PART III: Implementation arrangements
11 Climate Change
The development of the initiatives represents a risk of
unjustified generation of greenhouse gases?
Yes
No initiative has been identified with an orientation or execution that could generate unjustified greenhouse gases. On the contrary there are initiatives, as the implementation of biodigestors, low carbon technologies and improved pasture that will lead to greenhouse gases reduction. There are transport processes for the initiatives but these are considered unavoidable. In Costa Rica there are established maximum emission parameters controlled by RTV. (National evaluation)
Request RTV for the involved vehicles for the development of the initiative.
12
Pollution Prevention and Resource
Efficiency
The development of the initiatives represents a risk of
not making efficient use of energy?
Yes
No initiative has been identified as a big consumer of energy, however there exists the risk that during the implementation of some initiatives, the use of energy or fuel would not be efficient.
Request an identification of environmental aspects and impacts for each initiative and measures to control and mitigate the energy efficiency risks.
162
The development of the initiatives represents a risk of not minimizing or not making efficient use of resources?
Yes
No initiatives have been identified as big consumers of natural resources and therefore would require measures for their efficient use. On the contrary, some initiatives are oriented towards the better use of available resources, however, in some initiatives there may exist the risk that the resources may not be used in an efficient way, for example in constructions or transportation.
Request an identification of environmental aspects and impacts for each initiative and measures to control or mitigate those environmental aspects.
The development of the initiatives represents a risk of
not providing adequate treatment and disposal of
waste?
Yes
There is a risk that the generated waste in some initiatives, mainly in remote rural areas, will not be adequately disposed of. However, no initiative has been identified that generates solid waste that requires any treatment.
Request a waste management plan for those initiative that require one.
13 Public Health
The development of the initiatives represents a risk of generating potential negative
effects on public health?
Yes
The risk has been identified that some of the agricultural initiatives could generate health or odor problems, mainly those related to waste management.
Request a technical study for the activities of waste management including occupational health measures.
14
Physical and Cultural Heritage
The development of the initiatives represents a risk of alteration, damage or removal of
resources or cultural sites or with an accepted natural and
scenic value?
Yes
Since some of the activities involve indigenous population, there is a risk during the development of some of the initiates that there will be alteration or damage to sites or cultural resources with natural or scenic value.
Request compliance with Law of Cultural Heritage and Patrimony regarding identification and protection of cultural and archeological, nearby the location where the initiatives. Request the identification of preventive measures if necessary in order to avoid direct or indirect damage. Include contractual clauses that if during the development of the initiative damages to cultural, archeological or sites accepted as natural or scenic are identified, they must be communicated to the implementing entity and if necessary, actions must be suspended until finding and implementing a valid solution.
163
15 Lands and Soil Conservation
The development of the initiatives represents a risk of
degradation of land or soil? Yes
No initiatives have been identified with orientation or execution that could degrade soil or productive land. On the contrary some of the initiatives are oriented towards the conservation and use of soil however there exists a risk that during the application of good practices technical errors might incur that generate degradation of land and soil.
Request compliance with Law of Soil Use and Conservation and monitoring with technical endorsement, to verify that there is no risk of degradation of land and soil.
Conclusion:
It can be concluded that no significant adverse impacts or potential risks of significant adverse environmental and social impacts are identified. Moderate environmental and social adverse impacts are identified. They are considered moderate because preventive or corrective actions to minimize or mitigate the impact are identified. According to this conclusion and the categorization established in the “Environmental and Social Policy” of the Adaptation Fund Board, the proposal can be determined as category B. The correct application of
the principles established in the mentioned policy is based on the ESMP and includes contractual clauses to EEs regarding each of the principles and on the periodic and programmed verification from NIE to evaluate compliance and possible deviations.
164 D. Monitoring and evaluation arrangements
Describe the monitoring and evaluation arrangements and provide a budgeted M&E plan.
276. Monitoring and evaluation will be conducted in accordance with the organizational structure of the programme (see Part III, Section A). The Programme Management Board (PMB) will be responsible for monitoring the progress of the programme, and will supervise the Programme Coordination Unit (PCU) in the day-to-day management of the programme activities and the overall operational and financial management and reporting. The Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Plan will be undertaken at the programme and project level as follows:
Monitoring at project level
277. The monitoring process in the execution of projects will have the purpose of guaranteeing its timely progress, the meeting of its objectives as well as a proper use of the financial resources. Each semester, each executing agency must submit to the PCU a technical and financial report covering the progress of each project prior to the following disbursement.
278. Each executing agency will establish internal monitoring systems and will also be responsible for reporting to the PCU and subsequently to the PMB.
279. The baseline data, collected during the assessment phase of the project cycle, will be the starting point for monitoring project performance.
280. Each type of project will include a minimum logical framework with appropriate indicators in order to measure progress. The indicators should be addressed in project reports and evaluations. Additionally, specific indicators shall be developed, depending on the type of project. These indicators will bring information on the projects’ sustainability, technologies and initiatives at micro-level.
Monitoring at programme level
281. The Monitoring and Evaluation Plan will be based upon the performance indicators, targets and means of verification at the output and outcome levels established in the
165
Results Framework (Section E below), and will be elaborated by the PCU in the start-up phase of the programme. The plan will detail the arrangements regarding the monitoring of the projects and will also establish a methodology for tracking progress against the indicators, outputs and targets identified for the Programme.
