Midterm-Review Report
[pic]
Mid-Term Review
Final Report
June 2012
Table of Contents
Page
Executive Summary 3
1. Introduction 7
1.1 Overview of the CCCA 7
1.2 Purpose of the Mid-Term Review (MTR) 8
2. Scope and Methodology of the Mid-Term Review 8
3. Findings of the Mid-Term Review 8
3.1 Assessment of Progress Towards Outputs and Outcomes 8
3.1.1 Capacity to coordinate national policy making, capacity development,
outreach/advocacy efforts, and to monitor the implementation of the national
climate change strategy, policy and plans 8
3.1.2 Access to updated climate change information, knowledge and learning
opportunities at all levels 13
3.1.3 Capacity within the NCCC to mobilize and effectively administer climate
change funds and to prepare for a nationally-owned trust fund 17
3.1.4 Resilience of coastal communities and ecosystems to climate change
through adaptation planning, demonstrated targeted local interventions and
provision of practical learning experience in adaptation planning to the
NCCC/CCD 20
3.1.5 Capacity in RGC agencies and civil society organizations for developing
and implementing climate change response initiatives in line with agreed national
climate change priorities, independently or in partnerships, through access to new
financial and technical resources 23
3.2 Relevance of the CCCA in Managing Climate Change in Cambodia 26
3.3 CCCA Management Effectiveness and Project Efficiency 27
3.4 Ownership and Sustainability of the CCCA Concept 31
3.5 Innovation and Transformative Change Associated with the CCCA 32
3.6 Coherence and Complementarity in the CCCA Approach 32
3.7 Developing Partnerships and Institutional Arrangements 33
4. Conclusions Regarding CCCA Achievements and Recommendations for
the Remaining Timeframe 34
Annexes
1. MTR Methodology 40
2. MTR Schedule and People Consulted 47
3. Documents Reviewed 51
4. Climate Change Context in Cambodia 59
5. Matrix of MTR Observations (for Each CCCA Output) 67
Executive Summary
The Cambodia Climate Change Alliance (CCCA) is a multi-donor initiative (funded by Sida, Danida, EC and UNDP; a total of US$ 8.9 million) with a comprehensive and innovative approach to address climate change in Cambodia. The CCCA aims at creating the enabling conditions required for Cambodia to respond to the challenges and opportunities posed by climate change. The approach is to focus on capacity building and institutional strengthening targeting key national institutions, sub-national authorities, and civil society. The CCCA includes a horizontal multi-donor Climate Change Trust Fund, administered by UNDP, which provides resources for the programme and for mainstreaming initiatives and to create a harmonized engagement point for donors, thereby minimizing transaction costs for Government. The overall objective of the CCCA is to strengthen the capacity of the NCCC to fulfill its mandate to address climate change and to enable line ministries and CSOs to implement priority climate change actions.
The CCCA was subject to a Mid-Term Review (MTR) during March 2012, during which time representatives of stakeholders and participants were consulted and all key documents and deliverables to date were reviewed. The objective of the MTR was to objectively determine the progress of CCCA to date, and to develop recommendations to help optimize the implementation and sustainability of CCCA in the remaining timeframe for the project. Full details of the MTR are provided in subsequent sections of this report. The main observations and conclusions are summarized below, going through each of the five proposed results, followed by observations on project design and management, with associated recommendations.
The CCCA Result 1 outcome clearly and correctly centres on the capacity and tools of the CCD, CCTT, and the NCCC, as the institutional “hub” of climate change management in Cambodia. CCD is at the core of Result 1 activities, expected to drive the process of creating the CCCSP and related policies, serving as the Secretariat for the NCCC, and generally providing guidance to the CCTT, which in turn is expected to maintain the link back to the Ministries. However, this multi-dimensionality of CCD’s role makes the achievement of outcome level results extremely challenged. Nevertheless, there has been some progress towards achievement of the Result 1 outcome, based on the 2012 targets. The CCD has an increased profile in its dealings with the NCCC (performing as a Secretariat), and has been more actively involved in supporting the preparations for the COP process and dissemination of that process in Cambodia. The CCD is, however, not fully staffed, and its ability to maintain a grip on daily activities and to plan ahead for CCCA activities is quite constrained.
The CCTT is in place, which is a significant achievement, but it lacks leadership and tends to be responsive to cues from the CCD, not taking direction from the NCCC. The CCTT is not yet defining its own pre-emptive course of actions. With regard to the Ministries having CC Focal Points, this has not advanced much, with just MAFF (and the Fisheries Administration within it) and MoWA having CC Focal Points or Technical Working Groups. The targets and performance indicators for Result 1 reflect general support to the various groups involved in climate change management, but they do not explicitly address the required operational tools, such as the necessary climate change policies, strategies, and plans. As such, these are not yet in place, and as a result, the guidance required for all the other CCCA initiatives is not yet clear or coherent. The process for developing the CCCSP has been delayed; there is now a rush to complete it. The MTR Team believes that the CCCSP perhaps needs more time than just a few months to be developed with consistency and coherence; more CCD guidance (with technical assistance) is required here.
The main proposed outcome from Result 2 is the whole spectrum of stakeholders and practitioners (national to sub-national to communities) being better informed with regard to climate change issues and knowing what practical approaches for climate change management might apply to them, so that they can actually implement something effectively. CCCA has done quite a good job of identifying the stakeholders and examining various media and communication approaches that pertain to each of the target groups; this is commendable. However, it is the content of the messages that is important. This needs to clearly articulate the risks and problems faced by individual vulnerable groups, the roles and responsibilities of various groups (Government and civil society), and the specific details of possible actions on the ground. Other initiatives within CCCA should be producing this “content”. There are many opportunities for this, especially within Results 4 and 5, and these should be “harvested” by the Team for Result 2. Clearly, there has been some achievement of outputs and outcomes within Result 2, with CCCA sponsoring several events, the most notable and visible being the 2nd National Climate Change Forum. There is probably increased public awareness of climate change issues (through efforts in Results 2 and 5; eventually Result 4 as well), although this is difficult to measure accurately. The climate change information centre needs to be located in a high traffic area in Phnom Penh, so that it is visible and actually used. This should help increase public access to climate change information. This information should include a list of all climate change initiatives in Cambodia, constantly updated.
The main measure of the Result 3 outcome is the fact that the TFS is functioning and the grant system has started; both very positive developments. The MTR Team believes that the basics are in place and that with another year/year and a half of successful operation, the TFS will be able to solicit additional funds (with or without the active involvement of the NCCC). There is good progress with this outcome and time left to consolidate results and fully examine options for a nationally-owned trust fund. It is unlikely, however, that the Government will have assumed full ownership of the Trust Fund and will have committed national funds to the TF by mid-2014. It is assumed by the MTR Team that the current modality of the TF can continue, or some hybrid version of it with a contracted TFA, until such time as national ownership can be obtained. The main point is that the TF serves an important purpose and is useful in its own right, regardless of who “owns” it.
With regard to Result 4 (the coastal component of CCCA), this initiative is only just getting underway, after a long and difficult formative stage. The proposed activities are appropriate for the intended objectives, but they are very ambitious for the remaining timeframe. A close analysis of the outputs listed in the UNDP-DHI contract and in the DHI Technical Proposal reveals a preponderance of “guides”, “guidance”, “considerations”, “assessments”, “analysis”, “development of plans”, “development of training materials”, “meetings/workshops”, and “establishment of monitoring and evaluation format”. Actual implementation of climate resilient actions remains obscure, and is a concern for the MTR Team, as it appears that only about 14% of the Result 4 budget is allocated to community implementation of climate resilient initiatives. There is a risk that financial commitments will be made to initiate coastal zone initiatives, and that these will not be completed within the CCCA timeframe, in a manner which would allow lessons to be learned and then to inform policy development/ reform. The MTR Team believes that progress and activities should be re-assessed (full evaluation and audit) at the end of 2012; there may then be a possibility of re-directing unused funds to other CCCA components.
With regard to Result 5, it is a significant achievement that eight grants are now underway, despite initial delays in defining and implementing the grant process. It is very encouraging that both the TFS and the grant system and new partnerships between Government and CSOs are now fully engaged, since these represent the “action” part of CCCA – facilitating mobilization of Government and communities as they address climate risks on-the-ground. However, more networking of grantees is required (sharing their lessons through several roundtables each year). Within the eight grants, there is a good cross-section of partnerships, with various Government/CSO collaborations, and all grants have strong sub-national elements. Although there is no apparent strategy to distribute grants geographically (for example, Siem Reap and Prey Veng have multiple grants), there is quite wide geographical distribution (at least 11 provinces), which is positive. In addition, most vulnerability types (agriculture, fisheries, coastal zone, forestry, urban/coastal planning, infrastructure climate proofing) are addressed, which is very positive for lessons learned. The missing elements include health issues, issues specific to gender, education opportunities (curriculum development), and water management (these could be prioritized in a second call, which should be initiated immediately). All grants (including the current ones) should have at least 18 months for implementation.
Some of the grants reflect too much academic research and not enough community experimentation, and some communities evidently were not too involved in designing the grant projects. Commune and village institutions will need to be bolstered within the individual grant projects, and this needs to be an explicit activity in all future grant proposals. Performance monitoring and reporting will be critically important for the grants (CCD should be involved in this, to learn more about on-the-ground climate change management). It will be important to report on the quality of the partnerships, the progress with specific climate vulnerability issues, and the sector and geographic spread of the grants, as well as the effectiveness of the capacity-building, institutional strengthening activities, and policy building implications within individual grant projects. There will a huge amount of information coming from the grant experiences that needs to feed back into Result 2 (for CCCA information dissemination) and also informing policy change and perhaps the CCCSP itself (Result 1).
In looking at the CCCA accomplishments to date, and the original design, one can say that the concept (with the exception of the coastal component, which stands by itself), is sound and coherent. All the required elements for climate change management in Cambodia are evident and appropriate, working with the correct set of partners and participants. There is sufficient scope to address national and sub-national needs and clear potential for practical linkages between participants and project activities (but this is only possible with effective project leadership). These potential positive elements of CCCA are not yet realized, but all the ingredients are in place; now patience and persistence are required to keep everything moving. CCCA represents a complex engagement of climate change stakeholders. It is, and will continue to be, a challenge to have them all share the same vision and commit high levels of energy to completing all their tasks. Very effective day-to-day leadership is required to achieve this; perhaps the PSB should meet more frequently as well, to monitor and re-direct as necessary.
There are several planning and management challenges evident in CCCA. CCCA budgeting in general does not relate to outputs, so it is very difficult to determine value-for-money with what has been achieved to date, and how best to invest the remaining funds to meet the overall objectives (this is most evident within Results 1 and 2; Results 3 and 5 are quite well-prescribed with their budgets and outputs). Measurement of results is constrained by inadequate performance indicators (all performance indicators in all five result areas need to be reviewed and made more functional). Capacity-building per se is not captured in the indicators, and without proper baselines, is difficult to determine the extent to which it has occurred, in any case. Examination of the expenditure reports suggests that little has been spent on specific capacity-building activities, whereas travel expenditures are quite a bit higher, which reflects different interpretations of capacity-building in the absence of clear performance indicators.
There is not full government ownership of CCCA, but there is certainly increased understanding and acceptance of the CCCA concept. A key constraint is the actual engagement of CCD (not fully staffed and lack of incentives). The next year is critical for creating traction between CCCA and CCD. No matter how this goes, the concept of a semi-autonomous climate change management agency, that encompasses the planning and implementation functions (including the TFS) should be explored and discussed (and not treated as a threat to CCD in the process). Linkages to other climate change initiatives, such as PPCR, will likely continue to be discussed, but the MTR Team is not hopeful that there will be full collaboration between CCCA and various other initiatives, until such time as CCCA has proved its worth, as a Government-owned concept that can then house other initiatives.
CCCA has had a difficult and slow start, but now has all the elements of Results 1 to 5 in place so that implementation and production of outputs can accelerate. Results 3 and 5 (the Trust Fund and the grants) are the best placed for action. Result 4 (coastal component) is underway, but faces time constraints. Results 1 and 2 (CCD capacity and policy development, and information management and dissemination) have been the most challenged, but seem to be catalyzing for action in 2012. CCD ownership of activities and outputs from Results 1 and 2 is still a concern. The MTR Team understands that additional consultant technical assistance is proposed for Results 1 and 2; they endorse this approach, despite previous skepticism about the value of technical assistance. Much will depend on the personal relationships between the consultants and CCD staff. Further effort is needed with the CCD organizational analysis and individual skill assessments and then development of responsive capacity-building for both the CCD and the CCTT. The latter should be opened up for limited representation from CSOs and universities.
A lot of time, effort, and funds have been invested in the gestation and initiation of CCCA activities, and now patience and persistence (and an extra year, to mid-2015) are needed to protect the investment. It will be important for other ministries to respect the mandate of CCD and the concept of CCCA (not undermine it) and for donors to be patient and stick with the CCCA momentum that has been achieved so far.
Key recommendations from the MTR include the following:
1. Bolster the Government and donor support for the CCD function as the main facilitator of climate change management in Cambodia; complete the organizational analysis of CCD and address skill gaps of both CCD and the CCTT; consider including CSO and university representation in the CCTT, and engage a leader for the CCTT.
2. In the next year, explore other modalities for a combined CCD coordination function and the TFS grant role (one body to set policy, provide grants, and coordinate on-the-ground climate change action).
3. Slow down the CCCSP process to ensure proper guidance and harmonization of approaches between the various ministries, as well as time to create an over-arching policy for the various sector strategic plans.
4. Clarify the climate change information needs of Government and solicit input from the public regarding what they believe can be done at the community level to improve climate resilience; consider awareness-raising for politicians and business leaders.
5. Consider establishing a climate change information centre in a high-traffic area in Phnom Penh and examine cost recovery options.
