FINAL EVALUATION REPORT - HumanitarianResponse€¦ · The final evaluation of the project shows...

1

BUILDING ADAPTIVE CAPACITY AND RESILIENCE TO CLIMATE

CHANGE IN THE WATER SECTOR IN CABO VERDE

CIDA Fast Start Climate Change Funds

FINAL EVALUATION REPORT

Praia, Cabo Verde

Survey date: December 2016

Report drafting date: December 2016 - March 2017

This evaluation was conducted with the support of

CIDA/UNDP

Cabo Verde Terminal Evaluation Report – 12 2016/3 2017 – /82

Cabo Verde – Final Evaluation Report Building adaptive capacity and resilience to climate change in the water sector in Cabo Verde Atlas ID: 00058318

PIMS ID of the project (UNDP): 4091

Evaluation period: December 12-21, 2016

Evaluation report date: December 2016

Region and country of the project: Cabo Verde

Implementing partner: Government of Cabo Verde

Other implementing partners: INIDA, DGASP, SNSAN, ANAS

Lead Coordination Agency Ministry of Agriculture and Environment

Duration of the intervention: 2013-2016

Start date of the intervention: October 2013

End date of the intervention: November 2016

CIDA’s contribution: USD 1,980,000

Co-financing: USD 63,699,027

Evaluation team members: Alexandre Borde (International Expert) Elisabeth Lopes (National Consultant) Luisa Reis de Freitas (Technical

Assistant)

The evaluation field mission took place from December 11 to 21, 2016. The project

intervention sites in the islands of Santiago and Santo Antão were visited.


ACKNOWLEGMENTS

The evaluators wish to express their sincere thanks to those who helped during this

evaluation. Especially to the Country office of UNDP in Praia, including Mrs Sandra Martins,

Mrs Ilaria Carnevali and Mrs Ulrika Richardson-Golinski, the resident coordinator. Also to the

members of the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment, including the Project Supervisor,

Mr. Carlos Monteiro, the former Project Supervisor, Mrs Alayde Dias, the National Director of

Environment, Mr. Alexandre Nevsky, the National Director of Agriculture, Forestry and

Animal-Husbandry, Mr. José João Teixeira and the local focal points, Mr. Orlando Freitas,

Manuel Delgado and Antonio Andrade. As well as to Mrs Angela Moreno, President of

INIDA.

Their availability was invaluable throughout the mission to respond to questions and

clarifications needed for any thorough final evaluation. The stakeholders were available to

meet the evaluators, at the national level as well as in the demonstration project villages, and

all those who collaborated during the mission should also be thanked.

CANADA AND FAST START FINANCE

During the Conference of the Parties (COP15) held in December 2009 in Copenhagen

developed countries pledged to provide new and additional resources, including forestry and

investments, approaching USD 30 billion for the period 2010 - 2012 and with balanced

allocation between mitigation and adaptation. This collective commitment has come to be

known as ‘fast-start finance’. At COP 18, Parties acknowledged the delivery of Fast-start

Finance by developed country Parties to fulfill their collective Fast-start Finance commitment,

and invited developed country Parties to expedite its full disbursement.

Over the last three fiscal years (2010–2011 to 2012–2013), Canada has fully delivered on its

commitment to provide its fair share of fast-start financing. Over the fast-start period, $1.2

billion in new and additional climate change financing has been issued, with approximately

$400 million in each of the three years. Canada’s support is producing results across the

globe—to date; funds have been committed at the project level to the benefit of over 50

developing countries. This support has been delivered primarily through multilateral

channels, but also directly to Canada’s bilateral partners and in partnership with civil society

and the private sector.


Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................. 5 Summary introduction and summary of the assessment of the project .................................. 6 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 9

1.1. Context and justification: Reminder of the context in the Republic of Cabo Verde and aspects related to climate change impacts .................................................................. 9

1.1.1. General presentation of the country ................................................................. 9 1.1.2. Effects of climate changes in Cabo Verde .......................................................10 1.1.3. Expected impacts of climate change and future projections ............................11

1.2. Evaluation’s objectives ...........................................................................................13 1.3. Methodology and scope of the evaluation ..............................................................15

1.3.1. Mission preparation (steps 1 and 2) ................................................................15 1.3.2. Field mission: consultations and first results analysis (steps 3 and 4) .............15 1.3.3. Finalization of the report (steps 5 and 6) .........................................................15

2. Description of the project and development context ......................................................17 2.1. Project start and expected duration ........................................................................17 2.2. Issues that the project sought to solve....................................................................17 2.3. Goal and objectives of the project ..........................................................................18 2.4. Baseline indicators established in the logical framework and expected results .......18 2.5. Main stakeholders ..................................................................................................19

3. Observations .................................................................................................................22 3.1. Formulation of the project extension .......................................................................22

3.1.1. Logical Framework and Results Analysis ........................................................22 3.1.2. Assumptions and risks ....................................................................................22 3.1.3. Stakeholders participation planning .................................................................25 3.1.4. Extension and replication approach .................................................................26 3.1.5. Links between the project and other interventions in the same sector .............27 3.1.6. Management ...................................................................................................28

3.2. Project implementation ...........................................................................................29 3.2.1. Adaptive management ....................................................................................29 3.2.2. Partnerships ....................................................................................................30 3.2.3. Integration of M&E in the adaptive management .............................................32 3.2.4. Financing of the project ...................................................................................33 3.2.5. Follow-up and evaluation: project’s extension and implementation ..................34 3.2.6. Coordination between UNDP, the implementing partner and the executing partner 34 3.2.7. Cross-cutting issues: nature of the beneficiaries and recognition of the gender and food security issues ................................................................................................35

3.3. Project results ........................................................................................................38 3.3.1. Overall results by intervention zones ...............................................................38 3.3.2. Relevance .......................................................................................................42 3.3.3. Efficiency & Effectiveness ...............................................................................42 3.3.4. Appropriation by the country ............................................................................42 3.3.5. Sustainability ...................................................................................................43 3.3.6. Impact .............................................................................................................44

4. Conclusions, recommendations and lessons learnt .......................................................45 5. Annexes ........................................................................................................................50

5.1. Photographs ...........................................................................................................50 5.2. Itinerary ..................................................................................................................54 5.3. List of documents reviewed ....................................................................................54 5.4. List of persons interviewed .....................................................................................55 5.5. Project’s logical framework .....................................................................................56 5.6. Terms of reference .................................................................................................62


Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACC Adaptation to Climate Change ANAS National Institute for Water Resources Management ANMCV National Association of municipalities of Cape Verde CC Climate Change CCAF Canadian Climate Adaptation Facility CIDA Canadian International Development Agency COP Conference of the Parties COP-21 21st Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC DGADR Directorate General of Agriculture and Rural Development DGASP Directorate General of Agriculture, Forestry and Animal-Husbandry DSA Service Directorate of Food Security ECREEE ECOWAS Center for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States FAO Food and Agriculture Organization GCCA Global Climate Change Alliance GCF Green Climate Fund GCM Global Circulation Models GEF Global Environment Facility ICIEG Cabo Verdean Institute for Equity and Gender Equality INDC Intended Nationally Determined Contribution INIDA National Institute of Agriculture Research and Development INMG National Institute for Meteorology and Geophysics JICA Japanese International Cooperation Agency LDCF Least Developed Countries Fund MAE Ministry of Agriculture and Environment MCC Millennium Challenge Corporation MoU Memorandum of Understanding MRD Ministry of Rural Development NAPA National Adaptation Program of Action on Climate Change PMT Project Management Team UNDAF United Nations Development Assistance Framework UNDP United Nations Development Program UNEP United Nations Environmental Program UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNICV University of Cabo Verde


Summary introduction and summary of the assessment of the project

The “Building adaptive capacity and resilience to climate change in the water sector in Cabo

Verde”, funded by the Canadian International Development Agency, is an extension of

project with the same name, funded by the GEF. It lasted for 3 years, from 2013 until 2016

and its goal was to ensure the water availability, supply and quality are maintained in the

face of changed climatic conditions, and subsequently reduce the impact of climate change

on food security.

The project appears to be a success against the objectives set initially, on the one hand, and

against the vision that the beneficiaries hold of it, on the other hand. It is also important to

note that these beneficiaries are farmers, breeders and fishermen who have been hardly hit

by the ravages of the adverse effects of climate change. The action of the project seeks to

improve their livelihoods and create resilience to climate change effects, also taking into

consideration food security and gender issues.

The project’s investments are important regarding the very low or inexistent real investment

powers of recipients. The results of the project as a whole constitute a change in the local

communities’ lives, enabling them to increase and improve their production, have a better life

quality and diversify their livelihood. The project hence was appreciated on all the visited

sites.

The project evaluation can be summarized in the following scoring table:

Criteria Note Comment

Implementation of the project

Monitoring and evaluation

S Planning for monitoring and evaluation was comprehensive, but not enough detailed in the project document. During the project implementation, it integrated both internal M&E daily and annually, and external evaluations at project completion. A consistent budget was implemented to ensure the functioning of M&E. The implementation of the M&E plan was satisfactory. The conclusions of the final review of the first phase were positive and recommendations relevant. These recommendations have been implemented and had positive consequences on the project execution, with appropriate adjustments of project activities regarding the progress and remaining time for these activities.

UNDP implementation S The UNDP’s implementation, monitoring and facilitation work was provided adequately throughout the project. The structure and implementation of the project in Cabo Verde were adequate, and the role of UNDP significant as the guarantor of this adequacy.

DGASP Execution S The DGASP has fully played its role as executing agency of the project, with the provision of premises and staff throughout the life of the project, and an appropriate political and technical supervision of the project.


Coordination between the UNDP, the implementing partner and the executive partner

S The collaboration between the UNDP and the Government of Cabo Verde has not been a major problem, apart from purely administrative side effects due to the reorganization of the Government with the elections. These departmental reorganization problems or UNDP intervention procedures in Cabo Verde changes are beyond the scope of the project and not treated in this report.

Project results

Global results S The project document, as it was originally developed, is ambitious, and corresponds to the concerns of rural populations affected by climate change. The final evaluation of the project shows that overall most of the results were achieved. The activities were implemented effectively and have led to very satisfactory results. It should be noted that some of the activities were not completed by the moment of this evaluation. However, based on the information collected during the evaluation, chances are high that they will be completed within the next months. The project enabled the seventeen intervention zones to benefit from expertise and technologies which allow them to better adapt to climate change. This could be done by effectively involving local communities, national authorities and technical partners.

Relevance R The relevance of the project is obvious as the question of water resources management and food security is important and sensitive to climatic hazards in Cabo Verde. Considering the project results, it appears that the introduction of innovative techniques or practices requires extreme support, despite the expertise already present. It is recommended that the project is rescaled nationwide and extended, if possible, at all rural communities of Cabo Verde.

Efficiency and Effectiveness

S This assessment is based on the testimonies of the beneficiaries as well as national partners. Also, the team has shown motivation and involvement in the implementation of this project and has benefited from the institutional capacity and interaction of major political government authority. In conclusion, the effectiveness of the implementation of the project is satisfactory.

Appropriation by the country

S Important decisions (choices of pilot projects, beneficiaries, etc) and activities were implemented with the systematic and comprehensive agreement of the UNDP and Cabo Verdean authorities. Close cooperation with the government has certainly allowed the project to be appropriated by the institutions at all


levels (including villages) and therefore guarantee a high durability to the gains of the project; it also helped to integrate quite easily the issues of climate change, even if the beneficiaries are mainly concerned with improving their living conditions. We must therefore emphasize that the involvement and ownership was very satisfactory at local and national levels: both on the part of the rural populations, villages and authorities and other national institutions partners. All were very satisfied with the project, and participated actively in its implementation: municipalities brought their support through their MAE delegations, and local communities through the various groups. Follow up reports, annual work plans and reports about field visits were sent regularly to the Government and many events (meetings with the project management team, workshops, etc.) marked the project. Exchanges between the Government and the project team were numerous, and the flow of information was systematized (at the administrative as well as the technical levels).

Sustainability ML The activities introduced during the project implementation have created a dynamic in the villages and the population suggested that innovations of the project would continue. Lessons should be learned, following the project, about the activities and challenges that must be replicated on a large scale. Project sustainability is ensured in demonstration villages and it is recommended to generalize the approach of the project nationwide.

Impact ML The impact of the project was confirmed by the final evaluation. This had already been analyzed in the final evaluation of the first phase funded by the GEF with positive results, the transfer of adaptation technologies, and the continued practices against climate change also allowing to reduce poverty and food insecurity.


1. Introduction

1.1. Context and justification: Reminder of the context in the Republic of Cabo Verde and aspects related to climate change impacts

1.1.1. General presentation of the country

Geographic and climatic situation

Cabo Verde is an archipelago made up of ten islands and nine islets, located in the Atlantic

Ocean, approximately 500 km from the Senegal cost in West Africa. The ten islands are

divided in two groups, Windward, composed by the islands of Santo Antão, São Vicente,

Santa Luzia, São Nicolau, Sal and Boavista, and Leeward, composed by the islands of Maio,

Santiago, Fogo and Brava. The total land surface reaches 4,033 km², where only 10% are

arable1, while its Economic Exclusive Zone extends for approximately 734,000 km²2.

The geophysical configuration and geology vary from island to island. In general, the relief is

very steep, reaching more than 2,000 m high in the Fogo Island, for example. In terms of

climate, due to its latitude, Cabo Verde falls within the Sahelian climatic zone. The country

experiences a dry tropical climate which is influenced by a combination of the Azores high

pressure region, the inter-tropical convergence zone, the Canary maritime current, and the

thermal depression located over North Africa in summer. Therefore, the country’s climate

shares some characteristics of the Sahel, but also is influenced by the surrounding ocean,

which for example reduces the temperature variations.

In terms of water availability, there is no permanent water courses in the country and

temporary water courses run only during the rainy season. Significant rainfall is restricted to

the period between July and October, with the majority occurring in August-September.

Mean annual rainfall is 225 mm, and is more frequent in more mountainous islands.

Droughts are also common due to the high temperatures and strong maritime winds,

resulting in a high evaporation rate.

Socio-economical characteristics

Cabo Verde’s population was of 520,502 inhabitants in 20153, with an annual growth rate of

1.275%4. That same year, the population density reached 129.157inhab. /km²5. About 65%

of the population lives in urban areas6 and per the latest census, in 2010, the island of

Santiago registered the highest concentration of people (55,7%) and the capital, Praia, is the

most populated city, with 25,6% of the population7.

1 Intended Nationally Determined Contribution of Cabo Verde, 2015. 2 National Adaptation Program of Action on Climate Change – Cabo Verde. 3 http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=CV 4 http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW?locations=CV 5 http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.POP.DNST?locations=CV 6 http://www.afdb.org/en/countries/west-africa/cape-verde/cape-verde-economic-outlook/ 7 http://www.un.cv/arquivo-censo%20results.php


With an HDI of 0.646, Cabo Verde is ranked 122th out of 1888 in 2014, placing it among the

countries with a medium human development. Between 2000 and 2014, Cabo Verde’s HDI

value increased from 0.572 to 0.646, which means an average increase of about 0.88

percent9. Between 2001 and 2015, the national poverty rate has reduced from 37% to 24%10,

while the extreme poverty rate, according to national standards, has reduced from 21% to

10%. Health and education indicators also improved during the last years. The infant

mortality rate fell from 26 per 1,000 live births in 2007 to 15 in 2011 and adult literacy rate is

estimated at 86%11.