282. A Programme Inception Workshop will be held within three months of programme start up, with the participation of the programme team, relevant government counterparts, stakeholders and partners. The Inception Workshop is crucial to building ownership, for programme results and to plan the first year annual work plan. A fundamental objective of the Inception Workshop is to present the modalities of project implementation and execution, document mutual agreement for the proposed executive arrangements amongst executive entities. An Inception Workshop Report will be prepared and shared with participants to formalize various agreements decided during the meeting.
283. Before the inception workshop, the PCU will inform the applicant of the PMB’s decision within two weeks of the date on which the agreed minutes of the meeting are signed. At the same time, if there are necessary adjustments or additions, those arrangements should be done by each of the EE before the Inception workshop. Each
project included a logical framework with appropriate indicators to measure progress, addressed in project reports and evaluations.
Main results of the Inception Workshop:
• To inform on the assigned roles in the project management, functions, and responsibilities within the project's decision-making structures. Once the roles and responsibilities of all project organization structures are clarified, meetings should be planned.
• To notify each of the reporting and communication lines, and conflict resolution mechanisms.
• To give notice of financial reporting procedures and obligations, and arrangements for audit procedures.
• To review and agree on the indicators, targets and their means of verification, and re-check several of the assumptions and possible risks. Along with the indicators and targets, a Monitoring and Evaluation work plan and a budget should be agreed and scheduled.
166
284. Annual plans: The formulation of the annual plans will adhere to a logical scheme that will guarantee the exact definition of each of the actions to be executed for the following period as well as the required back-up budget.
285. Six-month report: reports must include technical, financial and promotional information/results on the Programme. At the technical level, reports will be prepared against set goals, objectives and targets; it also includes lessons learned and risk management, an appraisal as a percentage of the progress made regarding the execution of the activities action and the achievement of the expected products during the period. On the other hand, financial reports include a detailed financial disbursements and a cost- benefits evaluation.
286. Audit reports: while the financial reports are prepared, external audits reports are also required. Annual external reports are made in accordance with National Financial Regulations and Rules and applicable audit policies.
287. Mid-term of the project cycle: An external Mid Term Evaluation (MTE) is planned at the mid-point of project implementation in order to review if the programme is on track and if corrections are needed. Final results of MTE are submitted to the PMB and PSC.
288. The specific purpose of the MTE is:
• Assess the state of implementation in terms of outputs and outcomes achieved. • Assess results achieved or to be achieved by the projects in the regions selected. • Draw lessons learned about project design, implementation and management.
• Assess the efficiency: quantity, quality, cost and timeliness of the programme inputs and activities.
289. Final evaluation: An independent Terminal Evaluation will take place three months prior to the final PMB meeting. The final evaluation will focus on the delivery of the project’s results as planned (including corrections suggested by the mid-term evaluation). The final evaluation will look at impact and sustainability of results, including the
167
contribution to capacity development and the achievement of global environmental benefits/goals.
290. Learning and knowledge sharing: will include various ways of promoting, exchanging and disseminating relevant information on climate change adaptation that will simultaneously strengthen individual and organisational capacities in climate change. 291. The programme will identify and participate in appropriate forums, conferences,
scientific networks and others, which may be of benefit to the programme implementation though lessons learned and that will allow dissemination of good practices beyond the programme intervention. The programme will identify, analyze, and share lessons learned that might be beneficial in the design and implementation of similar future projects.
Table 21 Monitoring and reporting and its procedures:
Goals and
direction Executing Entities
National Implementing Entity-PMB PSC Downward accountability § Continuous Information Flow § Annual Reports § Media § Continuous Information Flow § Six-month reports § Newsletter, Website § Annual Meeting with PSC § Minutes of Directors Meeting § Annual Reports § Min-term Review § Final Evaluation Upstream accountability § Annual audit § Progress reports § Six-months reports § Annual reports § End of project reports § Audits § Six-months reports § Annual reports § Annual audit § Director’s meetings § PSC Meetings § Minutes of Meeting § Annual Reports § NIE and projects Audit
Reports § Mid-term Review § Final Evaluation Learning and knowledge management § Public Discussions and Debates § Publications § Media § Public Discussions and Debates § Linking Learning Cycles § Conferences and International Workshops § Director’s Meetings § Analyzing and
168 § Internal evaluation exercises § Analyzing and Documenting Projects § Knowledge and Experience Exchange Events. § Publications § Media § Project evaluations Documenting results § Publications § Media § Mid-term Review § Final Evaluation
Table 22 Monitoring-evaluation plan and budget needed at the NIE level.
Type of M&E Activity Budget Time-frame
Inception Workshop and
Report $10.000
Within 3 months of project start
Periodic status/ progress
reports None Quarterly
Mid-term Review $35.000 At the mid-point of project
implementation.
Final Evaluation $40.000 During 6 months after the end
of project implementation.
Audit Programme:
$15.000 per year Yearly. Visits to field sites To be determined as
part of the Annual Work Plan.
Yearly as required
Total:
(excluding travel expenses and staff time)
169 E. Results framework
Include a results framework for the project proposal, including milestones, targets and indicators and sex-disaggregate targets and indicators, as appropriate. The project or programme results framework should align with the goal and impact of the Adaptation Fund and should include at least one of the core outcome indicators from the AF’s results framework that are applicable2526.
Expected
Results Activity Indicator Baseline Target at end of Project Verification Sources of Assumptions