6. With the grant projects, ensure that there are consistent climate change management messages being conveyed at the community level, and organize information from the grant experiences for wider dissemination and to inform climate change policy development at the national level.
7. Set up time-series monitoring of public perceptions of climate change (similar to the KAP study); track all climate change projects in Cambodia and host a conference in 2013 to share experiences to date.
8. Maintain the current TFS modality for the next two years, but in the next year examine options for alternatives which would include the policy/planning aspect as well as the grant function, possibly in one semi-autonomous agency.
9. Consider extending CCCA to mid-2015, to accommodate all the grant projects, work on the CCCSP, and the coastal component.
10. Maintain strict monitoring of the coastal component, and conduct a full evaluation/audit at the end of 2012, to determine the probability of full completion of Result 4 activities within the CCCA timeframe (whether mid-2014 or mid-2015); ensure that full reporting of the GEF-funded components is provided to CCCA.
11. Complete the second call for grant proposals as soon as possible (with a focus on sectors not already addressed by current grants), and try to allow 18 months for completion of all grants (in the first and second calls); exclude current grantees from the second proposal call, but ensure networking between all grantees, so that lessons learned can be properly shared; provide training in proposal writing and performance indicators/M&E functions, as necessary; the TFS M&E function needs to be shadowed by CCD.
12. Enhance the gender aspects of the grants, including reporting of gender-disaggregated data; clarify the process for capturing lessons learned from the grants and the way that experiences will be used to inform new climate change policies.
13. Encourage community experimentation with climate resilient technologies and approaches and ensure that community institutions and processes are explicitly addressed by the grants.
14. Accelerate the consultant recruitment process and involve CCD in final selection of consultant.
15. Where appropriate within each of the Results areas, establish new/relevant performance indicators for capacity-building that track changes in skills, use of climate change planning and operational tools, development of institutions and processes, etc.
16. Include Result 4 and Result 5 performance indicators in the overall CCCA progress reporting (these are absent at the moment).
17. The PSB should meet four times per year to stay abreast of changes and requirements for CCCA decisions; all APRs should include clear plans for all Results areas to the end of CCCA, so that future plans can be properly reconciled to the accumulated activities to date.
18. Maintain a close watch on travel expenditures and ensure that the opportunity costs of travel are acceptable (that funding requirements elsewhere within CCCA are not foreclosed).
***
1. Introduction
1.1 Overview of the CCCA
The Cambodia Climate Change Alliance (CCCA) is a multi-donor initiative (funded by Sida, Danida, EC and UNDP; a total of US$ 8.9 million) with a comprehensive and innovative approach to address climate change in Cambodia. The CCCA aims at creating the enabling conditions required for Cambodia to respond to the challenges and opportunities posed by climate change. The approach is to focus on capacity building and institutional strengthening targeting key national institutions, sub-national authorities, and civil society. The CCCA includes a horizontal multi-donor Climate Change Trust Fund, administered by UNDP, which provides resources for the programme and for mainstreaming initiatives and to create a harmonized engagement point for donors, thereby minimizing transaction costs for Government.
The overall objective of the CCCA is to strengthen the capacity of the NCCC to fulfill its mandate to address climate change and to enable line ministries and CSOs to implement priority climate change actions.
The five expected key results of CCCA are:
1. Improved capacity to coordinate national policy making, capacity development, outreach/advocacy efforts, and to monitor the implementation of the national climate change strategy, policy and plans.
2. Improved access to updated climate change information, knowledge and learning opportunities at all levels.
3. Strengthened capacity within the NCCC to mobilize and to effectively administer climate change funds and to prepare for a nationally-owned trust fund.
4. Increased resilience of coastal communities and ecosystems to climate change through adaptation planning, demonstrated targeted local interventions and provision of practical learning experience in adaptation planning to the NCCC/CCD.
5. Strengthened capacity in RGC agencies and civil society organizations for developing and implementing climate change response initiatives in line with agreed national climate change priorities, independently or in partnerships, through access to new financial and technical resources.
The CCCA Programme is nationally implemented with the Ministry of Environment (MoE) as the Implementing Partner on behalf of the NCCC, and with UNDP providing implementation support. The CCCA Programme Document provides the legal basis for its implementation.
The CCCA Programme was initially designed for three years. However, due to delays experienced in the first year, a request for an extension up to mid-2014 is under formulation. The idea is to have the present set-up substituted by country systems, possibly a government-managed trust fund, in a later phase.
The CCCA is implemented with a programme-based approach which promotes coherence of inter-ministerial collaboration, sharing of information, and a focus on results. To ensure national ownership, the NCCC is responsible for overall guidance via a Programme Support Board (PSB). Technical soundness is achieved through the advice of the Climate Change Technical Team (CCTT) provided to the NCCC and PSB, with short term inputs of impartial/neutral individual experts for project proposal appraisal. The CCCA Trust Fund is being administered by UNDP as an interim arrangement to ensure maximum accountability and transparency, with assurance provided by a dedicated Trust Fund Administrator (TFA), embedded in the TF Secretariat. The latter was established following the decisions of the 3rd meeting of the Programme Support Board (held on 2 February 2011) to manage the day-to-day operation of the Trust Fund. The Secretariat is managed by the Head of Secretariat who is a Government appointee and reports to the PSB on the progress of the CCCA Programme.
Annex 4 presents details on the context for CCCA, including climate change issues and institutional players in Cambodia. These provide a background for the MTR analyses.
1.2 Purpose of the Mid-Term Review (MTR)
The main objectives of the CCCA Mid-Term Review are:
• to assess the overall progress to date of the CCCA and provide recommendations and proposed adjustments (if necessary) to ensure that the objectives and outcomes of the results framework of the programme can be achieved in the remaining time;
• to identify opportunities and challenges related to the design, implementation and management of the CCCA;
• to provide practical recommendations to enhance national ownership, and sustainability of the programme;
• to provide feedback and lessons learned to CCCA partners; and,
• to assess how the CCCA Programme is related to or compliments other climate change activities.
The MTR Report presents:
• the perceptions of the partners, participants, and beneficiaries consulted;
• key points from the programme documents and context literature, as they relate to the relevance, progress, and potential sustainability of the CCCA;
• the evidence for the reviewers’ observations and conclusions; and,
• recommendations for moving forward with the CCCA, in a constructive manner, based on the experience and sound judgment of the MTR Team.
2. Scope and Methodology of the Mid-Term Review
The ToRs for the MTR of the CCCA initiative are quite prescriptive regarding the level of effort, assignment timeframe, personnel, specific direction and objectives of the review, and the content of the final MTR report. These provided the frame for the MTR work plan. Details on the MTR scope, approaches, and methodologies are noted in Annex 1. The MTR schedule and list of people consulted are noted in Annex 2. All key CCCA documents were reviewed (see Annex 3) and representatives of all stakeholder and CCCA participant groups were consulted during the first two weeks of March 2012. They were given an opportunity to comment on CCCA progress to date and to provide recommendations for the remaining CCCA timeframe. A debriefing was given to CCCA partners and stakeholders on March 16, at which the preliminary MTR observations were communicated and additional comments from CCCA stakeholders were noted. Additional feedback from participants (via e-mail) was received by the MTR Team Leader over the following two weeks. The MTR findings are documented below. Key observations are highlighted in bold. These are then rolled up to a higher level analysis at the outcome level, which informs recommendations for the remaining CCCA timeframe.
3. Findings of the Mid-Term Review
3.1 Assessment of Progress Towards Outputs and Outcomes
3.1.1 Result 1: Capacity to coordinate national policy making, capacity development, outreach/advocacy efforts, and to monitor the implementation of the national climate change strategy, policy and plans.
Expectations and Achievements to Date
Result 1 focuses on the mandates of CCD and the NCCC in providing overall guidance and coordination of climate change management in Cambodia. This is where all the related activities and results (from Results 2 to 5) should be drawn in and used to improve the capacity of Government to create a vision, set policy, and facilitate logical and cohesive climate change interventions in the most effective manner possible. Although CCCA by itself is not supposed to actually develop policy and coordinate functions – it is intended to be a facilitation and support mechanism – the output indicators for Result 1 clearly anticipate that documentation on CC policy and legislation development is to be produced within the CCCA timeframe, the CCCSP is to be produced, and capacity gaps in CCD and NCCC are to be filled. In fact, Result 1 is managed by CCD with CCCA technical and financial support.
Activities and deliverables to date that are attributed by CCCA (in the APRs) to Result 1 include:
• CCD skill development process was initiated in 2010, but not completed.
• Baseline surveys from 7 of 20 ministries completed in 2011, to inform the CCCSP process.
• Establishment of the inter-ministerial Climate Change Technical Team (CCTT) in 2011, mirroring the membership of NCCC, to provide technical support to the NCCC (although this has not yet occurred).
• Three ministries/agencies (MAFF, Fisheries Administration, and Ministry of Women’s Affairs) have established specific climate change teams/working groups due to increased communication and advocacy through CCCA-supported mechanisms (CCTT, National Climate Change Forum, CCCA Trust Fund operation).
• CCCA funded some of the representation of key NCCC members and Government agencies in UNFCCC negotiations, such as COP16 and also COP17 in Durban (and other CC-related events), providing exposure and learning opportunities for those officials in negotiating Cambodia’s position in various climate change fora, as well as establishing a network with the international community. CCCA helped support the Ministry of Environment in developing the Cambodia negotiating position.
• The roadmap for the development of the Cambodia Climate Change Strategic Plan (CCCSP) endorsed by NCCC, and key stakeholders informed on the process through the Second National Forum on Climate Change and a stakeholder consultation meeting (17 priority sectors identified for the CCCSP). The key guiding principles, a vision/mission paper and a stocktaking paper on existing climate change policies in Cambodia to be disseminated in early 2012 (current status is unclear).
• A number of NCCC members and CCTT representatives exposed to regional training/workshops on topics such as REDD+, climate financing and gender mainstreaming, equipping them with new tools and knowledge to apply to ongoing or new initiatives in Cambodia.
The Result 1 activities that are noted for action in 2012 (noted in the 2012 implementation schedule and input-budget prepared by the Project Team) include the following:
• Completion of the CCCSP (at least the sector strategies).
• Reactivation of the CCD/NCCC capacity assessment process.
• UNFCCC travel support.
• Training workshops for CCTT members and CCD staff.
• Skills training for CCD/CCCA staff.
Analysis of Successes and Challenges
The platform for Result 1 should be a clear understanding of the CCD and NCCC mandates, institutional structures, staff competencies, and related policies and regulations (such as they exist), so that identified gaps and capacity needs can guide subsequent CCCA activities. CCCA refers to an earlier assessment of vulnerability and adaptation legislation (supported by UNEP in 2008), but surprisingly it has not been referred to at all by any stakeholders as a guiding document for CCCA. Therefore, there is a risk that previous climate change policy analyses are not serving as platforms for current work. Although the PSB has asked what exactly is meant by a policy, a strategic plan, and an action plan, and what should be the sequence of these, there is no CCCA clarity on this point that is evident to the MTR Team. In other words, CCCA documentation available to the MTR Team does not clarify what the project strategy is to support development of a vision of climate change management, what policies may be needed, or what might be in a strategic plan, or whether or not these should be developed first, to guide subsequent actions, or evolving later, after project actions inform such things. It is fine to learn how to develop policies and strategies as one goes, but having some kind of vision of what might be achieved is most useful in this kind of “organic” process, so that the appropriate experiences and outputs can be recognized and then directed in an organized manner.
For example, when CCD staff were asked about the Cambodia Climate Change Strategic Plan (CCCSP) process, there was discussion of the reasons for delays (lack of staff time for CCCA activities; slow recruitment of consultants; ineffective consultants, etc.) but little was articulated about the over-arching policies and strategies that should be guiding CCD and everyone else. There might also have been some assessment of NCCC understanding of and commitment to policy renewal and legislative reform. For example, it would be interesting to know how the attitudes of NCCC members have changed as a result of their involvement with COP 16 and 17[1] (NCCC members were not available to meet the MTR Team). Similarly, the MTR Team believes that it is important to solicit inputs from civil society and the private sector as a climate change strategy develops.
In any case, the advancement of the CCCSP is the centerpiece of Result 1. Its progress has been slow, with lack of technical support to guide it and CCD unable to push it independently, until recently. Development of the CCCSP has now been accelerated as a two-month exercise to be undertaken by each of the Line Ministries, using the roadmap prepared in 2011 to ensure a consistent approach. The roadmap defines the content and process for developing sector strategies, but not the overall objectives of the CCCSP. Strong CCCA guidance of the initiatives in each of the ministries will therefore be required to ensure that each Ministry initiative effectively contribute to a coherent CC strategy. The sooner the CCCSP is in place, the better, as all CCCA Results areas (1-5) should be contributing to a shared and well-understood concept of climate change management in Cambodia.
The NCCC is expected to be a main beneficiary of CCCA Result 1 activities, yet the NCCC itself is a nebulous entity. As a collective of about 20 people who meet several times a year and do not have a physical presence or even an entry point for other Government staff and civil society, they are difficult to access and engage. Nevertheless, CCCA has engaged them through travel support for the COP delegations, a few events developed under Result 2, and provision of information generated by both CCCA and other climate change projects, such as PPCR. The CCTT is expected to be the informer and driver of NCCC capacity change (receiving cues from CCCA/CCD), but CCTT members are not at the same level as the NCCC members, and their engagement and traction with NCCC is weak. CCTT itself has challenges, not having a leader, and basically being responsive to CCCA opportunities and informal calls for meetings.
Without a CCCSP to provide guidance, it has been impossible to link Result 1 activities and outputs to other CCCA activities (and other CC projects, such as PPCR, which is also expected to contribute to CC strategies and plans). For example, it is not clear that the policy implications of “on-the ground” experiences within the grants (Result 5) and the coastal adaptation initiative (Result 4) will be captured and directed back to CCD, or feed into the CCCSP process. The corollary is that the grants (Result 5) may not be properly addressing and testing policy gaps (such as climate change planning at the local level), as there is no overall strategic direction being provided (apart from some general sector criteria for the grant proposals and a requirement for partnerships between CSOs and Government).