From an economic perspective, the country relies heavily in the tertiary sector (almost 70%

of the GDP), with the tourism sector representing around 30% of GDP12, while agriculture still

contributes for over 10% of the GDP and it’s the primary livelihood income source for over

30% of the population. Due to the global crisis, the economic growth of the country slowed to

approximately 1.5% in 2015, almost half the rate of 201413. In 2015, the GDP reached 1.603

billion USD14. To continue reducing poverty and consolidating its sustainable development,

Cabo Verde will have to deal with challenges such as its fragmentation, infrastructure

constraints and its vulnerability to climate change.

1.1.2. Effects of climate changes in Cabo Verde Cabo Verde, as a Small Island Developing State, has one of the lowest GHG emissions per

capita, but it is still particularly vulnerable to climate change. The country faces serious

adaptation challenges associated with water resources availability, food and energy security

and desertification. Climate risks in Cabo Verde range from extreme weather conditions to

sea-level rise and degradation of fish stocks. With 80% of the population living in coastal

areas, Cabo Verde is particularly sensitive to sea-level rise and coastal hazards. Besides

that, along with a depletion of the country’s already scarce natural resources, variation in the

country’s climate patterns will increase, leading to more storms, floods, droughts and even

shorter rainy-seasons. This will have immediate impacts on livelihoods, infrastructure,

sanitary conditions, recharge of reservoirs, and crop productivity15.

Rising sea levels would have a direct impact on coastal submergence and erosion, increased

flooded lands and salinity of small estuaries, streams and coastal waters. According to the

series of vulnerability scenarios analyzed for the country’s NAPA, published in 2007, the

future agro-climatic development indicates that, under the predicted conditions of increasing

aridity resulting from decreasing rainfall and under increasing temperature, the amount of

food Cabo Verde will be able to produce will drop significantly. This will end up exposing a

large part of the population to a situation of food insecurity by 202016.

More recently, the country’s National Communication and INDC presented weather forecasts

pointing to possible climate change during the 21st century and indicated feasible actions that

8 http://hdr.undp.org/sites/all/themes/hdr_theme/country-notes/CPV.pdf 9 Ibid. 10 IDRFIII – Apresentação dados 11 http://www.worldbank.org/pt/country/caboverde/overview 12 Intended Nationally Determined Contribution of Cabo Verde, 2015. 13 Ibid. 14 http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=CV 15 Intended Nationally Determined Contribution of Cabo Verde, 2015. 16 Cabo Verde National Adaptation Program of Action on Cllimate Change, 2007.


could be taken to prevent the likely negative impacts of these changes on food security,

public health, changes in land use and socioeconomic development.

1.1.3. Expected impacts of climate change and future projections Regarding precipitation, the projections for the future show a variety of patterns ranging from

increases to decreases, depending on the islands. Statistical analysis of annual rainfall

between 1960 and 2009 shows that on the southern islands, rainfall is more frequent and

with some regularity over the years17. However, the rainfall projections for 2020 reveal values

below the historical pattern, threatening the water supply that is predicted to increase

fourfold, from around 50,000 m3 to 160,000 m3 by 203018.

In terms of temperature, the analysis between 1960 and 2009 suggests the existence of a

growing trend of average annual temperature from 1990. The graph below shows that the

average temperature increases approximately 2oC towards the south.

Figure 1 Average annual temperature variation in stations in Mindelo, Praia and Sal19

17 Second National Communication on Climate Change of Cape Verde, 2010. 18 Intended Nationally Determined Contribution of Cabo Verde, 2015. 19 Second National Communication on Climate Change of Cape Verde, 2010.


Critical changes in temperature will further affect the already fragile environment of the

islands, helping to increase or prolong episodes of drought, heat waves and dust,

contributing to erosion and land degradation. An increase in the sea level will also severely

affect coastal areas and cause damage to tourism and therefore Cabo Verde’s economy and

development. Besides that, wind intensification will also cause an increase in coastal

erosion, change the coast morphology, beaches disappearance, and degradation of marine

and coastal environment, causing population to migrate from the coast to inner parts of the

islands20.

Unfortunately, the Global Circulation Models (GCM) does not have a fine enough resolution

to capture small islands such as Cabo Verde. Nevertheless, the models projected an

increase in average annual temperature from 0.7 to 2.5oC by 2060 and 1.2 to 3.7oC by

209021. Regarding rainfall and sea level rise, there is important uncertainty related to the

projections. Still, in a scenario of decreased annual rainfall (-20 to -10%) combined with

temperature increase up to 2.5oC, a large part of the rural population will be exposed to food

insecurity and the economy will be drastically affected.

Cabo Verde suffers from a poor natural resource base, including serious water shortages

and poor soil for agriculture on almost all the islands. Therefore, climate variability will have

different impacts in the country, such as:

- Changes in agricultural productivity, since it has shown great sensitivity to changes in

rainfall and temperature. The outbreak and movement of plagues may be conditioned

by climate change

- The spread of diseases will also be affected by this variability

- Rising sea level will have an impact on coastal submergence and erosion, increased

flooded lands and salinity, causing internal migrations

- Water and wind erosion will lead to a loss of soil, which will cause an impact in the

country’s agricultural sustainability and food security.

20 Second National Communication on Climate Change of Cape Verde, 2010 21 Second National Communication on Climate Change of Cape Verde, 2010


Regarding the level of vulnerability at the national level, it is high especially for socio-

economic systems. The main sectors concerned are agriculture, water resources, forestry,

coastal zones, human health and energy. For example, according to the country’s INDC, the

key strategic axes are: (i) promoting integrated water resources management, guaranteeing

stable and adequate water supply (for consumption, agriculture, ecosystems and tourism);

(ii) increasing adaptive capacities of agro-silvo-pastoral production systems in order to

ensure and improve national food production and promoting Cabo Verde’s ocean-based

(“blue”) economy, and (iii) protecting and preventing degradation of coastal zones and their

habitats.

1.2. Evaluation’s objectives

The project aims to ensure that water availability; supply and quality are maintained in the

face of changes in the climatic conditions and subsequently reduce the impact of climate

change on food security in Cabo Verde. This goal is in line with SDG goal 6, target 6.a: by

2030, expand international cooperation and capacity-building support to developing countries

in water-and sanitation-related activities and programs.

Thus, the project contributes to (i) integrate climate change risks and adaptation measures

into key national policies, plans and programs for water resource management; (ii)

demonstrate and implement small and medium scale climate change adaptation practices for

water resource management in selected hydrographical basins; and (iii) disseminate lessons

learned and best practices from pilot activities, capacity development initiatives and policy

changes.

This final evaluation assesses the achievement of the project objectives and draws lessons

that can enhance the durability and sustainability of the benefits of this project and promote

the overall improvement of programs supported by UNDP.

In this context, the objective of the final evaluation mission is to verify whether the project

objectives have been achieved after three years of implementation, to identify factors that

helped or hindered the project, to capitalize on the implementation experience for similar

projects in the future.

Table 1 Project's intervention zones

Island Council Intervention zone

Santiago

Santa Cruz Matinho

Achada Ponta

São Lourenço dos Orgãos

Orgãos Pequenos e Funcos

Pico de Antonia

Tarrafal

Mato Mendes

Colonato

Achada Porto

Calheta de São Miguel Machado

Ribeireta


The final evaluation field mission took place from 11 to 21 December 2016 to analyze the

strengths and weak points of the project, evaluating the global and per activity degree of

completion from the UNDP’s evaluation criteria grid, and appreciate the dynamics and

importance of the project's benefits.

Recommendations to all stakeholders in the project are made in this final evaluation report.

Reminder of the Terms of Reference and the methodology proposed by the consultants for the final evaluation mission The UNDP office in Praia has recruited a team of consultants – one international and one

national consultant - as part of the final evaluation of the “Building adaptive capacity and

resilience to climate change in the water sector in Cabo Verde” over the 2013-2016 period.

The objective of the evaluation mission is to specify to what extent the objectives were

achieved, identify factors that helped or hindered the implementation of the program, as well

as determine the lessons learned from this program.

During the assessment mission of the project, the consultants’ tasks were as follows:

• Step 1: Establishing the starting note and the intervention schedule;

• Step 2: Literature review;

• Step 3: Final evaluation mission in the field: stakeholder interviews;

• Step 4: Final evaluation mission field: presentation of the first results;

• Step 5: Finalization of the report: drafting and dissemination of the interim version;

• Step 6: Finalization of the report: integration of comments and diffusion of the final

version.

The documents and deliverables during this mission are:

• The methodological note and planning;

• The compilation of the first results of field consultations;

• The presentation of initial conclusions;

• The interim report;

• The final report integrating comments.

The consultants join to this report an executive summary and annexes (ToR of the

evaluation, list of documents reviewed, list of people met and meetings’ summaries, list of

visited sites, a synthesis of the comments of the parties involved in the presentation and

reading of the interim report, etc.).

Flamengos Tagarra

Santo Antão

Paúl

Chã das Furnas

Fajã de Janela

Ribeira dos Penedos

Ribeira Grande

Boca de Coruja

Chã de Mato/Ponte Sul

Ribeira das Patas

Tarrafal de Monte Trigo


1.3. Methodology and scope of the evaluation

1.3.1. Mission preparation (steps 1 and 2) These steps serve to collect of information, documents and needed data (methodological

documents and reflections listed in the terms of reference), to prepare meetings with key

actors and, more generally, to the understanding of the position of the Republic of Cabo

Verde regarding adaptation issues.

This includes in particular the collection and literature review of the various available

documents about the project and the country, regarding climate change and adaptation

measures, such as the NAPA, INDC and National Communication. This phase, lasting a total

of four days, leads to the start of the consultation and field evaluation phase.

1.3.2. Field mission: consultations and first results analysis (steps 3 and 4)

From the established action plan and following the preparation steps of the mission, the

steps on the field are used to consult all stakeholders and to integrate the various elements

useful to the formulation of recommendations regarding needs for assistance and

development in the areas of the evaluated project. This phase therefore comprises three

stages, including:

• Meetings with implementing partners and interviews with all stakeholders and

resource persons present on site (other ministries, technical organizations, and non-

state actors involved in the adaptation to climate change problem, etc.), the 12th, 13th

and 19th of December 2016 in Praia.

• A trip to the area of project intervention on the 14th, 15th, and 16th of December (Island

of Santiago, 14th; Island of Santo Antão, December 15th and 16th). These field visits

allowed to interview local beneficiaries (groups, village leaders, village communities),

through focus groups if necessary. The evaluation team has benefited from the

assistance of the project management team during his travels.

• A thorough analysis of consultation and the restitution of initial results during a

feedback meeting at the UNDP Office in Praia, December, 19th 2016.

Once all the elements gathered and analyzed begins the final phase of the final evaluation

report.

1.3.3. Finalization of the report (steps 5 and 6)

The stages of finalization of the report were done in two steps: (i) presentation of the first

results of the assessment in an intermediate document with the results based on the usual

assessment criteria, and (ii) after taking into account the comments / remarks, etc.,

transmission of the final report.

The final evaluation was conducted in accordance with the guidelines, rules and procedures

established by the UNDP as indicated by the UNDP evaluation guidelines for projects

implemented. The report content meets the terms of reference (see annexes). It is written in

English for validation, as a reminder, and then translated into Portuguese. Validation of the


English document was made by the national part, the UNDP in Praia and the Regional

UNDP in Addis Ababa.


2. Description of the project and development context

During the COP 15, held in December 2009 in Copenhagen, developed countries pledged to

provide new and additional resources with balanced allocation between mitigation and

adaptation, approaching USD 30 billion for the period 2010-2012. This collective commitment

has come to be known as “Fast-Start Finance”22. At the COP 17, the parties welcomed this

new initiative and urged the developed countries to enhance the transparency of their

reporting on the fulfillment of their fast-start finance commitments.

Canada was one of the countries to fully deliver its commitment to provide its fair share of

fast-start financing. Over the past three years, $1.2 billion23 in new and additional climate

change financing has been issued. Canada’s support is benefiting over 50 developing

countries and it has been delivered through multilateral channels and bilateral partnerships.

Together with the UNDP, it was established the Canadian Climate Adaptation Facility

(CCAF), which helps local population of the poorest and most vulnerable populations in six

countries to build more resilient agricultural practices, strengthen their infrastructures,

diversify their sources of livelihood and improve their food security24. The project evaluated in

this report was one of the projects implemented under the CCAF.

2.1. Project start and expected duration The project document anticipated a project launch in October 2013, with an expected

duration of three years (until November 2016). The signing of the project establishing its

launch has taken place in September and October 2013. Since it was an extension of a

previous project, funded by the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) Least Developed

Countries Fund, the administrative structure of the project management team was already

set inside the government administration. However, the activities of the second phase could

not start according to the scheduled time due to a substantial delay in allocating the funds.

Thus, the project activities officially started in 2014. The first trimester of 2014 was dedicated

to create the necessary conditions and clarify the institutional arrangements and the

responsibilities of each member of the project coordination team, as well as planning the

budget for the next years. The second trimester was dedicated to engage the national

stakeholders and prepare the memorandums of understanding between the project

coordination team and the partner institutions. It was just after these two first trimesters that

the project’s activities could start being implemented in the field.

2.2. Issues that the project sought to solve Combating the adverse effects of climate change serves several purposes for the

Government and the UNDP. Adaptation makes it possible to increase the resilience of rural

people to climate phenomena causing droughts and improve their infrastructure and water

resource management abilities. The introduction and integration of appropriate agricultural

22 http://www3.unfccc.int/pls/apex/f?p=116:13:4057321419739173 23 Canadian dollars. 24 Canada’s Fast-Start Financing. Delivering on Our Copenhagen Commitment. May, 2013


practices can in turn reduce the socio-economic vulnerability of current and future

generations and improve their livelihoods.

The project has therefore addressed all at once the impacts of climate change, issues of

water resources management, agricultural production, food insecurity, and poverty, opting for

adaptation. This choice, a strategic one, falls within the priorities of Cabo Verde reminded in

Cabo Verde’s INDC published in 2015 in the context of the 21th Conference of Parties (COP-

21) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

2.3. Goal and objectives of the project The goal of the project is to ensure that water availability; supply and quality are maintained

in the face of changed climatic conditions and subsequently reduce the impact of climate

change in food security. The project objective is to increase resilience and enhance key

adaptive capacity to address the additional risks posed by climate change to the water sector

in Cabo Verde.

The goal and objective were translated in the Project Document in a comprehensive logical

framework of the project’s expected outcomes and related activities.

2.4. Baseline indicators established in the logical framework and expected results

The logical framework’s monitoring indicators were established during the project formulation

to track the progress of the project and measure the achievement of targeted results. This

has been formulated according to the criteria for monitoring and evaluation of the UNDP, in

the so-called "SMART" approach (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound).

The basic status of these indicators was evaluated during the project start and is presented

below:

Project objective: increase resilience and enhance key adaptive capacity to address the

additional risks posed by climate change to the water sector in Cabo Verde.

In order to achieve the above objective, and based on a barrier analysis, the project’s

intervention was organized in three components, under which three “outcomes” are expected

from the project’s additional funding:

Component 1

Outcome 1: Climate change risks and adaptation measures integrated into key

national policies, plans and programs for water resource management.

Expected outputs with additional funding:

• Reinforce capacity of relevant agencies to assess climate change impacts in food

security

• Raise awareness of climate change impacts on food security among rural

development and health sectors decision-makers, technical officers and

stakeholders, community associations, farmers, NGO players and the media.


• Establish climate change early warning system for the water sector to support

national and municipal development planning and implementation

Component 2

Outcome 2: Small and medium scale climate change adaptation practices for water

resource management are demonstrated and implemented in selected hydrographical

basins.


• Introduce measures and practices to improve water availability in areas highly

vulnerable to food insecurity

• Create enabling conditions for replication and sustainability (social, environmental

and economic) of targeted interventions

Component 3

Outcome 3: Lessons learned and best practices from pilot activities, capacity

development initiatives and policy changes are disseminated.


