knowledge management strategies, SPC will develop a discussion paper detailing the anticipated “knowledge products (KP)” that will be developed by the project. The list of KP’s will be presented to the RSTC and RPCG.

• UNDP notes that information to feed in to lessons for STAR R2R can be accessed through Quarterly reports, MSC stories, PIR reports, technical reports

• IW and STAR projects facilitate, make data accessible, and provide inputs to the development of knowledge products depicting experience and lessons from GEF Pacific R2R Program implementation. The framework for joint knowledge products will be made available by the RPCU.

• RSTC to review the list of knowledge products (especially those requiring information from the experience of STAR projects in testing and mainstreaming R2R) and provide technical inputs, as appropriate.

• RPCG will be requested to provide clear operational decision to ensure sharing of information and maximize extraction of lessons learned from the GEF Pacific R2R Program investments.


12 A no-cost extension

The project should have a no-cost extension subject to implementation of the further recommendations of the MTR.

• Agreed. A no-cost extension should be based on MTR recommendations including revised national logframes and the renewed Regional IW R2R project monitoring plan.

• IW projects request that SPC extend their national project completion date with the intention to achieve the end of project targets indicated in their respective/ updated national logframes.

• RSTC to consider technical implications of a no-cost extension on the implementation of the science-policy interface (theory of change).

• RPCG to consider the implications of the overall GEF R2R Programme of an IW R2R extension, or otherwise.

• Approval of the proposed amendments to the project indicators, project milestone targets and corresponding indicative workplan (July 2019 including the no-cost extension period), and most importantly the Annual Workplan and budget covering July 2019 to June 2020.

13 Report ing l inks and information sharing across the Regional R2R Programme

The Regional Programme Coordination Group (RPCG) should strengthen technical information sharing and reporting links between

• Agreed. SPC will bring this issue to the RPCG will include this in the agenda. SPC believes that all GEF implementing agencies (UNDP, UNE and FAO) should be requested to provide structured reporting of the outputs and outcomes from the implementation of the various child projects under the GEF Pacific Ridge to Reef Program.

• STAR projects collaborate with RPCU in fulfilling the programmatic goal of the GEF R2R program. Specifically the STAR projects proactively share data and information, and contribute in jointly developing knowledge products (see

• RPCG to determine that IAs will

convey to the STAR projects (Coordinators and Agencies) the need to proactively collaborate with SPC by providing/ sharing information.


GEFIWR2RRSC4_4



projects




the implementing agencies and the RPCU.

recommendation 11).

14 Clar ify ing RPCU’s programme role and programmatic implementation modal it ies

The Regional Steering Committee (RSC), with the support of the Regional Programme Coordination Group (RPCG), at its next meeting, should clarify what is required from the RPCU regarding programme coordination, and identify the reporting channels and responsibilities between STAR projects, IW R2R national projects, the RPCU and the implementing agencies (UNDP, FAO and UNEP), and specify the modalities through which the desired coordination is to be delivered.

• Agreed • STAR projects collaborate with RPCU in fulfilling the programmatic goal of the GEF Pacific R2R program. Specifically, provide data and information requested by RPCU, and proactively send copy of progress reports and relevant studies.

• RPCG to identify the reporting channels and responsibilities between STAR projects, IW R2R national projects, the RPCU and the implementing agencies (UNDP, FAO and UNEP), and specify the modalities through which the desired coordination is to be delivered.


15 Capacity bui ld ing focus

The project should implement all its activities from a capacity building perspective, even if resulting in compromises on scientific quality and/or timelines.

• Partly agreed. SPC will implement planned activities with a capacity building perspective while ensuring effective and high quality technical and scientific results.

• Technical and scientific activities will be conducted using established criteria, such as but not limited to: participatory and gender sensitiveness, capacity and willingness of the PICs to support the application of the full-cycle of the technological/methodological continuum, sub-regional representation and consideration of geophysical characteristics.

• Both UNDP and SPC contend that the quality of science applied cannot be compromised.

• STAR and IW projects and national stakeholders participate in capacity building activities

• RSTC to discuss the recommendations in the context of its accuracy, application and impact.

• Consider the recommendation in light of SPC’s response and the advice of the RSTC, and endorse as appropriate

16 Re-assessing the role and structure of the RSTC

The RPCU and RSC should: (i) re-assess the composition and modus operandi of the Regional Scientific and Technical Committee (RSTC) in the light of the scientific and technical scope and needs of the project, specifically strengthening its social and economic expertise; (ii) as

• Agreed. SPC will present a paper to RSTC proposing review of the Committee’s terms of reference and composition.