No matter who drives the CCCSP process, it will be important to review the NAPA, NSDP, and CHDR (and other related documents that have CC content), to filter them for possible inputs to a new CCCSP. In the end, the CCCSP should not be a series of sector actions, but instead an overarching set of policies and guidance that provide direction and coherence to all Government entities and civil society with regard to climate change management in Cambodia. Individual responsibilities and coordinating mechanisms will need to be clarified, to avoid having each sector with its own course of actions, without clear accountability to CCD.
The MTR Team notes that the target for the CCCSP is to have just two sector policies referring to the CCCSP, even though nine Ministries will receive support from CCCA. This is not a very ambitious target. It does not make sense that, in working with all relevant ministries, most would be expected to default on their interest in and obligation to strategic climate change management. The lack of sector policies pertaining to climate change could completely undermine the efficacy of the overall CCCSP. The point here is that a strategy, if it is to actually work and provide guidance for all actions, must be taken up by all entities and stakeholders, not just some. These observations reinforce the MTR Team’s concern that there is a lack of clear vision on the purpose of a CCCSP. There are many large and small climate change initiatives which form a patchwork throughout the country, including the larger NAPA project on agriculture/water management and a whole suite of quite small CC projects that appear to have developed within separate sectors or at national and sub-national levels that do not presently reflect a coherent CC strategy.
With regard to the CCTT, which is supposed to be the bridge between the CCD and the NCCC, this group (representing 20 ministries) is quite new, and while this is a positive step, it lacks leadership. It also does not appear to have a concrete mandate and workplan, at least not one that was clearly articulated by CCTT members who were consulted by the MTR Team. The CCTT appears to be mostly responsive to the CCCA (CCD), rather than taking direction from the NCCC. As noted previously, it is possible that the NCCC members are not really aware of who is on the CCTT, and what service they might provide at the higher levels within ministries. Individuals in the CCTT can take advantage of events and training opportunities provided by the CCCA, which is positive. The CCCA LFA refers to one of the performance indicators for Output 1.2 being the number of review reports submitted to the NCCC, but a better measure of CCTT effectiveness would be the quality of advice that they provide to the NCCC. Nevertheless, establishing the CCTT and finally embarking on the CCCSP are two important steps in generating national buy-in and ownership of any initiatives related to climate change.
The real issue with Result 1 is that other planning and strategy processes (such as the NSDP) are (or have been) developed in relative isolation of the cross-cutting functions of the Ministry of Environment. In other words, the MoE has a tendency to look at what is mentioned in the way of climate change as part of its analysis of Government guiding documents, rather than being pre-emptive and providing guidance on pro-resilient development and growth in Cambodia. This unfortunately reflects the relatively light weight of MoE compared to the sector Line Ministries (reflected in the fact that only 7 of 20 ministries completed the baseline survey). In future, the NSDP process will need to be vetted by CCD (or some agency that provides the function), by first of all setting the CCCSP guidance that troubleshoots all sector development (determining the issues that can be factored in), then checking near the end of the process that climate resilient development has been optimized and harmonized (that individual sectors are not in conflict with others with regard to climate change resilience). Over time, the CCD (or some agency) should be seen as the single clearinghouse for all climate change development issues.
The proposed Capacity Development Plan for CCD and NCCC was always expected to be a key component of CCCA, and should have been undertaken to inform all the other activities within CCCA. This would include an analysis of the mandate and institutional structure of both CCD and the NCCC and individual skill upgrading plans for members of both. Without the Capacity Development Plan, there is no clear sense from year to year that the priority needs of NCCC and CCD are being addressed. Instead, there is a risk that activities could tend to be responsive to events, rather than being preemptive in capacity-building. Some work in capacity assessment was set up in 2010, but not completed, and there is currently no CTA who is driving this process (there have been ongoing difficulties in retaining effective consultants).
Slow recruitment processes and past difficulties in creating traction between technical assistance consultants and CCD have slowed down delivery of CCCA activities within Result 1. While recruitment of technical assistance consultants for Result 1 seems to be picking up pace (there are at least four positions open at the moment), the overall plan for technical assistance through to the end of CCCA is unclear to the MTR Team. CCD is not fully staffed, in any case, and this presents a challenge to just undertaking routine daily activities (if such can be defined). There are also challenges in getting CCD staff involvement in CCCA activities, due to lack of incentives and perhaps too frequent travelling, which leaves work undone in Cambodia. The CCCA budget support for CCD (and other MoE) travel also has an opportunity cost – fewer funds for CCD support activities in Cambodia (this is examined further in Section 3.3).
Regarding the CCCA intention to bolster Cambodia’s negotiating capacity in the international climate change arena, actual negotiation capacity changes would be hard to measure, without a solid baseline. However, there are some signs (anecdotal) that individuals involved with the COP activities are more familiar with the terms and issues and able to maintain informed dialogue on climate change issues (and COP17 activities have been disseminated in Cambodia, which is positive). Regarding development of climate change management capability, certainly some progress has been made within some ministries (MAFF and MoWA, and MoE of course). MoWA, in particular, is quite impressive in the size and organization of their CC group, and their apparent enthusiasm for involvement in climate change initiatives. Establishment of multi-stakeholder CC mainstreaming roadmaps (Output 1.6) seems to hinge on a relevant, detailed and practical CCCSP, which has not yet been developed. In the meantime, government and CSO activities (ongoing and in the near-term, especially under Result 5) will not necessarily be addressing priority climate change mainstreaming needs, as they have not been articulated in any harmonized fashion.
One of the issues evident throughout the objectives for Result 1 is that many of the targets appear to be somewhat arbitrary. Most are numerical targets, or ratios, and not very ambitious. For example: 25% achievement in filling capacity gaps, with these not clarified in the first place (why not 50%?), or 50% of the policy, regulatory and legal gaps addressed, again without the gaps being clear in the first place. Especially regarding policy and regulations, these must be developed coherently and fully in place: half a policy is no policy. With developing institutional and staff capacity and the evolution of strategies and policies (people having the appropriate tools and using them effectively), the targets and performance indicators need to be more qualitative, expressing the nature of capacity change and the usefulness of any tools that are developed. For example, with regard to the CCCSP, the innovativeness, coherence, and practicality of the strategy, and the extent to which it is taken up by stakeholders, would be more useful indicators than whether or not the CCCSP is endorsed.
Progress Towards the Outcome: Improved capacity to coordinate national policy making, capacity development, outreach/advocacy efforts, and to monitor the implementation of national climate change strategy, policy, and plans.
The Result 1 outcome clearly centres on the capacity and tools of the CCD, CCTT, and the NCCC, as the institutional “hub” of climate change management in Cambodia. Somewhat on the periphery are the sector ministries which are expected to organize themselves with climate change focal points. CCD is at the core of Result 1 activities, expected to drive the process of creating the CCCSP and related policies, serving as the Secretariat for the NCCC and generally providing guidance to the CCTT, which in turn is expected to maintain the link back to the Ministries. At the same time, CCD is expected to build its own capacity, with the sporadic inputs and support of consultants. CCTT is in the middle area, looking for cues from CCD and then having a very undefined relationship with the NCCC, which is not an entity that can be dealt with on a day-to-day basis, as noted previously.
As described, it is very clear that the possibility of achieving outcome level results (Result 1) is challenged. Nevertheless, CCD, CCTT, and the NCCC are the defined institutional “players” and no alternative stakeholders, entities, or arrangements should be cultivated at this point; otherwise, the current mechanisms, such as they are, would be completely undermined. Despite the challenges, the effort must be made, and persistence and patience are required to help CCD, CCTT, and the NCCC to develop their capacity. The MTR Team does believe that alternative modalities that also include the Trust Fund function should be seriously examined as part of the CCCA mandate over the next two years, but only to perhaps put something in place about 5 years from now (this is discussed elsewhere).
Having said this, there has been some progress towards achievement of the Result 1 outcome, based on the 2012 targets. The CCD has an increased profile in its dealings with the NCCC (performing as a Secretariat), and has been more actively involved in supporting the preparations for the COP process and dissemination of that process in Cambodia. The CCD is, however, not fully staffed, and its ability to maintain a grip on daily activities and to plan ahead is quite constrained (lack of staff and lack of incentives for extra work, meaning there is a dependence on consultants, who have had a weak and inconsistent record with CCD).
The CCTT is in place, which is a significant achievement, but it lacks leadership and tends to be responsive to cues from the CCD, not taking direction from the NCCC. The CCTT is not yet defining its own pre-emptive course of actions. With regard to the Ministries having CC Focal Points, this has not advanced much, with just MAFF (and the Fisheries Administration within it) and MoWA having CC Focal Points or Technical Working Groups. Apart from Ministry access to grants under Result 5, there is not much specific action within CCCA (and as yet no CCCSP) to encourage individual ministries to establish their own CC functions and mechanisms. The achievement of this part of the outcome will depend a great deal on the vision and dynamism of the Ministers and Directors within individual ministries, not CCCA.
When the actual outcome statement is examined, it is apparent that the real outcome is having the necessary policies, strategies, and plans in place. These are the operational tools of all the institutions targeted in Result 1, yet they are not articulated in either the targets or the performance indicators for Result 1. This again reveals the CCCA focus on setting up the people and the groups, which is appropriate, but not yet being able to help them develop the tools that they will rely on day-to-day.
3.1.2 Result 2: Access to updated climate change information, knowledge and learning opportunities at all levels.
Expectations and Achievements to Date
Result 2 is focused on strategies to acquire and disseminate climate change-related information, much of which should be emanating from CCCA activities (Results 1, 3, 4, and 5). This requires the establishment of staffing and mechanisms to actually do this and to have both an Internet presence and a physical presence (a library or information centre) to facilitate the flow of information and public access to it. For many people, this will be the “face” or profile of CCCA, and this should be made distinct from all the other climate change information that is currently available (adding value to the current information platform).
Activities and deliverables to date that are attributed by CCCA (in the APRs) to Result 2 include:
• Production of some dissemination materials for CCCA.
• Drafting a Public Information Strategy and CCD review.
• Assistance to CCD in preparing the KAP study launch.
• Organization and execution of the 2nd National Climate Change Forum (approximately 1,000 participants, from a broad spectrum, over three days, with 300 participants involved in the technical sessions).
• Climate Change Education and Awareness Strategy for 2012-2014 drafted.
• Mini-library in place at CCD, with about 18 visitors/month.
• Ongoing development of the NCCC website concept.
• CCD website active (about 2,000 visitors to date).
• CC training at Samdech Chasim Kamchay Mea University (300 participants).
• Six TV shows (CTN) and a youth TV show supported by CCCA.
• Five radio talk show programmes to raise CC awareness.
• Two media briefings and three press conferences.
• Assistance to CCD and UNDP in organizing the CHDR launch and its communication plan.
The Result 2 activities that are noted for action in 2012 include the following:
• Support to finalization of the SNC (part-time Communication Advisor).
• CHDR dissemination.
• CC video documentary production.
• COP 17 debriefing event (already done).
• Launch of SNC and Education and Awareness Strategy.
• Printing of CC publications (KAP and CHDR in Khmer and English).
• Youth debate programmes and some other youth involvement activities.
• Organization of public events in line with international and national calendars to promote public involvement and awareness-raising, such as World Environment Day and Tree Planting Day.
• Preparation of media training to raise their CC knowledge and inform them of CC progress.
• CC awareness-raising for commune council members.
• Facilitate targeted key line ministries noted in the Education and Awareness Strategy in submitting proposals to the CCCATF for funding.
• Drafting the concept for CC awareness-raising and information sharing through TV and radio programmes in 2012, to assure good implementation in early 2013.
• Drafting the concept and gathering data and materials for a National CC Information and Learning Center in 2012, to assure establishment in early 2013.
Analysis of Successes and Challenges
The centerpiece of Result 2 is a National CC Information and Knowledge Management Strategy. This is expected to provide the overall guidance to all climate change information acquisition and dissemination in Cambodia, within the mandate of CCD. There was good progress in getting this in place initially, then it slowed somewhat. There was a year of “staging”, during which information dissemination concepts were captured in various draft documents. Now another consultant is being hired to move this activity along and the National CC Information and Knowledge Management Strategy is being revised according to the recent CCD review in March 2012. There is still lingering concern about the possible uptake of the information dissemination functions by CCD, as this work is presently being done by a person hired specifically for the CCCA.
The various deliverables to date need some clarification. First of all, there is the Public Information Strategy (which identifies information types and media, and serves as an internal guiding document for both CCD and MoE). The intent is to help CCD and MoE raise climate change awareness and to raise the profile of both the CCD and MoE as the main information providers with regard to climate change. The Climate Change Education and Awareness Strategy (different title from the main output noted in the CCCA LFA and referred to above) has a slightly different focus. It is intended to raise public awareness of climate change through support to Line Ministries. The MoWA, Ministry of Information, and MoEYS are the first targets, in which CCCA will provide support for sector action plans and proposals for the CCCA Trust Fund. The CCCA Communication and Visibility Plan identifies the information needs of various target groups and how they will be addressed in 2012-2013 with activities and an expected timeframe (it is an internal guidance document, with the main audience being the donors). There is also reference to a CCCA Trust Fund Communication Plan for 2012. It appears that the Climate Change Education and Awareness Strategy is the over-arching strategy. It does have an associated Communication Action Plan, or at least a Communication Work Plan for 2012, and there is reference to formal and non-formal education, DRR, adaptation, mitigation and sector communication plans, so it seems to be situated at a higher level.