• Applied research program on climate-smart agriculture and food security is

strengthened

Details of the project outcomes are presented in the logical framework appended to this

document.

2.5. Main stakeholders

The project extension is funded by the CIDA.

The UN Agency partner for the project is the Country Office of UNDP in Cabo Verde. The

UNDP is administrator of resources and played a quality insurance role throughout the

project. The UNDP oversees and monitors the project in partnership with the implementing

partner, the government of Cabo Verde and the lead coordinating agency, the Directorate

General of Budget, Planning and Management (DGPOG), part of the Ministry of Agriculture

and Environment, the and authorities designated by the regional administrations.

The executing agency is the DGASP. The Ministry and the UNDP are indeed used to

collaborate on joint projects in Cabo Verde (National Communications on climate change,

biodiversity, Action Plan against drought and desertification Program, National Action Plan

for Adaptation to climate change, etc.). The Ministry carries the overall administrative and

financial responsibility for the project.

Consultants and local contractors (NGOs, private sector ...) are recruited by the project team

and the UNDP, in cooperation with the project partners.


The DGASP and the UNDP also are in contact with other stakeholders in the fight against

climate change in Cabo Verde:

The Ministry of Agriculture and Environment with mainly:

- DGASP (Directorate General of Agriculture, Forestry and Animal-Husbandry)

- DGPOG (Directorate General of Budget, Planning and Management)

- SNSAN (National Secretariat for Food Security and Nutrition)

- DNA (National Direction of Environment)

- The local delegations of the ministry in the councils.

The ANAS (National Agency for Water and Sanitation).

The INMG (National Institute for Meteorology and Geophysics).

The INIDA (National Agriculture Research Institute).

The ICIEG (Cabo Verdean Institute for Equity and Gender Equality).

The Ministry of Finance and Planning.

The UNICV (University of Cabo Verde)

The Non-Governmental Organizations’ Platform

The FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization).

The 17 intervention sites:

- Matinho

- Achada Ponta

- Orgãos Pequenos e Funcos

- Pico de Antonia

- Mato Mendes

- Colonato

- Achada Porto

- Machado

- Ribeireta

- Flamengos Tagarra

- Chã das Furnas

- Fajã de Janela

- Ribeira dos Penedos

- Boca de Coruja

- Chã de Mato/Ponte Sul

- Ribeira das Patas

- Tarrafal de Monte Trigo


The local farmer’s and communities’ associations.

Other partners, like the Spanish Government, supporting the creation of hydroponic schools

in partnership with DGASP, and the French Development Agency, that had different water

projects in Cabo Verde, such as the WASH project and other small scale projects. The

European Commission, that supported the climate change program development for

energy policy in the country, among other initiatives, and the Luxembourg Cooperation that

invested in different water-related projects in Cabo Verde.

Structure, management and staff

Figure 2 Institutional arrangement for project's execution25

According to the latest official document regarding the project execution institutional

structure, from July 1st 2015, the project coordination is provided by the project management

team, which consists of the following resource persons:

- Mr Carlos Monteiro, Project Supervisor

- Mrs Filomena Fialho, Project Co-Supervisor (until April 2016)

- Dra Angela Moreno, INIDA’s President

- Mr Osvaldo Chantre, from SNSAN

- Mr Oumar Barry, from the DSA

- Dr León António Spencer Correia, Administrative and Financial Support, SNSAN

- Delegates from the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment in the councils with

project’s intervention zones (Santa Cruz, Tarrafal, Ribeira Grande and Porto Novo)

25 Despacho No. 19/2015


3. Observations

This project complements an existing full-sized project funded by the GEF’s Least Developed

Country Fund, which initially had a grant totaling 3,100,000 USD and co-financing and

parallel funding commitments amounting to 63.7 million USD. The project was approved in

2009, but implementation started in 2011. The final evaluation took place in July 2014, while

this “second phase”, funded by the Canadian International Development Agency was already

being prepared for implementation26.

3.1. Formulation of the project extension

3.1.1. Logical Framework and Results Analysis

The project’s logical frameworks are presented in the appendix of this document.

The analysis is carried out outcome by outcome, and addresses the impacts and

sustainability of actions, and on ownership by the beneficiaries of the project results. The

structure defined by the project document already during the first phase is reliable, since it is

based on a logical division between a political component (Outcome 1), a technical

component (Outcome 2) and a capacity-building component (Outcome 3). This structure is

fairly standard - it is often taken by the GEF-funded projects - and has the benefit of clarity to

articulate and implement activities at different local and national scales.

An issue identified during the process of evaluation was that indicators presented in the

logical framework in the project document could not be used to assess the results of the

project due to the lack of baseline data. Therefore, the level of achievement of the project

were measured based on the activities performed during the last three years. The activities

of the project were chosen based on the particular needs of each community in the

intervention zones. Together with the local association, the delegations and the project

management team were able to come up with activities that would address the real needs of

the beneficiaries depending on their context and what they considered more important for

their sustainable development.

3.1.2. Assumptions and risks

The assumptions and risks at objective and outcome levels have been set up in the Project

Document. During the Project formulation, the external factors which may jeopardize the

project have been identified and assessed through a participatory brainstorm and draft

proposal meetings joined by relevant stakeholders.

Table 2 Identified risks and comments

Identified Risk (Prodoc) Comments

26 Terminal Evaluation Report, 2014, José Antonio Cabo Buján.


Operational Risks

OP1 – HR Since project implementation will be embedded in the national institutions (to avoid parallel structures) there is a risk of staff involved in the project giving lower priority to the project responsibilities. - Very Low

The risk identified is very relevant, however, the mitigation measure seems a bit light and was not very efficient during the project implementation. The delays in finishing activities and frequent changes in the project management team were some obstacles that could harm the project and could be solved if the project had more priority inside the national institutions.

Difficulties finding the required technical assistance with the required technical and language skills (Portuguese) could delay implementation and delivery. - Very Low

The risk identified is relevant as there is a need for specific technical and language skills that are harder to find. Even though the mitigation measure was implemented, it did not manage to avoid the delays in finding the required technical assistance.

Turnover of technical staff at the public institutions could undermine sustainability of the capacity development strategies. - Very Low

The changes in the project management team during the implementation phase show that risk was relevant and that the mitigation measures presented in the project document were not enough to avoid it.

OP2 – Performance Management

Limited capacities at the national institutions level to systematically monitor and evaluate projects. – Very Low

The risk identified is relevant and its related mitigation measures efficient. The risk has been overcome successfully.

Limited capacities for knowledge management. - Very Low


OP3 – Business-critical Information

Data sharing among national institutions and stakeholders is not an institutionalized practice. Capacities of some institutes responsible for meteorological and hydrological data collection and analysis are low which could imply data gaps or data



quality issues that affect strategic decision-making processes. - Low

Financial Risks

FIN1 – Funding Delay in disbursements of funds could slow down project implementation. Absorptive capacities of national institutions are moderate which could imply some delays on delivery. – Very Low

The risk identified is relevant and its related mitigation measures efficient. The risk has been overcome successfully even though some problems happened during the implementation phase.

FIN2 - Fiduciary The risk that funds will not be used for their intended purposes, funds will not be properly accounted for, and/or services delivered will not be commensurate to funds transferred. – Very Low


Development Risks

DEV1 - Strategic No risk No risk

DEV2 – Socio-pol-economic, GE

Conflicts could arise between resources’ (water, land) users when designing water pumping systems or deciding on the infrastructures’ sitting. Tensions could arise among communities because those who did not directly benefit from project intervention could feel they have been excluded. – Very Low


DEV3 – Institutional Capacity

Lack of clear definition of the institutional model that will be adopted for the water sector in



Cape Verde as a result of the ongoing water and sanitation reform – Low

DEV4 - Modality No risk No risk

DEV5 – Disasters, Environment

Climate change risk imply increase prevalence of extreme events such droughts, flash floods, storms, torrential rains, etc. – Very Low

The risk identified is very relevant and its related mitigation measures efficient. The risk has been overcome successfully.

Reputation Risks

REP1 - Reputation

Existing climate data for Cabo Verde is relatively scarce and not too precise. The general public’s perception is that climate analysis should be able to predict changes with precision. In case climate trends do not coincide with the project’s forecasts and adaptation proposals, there may be an impression of lack of professionalism. – Low


3.1.3. Stakeholders participation planning The project document provides an analysis of the stakeholders that can be integrated in the

project, of their capabilities and of the support they can provide to the planned activities. It

takes stock of the existing projects similar to this one in the country. This inventory enabled,

secondly, the cooperation with these stakeholders, institutions and local communities.

The project document was signed by the UNDP, the Government of Cabo Verde and CIDA.

During this “second phase” of the project, the implementing partner shifted to the DGASP

(Directorate General of Agriculture, Forestry and Animal-Husbandry), since the project

needed additional expertise due to the new focus on food security. Other stakeholders that

were taken into consideration during the analysis are the ANAS, INMG, DGASP, SNSAN,

INIDA, ICIEG, the FAO, Ministry of Environment, local associations and international

partners.


This planning of stakeholders’ participation facilitated the interventions of each and

strengthened the complementarity, for example between the research-action activities,

receiving support from academic organizations and more institutional supports by different

technical ministries. Consultations with the above-mentioned stakeholders had been

undertaken for the project preparation through a series of site visits, roundtable meetings and

interviews. In summary, the Project made an analysis of the characteristics, problems,

needs, interests and potentials of the stakeholders related to it, thus offering an opportunity

to encourage the interested individuals and groups to participate in the Project from its outset

and to use the outputs delivered by it.

3.1.4. Extension and replication approach

Since knowledge sharing was an intrinsic element of the project, its formulation allows an

effective sharing of information and lessons learned from the project. This should be done

through different networks and channels. At the community level, radios, TV and school

associations will be used to raise awareness not only on the climate risk to the agriculture

and water sector, but especially on the strategies to build resilience, enhance water use

efficiency and to improve food security through increased food availability, food and water

safety and diet diversification. At the institutional level, knowledge sharing will be done by

transmitting the results of the project within the UNDP and CIDA networks to qualified

personnel working on projects with similar characteristics, for example in connection with

adaptation to climate change, as it was done with the “first phase” of the same project.

In practice, the project logical framework provides that the demonstration activities are

implemented in 17 selected intervention sites that are agricultural regions with difficult access

to water and affected by climate change. The "research action” type of activities, focusing on

climate-smart agriculture and food security, after being improved by stakeholders and

validated by experience, may be scattered in other villages or even in a much wider area in

order to have a positive impact at a large scale.

In order to ensure replication and diffusion of adaptation practices and technologies

demonstrated the project adopted a threefold strategy that included:

(i) The project will put a great emphasis on applied-research in partnership with the lead

national agencies, especially the National Agriculture Development Research Institute

(INIDA) testing practices and documenting best practices; monitoring results and

performance of materials, equipment and crops under specific local conditions and feeding

the results back onto the national system of rural extension. To this purpose, technological

packages will be designed, updated and published.

(ii) Also, the project will implement a comprehensive capacity development strategy. At

the upstream level, it will raise awareness and develop capacities of planners and decision-

makers to use concrete tools for climate screening of policies, programmes, plans and

budgets. At the downstream level, it will make use of demonstrative projects, from its design

to its implementation and evaluation, to train rural technicians and extension workers on

climate-smart agriculture practices.

(iii) Moreover, a project expected output is especially geared towards identifying and

proposing specific financial mechanism to support replication and determining key incentives

to be incorporated in water and agriculture policies, management plans and regulations. To


ensure appropriation of proposed approaches and technologies the project has planned to

conduct some technology adequacy assessments and adopted a participatory approach for

project implementation.

The final evaluation confirms that the project presents good ground for replication thanks to

well-documented activities and sustainable achievements of the project which will be detailed

later in this document.

3.1.5. Links between the project and other interventions in the same sector

Several projects aimed at improving climate change adaptation are developed by various

actors in Cabo Verde. The project “Building adaptive capacity and resilience to climate

change in the water sector in Cabo Verde” identified existing interventions on its action zone;

this has enabled the project team to collaborate effectively with these partners during the

implementation of project activities. Efforts made by the project team to create synergies with

other projects are noteworthy. The project has work in conjunction with and benefited from

other ongoing project interventions in Cabo Verde in order to avoid duplication of project

efforts and to benefit from synergies. Of particular, relevance are the following projects:

The WASH project27 Through the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), the Government of the United States

and the Government of Cabo Verde signed a five-year compact in 2012 to reduce poverty

through economic growth by reforming two sectors identified as constraints to economic

growth: the water and sanitation sector and the land management sector.

Each compact project is an important component of the government’s economic

transformation agenda, focused on shifting from foreign aid and remittances to private sector

investment and improved domestic resource management. This compact builds off the

success of Cabo Verde’s first MCC compact, completed in October 2010, and upholds high

standards for accountability, transparency and achieving results.

The second compact includes the $39.7 million Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Project

(WASH Project), which is designed to establish a financially sound, transparent and

accountable institutional basis for the delivery of water and sanitation services to Cape

Verdean households and businesses.

The project’s approach to improving sector performance is based on a three-pronged

strategy:

- Reform national policy and utility regulators,

- Transform inefficient utilities into independent corporate entities operating on a

commercial basis, and

- Improve the quality and reach of water and sanitation infrastructure.

The WASH Project is comprised of three activities:

27 https://www.mcc.gov/where-we-work/program/cape-verde-compact-ii


- National Institutional and Regulatory Reform Activity

- Utility Reform Activity

- Infrastructure Grant Facility

One of the main results of the WASH project was the elaboration and approval by the

Government, in 20 February 2015, of the new National Strategic Plan for Water and

Sanitation (PLENAS), an initial study to support the water and sanitation sectors in Cabo

Verde. The document has a complete analysis of the water needs in the country, the

stakeholders and national institutions involved in the sectors, strategies and goals for 2030,

as well as sustainable practices for water management and recommendations for each

institution28.

Water supply system development project in Santiago Island29

The project, financed by the Japanese International Cooperation Agency, aims to ensure

stable freshwater supply and improve access to safe freshwater by connecting regional water

systems in the Santiago Island, Cape Verde through construction of seawater desalination

facilities and treated water transmission facilities in the island, thus contributing to

improvement in living conditions and economic revitalization. Furthermore, the project

facilitates the country’s climate change adaptation by the subsequent preservation and

replacement of underground water resources through seawater desalination.

The project is composed of two components:

- Construction of water supply facilities (seawater desalination facilities with a capacity

of 40,000m3 per day）, water transmission pipelines (about 130km)

- Consulting services (reviews on feasibility study, detailed design, bid assistance,

construction supervision, environmental and social considerations, etc.)

The project duration is 72 months, from December 2013 to November 2019 and it is

executed by the Ministry of Environment and executed by the ANAS.

3.1.6. Management

The water and sanitation sector in Cape Verde was undergoing a sector-wide institutional

reform. The reform was spearheaded by the Ministry of Environment, Land use and Housing,

through a National Commission of the Reform supported by the MCC’s WASH program. As

an output of the reform, the national partner INGRH (National Institute of Water Resource

Management) responsible for the LDCF project implementation was extinct and a national

agency for water and sanitation was be created.

Considering the reform and the additional expertise required by the new focus on food

security brought in by the CIDA Climate Change Fast Start financing, the implementing

partner shifted to the Directorate General of Agriculture, Forestry and Animal-Husbandry

(DGASP) as part of the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment. This DG is responsible for

28 http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/cvi148923.pdf 29 https://www.jica.go.jp/english/our_work/evaluation/oda_loan/economic_cooperation/c8h0vm000001rdjt-att/capeverde_131220_01.pdf


the rural extension systems and has the largest decentralized representation across the

islands.