• STAR projects submit their technical approaches, methodologies and scientific studies for scrutiny by the RSTC thereby enriching the scientific and technical robustness of the results and outcomes.

• RSTC to review the ToR (focus on function and composition) of the RSTC, noting specific scope for more socio-economic expertise in the group, and build scientific and technical capacity among PICs through engagement activities, and points set out in (iii) R2R network and

• RPCG to discuss the role of RSTC in providing technical and scientific advice to both the Regional IW R2R project and STAR projects.


GEFIWR2RRSC4_4



projects




far as feasible, put more emphasis on opportunities to build scientific and technical capacity among the PICs by providing for improved engagement of national PIC science stakeholders in project/programme science and technology decision making; (iii) explore how the R2R network and platform (component 4.2) might contribute to the sustainability of science and technology support to PICs after the project finishes; and (iv) explore opportunities for expanding interactive workshops and training on the project's science and technology agenda under RSTC oversight.

platform post project; and, (iv) opportunities for expanding interactive workshops and training project’s science and technology agenda

17 Communicat ions strategy

Communications should be considered and integrated into project activities (e.g. IDA-SOC/R2R, mainstreaming plans etc.) from their very beginning and be used to identify target audiences, influence the nature of data collected and indicators being used and improve the understanding of how constraints to R2R uptake can be reduced to increase the impact of the project on policy.

• Agreed. The main intention of the communications strategy is to guide the GEF Pacific R2R program and the respective child projects (including the Regional IW R2R project), in crafting both visibility and advocacy plans.

• Specific to the Regional IW R2R project, promotion of project goal, outputs and activities, and the knowledge gained thereof (from publishable knowledge products) will be based on a clearly defined / established Theory of Change (ToC) concepts and tools which have been agreed by RPSTC and RPSC to be tested or trialled. The two major concepts that are being tested by the Regional IW R2R project are:

- Innovative technologies and related solutions that successfully integrate and mainstream R2R concept across water, land, forest and coastal areas of 14 PICs.

The project is currently using a number of tools and methods to deliver on such integration and mainstreaming, and these are technological/ methodological continuum (IDA-RAPCA-SOC-national SAF/SAP-Regional SAF) including the stress reduction measures

- Resource governance dimensions in

• STAR projects collaborate with RPCU in fulfilling the communication goals of the GEF Pacific R2R program. Specifically, by providing data and information requested by RPCU, and proactively providing copies of progress reports and relevant studies.

• The RSTC to consider and discuss SPC’s response to this recommendation.

• Mainstreaming of R2R to ensure sustainable Ecosystem Goods and Services (EGS) will be key to the success of the programmatic approach.

• An effective communication plan will depend on experiences from the GEF Pacific R2R program and joint knowledge products between STAR and IW will be essential.

• RPCG to provide clear operational decision to ensure sharing of information and maximize extraction of lessons learned from the GEF Pacific R2R Program investments.

• See also action requested from RPCG on recommendation 11.


GEFIWR2RRSC4_4



projects




mainstreaming R2R aligned with the community to cabinet approach in planning and policy.

These concepts will then serves as basis for the Regional IW R2R project communication plan – including the production of knowledge products.

18 Gender issue

The national demonstration plans and activities that are still currently being prepared should be gender-analysed to ensure on-site project management is gender-responsive in specific ways anchored on the objectives of these plans. The completed RapCAs and IDAs must be gender audited before they are incorporated in the SoC. The SoCs and Strategic Action Frameworks themselves must be gender- audited.

• SPC is taking account of gender sensitivity rather than gender responsiveness. The IW R2R regional project is a G-0 (gender equality markers) meaning– a gender sensitive (ensuring the ‘do no harm approach and does not reinforce gender inequalities’) and is factoring the roles of men and women in natural resource management. The project has worked to satisfy these requirements by producing Gender Strategy, Action Plans, and Toolkit and tracking participation of stakeholders by recording disaggregated data.

• To reinforce the current practice of the project, SPC will also conduct gender audits of all R2R guidelines and manuals produced.

• UNDP proposes that SPC conduct gender assessments

• IW projects continuously record sex-disaggregated data and support the conduct of gender-audit, as requested by RPCU.

• The RSTC to consider and discuss RPCU’s proposed gender approach. Details in WP.4 (ix) may be relevant in this discussion.


•