The CCE&A Strategy is expected to support the CCCSP, with openings for sector approaches, but as the CCCSP hasn’t been produced yet, the communication strategy does not have the actual “substance” in place to transmit. The risk here is that there may be a lack of coherence to the climate change “message” that is to be conveyed. An additional challenge is that the actual information platform is not in place. There is no physical library, although there is a small collection of documents at CCD, and there is a website, with more than 2,000 visitors to date (which is positive). However, in general, public access to information is quite restricted.
Not all documents that might be available on the platform are actually produced by CCCA, but that is not an issue. There is wide scope for a range of documents from various sources. The CHDR especially is a very useful round-up of all current climate change issues in various sectors. It is not clear what exactly CCCA is doing in the way of promoting coordinated Vulnerability and Adaptation Assessments. However, completion of the SNC (a very slow process, running over the last 4 years) should help consolidate current assessments of vulnerability and adaptation in the various regions in Cambodia. Results from the grants under Result 5 should also feed into this.
There has been very good progress with planning and delivery of the 2nd National Climate Change Forum. The range of content and wide spectrum of stakeholders has been impressive and media coverage was quite good. The CC Forum seems to be the main vehicle for informing members of the NCCC (and other stakeholders) about the latest CC initiatives.
The process to select a location and establish a climate change information centre has stalled, because of indecision about whether or not to keep the centre in the MoE, or in various universities. CCCA has set an arbitrary target of 2,000 visitors per year for the Information Centre (about 8/day). The MTR Team believes that a centre in a high traffic area in Phnom Penh, with potential for revenue generation (selling climate change information, maps, photographs, etc.), is an option worth exploring, and would significantly increase the visibility of climate change actions. There is a target of 300 Khmer entries and 1,000 English entries in the information database; although somewhat arbitrary, it is a significant target if such documents can be obtained. Nevertheless, the quality of the documents and their utility is more important than the quantity of documents. The location for the Information Centre needs to be selected soon and made operational before the end of CCCA.
In the meantime, there are alternative sources of information. The CCD website is quite useful, and has good potential with more information populating it and increased user-friendliness. In fact, there is an abundance of information on the Internet regarding climate change in Cambodia, if the time is taken to trawl through the many websites that host this information. It is expected that the website will be upgraded, in which case the public information on the Internet can be made available through downloads and weblinks.
There has not been any extensive CCCA outreach campaign as yet (presumably the various strategies need to be fully endorsed and funded first). Nevertheless, the CCCA support to training at Samdech Chasim Kamchay Mea University (not well documented, however) and the various TV and radio shows (also not documented with specific storyboards), as well as the media briefings fit the theme. Clearly, there has been increased media attention to climate change issues. The 2nd National Climate Change Forum was a significant opportunity for visibility. CCCA does articulate more active engagement with the media. This is positive, and there is a plan to provide more CC training to the media, so that they can properly report on the various technical issues. The CCCA target for this activity is, however, difficult to achieve and measure (50% increase in media coverage of climate change issues). Apparently, CCCA staff maintain a media file on a regular basis, so it might be possible to determine if media coverage has increased, but it will certainly be difficult to attribute any increased media attention to CCCA.
The results coming from the grants under R5 should present many more opportunities for information dissemination (activities actually “on-the-ground”), and these should be of interest to the media. On the other hand, it is the grants under R5 that provide the route into the vulnerable regions and sectors, and the information being advocated by the eight grantees should be checked by CCD information staff for usefulness and coherence, or at least logged with them, for later reference.
The indicators for Result 2 should actually reflect implementation and performance of the National CC Information and Knowledge Management Strategy, not just its endorsement. The effectiveness of information sharing and knowledge management would then be reflected in the actions of Government and civil society (how well they implement CC initiatives). Rather than the number of documents on the information platform, it would be more useful to note the relevance, innovativeness, and utility of documents. Similarly, the delivery of the Annual Climate Change Forum can be better measured by attendance and range of stakeholders, as well as development of any consensus-based policy directions, as a result of attendance at the Forum. Although it is a noble goal to improve public awareness of climate change issues and approaches, it is almost impossible to measure the extent to which the whole of the public is reached by any information campaigns, let alone the extent to which the campaign message has any impact in changing public behavior regarding climate change.
The main challenges for Result 2 appear to be engagement of CCD in the information management aspects of CCCA and the sporadic inputs from consultants (although picking up over the next year). There is also a problem with the staff member hired for the communication role not knowing what budget she has to work with, and therefore waiting for approval of specific activities. Not having a physical location for a library or information centre is also a serious concern (this needs to be addressed as soon as possible).
Almost $355,000 was spent on R2 to the end of 2011 (this is almost half the budget for R2). It is impossible to assess value-for-money without specific expenditure reporting for each output. Nevertheless, one can assume that there is a risk that R2 will produce various information dissemination strategies and plans, but not actually implement most or all of them in the CCCA timeframe, in which case value-for-money would end up being quite low. There is a need to pick up the experiences from the Result 5 grants and feed lessons learned into the information dissemination actions as soon as possible.
Progress Towards the Outcome: Improved access to updated CC information, knowledge and learning opportunities at all levels.
The main proposed outcome from Result 2 is the whole spectrum of stakeholders and practitioners (national to sub-national to communities) being better informed with regard to climate change issues and knowing what practical approaches for climate change management might apply to them, so that they can actually implement something effectively. It is not just the branding and visibility of CCCA, or reporting on climate change events; information must have very practical application to individuals to be relevant and retained. CCCA has done quite a good job of identifying the stakeholders and examining various media and communication approaches that pertain to each of the target groups; this is commendable. At the end of the day, however, it is the content that is important. This needs to clearly articulate the risks and problems faced by individual vulnerable groups, the roles and responsibilities of various groups (Government and civil society), and the specific details of possible actions on the ground, and how these are encouraged, funded, monitored, and enforced. Other initiatives within CCCA should be producing this “content”, if it is not coming from Result 2 activities.
The indicators and targets for the CCCA Result 2 outcome reflect a different perspective from the one just described. There is a focus on the number of events, rather than the relevance and practicality of the “content”. Similarly, there is interest in the extent to which the public knows what the main causes and impacts of climate change are (if this could even be measured). More relevant, as noted above, is whether or not the public knows what to do about climate change at the individual, household, or community level. The third performance indicator is closer to the point, with interest in development projects that address climate risk. But, the target is only 20% of development projects, and it is not clear how CCCA can really influence this ratio, apart from the projects funded under Results 4 and 5. The baseline is currently unknown; there is still no up-to-date catalogue of all development projects in Cambodia that may have a climate change perspective.
At this point, it is impossible to measure accurately the progress of CCCA Result 2 towards the outcome. However, clearly there has been some positive movement towards all three proposed targets, with CCCA sponsoring several events, the most notable and visible being the 2nd National Climate Change Forum. There is probably increased public awareness of climate change issues (through efforts in Results 2 and 5; eventually Result 4 as well). Results 4 and 5 will be the main CCCA effort in shaping development projects that address climate change resilience. There are many other climate change management initiatives in Cambodia (funded by other donors and within other ministries and agencies) that are also addressing climate resilience within development projects; separating out the CCCA influence in the whole spectrum will be difficult.
3.1.3 Result 3: Capacity within the NCCC to mobilize and effectively administer climate change funds and to prepare for a nationally-owned trust fund.
Expectations and Achievements to Date
Result 3 is centred on the establishment of the Trust Fund Secretariat and the disbursement and monitoring of funds for small grants. It is basically a management and administrative function embedded within a project, that is expected to be assumed by the Government (national ownership), and that serves smaller projects nested within a larger project. In an ideal arrangement, the Trust Fund Secretariat would be both the holder and manager of the overall Cambodia climate change strategy, knowing the most critical climate change management needs, as well as the disburser of all funds available in Cambodia to address those critical needs. Assuming just one entity has this responsibility, this would ensure that investments in climate resilience would always be directed to the maximum benefit (in terms of lives and livelihoods saved) for the minimum cost, in a descending order of priority as the critical issues are addressed first.
The Trust Fund is expected to create an efficiency for donors and Government, in committing funds that are not designated for specific actions, but which are pooled for a thematic approach to climate change management, to be decided by the Trust Fund Secretariat, with appropriate technical review of proposals and other inputs and oversight. This is the interpretation of the MTR Team. Ideally, the effectiveness, transparency, and full accountability of the Trust Fund create confidence in the mechanism which in turn serves as a draw for additional donor funds. The assessment below explores how the Trust Fund function has actually developed, compared to the modality described above.
Activities and deliverables to date that are attributed by CCCA (in the APRs) to Result 3 include:
• Trust Fund Secretariat established and staffed.
• Guidelines for grant applications completed.
• Trust Fund Operational manual completed.
• Initial examination of Trust Fund modalities in other locations.
• First call for grant proposals; 8 selected from 60 concept notes.
• Orientation sessions for new grantees.
• Partnerships between government and CSOs at the national and provincial levels cultivated by the 8 grants.
The Result 3 activities that are noted for action in 2012 include the following:
• Hiring of a new Trust Fund Administrator.
• Finalization of grant guidelines, based on experience to date.
• Completion of drafting of monitoring and evaluation procedures.
• Second call for proposals and technical review.
• Orientation workshops for new grantees.
• Climate Public Expenditure and Institutional Review (CPEIR), now underway.
• Monitoring and evaluation of current grants.
• Effort to secure new funds for Trust Fund.
Analysis of Successes and Challenges
There has been very good progress with this output, with all the necessary operational procedures in place and now being implemented (quite effectively) with the first call for proposals completed. There was a two-stage process, to cull the early concepts, which allowed serious development of proposals from the most appropriate grantees (but taking about eight months). Eight grantees were selected, and grant activities are underway in all cases, although now operating within a 15-month timeframe, instead of 18 months. All grantees seem to understand the process and their reporting and financial obligations. Some find the process a bit overwhelming, but this is required for full accountability. The Trust Fund Secretariat is almost fully staffed (there are two outstanding positions currently being filled). The monitoring and evaluation function is only just getting underway and may be a challenge initially for all involved, depending on the quality and practicality of the performance indicators for each of the eight grants. A key result of the Trust Fund process so far is catalyzing a good range of government/CSO partnerships in various sectors throughout most climate-vulnerable areas in Cambodia.
The experience with the first call for proposals should help inform and streamline the process for selecting and approving new grants (learning-by-doing). Overall, despite a slow start (delays in 2010), the process appears to be rigourous and effective in initiating “on-the-ground” climate change management projects. Note, however, that this is not unique in Cambodia. There have been other small projects supported by CCBAP and various CSOs, and others are planned, some in the same provinces as CCCA. Over time, the TFS might be more strategic in ensuring that certain locales, sectors, and partners are able to be engaged, so that all strategic directions (which may eventually be articulated in the CCCSP) can be addressed by the TF. This will require a full registration and cataloguing (including location, adaptation theme, sector, beneficiary types, capacity building objectives, etc.) of all climate change initiatives in Cambodia. This should be a main function of both the TFS and the CCD.
The CCTT has not had a deep involvement in the appraisal and approval of the eight grants. The MTR Team understands that the CCTT just reviewed the final selection of the eight grants, rather than contributing to the technical appraisal of all Concept Notes which led to the culling. The CCTT (when met) did not articulate much involvement in the process. The Concept Notes and final proposals were apparently reviewed by independent experts and then the PSB. Clearly, this function needs to be more embedded within the TFS itself, over time. Grant priorities were in agriculture, forestry, water, and coastal zone, which reflect the NAPA priorities, and partnerships between Government and CSOs were encouraged, which is very positive. The level of funding appears to be appropriate for the financial management capabilities of the grantees ($150,000 - $300,000, depending on whether or not Government or a CSO).
There is an issue looming as the current TFA is leaving. There may be a “learning curve” with a new person, which could affect the selection of new grants and the monitoring and evaluation of the existing grants. The second call for proposals should be launched as soon as possible and hopefully with an accelerated review and approval process. The MTR Team believes that current grantees should be excluded, and sectors not currently being addressed by grants could be emphasized (see R5 below).
One of the proposed outputs for the TFS is attracting additional funding. The problem here is that the TF needs to define itself and prove its worth with the first round of grants, to instill confidence in the TF mechanism and its ability to address key climate change issues in various sectors, with unique partnerships, and in the most vulnerable parts of Cambodia. In the meantime, other ministries maintain their own climate change projects which compete for donor funding. This may continue for a while, until there is Government policy otherwise. Given these circumstances, the TFS has made a conscious decision to not pursue additional funds (apart from what is in the current CCCA donor commitments). In any case, the TFS is very busy ensuring that the existing grants are being implemented effectively.
The MTR Team believes that the TFS and its mechanisms are solid (the proper functioning of the TFS has reflected the skills and dedication of the first TFA). Donors could continue to support the facility and the nature of grants that are currently in the portfolio. Although only just getting underway, the current grants all have merit, and should inspire confidence that the TFS and grant concepts are appropriate, sound, and workable (worthy of further donor financial support). This can continue in the current mode (with a dedicated TFA), even if not inserted within Government. In the meantime, a mechanism for morphing the TFS into a Government structure (or otherwise; for example, as a semi-autonomous agency) needs to be fully explored as a discrete CCCA activity in the next year.
The LFA for CCCA gives due attention to the monitoring and evaluation (M/E) of all the grants, which is critically important. The grants are only just getting underway, but they will need quick attention to ensure that they are getting started on the right foot (any mis-steps now will be magnified over time). The M/E team has been put in place, which is positive. However, the MTR Team has not seen the M/E guidelines; they need to be completed very soon (if not already done) and they should be based on realistic performance indicators for each of the grants. M/E of the grants, of course, should include review of expenditures (an administrative/audit type function, which dominates in the LFA for this output), but more important is the achievement of climate change adaptation capability (the whole point of the grants), and whether or not the expenditures represent good value-for-money. Frequent monitoring will pick up potential delays. With short-duration grants (15-18 months) it is very important to anticipate these and act on them, rather than wait for them to unfold. Grantee reporting will be critical, but these reports should be followed-up with spot checks, as well (perhaps unannounced, to ensure an accurate picture of what is going on at the ground-level).