DGASP has the responsibilities over the definition, implementation and coordination of policy

for agriculture, forestry and animal husbandry, engineering and rural extension and has

implemented other large project in partnership with international development agencies. The

DGASP has also competencies over combating desertification; regulation of pesticides and

agriculture inputs’ use; forest management; water and soil conservation programs, etc.

The global supervision of the project was provided by the Project Steering Committee,

composed by the Minister of Agriculture and Environment, the UNDP Coordinator and other

national and local institutions, organizations and partners that have a financial stake in the

project. The PSC is responsible for making management decisions, preferably on a

consensus basis, including approval of project work plans, budgetary and substantive

revisions.

The composition of the LDCF project technical committee was slightly reviewed to take into

consideration the focus on food security proposed for this new phase. The members of the

technical committee include:

1. United Nations Development Program (UNDP)

2. INGRH/ANAS: National Water Resources Management Institute/ National Agency of

water and sanitation

3. Directorate General of Environment

4. Directorate General of Agriculture, forestry and animal husbandry

5. Directorate General of Planning, budget and management of the Ministry of

Agriculture and Environment

6. National Institute of Agriculture Research and Development (INIDA)

7. National Meteorological and Geophysics Institute (INMG)

8. National Civil Protection Service (SNPC)

9. National NGO Platform

10. Directorate General of Basic and Secondary Education

11. National Association of municipalities of Cape Verde (ANMCV)

12. National Directorate of External affairs and cooperation

13. Directorate General of Health

14. Directorate General of Plan of the Ministry of Finances and Planning

Besides both committees, there was also the Project Management Team, which went

through various changes along the project duration. The last project supervisor was Mr.

Carlos Monteiro. To support the execution of the project, the Project Management Team

relied on the local MAE delegations that participated actively in the implementation activities.

The following section details the important points relating to the project management, at the

different scales of the project.

3.2. Project implementation 3.2.1. Adaptive management


First, as mentioned before, one of the main challenges faced by the project in terms of

management and implementation was the several institutional changes that happened in the

government due to the elections in 2016. Since the project is embedded in the government’

institutions to guarantee a national ownership, the legislative and presidential elections that

took place in March and October, respectively, ended up slowing down the process of

implementing the project because of the uncertainty about the continuation of the staff, goals

and priorities of the new government.

Furthermore, there was also the need to change the Project Supervisor after one year of the

start of the project. Even though this could have been a problem, the quick nomination of Mr.

Carlos Monteiro has enabled the smooth transition in the implementation team. The fact he

was already part of the team working with the previous Project Supervisor and has worked

as the National Consultant for the final evaluation of the GEF financed phase guaranteed

that he had the knowledge and skills necessary to lead the implementation until the end.

The implementation of the project by the Project Coordination team was carried out under

the general guidance of the Project Steering Committee and the Technical Committee, as

previous mentioned in section 3.1.6.

The Project Coordination Team worked closely with the Delegations of the Ministry of

Agriculture and Environment in the local councils, where the focal points were responsible for

oversee the implementation directly in the field, in the intervention sites inside the councils

they were responsible for. This structure helped to create national ownership and to include

the local populations in the organization and activities of the project.

3.2.2. Partnerships

The execution of the “Building adaptive capacity and resilience to climate change in the

water sector in Cabo Verde” project was made through numerous partnerships, evidenced by

memoranda of understanding signed with various government departments and research

institutes. As part of this project, many partnerships have been implemented to facilitate the

implementation of project activities, including activities of "research-action". These

partnerships have involved research organizations, government departments and

municipalities. The evaluator considers that these partnerships have been instrumental to the

success of the project implementation. Efficient and diverse they have brought a real added

value to this initiative.

Partnerships with research organizations

Partnerships with research centers and organizations are judged successful, not only for the

needs of the project, but by and for project stakeholders. Indeed, the applied-research

dimension of the project, through activities oriented towards research-action, has led to

formal and long-term partnerships with institutions that can facilitate the execution and

success of the project activities, and the dissemination of positive results. These national

academic specialists renowned in their fields were able to contribute to the project’s

activities.

INIDA


The INIDA (National Agriculture Research Institute), as one of the implementation partners of

the project, is responsible for leading the research activities regarding different topics, such

as high nutritional value and climate resilient crops, important to guarantee the food security

component of the project. Besides that, INIDA was also responsible for monitoring soil and

water quality parameters and crops performance associated with the new techniques

introduced. Throughout the project, INIDA also had the role of introducing new technologies

about water and soil management, new planting techniques and knowledge about how to

prevent diseases to the farmers, in order to improve their production both in quality and

quantity.

This partnership is part of the strategy to ensure replication and diffusion of adaptation

measures and technologies of the project. One of the activities particularly important to

INIDA was to build a bromatology lab that would help the farmers to certify their products and

allow them to reach other markets than the local ones, thus increasing their revenues. They

managed to find their own funds to build it and they expect it to be working by the first

semester of 2017. Besides that, they produced a series of manuals with climate change

adaptation measures, and now are waiting for them to be printed so they can start to spread

it and realize trainings.

ICIEG The ICIEG (Cape Verdean Institute for Gender Equality and Equity) was a partner of the

project since the first phase, with GEF LDCF funding. During this second phase, they signed

a Memorandum of Understanding in 2014, but it was not renewed in the following year. The

ICIEG was responsible for collecting the information for a gender analysis for the baseline

study for Food and Nutritional Security, hold information sessions about introducing gender

in the project planning and elaborate an analysis and proposal for including gender issues in

the Strategic Document for Food and Nutritional Security. The continuation of the partnership

would have made possible for the ICIEG to continue working on introducing the gender issue

on the project implementation and then achieving more gender sensitive outcomes, an

important factor for this CIDA phase of the project.

Radio Educativa

The Radio Educativa is a public educational radio who is a partner of the project, and was

responsible for executing the radio program called “climate changes and food security focus”.

The aim was to inform and educate populations on how climate changes impact on their day

to day lives and the urge to work on its mitigation and reduction of its impacts. The

importance of protecting agriculture food security and nutrition as well as the water knowing

that the archipelago is exposed to innumerous risks. The other focus of the program was

food security and gender. The program was broadcasted every other week.

ECREEE

ECREEE entered in partnership with the ministry of Agriculture and environment on 2015 to

give a technical assistance and guidance that was lacking from the beginning for the

procurement of the solar panels. The TORs were proposed by ECREEE and all the


assistance regarding the specific type of materials that was more appropriate for the project.

Regarding future follow ups ECREEE aims to give a year of technical assistance to the

ministry by sending their technicians to the fields every three months to supervise the right

use of the panels and identify eventual needs of extra trainings to the users and

dysfunctions. It was specified that the cost of this technical assistance would have to be

secured by the ministry.

ANAS The ANAS is the new agency created to replace the old National Institute for Water

Resources Management, the idea was that the ANAS would be responsible for everything

related to water use. However, in the Prodoc the scope of their activities was not defined yet.

According to the MoU, the partnership with ANAS regarding the implementation of the project

consisted in the elaboration of groundwater measurement study in the selected councils, as

well as the installation of a piezometric network. The evaluation team tried to get in contact

with someone at ANAS to know more about their participation and opinions about the project,

but unfortunately no one was available.

Partnerships with local associations In each of the councils involved in the project, partnerships were set up within local

associations to facilitate the participation and knowledge sharing within the communities.

These partnerships have allowed the project team to benefit from local technical knowledge

(on practices, the environment ...) of the persons concerned by the various issues (farmers,

fishermen, breeders, etc.) and to better reflect the needs and expectations of local

communities in the implementation of its activities. Adaptive action plans have been prepared

by the local communities to express their needs.

It is useful that the municipalities continue to support the project villages, including those that

do not or only partially brought the expected contributions.

In conclusion, the partnerships have been of great help in achieving the project results but

also technical and institutional capacity building opportunities in terms of integrating climate

change in the knowledge and the transmission of technical knowledge. The evaluation team

observed a great rigor in the application of various partnership agreements signed by the

Project team in terms of implementation of partner activities.

3.2.3. Integration of M&E in the adaptive management

The monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system of the project was useful and served a good

project management. A comprehensive review of the progress of the project was conducted

after the first phase, during the final evaluation in December 2014. This evaluation allowed

the project extension to address the issues identified and to implement the recommendations

to improve its outcomes.


As detailed in the section 3.2.5. below, the monitoring and evaluation of the project “Building

adaptive capacity and resilience to climate change in the water sector in Cabo Verde” are

considered satisfactory.

3.2.4. Financing of the project

Since this project is an extension of a previous project financed by the GEF, it is important to

present a brief overview of the financial structure of the first phase, in order to understand

and analyze the most recent contributions.

Figure 3 Budget distribution - GEF phase

The second phase of the project intended to upscale the outcomes and impacts of the first

phase. Therefore, it is possible to assume the activities evaluated here also benefited from

the structure built thanks to the co-financing of the previous phase. The table below sum up

all the co-financers and the amount disbursed by each of them during 2011 to 2014. The

information is from the Terminal Evaluation made at the end of the project.

Table 3 Co-financing - GEF and CIDA phase

Donor/Agency Amount USD European Commission 30,860,000

France 13,619,646

Government of Cabo Verde 8,543,699

Japan 617,284

Luxembourg 9,008,090

UNICEF 800,000

USAID 50,308

UNDP 200,000

Total 63,699,027

Regarding the phase financed by the CIDA, the figure below show how the budget has been

disbursed over the years of the project, in comparison with what was planned. The spending


was lower in 2014 due to the delay in beginning the activities between the last semester of

2013, when the project was accepted and the first semester of 2014.

Figure 4 Budget allocated Vs Budget disbursed

3.2.5. Follow-up and evaluation: project’s extension and implementation Planning for monitoring and evaluation was quite comprehensive, but not enough detailed in

the project document, integrating both internal M&E quarterly, half-year and annually budget

revision and assessments, as well as external evaluations at project completion. A consistent

budget was implemented to ensure the functioning of M&E.

The implementation of the M&E plan was satisfactory. The project managed to have a good

follow up of the implementation process within the intervention sites. The local councils,

associations and the project management team provided frequent follow up reports about the

implementation and the progress of activities, as well as field trips realized to monitor the

project’s intervention zones. Besides that, the annual work plans and the semi-annual reports

to the Canada-UNDP Climate Change Adaptation Facility were important efforts to monitor

the activities progress over the project duration and its results’ achievement, as well as the

budget allocation along with the integration of the project indicators with the national M&E

system.

However, the weak definition of indicators and responsibilities in terms of data collection led

to an irregular collection of data related to the project’s indicators. Some of the indicators

were missing the baseline information, as well as end of the project target, which made it

difficult to assess the real impact and the degree to which the project would have achieved

its objective and outcomes.

3.2.6. Coordination between UNDP, the implementing partner and the executing partner

0

250000

500000

750000

1000000

1250000

1500000

1750000

2000000

2014 2015 2016

Total budget available Total Utilized


The collaboration between the UNDP and the Project Management Team has not been a

major problem, apart from purely administrative side effects due to the reorganization of the

Government after the elections, with the changes in the Ministry and its staff. These

departmental reorganization problems or UNDP intervention procedures in Cabo Verde

changes are beyond the scope of the project and not treated in this report.

From formulation to implementation and monitoring and evaluation of the project, the UNDP

has played a role much appreciated by partners met by the mission. This role can be

summed up as follows:

- Technical and strategic support and advice and guidance;

- Thematic leadership;

- Internal capacity to meet partners’ expectations.

What was also noted is the support for the mobilization of expertise and skills, the financial

contribution and the external and internal mobilization of resources for the implementation of

interventions; the quality insurance measures; the strengthening of national and local

capacities; the support; the acquisition of materials and equipment at the request of the

partners and the realization of infrastructure.

UNDP's role has also been to inspire and support the promotion of national leadership,

strengthen national ownership, stimulate domestic accountability through program

rationalization and strengthening of implementation and monitoring-evaluation capacity.

Significant efforts in synergy research with other interventions and the implementation of a

project exit strategy was also noted. Sessions on capacity building on project ownership,

regular reminders from the members of the Technical and Steering Committee on key

outcomes of the project, the dialog for the removal of bottlenecks in the event of difficulties of

implementation. In its support of the national part, UNDP played an appreciated supervisory

role on the management of planning processes, on review by leaving the prior responsibility

to the national part and making a quality mentoring.

3.2.7. Cross-cutting issues: nature of the beneficiaries and recognition of the gender and food security issues

With regard to cross-cutting themes, the subject of the project itself - adaptation to climate

change - addresses one of them: the environment and climate change. Indeed, improved

management of water resources and awareness of climate change issues contribute to

reduce the degradation of natural resources and environment. Other cross-cutting issues

were indirectly addressed by the project, including the strengthening of the social economy,

as the beneficiaries of the project in the target areas were vulnerable farmers, fishermen and

breeders. Through this project, farmers learned to adopt measures that can enable them to

adapt to climate change. These measures were the teaching of appropriate agricultural

techniques, agro forestry, selection and cultivation of species resistant to drought. For

example, the project taught farmers how to plant while adapting to climate change. They

adopted new agricultural technologies and practices such as the use of drip irrigation

systems.


The selection of beneficiaries was one of the responsibilities of the local delegations of the

Ministry of Agriculture and Environment (former Ministry of Rural Development). During the

formulation of the new phase of the project, financed by the CIDA, there was a discussion if

the intervention zones should be kept the same and what would be the criteria to choose the

beneficiaries. The rationale behind keeping the same islands from the GEF funding phase

was to capitalize the investments already made and because Santiago and Santo Antão are

also priorities in terms of food security, as stated in the graph below.

Figure 5 Food Security distribution by island30

Regarding the selection of beneficiaries, the criteria used were:

- Being beneficiary of a micro-irrigation system installation in the previous phase of the

project (have at least irrigation head);

- Having plots of easy access, availability of water in quantity and quality;

- Being a female head of household, with plots that meet the above requirements, as a

way to promote gender equity;

- Agree to work according to the guidelines of INIDA / MAE Delegations, thus ensuring

the maintenance of the plot (weeding, fertilization, clearing of planting, phytosanitary

treatments).

Concerning gender issues, the project management team, supervised by the UNDP and

CIDA, sought the support of ICIEG in order to integrate a gender approach in the project’s

intervention strategy to allow the activities to have a positive impact in the promotion of

gender equality. Training sessions with the project management team, as well with the

professionals responsible for choosing the beneficiaries were planned in the first

Memorandum of Understanding between the DGPOG (former execution agency) and the

30 Project Document


ICIEG. However, the partnership was not renewed after August 15, when the first MoU

expired.

