n 2005, Namibia completed the first phase of its National Capacity Self-Assessment (NCSA) for Global Environmental Management Process. The Government of Namibia and a wide range of stakeholders involved in the NCSA has identified the priority need to mainstream environmental management issues into national development programmes and address the Rio Convention provisions in an integrated manner. In Namibia, implementation of the Rio Conventions on biodiversity, climate change and land degradation occurs in the context of sustainable development and poverty reduction. The NCSA Report provides a detailed action plan for addressing the priorities associated with global and national environmental management. To address some of the major constraints in the Rio Conventions implementations, the Strengthening Capacity Enhancement to Implement the Global Environmental Conventions in Namibia (CEGEM project) implementation approach is strategically geared to four directions: - To strengthen the technical skills and knowledge of key Government and non-governmental organizations involved in environmental management,
- To improve awareness on the global environmental Conventions provisions and synergies and on cross-cutting Conventions issues
- To develop the mainstreaming mechanism to ensure that environmental concerns are adequately mainstreamed in the national and regional planning, and 4) to ensure sustainability by institutionalizing the implementation process of the NCSA national objectives.
|
While the specific issues of concern are listed in the following paragraphs, a reference to the UNDP programming manual and UNDP/GEF guidelines to conduct terminal or end-of-cycle evaluations should be made for addressing the issues not covered below.
The evaluation will include ratings on the following aspects:
- Outcome and achievement of objectives (the extent to which the project’s immediate and development objectives were achieved);
- Sustainability of the aforementioned outcomes;
- Implementation Approach;
- Stakeholder Participation/Public Involvement; and
Monitoring and Evaluation.
The evaluation will use the following ratings: Highly Satisfactory, Satisfactory, Marginally Satisfactory, and Unsatisfactory. The evaluation will also assess the project's achievements and outcomes according to the type of capacities developed, i.e., individual, organizational, and systemic.
Project Conceptualization/Design:
- Whether the problem the project addressed is clearly identified and the approach soundly conceived;Whether the target beneficiaries and end-users of the results of the project are clearly identified;
- Whether the objectives and outputs of the project were stated explicitly and precisely in verifiable terms with observable success indicators;
- Whether the relationship between objectives, outputs, activities and inputs of the project are logically articulated and;
- Whether the project started with a well-prepared work-plan and reasons, if any, for deviations.
Project Relevance:
- Whether the project remains relevant to the development priorities of the country and;
- Given the objectives of the project, the extent to which appropriate institutions have been assisted.
Project Implementation -The evaluation team will examine the quality and timeliness of project implementation:
- The delivery of inputs specified in the project document, including institutional arrangements, interest of beneficiaries, the scheduling and actual implementation;
- The fulfilling of the success criteria as outlined in the project document;
- The responsiveness of the project management to significant changes in the environment in which the project functions (either facilitating or impeding project implementation). This refers to the project's adaptive collaborative management;
- Lessons from other relevant projects that were incorporated in the project implementation.
- The monitoring and backstopping of the project as expected by the Government and UNDP;
- The delivery of Government counterpart inputs in terms of financing, personnel, premises and indigenous equipment and;
- Collaboration with industry associations, private sector and civil society.
Project Performance:
- Whether the management arrangements of the project were appropriate;
- Whether the project resources (financial, physical and manpower) were adequate in terms of both quantity and quality;
- Whether the project resources are used effectively to produce planned results;
- Whether the project is cost-effective compared to similar interventions;
- Whether the technologies selected (any innovations adopted, if any) were suitable;
- The role of UNDP CO and its impact (positive and negative) on the functioning of the project.
Results/Success of the Project applied to each Specific Project (3 Areas):
The overall outputs and their meaning are as defined in the Project support documents and project documents that should form the main basis for this evaluation. In addition to the mid-term targets in the logical framework, the details of the specific project impact to be provided are:
- What are the major achievements of the project vis-Ã -vis its objectives.
- What are the potential areas for project’s success? Please explain in detail in terms of impact, sustainability of results and contribution to capacity development.
- What major issues and problems affected the implementation of the project and what factors could have resolved them?
- To what extent was project management effectively adaptive and collaborative?
- Given an opportunity, what actions the evaluation team members would have recommended to ensure that this potential for success translated into actual success?
- Level of institutional networking achieved and capacity development of key partners, if done in a structured manner at different stages – from inception to project operations.
- Social impacts, including impact on the lives of women.
- Any underlying factors, beyond control, that influenced project outcomes.
|
Post a Comment