It will be very important to communicate to each of the grantees the M/E process that they will be subjected to, and how they are supposed to undertake monitoring themselves, in support of their progress reports. The key to effective M/E (and the grant design in the first place) is to establish realistic performance indicators that truly reflect capacity change, procedural development, and innovation. This does require training, and is better done before a project/programme is designed, to ensure that it can actually deliver capacity change. M/E functions require good observational skills and an understanding of development. Otherwise, M/E tends to default to “administrative monitoring”, in which expenditures and production of reports dominate, rather than understanding capacity change. Currently, the grantees have contracts with UNDP, but the M/E function resides with the TFS. CCD may have little traction with this M/E function, yet much can be learned in that process.
The LFA notes assessment of similar national and international programmes and financing mechanisms (including TFs). The plan for this activity is not very clear to the MTR Team. Having a target of 20 assessments of other TF modalities is arbitrary (5 might work, if well selected). The proper development of a Trust Fund (one that suits CC in Cambodia) modality requires a clear vision of the purpose of the Fund, its target clients, and expected scale of operations. More will be gained from understanding how the current TFS operates and its potential effectiveness, then making adjustments as necessary, compared to detailed examination of other modalities. The important point here is that the TFS is up and running and already has the basic requirements in place. With a new TFA coming in, it may be difficult to make review of TF modalities an extra task (in addition to managing the current grants and setting up the second call for proposals).
The MTR Team believes that examination of the CCD/TF function (a single clearing-house for CC planning and management of grants; the actual intention and orientation of the CCCA itself) needs to be an explicit CCCA task over the next year. This could include examining the option of a semi-autonomous or independent agency, with performance-based remuneration for staff and options for revenue-generation; something that could be developed over 5-10 years. There is reference to a scoping mission on a climate fiscal framework being conducted in December 2011, but the MTR Team is unclear about the recommendations from this mission. With the establishment of the TFS already, after much thought and staffing, any changes would have to be subtle differences compared to what is apparently working now, rather than a radical re-starting of the TF function in some other manner. The real question is not how a trust fund should operate (this mechanism is quite logical and well-tested), but where it operates and with whom, and who makes the final decisions regarding the selection of grants, with transparency and full accountability. Government needs to be fully involved in any discussions of the TF modality, in order for them to fully understand the implications and nuances associated with grant management. Detailed examination of the current TFS experience should be the main platform for analysis and discussion with Government (MoE in particular).
As with the other CCCA Results, it is difficult to determine value-for-money or cost effectiveness of the expenditures to date. However, given the relationship between Result 3 and Result 5, some assessment can be attempted. The full cost of Result 3 (the TFS and related tasks) can be considered the management overhead associated with the activities under Result 5. With some of the expenditures to date being assigned to establishing the TFS itself, the total cost to the end of 2011($298,428) is about 26% of the funds advanced to date (but not expended) for the 8 grants. A usual management overhead ratio for delivery of development activities is about 20-25%, so the ratio of 26% is quite acceptable in the start-up phase. Note again, however, that the grant funds are not expended; they are shown as commitments in the books, as they have only been advanced. Overall, the ratio of R3 to R5 budgets is 34%, which is quite high, but only if new funding is not brought to CCCA, as a result of efforts of the TFS. If additional funding is secured, due to the effectiveness of the TFS, then the ratio of management costs to funding to be delivered as grants is expected to be lower (hopefully in the 20-25% range). There is a target of $4 million in additional funding (note that the outcome level indicates $2.1 million, for some reason), which would possibly fit the current absorptive capacity of CCCA and grantees, assuming that this is $1.3 million/year for three years, and also assuming that additional funds would then trigger a time/additional cost extension of at least the TFS and the grant system.
There is a lingering concern, however, with the fact that some of the grants themselves have grant systems embedded within them (see discussion of Result 5 below), in which the grantees then have a management overhead associated with the selection and monitoring of their own grants (grants nested within grants). An additional concern here is that with these “grant” funds (within the CCCA overall grant) as yet undefined, there will be a problem with selection, implementation, and monitoring/lessons learned with these smaller sub-grants.
Progress Towards the Outcome: Strengthened capacity within the NCCC to mobilize and to effectively administer climate change funds and to prepare for a nationally owned trust fund.
The outcome statement makes reference to the NCCC having strengthened capacity to mobilize and effectively administer climate change funds. This is the first reference to NCCC within Result 3; all the output statements make no reference to the NCCC at all. In fact, the TFS operates within CCD and has accountability to the CCCA PSB. There may be little awareness within the NCCC of the actual operations of the TFS, which reflects the nature of the NCCC more than anything else, being an occasional assemblage of Ministers without a physical presence or its own mechanisms, and hard to actually engage with.
The main measure of the Result 3 outcome is the fact that the TFS is functioning and the grant system has started. The MTR Team believes that the basics are in place and that with another year/year and a half of successful operation, the TFS will be able to solicit additional funds (with or without the active involvement of the NCCC). There is good progress with this outcome and time left to consolidate results and fully examine options for a nationally owned trust fund. It is unlikely, however, that the Government will have assumed full ownership of the Trust Fund and will have committed national funds to the TF by mid-2014. It is assumed by the MTR Team that the current modality of the TF can continue, or some hybrid version of it with a contracted TFA, until such time as national ownership can be obtained. The main point is that the TF serves an important purpose and is useful in its own right, regardless of who “owns” it.
3.1.4 Result 4: Resilience of coastal communities and ecosystems to climate change through adaptation planning, demonstrated targeted local interventions and provision of practical learning experience in adaptation planning to the NCCC/CCD.
Expectations and Achievements to Date
This component of the CCCA project (US$ 2.2 million) is the single largest initiative (Result 5 has a larger budget, but spread over a number of small grants). What is referred to as the “Implementation of Coastal Adaptation and Resilience Planning” has a history pre-dating the CCCA itself, and comes from ten years of previous development initiatives in the coastal zone of Cambodia, most of this implemented by DHI (DHI Water Environment Health). The coastal component only started in November 2011, mostly due to concerns and delays related to contracting, initially proposed with UNEP, then approved as a sole source to DHI. The overall DHI proposal for the coastal component in fact includes seven outputs. GEF is funding Outputs 1-5, whereas CCCA is funding Outputs 6 and 7, which includes:
• Improved climate change knowledge integrated into land use and coastal development plans; and,
• Increased resilience of coastal communities and coastal ecosystem buffers to climate change and improved livelihoods.
Although there has been some preparatory work since November 2011, the official launch (both the CCCA and GEF components) was in March 2012. The current UNDP contract with DHI specifies a completion by end-December 2012, but allows for a no-cost extension if CCCA itself is extended.
The contract is set up for 12 deliverables as follows:
1. Development of land use planning guide by integrating climate change consideration for coastal area.
2. Developed climate change considerations suggested for integration into the Commune Development Plans in targeted areas.
3. Assessment of implementation capacity of demonstration activities.
4. Assessment of current coping strategies in target communities in relation to flooding, drought and extreme events.
5. Vulnerability and risk assessment of community livelihoods in target districts.
6. A review analysis of the vulnerability of existing agricultural practices to the impacts of climate variability and climate change.
7. Analysis of economic and social costs and benefits of options for modified agricultural practices and fuel wood production.
8. Assessment of training needs and implementation of training in FWUCs with regard to climate risk management, involving local authorities.
9. Development of a detailed implementation plan for community adaptation demonstrations.
10. Development of guidance for climate-resilient irrigation design.
11. Development of training materials for scaling-up and adoption of modified procedures.
12. Establishment of a monitoring and evaluation format for assessing benefits of demonstration activities.
These coastal activities will be confined to Peam Krasaop in Koh Kong and Prey Nup in Sihanoukville. Nine international consultants and five national consultants are specified for the CCCA component. There is due emphasis on developing coordination mechanisms, strengthening local government, development of awareness for community members, training of various sorts, operation and maintenance of water resources/flood protection and mangrove rehabilitation, introduction of diversified agricultural crops, and integration of resilient farming practices and fuel wood production in existing activities. This suggests a balance between planning and training, and actual implementation of climate resilient alternatives. Note that the description for Output 4 includes provision of practical learning experience in adaptation planning to the NCCC/CCD, which means that they need to have very specific entry points into the coastal component activities.
The coastal component is only just starting, so there are no activities and deliverables to date that can be described and assessed (there is no apparent progress towards outputs and the outcome). The MTR Team has therefore focused on the history of the coastal component and its design and proposed implementation structure.
Assessment of Design and Implementation Structure
There has been a long and difficult evolution of the Coastal Component (Result 4). Although coastal component staff are now being mobilized and some planning of specific activities within the overall Coastal Project (Results 1-7; with 1-5 funded by GEF) has been undertaken, there is a legacy of administrative fatigue, concern about the undue attention that the coastal component has received without it even being in place, and now some trepidation about this large set of activities that must be completed very quickly. There is also concern that the GEF funded activities are not very well known to the CCCA partners, and even the CCCA-funded coastal component has been in its own sphere, without any functional linkages made to Results 1-3 and 5 and to CCD, so far. There is a need to let the coastal component get underway, give it a chance, but it also needs very close scrutiny as it goes. Already four of twelve deliverable dates have passed, and the MTR Team is not sure what progress has been documented with regard to them. There is not much time left to actually plan and implement activities and spend $2.2 million (in the remaining 2 years). This creates a very high risk of rushed activities and hasty commitments, which could severely compromise results.
The CCCA reporting for Result 4 needs to be reconfigured to accommodate the LFA and the specific objectives and activities under Results 6 and 7 (which are funded by CCCA). At the moment, there is absolutely no performance accountability for Result 4 that CCCA tracks and passes on to the donors. This, of course, reflects the separate and difficult history of Result 4, but it also reflects the fact that there is no overall CCCA programme manager who has the clear view of all of Results 1 to 5, and the skill to create functional linkages and synergies between them. Perhaps the TFS should assume the role of M/E of the Coastal Component, as the Coastal Component will be accountable to the CCU within the Department of Wetlands and Coastal Zone in MoE, not CCD.
There is a serious concern about the conditionality between the GEF activities and those funded by CCCA. Within the overall design of the Coastal Component, it appears that Results 1-5 are precursors to the actual planning and implementation (for example, development of modeling, vulnerability maps for each of the coastal provinces and associated adaptation plans, to be funded by GEF). These are then to be addressed in Results 6 and 7. For example, with implementation in Peam Krasaop in Koh Kong and Prey Nup in Sihanoukville (funded by CCCA), the plans and actual implementation of climate resilience (if that can occur within the CCCA timeframe) must necessarily nest within any provincial vulnerability maps and adaptation plans, yet now the GEF and CCCA elements are apparently to proceed in parallel.
It is not clear that there will be a separation between the GEF and CCCA activities in practice. In other words, when a consultant works on planning in Koh Kong, for example, does this effort actually meet objectives in both the CCCA and GEF elements? Presumably, all consultants (and the overall DHI project manager) will maintain timesheets and keep a separation between the GEF-funded effort and the CCCA-funded effort (DHI is also involved in aspects of PPCR, so has a very high obligation for activities in Cambodia). Of course, the integrity of the prime consultant (DHI) has to be assumed and this is embodied in the contract, but nevertheless the risk of double-billing at lower levels is there. In any case, the UNDP contract with DHI is explicit about the potential for audits and investigations, which should address this issue. Related to this, it will be important for the full GEF progress reporting to be integrated with the CCCA progress reporting. CCCA should have the full picture of both the CCCA and GEF-funded activities, in order to make their own assessment of possible overlap and potential for synergies.
The long list of activities under Results 6 and 7 of the DHI Technical Proposal, although ambitious, are appropriate for the intended objectives. It is expected that the previous ten years of experience in the Cambodia coastal zone provide a “jump-start” for the CCCA activities. On the other hand, one wonders why, after ten years, there is a reversion to basic analysis and planning that can be called “integrated coastal zone management”, if not “climate change management in the coastal zone”; the principles are almost exactly the same, and in fact climate change impacts (mostly sea level rise, accelerate erosion, and increased frequency and severity of weather evens) have been factored into coastal zone planning for the last 20 years (in the experience of the MTR Team) and is still being factored in with recent and current initiatives, such as the PEMSEA work in Sihanoukville. Hopefully, there is not a lot of recycling of old material and cribbing of earlier documents to create new training materials. Careful monitoring will be required to preclude such activity.
A close analysis of the outputs listed in the UNDP-DHI contract and in the DHI Technical Proposal reveals a preponderance of “guides”, “guidance”, “considerations”, “assessments”, “analysis”, “development of plans”, “development of training materials”, “meetings/workshops”, and “establishment of monitoring and evaluation format”. Actual implementation of climate resilient actions remains obscure, and is a concern for the MTR Team. The DHI Technical Proposal is more specific, with reference to “funding proposals to mobilize funds for appropriate infrastructure projects”, “introduction and application of modified agricultural practices in targeted communities”, “introduction of alternative livelihoods and integrated farming methods”, “rehabilitating mangrove forests”. However, of the US$ 2.2 million, it seems that only $315,000 is available for demonstration activities. If this is the case, then far too much is being invested in the soft results listed above (the assessment, plans, etc., much of which is an evolution or recapitulation of the previous ten years’ work), and very little is pegged for community implementation (only 14% of the total DHI budget). There is a risk that financial commitments will be made to initiate coastal zone initiatives, and that these will not be completed within the CCCA timeframe, in a manner which would allow lessons to be learned and then to inform policy development/ reform. Perhaps activities can be re-assessed at the end of 2012 (see Section 4).