Table 4 Vulnerability to food insecurity by gender in each project zone

Island Zone Sex Vulnerability

Severe food

insecurity

Moderate food

insecurity

Risk of food insecurity

Food security

Santo Antão Sinagoga

Masculin n/a n/a 59,1% 40,9%

Feminin n/a n/a 61,5% 38,5%

Cha de Igreja Masculin n/a n/a ,0% 100,0%

Feminin n/a n/a 25,0% 75,0%

Lagedos Masculin 29,2% 12,5% 29,2% 29,2%

Feminin 23,1% 23,1% 46,2% 7,7%

Tarrafal M. Trigo Masculin 31,5% 13,5% 38,2% 16,9%

Feminin 46,4% 14,3% 28,6% 10,7%

Chã de Norte Masculin n/a 5,9% 58,8% 35,3%

Feminin n/a 22,2% 44,4% 33,3%

Monte Trigo Masculin 30,8% 30,8% 38,5% n/a

Feminin 40,0% 40,0% 20,0% n/a

Ribeira das Patas Masculin 42,6% 20,7% 27,4% 9,3%

Feminin 48,3% 20,8% 26,2% 4,7%

Santiago Achada Tenda Masculin ,0% ,0% ,0% 100,0%

Feminin 11,1% 3,7% 66,7% 18,5%

Chão Bom Masculin 12,3% 13,8% 49,2% 24,6%

Feminin 10,4% 13,4% 56,7% 19,4%

Achada Fazenda Masculin 2,6% 7,9% 63,2% 26,3%

Feminin 21,4% 7,1% 50,0% 21,4%

Ribeireta Masculin 18,2% 36,4% 45,5% n/a

Feminin 44,4% 33,3% 22,2% n/a

Tagarra Masculin 29,4% 17,6% 41,2% 11,8%

Feminin 65,0% 20,0% 15,0% ,0%

*Because of inexistence or for having the same identification code, some zones (indicated below) were considered as being the same: Some localities are in the same zone, so they are considered the same, as listed below:

Island Zones Localities

Santo Antão

Sinagoga Chã da Furnas

Chã d´Igreja Mocho da Garça

Ribeira das Patas Chã de Matos

Ponte Sul

Ribeira das Bodes


Santiago Achada Tenda Achada Porto

Chão Bom Colonato

Achada Grande

Tagarra Flamengos Baixo

Achada Fazenda Achada Colaço

The table above shows the vulnerability rate in terms of food security for men and women in

each of the project’s intervention zones. The notable difference between both sex is one of

the reasons why including a gender analysis in the project was important for its outcomes.

3.3. Project results The results of the project evaluation come from stakeholder consultation and literature

review. In addition to these consultations, the project evaluation focused on the analysis of

results as deliverables, in particular based on the “Building adaptive capacity and resilience

to climate change in the water sector in Cabo Verde” project document.

The overall project results have been rated as satisfactory

The project final evaluation shows that overall most of the results were all achieved. The

activities were efficiently implemented and led to very satisfactory outcomes. At the same

time, other activities were not implemented until the evaluation visit happened. However,

based on the interviews and documents analysis it is possible to say that chances are high

that all the results will be achieved until the end of the first semester of 2017.

As mentioned earlier, the project’s objective is to increase resilience and enhance key

adaptive capacity to address the additional risks posed by climate change to water sector in

Cabo Verde. The implementation approaches adopted have ensured the attainment of this

objective through its outputs and impacts. The project has achieved its objective by

increasing the resilience of farmers in vulnerable regions to emerging climate change threats

enhanced and the institutional capacity to plan for and respond to climate induced impacts in

Cabo Verde. Minor shortcomings have been observed in project results, as detailed below,

but the project has delivered most of the planned outcomes

3.3.1. Overall results by intervention zones

The project has enabled the 18 intervention zones to benefit from know-how and new

technologies which help them to better adapt to climate change. This could be done by

involving local communities, national authorities and technical partners efficiently. The review

of available literature, stakeholder interviews and visits to demonstration villages with

inhabitants’ survey, enabled to highlight the following results, in terms of successes and

failures of project implemented activities.

ILHA DE SANTO ANTÃO

Conselho de Ribeira Grande

• Boca de Coruja


➢ Recovery of 1 catch dams

➢ 2300 m of tubes installed

➢ Adduction repair damaged by rainfall

➢ Training sessions in agricultural production techniques and environmental

issues.

➢ Organization of Exchange of experience between farmers, with participation of

twelve farmers, one woman

➢ One hundred and two (102) beneficiaries, of which twenty seven (27) are

women

• Chã das Furnas

➢ Training / qualification of 24 farmers for planning of horticultural production;

➢ Recovery of 1 reservoir for storage of water for agriculture, in the zone of

Zabelinha-Chã das Furnas, with 60m3 capacity

➢ Installation of 14 plots with drop irrigation for families, now with 2.800 m² of

irrigated area

➢ Installation of 900m of pipes

➢ Fixing of 430 fruit trees

➢ Organization of Exchange of experience between farmers, Concelho de Paúl

• Fajã de Janela

➢ Installation of 61 drip irrigation systems, totalizing 20000 m2 , Of the 61 plots,

forty seven (47) are men and seventeen (17) are women


issues for 35 farmers, among which 7 are woman


18 farmers

• Ribeira dos Penedos

➢ Recovery of 2 catch dams, that benefits 22 farmers, being 6 women

➢ Recovery of a 100m3 reservoir

➢ Installation of 4 drip irrigation system in plots, totalizing 2200 m2

➢ Fixing of 20 fruit trees


issues for 20 farmers


7 farmers, one woman

Concelho do Porto Novo

• Chã de Mato/ Ponte Sul

➢ Construction of the 900 m Agricultural Perimeter Fence

➢ 6000 m2 of land preparation

➢ Installation of 6000 m2 of drip irrigation system in the plots

• Tarrafal de Monte Trigo

➢ 5450 m2 of land preparation


➢ Conclusion of 13 reservoirs, with a capacity of 386 m2 and adduction network

installation, benefiting among them one woman


➢ Repair of 400 m of watering channel and maintenance, benefiting 20 farmers,

among 10 women

➢ Removal of 47 acacias along adduction channels

➢ Building of 2 improved corral and cheese ateliers adapted to local conditions,

2 are in construction

➢ Acquisition of 15 improved breed piglets

➢ Construction of 5 pigsties, all benefiting women

➢ Installation of drip irrigation system in plots, totalizing 7000 m2 .Benefiting 15

farmers, one woman.

ILHA DE SANTIAGO

Concelho de Tarrafal

• Achada Porto/ Achada Tenda

➢ Rehabilitation and settlement of 1 community pigsty, benefiting 7 households

headed by women

➢ Training of 7 women in hygiene and animal handling

➢ Construction of a compost pit

➢ Acquisition of materials and placement of 1 ceiling

➢ Construction of 1 pigpens, and its posterior widening, benefiting 9 more

households headed by women

Concelho de São Miguel

• Machado

➢ Rehabilitation and increase of the capacity of a reservoir for 45m3

➢ Rehabilitation of 2 reservoirs of 50 m3

➢ Rehabilitation of 300m of levada

➢ Implementation of an adduction network of 100 m

➢ Construction of 28 m of terraces

➢ Construction of three slope protection walls, totalizing 960 m

➢ Construction of protection wall of a reservoir, 22,3 m , benefiting 130

habitants, being 77 women

• Ribeireta

➢ Construction of a will protection wall, 29 m

• Flamengos Tagarra

➢ Rehabilitation of 1 wind pumps

➢ Increase in the capacity of a reservoir from 19m3 to 25m3.

➢ Implementation of 200m of pipes

Concelho de Santa Cruz


• Achada Ponta

➢ Rehabilitation and modernization of fish treatment and conservation center

(now working as a community center), benefiting 411 habitants, being 214

women

Concelho de São Lourenço dos Órgãos

• Orgãos Pequenos e Funcos

➢ Construction of 20 cisterns, with a total of 200 m3. Benefiting 20 households

headed by women

➢ Rehabilitation of 9 wells

➢ 4 Awareness session for farmers about environment protection and rational

use of water, with participation of 38 people, with 31 women

• Pico de Antonia

➢ 1 Awareness session for farmers about climate change mitigation measures,

with participation of 41 people, being 12 women

➢ Construction/reparation of reservatories totalizing 453 m3 of installed water

storage capacity

➢ Recovery of one (1) water catchment dam, benefiting 42 farmers, among 15

women

➢ Installation of 5 parcels of drip irrigation systems

Installation of 6450 m of pipes,

• Funco e João Teves


➢ Construction of 2 reservoir totalizing 1000 m3 , benefiting 703 people, being

361 women

• Levada

➢ Recuperation of 2 wells and construction of a protection wall

➢ Recovery of one (1) water catchment dam

• Covoada

➢ Construction of a protection wall of 60 m

• São Jorge

➢ Recovery of 1 well and 1 levada

• Longueira

➢ Support in the construction of one greenhouse

The activities planned for the localities of Colonato and Mato Mendes were not concluded by the date of the documents provided by the UNDP and the Project Management Team. Most of the activities that are still waiting for their conclusion are related to the installation of solar panels to pump water from the wells. According to the Project Management Team the delay


was due to administrative issues that prevented the procurement process to be finished on time. Still, everything is already set for the conclusion of the activities. The budget is already allocated and it is expected to be finished until the end of the semester. Regarding the research activities in partnership with the INIDA, the activities included studies to make an inventory of pests and diseases, identify and foment the best local practices applied in the agricultural and livestock sector, the inclusion of new species in order to enhance food security and the installation of a bromatology lab. The equipment for the Lab was bought by the project, and INIDA managed it.

3.3.2. Relevance

The relevance of the project is obvious as the question of water resources management and

food security is important and sensitive to climatic hazards in Cabo Verde. This justifies the

choice of implementing irrigation systems, building water reservoirs and developing research

activities to improve agricultural production and ensure food security. There was also a real

capacity of the project, through its activities and products, to support the concerns of target

groups, with results that have confirmed the relevance of the project. In light of the project

results, it appears that the introduction of innovative techniques or practices requires extreme

support, despite the expertise already present, as is the case of the installation of solar

panels. Thus, activities related to existing practices, and that the project has modernized,

have proven to be the most beneficial.

This criterion is ranked R.

3.3.3. Efficiency & Effectiveness

This evaluation report describes the management approach observed in the implementation

of project activities. The analysis was made with reference to the appropriateness of

expenditures and financial means used to achieve the desired results. Most of the results of

the project’s activities could be quantified, since the activities could be measured with

quantitative information. Therefore, the project outcome can be considered largely positive.

It should be mentioned that the team has shown motivation and involvement in the

implementation of this project. This assessment is based on the testimonies of the

beneficiaries as well as national partners, starting with members of the MAE, met by the

evaluation team during the evaluation trip. Conversely, the project team could benefit from

the institutional and major political interaction capacity as can be expected from a

governmental authority.

This criterion is ranked S.

3.3.4. Appropriation by the country

The issue of appropriation by the country has been a concern since the formulation of the

project. The fact that the project management structure has been embedded within the

government structure was a strategy to ensure and confirm that the project would not face

problems of lack of engagement and priority with the staff involved in its implementation.


Close cooperation with the Government has certainly allowed the project to be appropriated

by the institutions at all levels (including villages) and therefore guarantee a high durability to

the gains of the project; it also helped to integrate quite easily the issues of climate change,

even if the beneficiaries are mainly concerned with improving their living conditions

We must therefore emphasize that the involvement and ownership was very satisfactory at

local and national levels: both on the part of the rural populations, villages and authorities

and other national institutions partners. All were very satisfied with the project, and

participated actively in its implementation: departmental representations of the ministries of

environment and agriculture brought their support through their experts, and local

communities through the various groups.

This criterion is ranked S.

3.3.5. Sustainability

Overall likelihood of sustainability

The evaluation of the project showed that the beneficiary population was motivated by the

project: it is an asset for the country and is experienced as such. The sustainability of

undertaken activities seems likely. Yet, for its impacts to be beneficial and sustainable, a

replication of the activities will be required. The positive results of the project should be used

to extend the practices of the project to other vulnerable zones of the country.

One of the main issues concerning the sustainability of the project is the fact that the local

communities will not be able to afford the maintenance of the solar panels once the project is

over. Some strategies and ideas to include the local associations, for example, as the

responsible for guaranteeing the good conditions of the equipment are already being

discussed among the beneficiaries. This is an important point that should be addressed

before the conclusion of the project.

The Project has increased awareness and knowledge of all stakeholders on climate change

adaptation. They also realized that outcomes of the Project have reflected their priority needs

and be owned by them. Under the impact of the Project, local governmental sectors,

academic institutions, NGOs and some communities said to evaluator that they will continue

to use the outcomes from the Project. The local communities which are engaged in

development of agricultural practices and have benefited from the Project will voluntarily

support the efforts of adaptation led by local governments.

The sustainability of achievements will highly depend on the country’s political context in the

coming years. The strong implication of government bodies into the project implementation is

a good foundation for a sustainable institutional framework for climate change adaptation

activities in the country.

To conclude this section on sustainability, the project results show the appropriation of new

practices and innovations, enabling greater resilience for targeted populations. It is important

that these benefits be likely to continue after the end of external funding. Beyond

sustainability that is already observable, we must also focus on generalization.

This criterion is ranked ML.


3.3.6. Impact The impact of the project was confirmed by the final evaluation, regarding the principal

objective as well as specific objectives. The project has reached not only vulnerable

communities, but also government staff and other stakeholders through awareness raising

campaign on climate change issues, and through trainings on adaptation, climate

information, water management, and adaptive agricultural practices.

Though some project’s activities have been less impactful than others, the whole CIDA

initiative has scaled up an enabling environment and strong interest in climate change

adaptation in Cabo Verde. The project has indeed proven catalytic for climate change

adaptation action in the country, as shown by the mainstreaming of climate change and

water resource management in the national policies and institutions. The project has thus

shown that investing in the environmental sector in Cabo Verde is highly relevant itself. A

wide number of climate change adaptation initiatives can now be developed thanks to the

cooperation created by the project.

This criterion is ranked ML.


4. Conclusions, recommendations and lessons learnt

Table 5 Project scoring table

Criteria Note Comment

Implementation of the project

Monitoring and evaluation

S Planning for monitoring and evaluation was comprehensive, but not enough detailed in the project document. During the project implementation it integrated both internal M&E daily and annually, and external evaluations at project completion. A consistent budget was implemented to ensure the functioning of M&E. The implementation of the M&E plan was satisfactory. The conclusions of the final review of the first phase were positive and recommendations relevant. These recommendations have been implemented and had positive consequences on the project execution, with appropriate adjustments of project activities regarding the progress and remaining time for these activities.

UNDP implementation S The UNDP’s implementation, monitoring and facilitation work was provided adequately throughout the project. The structure and implementation of the project in Cabo Verde were adequate, and the role of UNDP significant as the guarantor of this adequacy.

DGASP Execution S The DGASP has fully played its role as executing agency of the project, with the provision of premises and staff throughout the life of the project, and an appropriate political and technical supervision of the project.

Coordination between the UNDP, the implementing partner and the executive partner

S The collaboration between the UNDP and the Government of Cabo Verde has not been a major problem, apart from purely administrative side effects due to the reorganization of the Government with the elections. These departmental reorganization problems or UNDP intervention procedures in Cabo Verde changes are beyond the scope of the project and not treated in this report.

Project results

Global results S The project document, as it was originally developed, is ambitious, and corresponds to the concerns of rural populations affected by climate change. The final evaluation of the project shows that overall most of the results were achieved. The activities were implemented effectively and have led to very satisfactory results. It should be noted that some of the activities were not completed by the moment of this evaluation. However,


based on the information collected during the evaluation, chances are high that they will be completed within the next months. The project enabled the seventeen intervention zones to benefit from expertise and technologies which allow them to better adapt to climate change. This could be done by effectively involving local communities, national authorities and technical partners.

Relevance R The relevance of the project is obvious as the question of water resources management and food security is important and sensitive to climatic hazards in Cabo Verde. In light of the project results, it appears that the introduction of innovative techniques or practices requires extreme support, despite the expertise already present. It is recommended that the project is rescaled nationwide and extended, if possible, at all rural communities of Cabo Verde.

Efficiency and Effectiveness

S This assessment is based on the testimonies of the beneficiaries as well as national partners. Also, the team has shown motivation and involvement in the implementation of this project and has benefited from the institutional capacity and interaction of major political government authority. In conclusion, the effectiveness of the implementation of the project is satisfactory.