3.1.5 Result 5: Capacity in RGC agencies and civil society organizations for developing and implementing climate change response initiatives in line with agreed national climate change priorities, independently or in partnerships, through access to new financial and technical resources.
Expectations and Achievements to Date
Result 5 is the key action area of the whole CCCA concept (excluding Result 4, which has its own operation). This is where the connections between adaptation planning, Government and community awareness, and on-the-ground implementation of climate resilient approaches and technologies are supposed to be made, and the experience used to inform new policies and strategies. While the grants funded under Result 5 are not unique (there have been other small grants which address some climate change issues), their connection to CCD and the climate change planning and coordination function is a novelty (this is the anchor for the whole CCCA concept).
Activities and deliverables to date (not yet captured in any APRs) for Result 5 include:
• All the preparatory work completed under Result 3 (TFS) in support of the grant process.
• Selection and approval of eight grants (total commitment of $ 2,030,307 over 15 months).
• Orientation workshop for grantees.
• Eight grants, new partnerships, underway (about 4 months), including:
- Climate Change Initiative in Prey Veng, with Women Organization for Modern Economy and Nursing and Provincial Departments of Fisheries, Agriculture, and Environment ($ 149,445);
- Building Institutional Capacity for Helping Farmers Adapt to Climate Change (Prey Veng), with Royal University of Agriculture and Chea Sim University of Kamchymear ($ 300,000);
- Capacity Strengthening for CPA Communities in Boeung Wildlife Sanctuary (Siem Reap, Preah Vihear, and Kampong Thom provinces), with Ministry of Environment, Department of Research and Community Protected Area Development and RECOFTC ($ 298,346);
- Climate Change Planning and Adaptation in Sihanoukville Municipality, with Provincial hall of Preah Sihanouk Province and UN-Habitat ($ 282,997);
- Building Climate Resilience for Farmers and Local Authorities in Ratanakiri Province, with CEDAC and the Provincial Department of Agriculture ($ 149,841);
- Building Capacity for Integrating Climate Change Adaptation in Fisheries Sector in Cambodia (Tonle Sap and Mekong River area), with Fisheries Administration (MAFF) and The Worldfish Center ($ 300,000);
- Adaptation to Climate Change Through Alternative Livelihoods in Community Forestry (Siem Reap, Kampong Thom, Pursat, Svay Rieng, and Kampot provinces, with Forestry Administration, Community Forestry Office and Provincial Biodigester Programme Offices ($ 299,678); and,
- Local Governments and Climate Change (Takeo province), with National Committee for Sub-National Democratic Development Secretariat and UNCDF ($ 250,000).
The Result 4 activities that are noted for action in 2012 include the following:
• Ongoing implementation of the eight grants.
• M/E by the TFS.
• Second call for proposals, and implementation of grants with remaining funds committed to Result 5.
Analysis of Successes and Challenges
The eight grants have only been underway for about 3-4 months, with a few of the grantees having submitted their first quarterly reports. Observations of progress towards outputs are restricted to the proposals submitted by the eight grantees, the available quarterly progress reports, consultations with all the grantees, and field visits in Prey Veng province (the WOMEN and RUA grants). The latter are considered to be a suitable sample of the whole suite of grants, since they address both sub-national entities and vulnerable communities in fisheries, forestry, and agriculture, to some extent. The observations noted below are generalized for the eight grants, with specific examples presented to make various points. Ideally all eight grants would have been examined in detail, with associated field visits, but the MTR time and level of effort have not accommodated that.
First of all, it is a significant achievement that eight grants are underway, despite initial delays in defining and implementing the grant process. It is very encouraging that both the TFS and the grant system and new partnerships between Government and CSOs are now fully engaged, since these represent the “action” part of CCCA – facilitating mobilization of Government and communities as they address climate risks on-the-ground. An overview analysis is provided below.
There does seem to have been good visibility of the opportunities for obtaining grants, with the TFS advertising the opportunity for a least a week in local media in February 2011. From the 60 Concept Notes that were received, ten were selected for further development as full proposals, and finally eight were completed and accepted. The MTR Team has examined administrative and technical appraisal forms for the grant selection process, and these appear to be quite suitable for the intended purpose. In the end, the selection of grants appears to have reflected the competency of the proponents, rather than the sector or geographical areas being addressed in the proposal. Some of these had previous experience with sub-national projects, some involving climate change, which is expected. In the end, it is the competency and previous experience of the grantees that will define whether or not grants can be successfully implemented.
There is a good cross-section of partnerships, with various Government/CSO partnerships, as follows:
• CSOs leading in two cases;
• a municipality and UN agency partnership;
• two universities partnered for one grant;
• Government and two regional training entities in two grants;
• Government and a UN agency in another; and,
• one just involving Government.
All grants have strong sub-national elements, and although there is no apparent strategy to distribute grants geographically (for example, Siem Reap and Prey Veng have multiple grants), there is quite wide geographical distribution (at least 11 provinces), which is positive. In addition, most vulnerability types (agriculture, fisheries, coastal zone, forestry, urban/coastal planning, infrastructure climate proofing) are addressed, which is very positive for lessons learned. The missing elements include health issues, issues specific to gender, education opportunities (curriculum development), and water management (these could be prioritized in a second call).
As noted in the discussion for Result 1, without a CCCSP, there is no macro-strategy to guide the selection of climate change grants (hopefully this will come in time), nor has there been any benefit from cataloguing all climate change initiatives in Cambodia and avoiding areas that have been quite saturated with such initiatives to date (for example, Prey Veng). All grants appear to include information dissemination (national and sub-national) and in some cases scaling-up (which is good). A concern here is the need to ensure adequate time and specific activities to do this, especially for informing climate change policy development and developing related DRR mechanisms. There will be a challenge in actual on-the-ground implementation (completing and learning within the remaining 12 months of the grants, especially in cases where the grants will provide sub-grants for as-yet undefined activities in some communities).
The field visits revealed some additional concerns and questions. For example, local communities (the immediate beneficiaries) apparently have not been very involved in defining projects. The MTR Team wonders how much communities will actually do, or whether activities will be implemented for them. It was apparent to the MTR Team (in Prey Veng) that they are still discovering what will be done within the grant and how it will benefit them. There is also a concern with some of the research that was observed. Some of the agriculture research does not have an obvious climate change application (for example, rice planting density). In another case, the proposed intervention also does not have a direct link to creating climate resilience. For example, the effort in Boeung Snae to reduce illegal fishing is a traditional activity when working with the fishing community, not directly related to climate change. It was, however, noted that involvement of community members in climate change adaptation activities may help reduce their involvement in illegal activities (e.g., illegal fishing). Their perspective may change, but this will depend directly on the net economic benefits of new climate resilient activities compared to the old, perhaps more lucrative illegal activities (whether it be illegal fishing, logging, etc.).
There is another concern that the grants may not actually stimulate village and commune structures and processes (required for future sustainability). The grants may still be perceived as “projects” that may not embed within existing systems (due to CSO and facilitator delivery, rather than direct community engagement). For example, the RUA project engages in academic research, but there is no equivalent community structure that helps design and implement the research, and the WOMEN project in Prey Veng involves extension work (awareness-raising) delivered by individuals, but there is no community institution which then can activate the lessons learned during extension. There will also be ongoing challenges with Government staff involvement in activities (inadequate incentives, which plague projects in Phnom Penh). Perhaps at the sub-national level there may be more time for Government staff involvement in the grants, compared to Phnom Penh, as these sub-national offices tend to be less busy.
Performance monitoring and reporting will be critically important for these grants. In the overall CCCA reporting format, the performance indicator is inadequate; it does not reflect the actual performance of the grants based on their objectives and specific indicators. Individual grant performance indicators need to be incorporated into the CCCA progress reporting, rather than just having the grantee reports clipped in (note here that all grantees feel somewhat challenged by the rather onerous reporting system and the limited time to complete activities). At the CCCA level, it will be important to report on the quality of the partnerships, the progress with specific climate vulnerability issues, and the sector and geographic spread of the grants, as well as the effectiveness of the capacity-building, institutional strengthening activities, and policy building implications. As noted previously, there will be a huge amount of information coming from the grant experiences that needs to feed back into Result 2 (for CCCA information dissemination) and also informing policy change and perhaps the CCCSP itself. This information should also be shared amongst grantees. Apparently the grantees had not met as a group before the MTR consultation. Future group consultations, to share lessons learned, should be encouraged/ facilitated.
With regard to value-for-money analysis, it is too early to assess the capacity development value of the grants. However, it seems that the budget explanations for each grant are amenable to future value-for-money analysis, as individual activities within the grants seem to be isolated for budget purposes (unlike the overall CCCA budget and expenditure reporting, which does not cost out specific outputs, which in turn precludes value-for-money analysis). It will be important for the TFS to undertake detailed value-for-money analysis of each of the grants when they are completed. This will require specific training, as it is important to capture the real capacity building achievements and their costs accurately.
Progress Towards the Outcome: Strengthened capacity in RGC agencies and civil society organizations for developing and implementing CC response initiatives in line with agreed national CC priorities, independently or in partnerships, through access to new financial and technical resources.
Although the performance indicator for the Result 5 outcome is inappropriate (number of entities which receive financial support is not any measure of strengthened capacity), it is clear to the MTR Team that all partners in the eight grants have significant scope for strengthening their capacity, and some are already able to articulate an increased understanding of the complexity of planning for and implementing sustainable climate resilient actions on the ground. Developing this capacity within CSOs and at the sub-national is an important outcome of CCCA.
3.2 Relevance of the CCCA in Managing Climate Change in Cambodia
Having examined the progress achieved with each of the CCCA outputs to date, it is now possible to reconcile the design of the project (relevance and practicality, which equates to appropriateness) to the institutional context and the climate change issues in Cambodia.
The Climate Change Department (CCD) in the Ministry of Environment is at the hub of climate change management in Cambodia. No matter how much donor funding for climate change initiatives goes to other ministries or agencies, it is inescapable that the CCD has the mandate to coordinate climate change policy, develop strategies, and coordinate national efforts to address mitigation and adaptation issues (in coordination with the CCTT and NCCC). Although donor funding to other ministries is sometimes intended to by-pass the “incapacity” of CCD, and is often pegged as a “sector” initiative, the fact is that if a climate change initiative is intended to address policy or strategy issues, or information dissemination related to climate change, then CCD must be involved, and if their capacity needs to be bolstered, then a project must be designed to do this. Any donor funding that addresses these themes, and which is directed to other ministries or agencies, undermines the mandate of CCD, and continues to reinforce perceptions that it does not have the required capacity for certain projects, or is not really motivated to assume an active role in climate change projects.
The MTR Team believes that CCCA is appropriately focused on CCD (and therefore on CCTT and NCCC, to a lesser extent). Despite many challenges in activating CCD with specific functions, especially within Results 1 and 2, the fact is that CCCA persists (and patience is required) in trying to support development of the CCCSP, information dissemination functions, and coordination of climate change adaptation initiatives, all core responsibilities of CCD. Furthermore, CCCA is engaging all the stakeholders in these formative activities (Government and CSOs, civil society), from the national to the sub-national level down to communities. All the required elements to bolster CCD and to engage with those involved with climate change management in Cambodia are in place in CCCA. Furthermore, although not completely activated, there are many potential linkages between outputs in Results 1, 2, 3 (the Trust Fund function separated from other development components in CCCA, based on the first ROM in 2010), and 5. Only Result 4 (the coastal component) is apparently in its own realm, reflecting its different origin.
Another way to look at the appropriateness of CCCA is to consider the alternative of not having the project at all. If this were the case, there would be no possibility of developing a coherent strategy for climate change management in Cambodia (it is not likely to be developed by any other ministries), the potential to link on-the-ground initiatives with defined priorities (coming from a coherent strategy) would be dissipated by various uncoordinated sector actions (coming from the Ministries), and CSOs and local communities might not have the opportunity to implement local action that addresses various sectors in one go (with funding from the Trust Fund).
Of course, CCCA is not yet completely successful with each of these opportunities, but it is now making progress after a difficult staging period. It is well positioned, and this is when patience and persistence (and perhaps more time) are needed. While it cannot address all the internal constraints in CCD (lack of staff, lack of incentives, and not enough time for engagement in project activities), CCCA is at least providing the opportunities (supported with financial and technical resources, as needed) for capacity development and production of useful tools (guidelines and strategies) that will eventually help CCD meet its mandate more effectively. In addition, all other stakeholders (Government, CSOs, and communities) have at least several entry points for their engagement in climate change management and can inform the development of policies and strategies, based on their perspectives and experience. All these elements are, and have been, consistent with the donor (EU, Sida, Danida, and UNDP) climate change programmes (UNDP effectively facilitated monthly Development Partner meetings, starting in 2009, at which the concept of CCCA was first developed and then fleshed out, quite quickly, for coordinated donor support and implementation). To summarize, the MTR Team believes that CCCA (with Result 4 aside for the moment), was appropriately designed for the climate change context in 2009-2010, and is still very relevant and properly placed, involving the correct mix of stakeholders and practitioners.
With regard to gender aspects, these are not prominent in CCCA, yet there is quite good engagement of women in some of the activities (within CCCA management and delivery in Results 2 and 3, and within some of the grants; for example, the WOMEN grant in Prey Veng, where young women are providing community extension). The MTR Team has some recommendations on giving more profile to gender aspects of CCCA (see Section 4).
3.3 CCCA Management Effectiveness and Project Efficiency
The partners in “delivering” CCCA include the donors, UNDP, and the RGC (collectively represented on the PSB and making decisions on the annual work plan and budgeting), then CCD, staff, and consultants who are responsible for the daily operational aspects. The extended network of partners who are supposed to implement some elements of CCCA include the Line Ministries, the grantees (and their sub-partners), DHI, and participants and beneficiaries at the provincial and commune level. It is immediately apparent that this large cast of partners presents a significant challenge to CCCA. By involving all stakeholders who have some interest or responsibility related to climate change (which is a very positive aspect of CCCA), the greatest difficulty is establishing a common vision of CCCA, communicating a coherent plan that all stakeholders understand and can activate (within their respective roles), and then spurring them on to actually implement activities in the correct sequence and at the right pace.
It has to be said that the first year of CCCA suffered from all these elements being ineffective, with not all staff and consultants being in place, a required re-structuring of CCCA (separating the TF function from the capacity development elements, which was a positive correction), and then CCD not grasping what exactly CCCA is intended to achieve (perhaps not so involved in the conceptualization of CCCA, judging from the Development Partner meeting minutes in 2009). The second year (2011) was a period of consolidation and, as noted previously, all the elements are now in place, with most of the partners and stakeholders engaged.
The key management functions which influence effectiveness and project efficiency include planning and communication, procurement, performance monitoring and reporting, and financial prudence which ensures best value-for-money (cost-effectiveness). These are explored below.
CCCA has been quite true to the original concepts of capacity-building for CCD and the NCCC, dissemination of climate change information, establishment of the Trust Fund, disbursement of grant funds, and the coastal component from the very beginning. These elements have had their own envelopes (defined outputs and budgets) within Results 1-5 (created after the CCCA restructuring), which has helped with the planning within each of the results areas, but has also reinforced “stovepipe”, or “silo” planning, in which possible linkages between result areas are difficult to plan for. For example, the acquisition of information/lessons learned from the grants in Result 5 is not clearly planned as an activity within Result 2, and both Result 2 and Result 3 have their own communication strategies, etc. (there are several other examples).
One of the challenges in planning concurrent activities (within each of Results 1 to 5) is determining where the bridges or convergences may be, and making the effort to build or facilitate them. This requires one overall Project Manager, who should have the whole vision of CCCA right to its endpoint, and then managers for each of the results areas seeing how they can slot into each others’ activities. It is not clear to the MTR Team that there is one person who has always had the whole view of CCCA and has continuously communicated it to partners. The National Project Director (CCD) may have this role, or it might have been the role of the CTA (who has not been continued). UNDP might have the role by default (certainly UNDP had to provide technical and management backstopping in the first year), but it is not the implementer of CCCA (it is responsible for provision of technical assistance and other services, reporting to donors, and is a donor itself). The TFS has assumed the role to some extent, at least for Results 3 and 5, and possibly for Result 4 (the DHI contract). As a consequence, it can be seen in the APR, and is evident in consultations during the MTR, that bridges and convergences have not been well anticipated and planned for.
Results 4 and 5 have always been expressed in the CCCA LFA as having objectives and performance indicators yet to be defined (even in the 2011 APR). These are now evident (in the DHI contract) and in the LFAs for each of the 8 grants, and planning now occurs within each of those initiatives (good; but now the performance indicators need to be picked up in the CCCA progress reports). Result 3 has always had a very clearly defined structure and function, is in place, and is relatively straightforward with regard to future planning. Results 1 and 2, in the view of the MTR Team, have the least clear overall plans (right from the beginning), and annual planning appears to reflect pending priorities (such as COP travel) and available budget, rather than plotting a path and setting activities through to the end of CCCA. It is not clear that there has ever been a list of activities for each of Results 1 and 2, covering three years, which will ensure completion of all proposed outputs. Therefore, it is difficult to tell within the APRs, given what has been done and what has been spent to date, what exactly is left to be done with the remaining budget. Does anyone have the whole plan? When significant funds are pegged for international travel, is there a calculation of the opportunity cost in terms of what is left to be done (such as development of the CCCSP)? In the end, the PSB has the final decision on annual workplans and proposed expenditures, so presumably the questions noted above are asked (and hopefully answered) in the PSB (which meets about twice per year).
Perhaps another challenge in planning CCCA activities is evident in the budget, which list inputs (fees, travel expenses, etc.) for each of the five main results, but does not present the full cost of each of the proposed outputs (e.g., what does it cost to develop a CCCSP; all the consultant fees, meeting costs, analyses, etc.?). Although some proposed consultant costs can be tied to specific events or deliverables, in general there has been no assessment of what exactly is required in the way of human and financial resources to complete all the activities to produce specific outputs. As a consequence, as the budget is expensed from year to year, it is impossible to tell if what remains is adequate to complete the residual activities and outputs (and the MTR Team has surmised that the tendency to reduce the inputs of international consultants is perhaps intended to free up funds for local expenditures, exactly because there is a concern that the budget is running out). This also has an impact on value-for-money analysis (cost-effectiveness); in fact it cannot be done, as it is impossible to determine all the inputs required to produce anything
Procurement (of equipment and consultants) has been the responsibility of UNDP, taking cues from CCD (especially for Results 1 and 2). CCCA has experienced significant delays in recruiting consultants (with the exception of the Start-up Management Advisor, who was on the scene right from the beginning and did quite a good job of getting administrative procedures and other CCCA elements in place). Some of the delays reflected UNDP administrative procedures (the required bureaucracy of selection and approval processes), while others resulted from the candidates themselves, notably for the CTA recruitment process. CCD would like to have been more involved in the selection of consultants. It seems that CCD has started recruitment on their own. For example, recruitment of a consultant for completion of the SNC process is being handled by CCD, not UNDP. The most significant procurement delay has been the contracting of DHI, the process of which spanned almost 18 months. The expected DHI inputs were a “given”, originally expected to be obtained through a UNEP contract, but the combined management fees of both UNEP and UNDP were not acceptable, and UNDP sole-sourcing of DHI was required (not easily done).
As noted several times in Section 3.1, there are issues with the CCCA performance indicators, many of which are numerical and do not capture the nature of capacity change expected in each of the five results. The numerical indicators themselves are quite easy to monitor (number of documents, number of ministries with CC focal points, number of sector policies, number of projects, etc.), but they do not in themselves reflect any quality of capacity or the sustainability of new skills, new strategies, etc. Examples of appropriate performance indicators are noted throughout Section 3.1. These all require establishing some sort of baseline for the skills of individuals and the efficiency and effectiveness of institutional processes, and then documenting evidence of improved skills and more appropriate institutional processes leading to the services and deliverables that are expected of those individuals and institutions. This is not necessarily easy to do, but nevertheless projects that focus on capacity-building and development of institutions need to know what they are starting with and what to examine as indicators, or “proxies”, of improved capacity; just using numerical measures does not accomplish this.
There are also issues with performance indicators which are expressed as ratios (for example, % of capacity gaps identified in the Capacity Development Plan), whereas, assuming the capacity gaps are actually identified, the more appropriate indicator is some evidence of increased capacity (such as improved planning functions, better linkages between ministries, etc.). Some ratios are not measureable; for example, percentage of the population covered by an outreach event. It is almost impossible to know how much traction there is between outreach campaigns and the public, and more importantly, one would want to know if there is any positive change in public behaviour as a result of outreach.
As a consequence of the nature of the performance indicators, progress reporting is quite straightforward, with a numerical tally of events, people, etc., but it is extremely difficult to find the evidence of capacity change, innovation, or improved policies, practices and such. There is also a tendency to express progress in terms of the percentage of the annual budget that has been spent, which is also a simple numerical procedure. Progress was extremely constrained in 2010 (less than 35% of the proposed annual budget expended), whereas 2011 was considered to be a year of over-achievement, with the annual budget over-spent (but note that much of the expenditure in 2011 is accounted for by commitments, i.e., advances to DHI and the small grants). To some extent, these progress statements are correct: 2010 was a difficult year, with not much accomplished, and 2011 was much more successful in getting things moving, but actual accomplishments (capacity change) are not captured in a statement of the rate of expenditure – referred to as “delivery” (see Table 1; percentage of the CCCA budget spent to the end of 2011). With two of three years of CCCA elapsed (about 66%), total expenditures are only 34% of budget, and perhaps about half of these expenditures were actually on the books as commitments (advances, as noted above). As a consequence of delayed delivery = rate of expenditure, CCCA is now expected to run to at least mid-2014 (but see MTR Team comments in Section 4).
Table 1. CCCA budget and total expenditures at the end of 2011.
|Activity |Total Project Budget |Cumulative Expenditure |Balance |Delivery (%) |
|Result 1: national policy | 1,410,113 | 766,137 | 643,976 |54% |
|making | | | | |
|Result 2: knowledge and | 793,554 | 354,116 | 439,438 |45% |
|learning platform | | | | |
|Result 3: improved access | 1,136,914 | 298,428 | 838,486 |26% |
|to financial and technical | | | | |
|resources | | | | |
|Result 4: coastal zone | 2,256,000 | 463,100 | 1,792,900 |21% |
|grant | | | | |
|Result 5: new grants to |3,327,468 | 1,130,267 |2,197,201 |34% |
|government and CSOs | | | | |
|Total |8,924,049 |3,012,048 |5,912,001 |34% |
With regard to financial prudence, UNDP rules are in place for this purpose, and there is a clear requirement for prudence and accountability in all UNDP contracts with institutions and individuals (for example, DHI and the grantees); there are also explicit notices of potential audits and spot checks. Accountability is tied to budget inputs (fees and expenses). As noted previously, because of input-based budgets (rather than output-based budgets), it is almost impossible to determine value-for-money, as the exact costs of specific events, activities, and capacity-building are unknown (see Table 2, which shows input expenditures for each of the five results in 2011; there are no equivalent data for 2010; total expenditures in 2010 were $ 354,517, with $ 289,364 of this under Result 1).
Table 2. Total CCCA expenditures by input type for 2011.
|Input Type |Result 1 |Result 2 |Result 3 |Result 4 |Result 5 |Total |% of Total |
| | | | | | | |Expenditures |
|Consultants |26,263 |3,600 |5,781 |- |- |35,644 |1.3 |
|Contracted |30,562 |24,452 |- |- |- |55,014 |2.1 |
|individuals | | | | | | | |
|Contracted services |- |6,580 |4,287 |- |- |10,867 |0.4 |
|Travel |123,884 |38,265 |4,943 |- |- |167,092 |6.3 |
|Training, workshops |3,945 |- |65,548 |- |- |69,493 |2.6 |
|Equipment, furniture|12,145 |44,050 |48,457 |- |- |104,652 |4.0 |
|Supplies |9,740 |7,025 |- |- |- |16,765 |0.6 |
|Hospitality |265 |315 |- |- |- |580 |- |
|Printing |238 |61,964 |- |- |- |62,202 |2.4 |
|Rental |15,010 |34,955 |722 |- |- |50,687 |1.9 |
|Miscellaneous |8,329 |848 |4,294 |- |- |13,471 |0.5 |
|UNDP facilities, |22,691 |11,150 |8,835 |23,100 |44,322 |110,098 |4.2 |
|administration | | | | | | | |
|Grants |
|UNDP: donor, technical assistance, management oversight, M&E. |
|Required level of effort with CCCA; roles and responsibilities. |
|M&E protocol. |
|Main capacity-building challenges with Government. |
|Capacity of Government to handle Trust Fund. |
|Concrete evidence of capacity increase? |
|Challenges in providing appropriate human resources for technical assistance. |
|Reporting and activity/expenditure accountability. |
|Coordinating donors. |
|Other CCCA Donors (EU, Sida, Danida) : management oversight, M&E. |
|Alignment with their development programmes. |
|Implementing M&E function. |
|Government ownership of CCCA. |
|Main capacity-building challenges with Government. |
|Capacity of Government to handle Trust Fund. |
|Concrete evidence of capacity increase? |
|The donor coordination mechanism. |
|Trust Fund Secretariat: management and allocation of funds, related M&E. |
|Staffing. |
|Operational procedures/ criteria for selection of grants. |
|Capacity of Government to handle Trust Fund. |
|Visibility and grantee understanding of the Trust Fund. |
|Other modalities for the Trust Fund? |
|Efforts to secure funding from new sources. |
|Challenges in M&E of grants. |
|CCD and CCTT: implementation, also recipient of technical assistance (delivering and receiving CCCA inputs); prime beneficiaries of CCCA. |
|Current CC policies and plans. |
|Current mandate and staffing of CCD. |
|Where does CCD want to be in two years? |
|Expectations of CCCA. |
|What are the main capacity-building needs of CCD? |
|What has CCCA done to date? |
|Main challenges in dealing with other ministries and CSOs. |
|CCD constraints in implementing CCCA. |
|What could be changed? |
|NCCC and Line Ministry CC Focal Points (some of which are PSB members): management/ technical oversight, also recipient of technical |
|assistance; prime beneficiaries of CCCA. |
|Their understanding of CCCA. |
|Main decisions of PSB to date/ has CCCA been re-aligned in any way? |
|What have been main benefits of CCCA to date? Evidence of capacity change. |
|What is main constraint in CC management in Cambodia? |
|What are the main policy and regulatory needs for better CC management? |
|Need for political awareness/will regarding CC. |
|MEF, other less CC aligned ministries (MoWRAM, MoP): opportunity for more CC integration. |
|Possible role in CC management in Cambodia. What are their entry points? |
|Views of the Trust Fund mechanism. |
|Perceptions of CCCA. |
|Views on donor coordination and Government role in that. |
|CSOs (NCCN and individual orgs): participants and beneficiaries (some may be CCCA grantees). |
|Understanding and perceptions of CCCA. |
|Their views of Government capability regarding CC management. |
|Their views on their own roles in CC management (what are they doing now?). |
|Capacity-building needs and priorities. |
|Perceptions of public awareness of CC issues and solutions. |
|What incentives are required for better CC management at the local level? |
|Other CC Funders (ADB, WB, AusAID, JICA, etc.): opportunities for synergy; risk of overlap and duplication. |
|Perceptions of CCCA. |
|Perceptions of Government capacity regarding CC management. |
|Comments on donor coordination mechanisms (evidence of that). |
|Views on the Trust Fund concept (other models?). |
|Grantees (DHI, UN-Habitat, others) and their beneficiaries: implementation of CC initiatives; prime beneficiaries of CCCA. |
|Perceptions of CCCA. |
|What are priority CC management needs in Cambodia? |
|Perceptions of Government and CSO capacity for CC management/ is CCCA addressing them? |
|The Trust Fund process (pros and cons). |
|Their specific involvement with CCCA. |
|Recommendations for future activities. |
|Other Related UNDP Teams: opportunities for synergy; risk of overlap and duplication. |
|Awareness of and linkages with CCCA. |
|Main challenges in working with Government. |
|Priority CC management needs in Cambodia. |
* All stakeholders were asked, in general terms, to describe: their type of engagement with CCCA to date; has CCCA been meeting their expectations; the main successes to date; the main challenges to date; and, if they were to start again, what would they do differently?