Appropriation by the country

S Important decisions (choices of pilot projects, beneficiaries, etc) and activities were implemented with the systematic and comprehensive agreement of the UNDP and Cabo Verdean authorities. Close cooperation with the government has certainly allowed the project to be appropriated by the institutions at all levels (including villages) and therefore guarantee a high durability to the gains of the project; it also helped to integrate quite easily the issues of climate change, even if the beneficiaries are mainly concerned with improving their living conditions. We must therefore emphasize that the involvement and ownership was very satisfactory at local and national levels: both on the part of the rural populations, villages and authorities and other national institutions partners. All were very satisfied with the project, and participated actively in its implementation: municipalities brought their support through their MAE delegations, and local communities through the various groups. Follow up reports, annual work plans and reports about field visits were sent regularly to the Government and many events (meetings with the project management team, workshops, etc.) marked the project. Exchanges between the Government and the project team were numerous, and the flow of information was


systematized (at the administrative as well as the technical levels).

Sustainability ML The activities introduced during the project implementation have created a dynamic in the villages and the population suggested that innovations of the project would continue. Lessons should be learned, following the project, about the activities and challenges that must be replicated on a large scale. Project sustainability is ensured in demonstration villages and it is recommended to generalize the approach of the project nationwide.

Impact ML The impact of the project was confirmed by the final evaluation. This had already been analyzed in the final evaluation of the first phase funded by the GEF with positive results, the transfer of adaptation technologies, and the continued practices against climate change also allowing to reduce poverty and food insecurity.

As a general conclusion, it should be noted that the project achieved its objectives: it allowed, in targeted villages, for the reduction of the vulnerability of rural populations to the impacts of climate change, with the introduction of resilient practices, technologies and access to water. It has also strengthened national capacities for adaptation, through the involvement of many administrative managers and research professionals of Cabo Verde, to provide answers to people's needs. More specifically, one can retain the following main points:

• The project allowed the eighteen demonstration zones to benefit from know-how and new technologies, such as the introduction of drip irrigation, which allowed them to better adapt to climate change. The results of the project as a whole constitute a great change in the beneficiaries’ lives, by allowing them to increase their production and improving their quality of life. This could be done by effectively involving local communities, national authorities and technical partners. This success is due to the permanent mobilization of the Project Management Team throughout the duration of the project, and to the involvement of stakeholders, whether the UNDP, the DGASP, the MAE, intervention villages or academic and agronomic research fields of Cabo Verde.

• The implementation and organization of the project went through some delay due to the elections that happened in the country over 2016 and the reorganization of the ministries, as well as changes in the Project Management Team. These obstacles were well treated by the UNDP and the PMT.

• The project has arguably strengthened the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment as well as the local ministry’s delegations and the DGASP. Institutional capacity has thus been enhanced, especially since the project triggered an inter-ministry cooperation on the multi-sectoral aspects of climate change.

• Project expenses were well managed, particularly with respect to the preparation of PTAs. Moreover, CIDA fast-start finance was highly efficient; the allocation to the ACC project was relevant and fulfilling Canada’s commitments.


• The attempt to include gender aspects in the project activities was successful in the beginning, but unfortunately it was not carried out until the end. Women are among the groups most vulnerable to climate change effects, encourage their participation in the project activities would reduce their vulnerability and boost the project’s outcomes.

• The project has generated a wide amount of knowledge and information on climate change in Cabo Verde, disseminating knowledge not only on the impacts, but on adaptation approaches and practices. Awareness-raising has reached not only people involved in the project, but also national institutions and the project has triggered a strong implication of local communities as well as institutional stakeholders across ministries.

• No clear exit strategy has been developed by national parties as to how adaptation measures will be sustained after the project financing. Yet, there is some budget already allocated to complete the implementation of some adaptation activities. There is, though, a need to build a strong exit strategy to ensure the sustainability of acquired adaptive capacity at national and local level.

• The country’s need for technical and financial assistance is still strong as climate change adverse impacts become more and more severe. Adaptation strategies and technologies must be scaled up and developed across the country.

The recommendations are:

• First, the positive results of the project should be continued and replicated at a larger scale as implicitly requested by the Government through the INDC, and as mentioned during the project evaluation consultations. Partnerships with research organizations and other technical partners must be strengthened in future projects.

• Coordination with donors and other development and climate actors in Cabo Verde should be pursued, amplified and extended to new funds. It is for instance recommended to formulate a concept note for an amount of around USD 60 million, to generalize the project nationwide, to be submitted to the Green Climate Fund (GCF).

• The cooperation between the UNDP and national and local authorities should be pursued on similar themes to those covered by the project, including coastal ecosystems, biodiversity, and reforestation.

• As part of the next programmatic cycle, it is recommended to focus transversely on water access, sustainable tourism, organic farming and climate change adaptation, rural electrification using renewable energies and adaptation to climate change in coastal zones to prevent sea level rise. A project focused on developing the idea of sustainable and agro tourism could be implemented, not only in the islands that have already benefited from the project, but also in the rest of the country. The tourism is a big part of the Cabo Verde’s economy, aligning it with environmental concerns is good way to promote a sustainable development and poverty reduction.

• It is important that the project management team guarantees that not only the installation of the solar panels will be concluded, but also that the local communities will have the necessary means to deal with any problem that might occur after the end of the project, thus, guaranteeing its sustainability.


• The greater institutional capacity triggered by the project must be sustained and enhanced. The Ministry of Agriculture and Environment, together with the Directorate General and delegations involved in the project, as well as local associations, should continue the efforts initiated by the project. Climate change should continue to be mainstreamed into the country’s policies and initiatives.

• Similarly, CIDA could continue financing adaptation activities building on the achievements of the project in the field of sustainable agriculture and with watershed committees.

50

5. Annexes

5.1. Photographs

Photograph 1: Interview with the Project’s beneficiaries in Ribeira Grande, Santo Antão Island

Photograph 2: Fishing Center in Achada Ponta, Santiago Island

51

Photograph 3: Poço built in São Lourenço dos Orgãos, Santiago Island

Photograph 4: Project’s intervention zone with the irrigation system installed

52

Photograph 5: Interview with the representative of the local association in Tarrafal, Santiago Island, where they are waiting for the solar pannels to be installed

Photograph 6 : Workers preparing the area where the solar pannels will be installed in Chã de Mato, Porto Novo, Santo Antão Island

53

Photograph 7: José Mario Sousa, president of the Federation of Associations of São Lourenço dos Orgãos shows the pipes installed by the project

Photograph 8: Evaluation team together with the local beneficiaries

54

5.2. Itinerary

The field visit followed the following itinerary and schedule:

- Monday 12, December: Meetings at the UNDP Office with the staff responsible for

the project, Mrs Sandra Martins and the Deputy Mrs Ilaria Carnevali. Interview with

the Project Coordinator, Mr Carlos Monteiro.

- Tuesday 13, December: Interview with different stakeholders, including: Mr.

Alexandre Rodrigues, Director of the Ministry of Environment, Mrs Angela Monteiro

and other members of the INIDA and the former Project Supervisor, Mrs. Alayde Dias

- Wednesday 14, December: Field visits to the project’s intervention zones of Santa

Cruz and Tarrafal, in the island of Santiago. Interview with the focal point, Antonio

Andrade, Mrs Conceição, president of one the local association in São Lourenço dos

Orgãos and José Mario Sousa, president of the Federation of Associations of São

Lourenço dos Orgãos. In Tarrafal, interview with Anilson, technic of the delegation of

the Ministry of Agriculture and Pedro Clara, president of the local association.

- Thursday 15, December: Field visit to the project’s intervention zones in Ribeira

Grande, island of Santo Antão. Interview with Orlando Freitas, focal point of the

project in the council of Ribeira Grande and Paúl. Meeting with different beneficiaries

of the project, João José Fonseca, Assis Bandeira, Paulo Jorge Silva, José Silva

Rodrigues, as well as José Coutinho, one of the responsible for disseminating the

project in the region.

- Friday 16, December: Field visit to the project’s intervention zones in Porto Novo,

island of Santo Antão. Interview with Manuel Delgado, focal point of the council of

Porto Novo.

- Monday 19, December: Second meetings with the UNDP staff and interview with

Adelcia Duarte, from the ICIEG.

- Tuesday 20, December: Presentation of the initial findings during a workshop held in

the UNDP Office, with the presence of various stakeholders and people involved in

the project.

5.3. List of documents reviewed

• PRODOC

• Technical documents: Terms of Reference; consultancies report, Management plans;

proposals; staff review & comments on consultancies deliverables

• Annual and Quarter Work Plans & Reports

• Financial Reports

• Communication materials

• Training Materials

• Training and events reports

• Memorandum of understanding for activity execution

• Cabo Verde national policy documents on environment, climate change, gender

• Relevant legislation and regulations

• CIDA Annual Report

55

5.4. List of persons interviewed List and contacts of individuals interviewed as part of the evaluation

Nr Name Attributions /Functions

Institution Contacts Phone / mail

1 Angela Ma p. b. da Veiga Moreno

President of INIDA

INIDA [email protected] angela.moreno.gov.cv (298)9912222/5159948

2 José Joao Teixeira

General Director

DGASP [email protected] Tel: (238) 2604187-995 1224- 517 1267 Mobile: (238)2604180/90

3 Ilaria Carnevali

Deputy Resident

Representative

UN Cabo Verde Joint Office

[email protected] Mobile : +238 991 1014

4 Alexandre Nevsky Rodrigues

Diretor Nacional do Ambiente

DNA [email protected] (238) 333 71 71 – 516 23 60

5 Carlos Monteiro

Project Supervisor

MAE [email protected] [email protected]

6 Alayde Dias

Former Project Supervisor

MAE

7 Antonio Andrade

Focal Point Santa Cruz

MAE [email protected]

8 Jose Mario Sousa

President of the Feder-

Orgãos

[email protected]

9 Orlando Freitas

Focal Point Ribeira

Grande and Paul


10 Manuel Delgado

Focal Point Porto Novo


56

5.5. Project’s logical framework

Objective/

Outcome Indicator Baseline End of Project target Source of Information

Objective – To

increase

resilience and

enhance key

adaptive

capacity to

address the

additional risks

posed by

climate change

to water sector

in Cape Verde.

Original INDICATOR:

Water management plans for

municipalities on Santiago and

Santo Antão Islands where the

project is active explicitly

consider climate change risks

and opportunities (e.g. counts

on a technically sound and

widely endorsed ‘climate

change adaptation annex’ or

‘addendum’)

Plans are not climate-proof

Plans are climate-proof

Verification by independent mid-

term and final evaluations of the

project

Incidence (% of population) of

food insecurity in the

communities targeted by

project interventions

To be determined through assessment

Reduction in 25% the incidence of food insecurity in the communities targeted by project interventions

Dietary diversity indicator of the

communities targeted by

project intervention

To be determined through assessment

Increase in 25% of the population who present diversify diet in the communities

57

Objective/


targeted by project intervention

Percentage of non-external

state budget allocated to

manage climate change risk

(data collection and analysis,

risk assessment and climate

change adaptation programs)

Development of assessment

guidelines for budget review…

Monitoring of State non-external

budget

% of water mobilization

investment’s decisions and

authorizations based on water

balance monitoring system on

the target zones

Water availability for agriculture

production on the target

communities….

Outcome 1 –

Climate change

risks and

1. Key policy frameworks,

programs and investments

Superficial level of incorporation

Increase by 50% over

Application of the UNDP Climate

Screening Methodology. Key

policies include the PNIA, ENSA,

58

Objective/


adaptation

measures

integrated into

key national

policies, plans

and programs

for water

resource

management.

plans relevant for the

agriculture, food security and

water sector effectively

incorporate climate risk

consideration and adaptation

measures as assessed through

the

UNDP Climate Screening

Methodology

# of planning department ( at

line-ministries and local level)

that apply climate-proofing

tools on their planning and

budgeting process.

baseline

Climate-related pest and

diseases’ early warning system

fully operational at local and

There is no early warning system in place; and IPM policies

Increase by 50% over

baseline

Qualitative surveys covering

selected agencies with results

vetted independently by

UNDP/GEF upon inception, and

by the evaluators by mid-term

59

Objective/


central level

# policy and program

documents which diagnosis are

based on climate data analysis

do not consider climate change risk

and project end

Outcome 2 –

Small and

medium scale

climate change

adaptation

practices for

water resource

management

are

demonstrated

and

implemented in

selected

hydrographical

basins

# of farmers who co-participate

on implementation of water

use efficiency projects

% of families who benefit from

demonstration projects that

increase yield

Surface ( in Ha) of irrigated

land within project intervention

sites using water efficiency

techniques and measures

Utilization measure to be determined by sectoral experts during inception

Target measure also t.b.d.

Project site maps in Annex 2

provide measure of water

availability. Detailed water

utilization data needs to be

collected.

60

Objective/


% of farmers within targeted

communities that introduce new

drought-resistant and

diversified crops

2.

.

Outcome 3 –

Lessons learned

and best

practices from

pilot activities

are

disseminated,

and integrated

in national plans

and policies.

# of Technical packages

produced from demonstration

projects which are used by

rural extension workers

nationwide

# of strategic documents and

plans( for agriculture, water and

food security) which integrate

water efficiency incentives’

mechanism

# of water management

institutions ( local and central

61

Objective/


level) that use water monitoring

system to control groundwater

pumping

62

5.6. Terms of reference

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE FINAL EVALUATION

"Building adaptive capacity and resilience to climate change in the water

sector in Cabo Verde - CIDA Fast Start Climate Change Funds"

Type of Consultant: International Consultant

Terms of Contract: Individual Contract

Location: Cabo Verde

Expected starting date: 14th November 2016

Duration of the consultancy: 30 days Expected date for final report submission: 23th

December Closing Date: 31st October 23:59 CPV time

1. INTRODUCTION

In accordance with the UNDP and GEF M&E policies and procedures, a final evaluation of

the full-size project "Building adaptive capacity and resilience to climate change in the water

sector in Cape Verde" is required. This project, implemented through the Ministry of

Agriculture and Environmental, since 2013. The Final Evaluation report is to be completed

by December 2016.

This phase of the project started in last quarter of 2013 and is in its final year of

implementation. This Terms of Reference (TOR) sets out the expectations for this terminal

evaluation.

The essentials of the project to be reviewed are as follows:

Building adaptive capacity and resilience to climate change in the water

sector in Cape Verde

UNDP Project

ID:

PIMS 4091 Project financing at endorsement (Million USS)

ATLAS

Project ID:

00058318 CIDA financing: USD

Country: Cape Verde IA/EA own: $200,000 USD

Region West Africa Government: $ 9,211,299 USD

63

Focal Area: Climate Change

Adaptation

Other: $ USD

GEF Focal

Area

Strategic

Program

Total co-financing: $ USD

Executing

Agency:

Ministry of

Agriculture and

Environment

(MAA)

Total Project Cost in

cash:

us

Other

Partners

involved

ProDoc Signature (date project began): September 2013

Initial Planned closing date: Revised closing date:

2. Project background

The impacts of climate change on Cabo Verde water resources, particularly on water

availability, are predicted to adversely affect human health, agricultural production and food

security in both rural and urban areas. Predicted climate change scenarios are likely to

constrain long-term development through: (i) increased frequency and severity of drought;

(ii) increased rainfall variability, including more frequent events of short and intense rains,

causing flash-floods in several catchment areas; and (iii) progressive sea level rise and salt

water intrusion in freshwater reservoirs closer to coastal areas. Consequently, a major

challenge for Cape Verde is to mainstream climate change adaptation measures into

integrated water resource management across different institutional, social and spatial

frameworks. Technical capacity of both government and local communities to manage the

emerging threats imposed by climate change is required. The likely impacts of climate

change are still poorly understood and the need for adaptation not sufficiently incorporated

into relevant frameworks.

The project objective is to increase resilience and enhance key adaptive capacity to

address the additional risks posed by climate change to the water sector in Cape Verde.

Financial resources from the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) had been used to

address systemic, institutional and individual capacity gaps to manage water resources for

human, agricultural and other uses in the face of a changing climate.

A mid-term review was completed by September 2013, and a follow-up project has been

endorsed and financed by CIDA with a focus on climate change and food security.

During LDCF project implementation awareness on climate change risks and adaptation

alternatives have been reinforced and adaptive measure have been demonstrated/ scaled

up ((small-scale drip irrigation; biological and mechanical soil and water conservation

measures). Through this additional funds, capacity to mainstream climate change

adaptation in development planning will be further reinforced with a particular focus on

analyzing current and projected impacts of climate change on food security status of the

country and building community resilience through a shift towards climate-smart agriculture

and integrated water resources management.

In line with guidance and eligibility criteria of the Canadian International Development

Agency (CIDA) Fast Start Climate Change Funds, this proposal seeks to address food

64

security issues associated with climate change, with special considerations afforded to

gender issues in particular with respect to access to resources and exacerbated

vulnerability under condition of strain.

The project aim at supporting the reinforcement of national applied-research programs

targeted to climate resilient agriculture and food security in the context of a small island

developing state (SIDS).

Some priority measures identified in the NAPA, such as promotion of application of

renewable energies for water mobilization in rural areas, will be also implemented with this

additional funding.

2. Project objectives and expected outputs

The project's goal is to ensure that water availability, supply and quality are maintained in

the face of changed climatic conditions.

The project objective is to increase resilience and enhance key adaptive capacity to

address the additional risks posed by climate change to the water sector in Cape Verde. In

order to achieve the above objective, and based on a barrier analysis, the project's

intervention has been organized in three components under which three “outcomes” are

expected from the project:

Outcome 1: Climate change risks and adaptation measures integrated into key

national policies, plans and programs for water resource management.

Outcome 2: Small and medium scale climate change adaptation practices for water

resource management are demonstrated and implemented in selected

hydrographical basins.

Outcome 3: Lessons learned and best practices from pilot activities, capacity

development initiatives and policy changes are disseminated,

Outcome 1 will deal with the 'governance framework' for climate change adaptation. The

fact that climate risk, vulnerability and adaptation measures are only superficially integrated

(or mainstreamed) in policies, plans and programs is a symptom of incipient and limited

capacity of key stakeholders at the national level to plan in response to climate change.

Outcome 2 will, in turn, show how pilot demonstration investment at the site level can make

a difference in terms of improving resilience locally. Overall, the lessons learnt and

experiences acquired under Outcomes 1 and 2 will be disseminated across Cabo Verde

and to other countries through actions foreseen under Outcome 3

3. Final Evaluation objectives

Project evaluations assess the efficiency and effectiveness of a project in achieving its

intended results. Terminal evaluation is expected as well to assess the relevance and

sustainability of outputs as contributions to medium-term and longer-term outcomes.

The TE wilt be conducted according to the guidance, rules and procedures

established by UNDP as reflected in the UNDP Evaluation Guidance.

65

The objectives of the evaluation are to assess the achievement of project results, and to

draw lessons that can both improve the sustainability of benefits from this project, and aid in

the overall enhancement of UNDP programming.

The Terminal Evaluation is intended to identify weaknesses and strengths of the project

design and implementation strategy to come up with recommendations to avoid or address

similar issues in the follow-up project.

The TE must provide evidence based information that is credible, reliable and useful. The

evaluation team is expected to follow a participatory and consultative approach ensuring

close engagement with government counterparts (executing agency), in particular with line

ministries, UNDP Country Office, project team, UNDP Regional Technical Adviser based

and key stakeholders.

The evaluation mission will also identify lessons learnt and best practices from the project

which could be applied to future and other on-going projects. The international consultant

for this review is expected to identify lessons learnt and best practices from other climate

change adaptation project that could guide technical recommendations and improvements,

specially targeting follow-up project endorsed by CIDA and the SGP interventions on the

community base adaptation focal area.

Scope of the Terminal Evaluation

The scope of the Terminal Evaluation will cover all activities undertaken in the framework of

the project. The evaluators will compare planned outputs of the project to actual outputs and

assess the actual results to determine their contribution to the attainment of the project

objectives.

The evaluation should cover at minimum the five evaluation criteria considered by UNDP

Evaluation Office.

3. UNDP Evaluation Criteria.»

The extent to which the activity is suited to local and national development priorities and organizational policies, including changes over time. the extent to which the project is in line with the GEF Operational Programs or the strategic priorities under which the project was funded.

Note: Retrospectively, the question of relevance often becomes a question as to whether

the objectives of an intervention or its design are still appropriate given changed

circumstances.

The extent to which an objective has been achieved or how likely it is to be achieved.

The extent to which results have been delivered with the least costly resources possible;

also called cost effectiveness or efficacy.

66

The positive and negative, foreseen and unforeseen changes to and effects produced by a

development intervention.

in GEF terms, results include direct project outputs, short to medium-term outcomes, and

longer term impact including global environmental benefits, replication effects and other

local effects.

The likely ability of an intervention to continue to deliver benefits for an extended

period of time after completion. Projects need to be environmentally, as well as

financially and socially sustainable.

The evaluation assessment should cover, at minimum, 3 general areas, for which

conclusions and recommendations should be provided and lessons learned identified:

1. Project

formulation if.

2. Project

implementation

3. Project results

The conclusions should be comprehensive and balanced, and highlight the strengths,

weaknesses and outcomes of the project. They should be well substantiated by the

evidence and logically connected to the terminal evaluation findings. They should respond

to key evaluation questions and provide insights into the identification of and/or solutions to

important problems or issues pertinent to project beneficiaries, UNDP and Canada-UNDP

Climate Change Facility.

The recommendations should be feasible and directed to the intended users of the

evaluation about what actions to take and decisions to make. The recommendations should

be specifically supported by the evidence and linked to the findings and conclusions around

key questions addressed by the evaluation.

The terminal evaluation report should also include, if available, lessons that can be taken

from the evaluation, including best (and worst) practices that can provide knowledge gained

from the particular circumstance (programmatic and evaluation methods used, partnerships,

financial leveraging, etc.) that are applicable to other CIDA and UNDP interventions,

especially for the follow-up project.

The evaluation team will assess the following three categories of project progress. For each

category, the review team is required to rate overall progress using a six-point rating scale

outlined in section 6 (Evaluation criteria & rating).

3.1. Project formulation:

Assess project formulation and relevance of the adopted strategy. For this purpose, those

are some questions (not an exhaustive list) to be considered:

67

Were the project's objectives and components clear, practicable and feasible

within it time frame?

Were the capacities of the executing institution(s) and its counterparts properly

considered when the project was designed?

Were lessons from other relevant projects properly incorporated in the project

design? Were the partnership arrangements properly identified and roles and

responsibilities negotiated prior to project approval?

Were counterpart resources (funding, staff, and facilities), enabling legislation,

and adequate project management arrangements in place at project entry?

Were the project assumptions and risks well-articulated in the PIF and project

document?

Were project outcomes and project indicators SMART?

ii. Assess the protect assumptions and risks as set out in the project document and LOQ

Frame/Results/ Framework, including:

An assessment of the stated assumptions and risks, whether they are logical and

robust, and have helped to determine activities and planned outputs.

Externalities (i.e. effects of climate change, global economic crisis, etc.) which are

relevant to the findings.

3.2. Project Implementation

Some elements to include in the assessment of implementation approach include:

a. M&E mechanisms

The logical framework used during implementation as a management and M&E tool;

Effective partnerships arrangements established for implementation of the project with

relevant stakeholders involved in the country/region, including the formation of a Project

Board; Lessons from other relevant projects incorporated into project implementation;

Feedback from M&E activities used for adaptive management.

b. Finance

i. Effectiveness of the financial

planning if. Cost-Effective factors

c. Co-finance

The evaluation will assess the key financial aspects of the project, including the extent of

co-financing

Planned and realized. Project cost and funding data will be required, including

annual expenditures;

Variances between planned and actual expenditures will need to be assessed and

explained results;

All recent financial audits, as available, should be taken into consideration. The

evaluator(s) will receive assistance from the Country Office (CO) and Project Team

68

to obtain financial data in order to complete the co-financing table below, which will

be included in the terminal evaluation report.

d. CIDA implementing agency execution- UNDP

The evaluator should assess and rate the quality of UNDP execution of the project. The

assessment should be established through consideration of the following issues:

Whether there was an appropriate focus on results;

The adequacy of UNDP support to the Implementing Partner and project

team; Quality and timeliness of technical support to the Executing Agency

and project team;

Candour and realism in annual reporting;

The quality of risk management;

Responsiveness of the managing parties to significant implementation problems (if

any).

e. Implementing partner execution

Similarly, the quality of execution by the Implementing Partner should be assessed,

considering the following issues:

Whether there was an appropriate focus on results and timeliness;

Adequacy of management inputs and processes, including budgeting and

procurement quality of risk management;

Candour and realism in reporting Government ownership.

f. Protect M&E mechanisms

The evaluation team should be expected to provide a project M&E assessment that

provides:

An analysis of the M&E plan at project start up, considering whether baseline

conditions, methodology and roles and responsibilities are well articulated. Is the

M&E plan well-conceived? Is it articulated sufficient to monitor results and track

progress toward achieving objectives

The quality of M&E plan implementation: Was the M&E plan sufficiently

budgeted and funded during project preparation and implementation

69

The effectiveness of monitoring indicators from the project document for

measuring progress and performance;

Compliance with the progress and financial reporting requirements/ schedule,

including quality and timeliness of reports;

The value and effectiveness of the monitoring reports and evidence that these

were discussed with stakeholders and project staff;

To assess whether there were changes in the environmental and development

objectives of the project during implementation, the following questions might be

considered:

Why these changes were made and what was the approval process did the

project undergo significant changes as a result of recommendations from the

mid-term review?

If the changes were extensive, did they materially change the expected

project outcomes?

Were the project changes articulated in writing and then considered and

approved by the project steering committee?

3.3. Project Results

The results include direct project outputs, short- to medium-term outcomes, and longer term

impact including global environmental benefits, replication effects, and other local effects.

Assessing project results involves attention to the full scope of a results based management

(RBM) chain, from inputs to activities, to outputs, outcomes and impacts. For UNDP

supported GEF financed projects, the main focus of attention is at the outcome level,

recognizing that global environmental benefit impacts are often difficult to discern and

gauging outputs is straightforward but not sufficient to capture project effectiveness

To assess project outcomes, the evaluation should include consideration of results as

measured by broader aspects such as:

i. Country ownership,

The evaluation should find evidence that reveals to what extend the project fits within stated

sector development priorities, and also to what extend project outputs have been developed

with involvement from government officials and have been adopted into national strategies,

policies and/or legal codes._

Some relevant questions to assess ownership might be:

o Was the project concept in line with development priorities and plans of the country?

Were the relevant country representatives from government and civil society involved

in project Implementation, including as part of project steering and technical

committee?

70

Have the government(s), enacted legislation and/or developed policies and regulations

in line with the project's objectives?

ii. Mainstreaming,

Project terminal evaluation must assess how the projects is successfully mainstreaming

other UNDP priorities, according to UNDP Strategic Plan, including poverty alleviation,

improved governance, building resilience to disaster risk and women' empowerment.

The section on mainstreaming should assess:

1. Whether it is possible to identify and define positive or negative effects of the

project on local populations and policy frameworks;

2. If the project objectives conform to agreed priorities in the UNDP country

programme document (CCPD) and UNDAF;

3. Whether there is evidence that the project outcomes have contributed to

enhance resilience and better preparation to cope with natural disasters;

4. Whether gender issues had been taken into account in project design and

implementation and in what way has the project.

iii. Sustainability

Terminal Evaluation should at minimum assess "the likelihood of sustainability of outcomes

at project termination, and provide a rating for this catalytic role and impact". Sustainability

is generally considered to be the likelihood of continued benefits after the project ends.

Consequently, the assessment of sustainability considers the risks that are likely to affect

the continuation of project outcomes. The GEF Guidelines establish four areas for

considering risks to sustainability. Each should be separately evaluated and then rated as to

the likelihood and extent that risks will impede sustainability

Financial risks: Are there financial risks that may jeopardize the sustainability of

project outcomes? What is the likelihood of financial and economic resources not

being available once GEF grant assistance ends?

Socio-economic risks: Are there social or political risks that may threaten the

sustainability of project outcomes? What is the risk for instance that the level of

stakeholder ownership including ownership by governments and other key

stakeholders) will be insufficient to allow for the project outcomes/benefits to be

sustained? Do the various key stakeholders see that it is in their interest that project

benefits continue to flow? Is there sufficient public/stakeholder awareness in support

of the project's long-term objectives?

Institutional framework and governance risks: Do the legal frameworks, policies, and

governance structures and processes within which the project operates pose risks

that may jeopardize sustainability of project benefits? Are requisite systems for

accountability and transparency, and required technical know-how, in place?

71

Environmental risks: Are there ongoing activities that may pose an environmental threat

to the sustainability of project outcomes?

4 Likely (L) negligible risks to sustainability, with key outcomes expected to

continue into the foreseeable future.

3 Moderately Likely

(ML)

moderate risks, but expectations that at feast some outcomes Wii!

be sustained

2 Moderately Unlikely

(MU)

substantial risk that key outcomes will not carry on after project

closure although some outputs and activities should carry on.

1 Unlikely (UL) severe risk that project outcomes as well as key outputs will not be

sustained.

Not Applicable (N/A)

Unable to Assess (WA)

Catalytic Role

The evaluation team should consider the extent to which the project has demonstrated: a)

production of a public good, b) demonstration, c) replication, and d) scaling up.

Impact

The evaluators will assess the extent to which the project is achieving impacts or

progressing towards the achievement of impacts. Key findings that should be brought out in

the evaluations include whether the project has demonstrated: a) verifiable improvements in

ecological status, b) verifiable reductions in stress on ecological systems, or c)

demonstrated progress towards these impact achievements.

In the discussion on impacts it will be important at a minimum to:

Identify the mechanisms at work (i.e. the causal links to project outputs and

outcomes); e Assess the extent to which changes are taking place at scales

commensurate to natural system boundaries;

Assess the likely permanence (long lasting nature) of the impacts.

4. Evaluation Approach and method

An overall approach and method for conducting project terminal evaluations of UNDP

supported GEF financed projects have developed over time. The evaluator is expected to

frame the evaluation effort using the criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency,

sustainability, and impact, as defined and explained in the UNDP Guidance for Conducting

Terminal Evaluations of projects.

A set of questions covering each of these criteria have been drafted and are included with

this TOR. The evaluation team is expected to amend, complete and submit matrix as part of

an evaluation inception report, and shall include it as an annex to the final report.

The evaluation must provide evidence-based information that is credible, reliable and

useful. The evaluation team is expected to follow a participatory and consultative approach

72

ensuring close engagement with government counterparts, in particular the Ministry of

Agriculture and Environment, UNDP Country Office, project team, UNDP Technical Adviser

based in the region and key stakeholders. The evaluation team is expected to conduct a

field mission to Cabo Verde including the following project intervention sites (Santo Antão

and Santiago islands).

The mission will start with a desk review of project documentation and also take the

following process:

a. Desk review of project document, outputs, monitoring reports, such as Project

Inception Report, Minutes of Project Board meetings and Technical Support and

Advisory Team meetings, Project Implementation Review (PIR), Quarterly Progress

Reports, M&E framework, mission reports and other internal documents including

financial reports and relevant correspondence;

b. Review of specific products including datasets, management and action plans,

publications, audiovisual materials, technical packages, consultancies reports and

other materials and reports;

c. Interviews with the Project Managers, technical specialist and other project staff

d. Interview with Program Officers in charge of project oversight at UNDP CO;

e. Interview with RTA (Regional Technical Advisor) responsible for this thematic and

geographic area;

Interview with the National Director of Environment;

g. Interview with the Director of Agriculture

h. Finance and Operation Manager at UNDP CO authorizing direct payments;

Interview with project executing agency: DGPOG Ministry of Agriculture and

Environment, finance Officer and The project coordinating team and the executing

technical branches of the ministry (INIDA, Extension, Island wide Representation of

Ministry of Agriculture and Environment);

Field visits to conduct consultations and/or interviews with relevant stakeholders

involved, including government's representatives, local communities, NGO's, private

sector, donors, other UN agencies and organizations.

k. Field visit to interview project beneficiaries (community associations, local officials,

farmers, water boards, etc.)

5. Evaluation criteria & rating

An assessment of project performance will be carried out, based against expectations set

out in the

Project Logical Framework/Results Framework which provides performance and impact

indicators for project implementation along with their corresponding means of verification.

The evaluation will at a minimum cover the criteria of: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency,

sustainability and impact.

Ratings must be provided on the following performance criteria. The competed table must

be included in the evaluation executive summary.

The following rating system is to be applied:

73

Ratings for Outcomes, Effectiveness, Efficiency, M&ET I&E Execution

6: Highly Satisfactory (KS):

The project had no shortcomings in the achievement of its objectives in terms of relevance, effectiveness, or efficiency

5: Satisfactory (S):

There were only minor

shortcomings

4: Moderately Satisfactory

(MS):

there were moderate

shortcomings

3. Moderately Unsatisfactory

CMU):

the project had significant

shortcomings

2. Unsatisfactory (U): there were major shortcomings in the achievement of project objectives in terms of relevance, effectiveness, or efficiency

1. Highly Unsatisfactory (HI)):

The project had severe

shortcomings

Sustainability ratings:

4. Likely negligible risks to sustainability

3. Moderately Likely {ML): moderate risks

2. Moderately Unlikely CMU): significant risks

l . Unlikely

severe risks

Relevance ratings:

2. Relevant (R)

I. Not relevant

(NR) Impact

Ratings:

3. Significant (S)

2. Minimal (M)

I. Negligible (N)

Additional ratings where

relevant:

Not Applicable (N/A)

Unable to Assess (U/A

A useful table to include in the evaluation report is set out below.

Criteria

Monitoring and Evaluation: Highly Satisfactory (HSI Satisfactory (S) Moderately Satisfactory

(MS), Moderately Unsatisfactory (MO), Unsatisfactory (I-I), Highly Unsatisfactory (HUI

Overall quality of M&E {rate 6 pt.

scale)

M&E design at project start up {rate 6 pt.

scale)

M&E Plan Implementation Irate 6 pt.

scale)

IA & EA Execution: Highly Satisfactory (HS)r Satisfactory (S) Moderately Satisfactory

(MS)r Moderately Unsatisfactory (MU), Unsatisfactory Highly Unsatisfactory

74

Overall Quality of Project

Implementation/Execution

{rate 6 pt.

scale)

implementing Agency Execution (rate 6 pt.

scale)

Executing Agency Execution Irate 6 pt.

scale)

Outcomes Highly Satisfactory (HS)E Satisfactory (S) Moderately Satisfactory (MS),

Moderately Unsatisfactory (MO), Unsatisfactory (U), Highly Unsatisfactory (HU)

Overall Quality of Project Outcomes (rate 5 pt.

scale)

Relevance: relevant (R) or not relevant

(NR)

(rate 2pt. scale)

Effectiveness (rate 6 pt.

scale)

Efficiency (rate 6 pt.

scale)

Overall likelihood of risks to

Sustainability:

(rate 4pt, scale)

Financial resources {rate 4pt. scale)

Socio-economic (rate 4pt. scale)

Institutional framework and governance (rate 4pt. scale)

Environmental (rate Apt.

scale)

Impact: Significant Minimal Negligible (N)

Environmental Status Improvement (rate 3 pt.

scale)

Environmental Stress Reduction (rate 3 pt.

scale)

Progress towards stress/status change (rate 3 pt.

scale)

Overal* Project Results (rate 6 pt€

scale)

6. Evaluation team

Two consultants with the following qualifications shall be engaged to undertake the

evaluation working concurrently according to the planned schedule. The international

consultant, who will have in depth understanding of UNDP projects including evaluation

experience, will be designated as the team leader and will have the overall responsibility of

organizing and completing the review, and submitting the final report. The national

consultant will provide supportive rotes both in terms of professional back up, and conduct

of local meetings. National Consultant recruitment process will be conducted separately by

UNDP Country Office.

The collection of documents is to be done by National Consultant prior to commencing the

work. The International Consultant has the overall responsibility for completing the desk

review prior to the country mission to Cabo Verde, and for submitting the final report

75

following the country mission. The consultants will sign an agreement with UNDP Cabo

Verde and will be bound by its terms and conditions set in the agreement.

Qualifications of International consultant

1. International consultant with advanced academic degree (MSC or PhD) and

professional background in fields related to Climate Change Adaptation, Agriculture

and Integrated Water Resource Management. A minimum of 5 years of relevant

experience is required;

2. Substantive experience in reviewing and evaluating similar projects, preferably

those involving UNDP/GEF or other United Nations development agencies or major

donors;

3. Excellent English writing and communication skills. Portuguese, French or Spanish

reading and communication skills. The consultant must bring his/her own computing

equipment;

4. Demonstrate ability to assess complex situations, succinctly distils critical issues,

and draw forward-looking conclusions and recommendations;

5. Highly knowledgeable of participatory monitoring and evaluation processes, and

experience in evaluation of technical assistance projects with major donor agencies;

6. Ability and experience to lead multi-disciplinary and national teams, and deliver

quality reports within the given time;

7. Familiarity with the challenges developing countries face in adapting to climate

change;

8. Familiarity with Cabo Verde or similar SIDS ( Small Islands Developing States)

countries;

9. Excellent in human relations, coordination, planning and team work, and

10. Excellent feedback-giving skills and culture sensitiveness

Qualifications of National consultant (as a indicative reference for International consultancy

applicants; please note that procurement for this position Wiff be conducted separately by

UNDP CO)

a. Academic degree (BsC or MsC) and professional background in fields related to

Climate Change Adaptation, Agriculture and Integrated Water Resource

Management. A minimum of 5 years of working experience in the development

sector in Cabo Verde is required;

b. Understanding of climate change adaptation and integrated water resource

management in Cabo Verde;

c. Demonstrated skills and knowledge in participatory monitoring and evaluation

processes;

d. Experience in monitoring and evaluation of climate change adaptation and

development projects, supported by UN agencies and/or major donor agencies;

e. Proficient in writing and communicating both in English and in Portuguese. Ability to

interpret to the international counterpart and also to translate necessary written

documents to English; Excellent in human relations, coordination, planning and

team work.

76

7. EVALUATOR ETHICS

Evaluation consultants will be held to the highest ethical standards and are required to sign

a Code of Conduct upon acceptance of the assignment. UNDP evaluations are conducted

in accordance with the principles outlined in the UNEG 'Ethical Guidelines for Evaluations'.

8. Proposed schedule

The review will start in November 2016 and it requires a minimum of 10 working days'

country mission in Cabo Verde (Santiago and S. Antäo island) as well as a desk review

(prior to the country mission) and drafting and finalization of the report (following the country

mission). The consultant will be paid on lump sum basis including international and local

travel, fees and living allowance. The draft Final Report should be submitted to UNDP Cabo

Verde for circulation to relevant agencies/national counterpart within three weeks after the

completion of the review mission to Cabo Verde. The consultants will finalize the report

within two weeks upon receiving comments and feedback from stakeholders compiled by

UNDP CO.

9. Deliverables

The review team will produce the following deliverables to UNDP, INGRH, GEF Operational

and Political Focal Points, UNDP/GEF-LDCF and the Project Board (Steering and Technical

Committee):

Deliverable Content Timing Responsibilities Payment

Schedule

Contract signing

Inception

Report

(including

an

evaluation

matrix)

Review team clarifies timing and

method of review

No later

than 1

week

before the

review

mission

Review team

submits to

UNDP Country

Office Upon

satisfactory

approval

Presentation

of initial

findings

Initiate Findings: discussed in

a wrap-up discussion with

project team and CO; and

presented on a stakeholder

workshop.

End of review

mission

To project

management

and UNDP

Country Office;

and key

stakeholders

Upon

satisfactory

approval

77

Draft Final Report +

Executive

summary

Full report covering all items

detailed on section 4 'Scope of

the FE" with detailed attention to

lessons learnt and

recommendations and with

annexes minimally including

(List of Persons interviewed,

summary of field visits, list of

documents reviewed,

questionnaire and summary of

results, co-financing matrix and

leveraged resources, etc.)

Within 3

weeks of the

review mission

Sent to UNDP CO, reviewed by RTA, pcu, MAA, GEF Operational and Political Focal

Point

Final Report

&

Evaluation

Matrix

Revised report with audit trail

detailing how all received

comment have (and have not)

been addressed in the final

review report).

Within 2

weeks of

receiving

UNDP,

executing

agency (MAA)

and GEF OFP

comments on

draft

Sent to UNDP

CO

Upon

satisfactory

approval

According to UNDP TE Policies and guidelines, an inception report should detail the

evaluators understanding of the project being evaluated and why, showing how each

evaluation question will be answered by way of: proposed methods, proposed sources of

data and data collection procedures. The inception report should include a proposed

schedule of tasks, activities and deliverables, designating a team member with the lead

responsibility for each task or product. The Inception Report will be shared with the Ministry

of Agriculture and Environment and other key stakeholders, to ensure a common

understanding of the mission plan, methodology and timing.

The final report together with the annexes shall be written in English and Portuguese and

shall be presented in electronic form in MS Word format to facilitate comments and PDF

format.

10. IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS AND DURATION

The principal responsibility for managing this review resides with the UNDP Country Office

(UNDP CO) in Praia, Cabo Verde. The UNDP CO will contract the consultants and ensure

the timely provision of schedule payments. The Head of Environment, Energy and Disaster

Prevention at the Joint Office of UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF will be the supervisor of this

consultancy.

The NAPA Follow up project team will be responsible for liaising with the review team to set

up stakeholder interviews, arrange field visits with missions. The project coordination unit

(PCU) will assist the evaluation team with local travel arrangements and scheduling. The

PCU is responsible as well for providing logistics for debriefing session.

Expected date for starting work: 14 November 2016

78

Duration of the consultancy: 30 days

Expected date for final report submission: 23th December

11. APPLICATION PROCESS

The applications should be submitted to the email address, [email protected]

indicating the following reference "International Consultant for "Terminal Evaluation -

Building adaptive capacity and resilience to climate change in the water sector in Cabo

Verde - CIDA Fast Start Climate Change Funds" by 31st October2016 23:59 CPV time.

Incomplete applications will be excluded from further consideration. Only selected candidate

will be contacted.

Recommended Presentation of Proposal:

Duly accomplished Letter of Confirmation of Interest and Availability using

the template provided by UNDP;

Personal Curriculum Vitae (CV) and PI 1, indicating all past experience from

similar projects, as well as the contact details (email and telephone number)

of the Candidate and at least three (3) professional references;

Technical proposal - Proposed evaluation methodology, approach to conduct

on the field mission and desk-review phase and work plan;

One sample of past publications in English, French, Portuguese or Spanish;

Financial Proposal: the financial proposal must be expressed in the following

pricing option: Lump Sum Amount - The lump sum amount must be "all-

inclusive' (honorariums, living allowance, tripsl, health insurance, etc.); the

price should be in USD indicates the all-inclusive fixed total contract price,

supported by a breakdown of costs, as per template provided. If an Offeror is

employed by an organization/company/institution, and he/she expects his/her

employer to charge a management fee in the process of releasing him/her to

UNDP under Reimbursable Loan

1 Information on domestic inter-islands flights can be found on the national company:

www.fiytacv.com.

Agreement (RLA), the Offeror must indicate at this point, and ensure that all

such costs are duly incorporated in the financial proposal submitted to

UNDP;

Criteria for Evaluation of Proposal: The selection will be made based on the educational

background

(10), experience on similar assignments (15) and the quality of the technical proposal (35).

The financial proposal will weigh as 30% of the total scoring.

Contact for additional information: [email protected] ;

[email protected]

79

Terms of reference approved by:

llaria Carnevali

Deputy of the Joint Office of UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF)

Praia, 17th October 2016

80

Annexes

PROPOSED EVALUATION REPORT OUTLINE

ii. Executive Summary

Project Summary Table

Project Description (brief)

Evaluation Rating Table

Summary of conclusions, recommendations and

lessons iii. Acronyms and Abbreviations

(See: UNDP Editorial ManuaP)

1. Introduction

Purpose of the evaluation

Scope & Methodology e Structure of the

evaluation report

2. Project description and development context

Project start and duration

Problems that the project sought to address

Immediate and development objectives of the project

Baseline Indicators established

Main stakeholders

Expected Results

3. Findings

(In addition to a descriptive assessment, all criteria marked with (*) must be

rated31 )

3.1 Project Design / Formulation

Analysis of LFA/Results Framework (Project logic /strategy; Indicators)

Assumptions and Risks

Lessons from other relevant projects (e.g., same focal area) incorporated

into project design

Planned stakeholder participation

Replication approach

UNDP comparative advantage

Linkages between project and other interventions within the sector

Management arrangements

3.2 Project Implementation

Adaptive management (changes to the project design and project

outputs during implementation)

Partnership arrangements (with relevant stakeholders involved in the

country/region)

Feedback from M&E activities used for adaptive management

Project Finance

Overall quality of M&E

Quality of UNDP Implementation

Quality of Execution - Executing Agency

Overall quality of Implementation / Execution - coordination, and

operational issues

31 Using the standard rating table in this TOR and the standard rating scales listed in Annex D in this TOR.

Opening page:

81

3.3 Project Results

Attainment of objectives (Overall Project Outcome*)

Relevance ( * )

Effectiveness (*)

Efficiency (*)

Country ownership

Mainstreaming

Sustainability: Financial resources, Socio-political, Institutional

framework and governance, Environmental, Overall likelihood of

Sustainability (*) Impact

4, Conclusions, Recommendations & Lessons

Corrective actions for the design, implementation, monitoring and

evaluation of the project o Actions to follow up or reinforce initial benefits

from the project

Proposals for future directions underlining main objectives

Best and worst practices in addressing issues relating to relevance,

performance and success

5. Annexes

ToR

Itinerary

List of persons interviewed

Summary of field visits

List of documents reviewed

Evaluation Question Matrix

Questionnaire used and summary of results

Evaluation Consultant Agreement Form

ANNEX B: LIST OF DOCUMENTS TO BE REVIEWED BY THE EVALUATORS

Indicative, but not exhaustive:

Technical documents: Terms of Reference; consultancies report, Management

plans; proposals; staff review & comments on consultancies deliverables

PRODOC;

Annual and Quarter Work Plans & Reports

Financial Reports

Communication materials

Training Materials

Training and events reports

Memorandum of understanding for activity execution

Cabo Verde national policy documents on environment, climate change, gender

82

Relevant legislation and regulations

FINAL EVALUATION REPORT - HumanitarianResponse€¦ · The final evaluation of the project shows...

Documents

Transcript of FINAL EVALUATION REPORT - HumanitarianResponse€¦ · The final evaluation of the project shows...