***
2. MTR Schedule and People Consulted
MTR team:
1. Mr. John Carter (Independent International Consultant and Team Leader)
2. Ms. Tove Goldmann (Climate Change Policy Specialist from the Sida Stockholm Office)
3. Mr. Thuon Try (Independent National Consultant)
|Date/Time |Place and Contact |
|28/02/12 |UNDP country office |
|2:00-4:30 pm |Mr. Lay Khim, E&E team leader, UNDP |
| |Ms. Keo Kalyan, E&E Programme Analyst |
|29/02/12 |Full day (MTR team prepares methodology and work plan) |
|01/03/12 |UNDP country office |
|Morning | MTR team continues preparation of work plan, methodology and document collection |
|3:00-4:30 pm |Sida office, Phnom Penh |
| |Video conference with Tove Goldmann, MTR team member from Sida Stockholm, and Soma Dor |
|02/03/12 |UNDP office |
|9:00-11:00 am |MTR team presented concept note, methods and tools for Mid-Term Review to CCCA donors, including UNDP, |
| |DPS, Sida, EU and Danida (absent) and CCCA staff |
| |Mr. Koen Everaert, Attaché ( Natural Resources Management-Climate Change (EU) |
| |Ms. Reiko Kurihara, CCCA Trust Fund Administrator (UNDP) |
| |Mr. Lay Khim, E&E team leader and assistant to UNDP Country director |
| |Ms. Keo Kalyan, E&E Programme Analyst, UNDP |
| |Ms. Soma Dor, Programme Officer, Environment and Climate Change, SIDA-Cambodia |
| |Two CCCA staff from the TFS (M/E) |
|3:00-4:30 pm |Meeting with Ms. Elena Tischenko, UNDP country director at UNDP office |
|03-04/03/12 |Weekend |
| |MTR team reviewed key documents, prepared MTR matrix and evaluation design framework |
|05/03/12 |Focus Group interview and consultation, interview |
|9:00-11:00 am |Meeting with CCCA trust fund secretariat team ( CCCA office at MoE) |
| |Dr. Tin PonLok, Head of CCCA trust fund |
| |Reiko Kurihara, CCCA trust fund administrator |
| |Mr. Sum Thy, head of CCD and team leader of CCCA’s Result 1&2 |
| |Mr. Chea Chanthou, head of CCCA result 1 |
|1:30-2:30 pm |Meeting with NAPA Follow up project and CCBAP (Cambodia Community Based Climate Change Adaptation), UNDP |
| |office |
| |Ms. Ngin Navirak, National Coordinator of Small Grant Project, UNDP |
| |Mr. Sous Pinrak , NAPA FU national advisor ,UNDP |
| |Ms. Cecelia AIPIN , NAP FU and CCBAP consultant |
|3:00-5:00 pm |Meeting with UNCDF (UNDP office) |
| |Mr. Julian Abrams, International Technical Advisor |
| |Mr. Sar Kosal, National Technical advisor |
|06/03/12 | |
|9:00 a.m. |Meeting with CCCA policy and knowledge project team (result 1 and 2), CCCA office |
| |Mr. Sum Thy, CCD Director and coordinator of CCCA result 1 and 2 |
| |Ms. Sem Sereytola, communication office of CCCA |
| |Mr. Uy Kamal, head office of GHG inventory |
| |Mr. Chea Chanthou, deputy director of CCD |
|3:00-5:00 pm |Meeting with CCCA donors at Sida office |
| |Mr. Jacob Kahl Jepsen, Counselor, Danida |
| |Mr. Koen Everaert, Attaché ( Natural Resources Management-Climate Change (EU) |
| |Mr. Karl-Anders Larsson, Counsellor/economist (Sida) |
| |Ms. Soma Dor, Programme Officer, Environment and Climate Change(Sida) |
|07/03/12 | |
|8:30-10:00 am |Meeting with Cambodia Climate Technical Team (CCTT), CCCA office |
| |Mr. Am Pirum, deputy department of land and soil, General directorate of Agriculture (MAFF) |
| |Mr. Chreang Phollak, Deputy director, Department of Planning, Ministry of Public Work and Transportation |
| |Mr. Chea Chantou, deputy director of CCD (MoE) and team leader of CCCA result 1 |
| |Mr. Sophanna, Deputy department of Meteorology, MoWRAM |
| |Mr. Meas Samath, Project monitoring officer, Ministry of Economic and Finance |
| |Mr. Kol Hero, Vice director department, Ministry of Health |
| |Mr. Sok Pisith, chief office of policy, Ministry of Women Affair |
|10:30-12:00 am |Meeting with UN-REDD focal person at FA ( Forestry Administration) |
| |Dr. Keo Omalis, UN-REDD focal person and Deputy director of Wildlife and Conservation Department, Forestry|
| |Administration |
| |Mr. Samreth Vanna, deputy director , department of forestry and community forestry, FA |
| |Mr. Phann Kamnap, chief office of CF |
| |Mr. Pak Singoun Pisey, technical assistant to REDD secretariat, FA |
| |Ms. Hort Ainun, finan and administrator ( UN REDD), FA |
| |Mr. Neap Keng, REDD project assistant, Pact Cambodia |
|2:00-3:00 AM |Meeting at Ministry of Economic and Finance (MEF) |
| |Dr. Tauch Chankresna, chief of Office of World Bank and MEF |
|3:13-4:15 pm |Meeting at USAID office ( US embassy) |
| |Ms. Jane Lawson, Agriculture Development Office, USAID office, Phnom Penh |
|4:30-5:30 pm |Meeting with NGO network on Climate Change |
| |Mr. Tep Boony, executive director of Save Wildlife Cambodia |
| |Ms. Kong Keo Sohunthea, Media business manager, Cambodia Center for Independent Media |
| |Ms. Nicole J.Sayres, deputy country representative of Asian Foundation |
|08/03/2012 | |
|9:00-10:00 am |Skype conference with MRCS ( Vientiane) on CCAI (Climate Change Adaptation Initiative in Lower Mekong |
| |Basin) |
| |Dr. Kien TranMai, Climate Change Programme officer |
|10:10 -11:15 am |Meeting with FAO representative in Cambodia |
| |Ms. Nina Brandstrup, FAO representative in Cambodia |
| |Mr. Etienne Careme, Operations Coordinator (FAO) |
|11:30-12:15 pm |Meeting with JICA technical advisor ( Jica office) |
| |Mr. Nonaka Hiroyuki, Project Formulation Advisor, JICA office in Cambodia |
|12:30-1:30 pm |Meeting with DHI representative at lunch time |
| |Mr. Jens Erik Lyngby, Senior Programme Advisor |
|2:00-3:30 pm |Meeting at World Bank office |
| |Mr. Leng Bunlong, environmental specialist |
| |Dr. Manfred Staab, International Technical Advisor to PPCR |
|4:00-5:30 pm |Meeting with Oxfam America |
| |Ms. Annaka Peterson Crvalho, regional programme coordinator, Phnom Penh |
|09/03/12 | |
|9:00-11:30 am |Meeting with all grantees of CCCA project at UNDP Conference room |
| |Mr. Lam Fee, Adviser of UN-Habitat |
| |Mr. Sar Kosal, National Technical Specialist, UNDCF |
| |Mr. Din Kimsrean, RUA ( Project manager) |
| |Mr. Pin Vannaro, Vice rector of CSUK |
| |Mr. Long Ratanak Koma, Director Department of CF (FA) |
| |Mr. La Sangthong, CEDAC’s project coordinator |
| |Ms. Sophie Lewis, Project associate ( RECOFTC) |
| |Ms. Khim Sophy, Finance Manager, WOMEN |
| |Jeremy Diners, Project advisor(WOMEN) |
| |Mr. Kong Udom, Technical Adviser (WOMEN) |
| |Mr. Chea Sarith, WOMEN president |
| |Ms (Dr.) Kao Sochivi, deputy director general of Fishery Administration |
| |Ms. Yumiko Kura, Regional Programme Manager-Mekong World Fish Center |
| |Mr. Prak Visal, Project manager (UN-habitat, Sihanouk Ville) |
| |Ms. Nay Sally, Project support Advisor ( UN-Habitat, Sihanouk Ville) |
|12:00-1:30 pm |Meeting with CEDAC |
| |Mr. Lang Chanthea, CEDAC regional coordinator |
|2:0-3:00 pm |Meeting at Ministry of Planning (MoP) |
| |H.E Nut Chansokha, Under-Secretary of State and Member of NCCC |
| |Mr. Pich Sovanndy, deputy director general of planning, MoP |
|3:15-4:15 pm |Meeting with technical working group on gender and climate change, Ministry of Women Affair |
| |Mr. Udo Gartner , GIZ/WoWA advisor |
| |Ms. Chheng Chhinneth, WoWA deputy director of Gender Equality |
| |Mr. Sok Pieth, Chief office of Policy Advocacy (MOWA) |
| |Ms. Rim Channa, Chief office |
| |Ms. Ros Sithanna, Deputy director of Education department |
| |Ms. Thoeun Sarkmarkna, Deputy director of Education department |
|4:30-5:30 pm |Meeting with Technical Working Group on Agriculture and Climate Change, MAFF |
| |H.E Ty Sokhun, Undersecretary of State, chair of Technical Working Group on Agriculture and Climate Change|
| |, MAFF |
| |Mr. Thaveak Amida, Deputy director general (Vice chair of TWG on CC), MAFF |
| |Mr. Srey Vuthy, Deputy director department of Planning and Statistic, MAFF |
|10-11/03/2012 |Weekend ( MTR team continued reviewing key documents) |
|12/03/2012 |Field visits to grantees’ demonstration sites at Prey Veng |
|Morning |Field visit to RUA and CSUK demonstration sites, Prey Veng |
| |Mr. Ath Dyna ( agricultural extension office, provincial department of agriculture) |
| |Mr. Din Kimsrean, RUA |
| |Mr. Tea Ea ( officer from Provincial Department of Water and Meteorology) Prey Veng |
| |Mr. Chheng Sokhon, Officer from Provincial Department of Water and Meteorology) Prey Veng |
| |Mr. Pin Tara, Research coordinator, CSUK |
| |Mr. Pin Vannaro, Project leader, CSUK |
| |Ms. Chy Ratha, Project assistant, CSUK |
| |Ms. Ly Kalyan, Project assistant, RUA |
| |Ms. Pum Soksan, Accountant/administrator, RUA |
| |Mr. Meang Sath, D.E.W, CSUK |
|Afternoon |Visiting demonstration site by WOMEN organization |
| |Mr. Ngov Savoeun, department of water resource and meteorology |
| |Mr. Ngin Sok, Fishery cantonment, Prey Veng |
| |Mr. Sem Keovirak, Officer from DPA |
| |Mr. Uk Sophanna, Office from DPA |
| |Mr. Bin Sophy, Officer from DPA |
| |Mr. Un Samphy, WOMEN staff |
| |Mr. Uk Oeun, Programme Manager, WOMEN |
| |Ms. Duong Sophak, project assistant, WOMEN |
|13/03/2012 | |
|9:00-11:00 pm |Meeting with CCCA’s communication officer ( Result 2) |
| |Mr. Sem Tola Srey Poeu |
|2:00-3:30 pm |Meeting with PPCR consultant team (CSOs and Gender) PPCR phase 1 ( UNDP office) |
| |Mr. Akhteruzzaman Sano, International Consultant (CSOs and Gender) |
| |Mr. Nuy Bora, national consultant ( CSO and Gender) |
|14/03/2012 |MTR team worked on key findings |
|15/03/2012 |MTR team summary key findings and prepared power point presentation for debriefing |
|3:30-4:30 pm |Meeting at CNMC (Cambodia National Mekong Committee) |
| |H.E Kol Vathana, deputy secretary general of CNMC in charge of Climate Change Adaptation Initiative in |
| |Cambodia and also Member of National Committee for Climate Change (NCCC) |
|16/03/2012 |MTR provided debriefing (for many of the stakeholders who were consulted during the MTR) |
***
3. Documents Reviewed
Anon. nd. Climate Change Country Profile: Cambodia.
Baranes, S. 2010. Closing Remarks. CCCA Inception Workshop.
Cambodia National Mekong Committee. 2010. The State of Climate Change Management in Cambodia.
CCCA. 2010. 2010 Budget Revision Checklist.
CCCA. 2010. 2010-2012 Budget.
CCCA. 2010. Annual Workplan and Budget Revision (2010-2011).
CCCA. 2010. Baseline Survey Report.
CCCA. 2010. CCCA 2010-2012 Budget Breakdown by Account Code.
CCCA. 2010. CCCA Procedures (Flow of Funds for CCCA).
CCCA. 2010. CCCA Recruitment Plan (Feb. – Dec. 2010), including consultancy plan.
CCCA. 2010. CCCA Structure.
CCCA. 2010. CCD Induction on CCCA Programme. May 2010.
CCCA. 2010. CCD Induction to CCCA. Session One.
CCCA. 2010. Concept Note for Consultation Workshops.
CCCA. 2010. Delivery versus Budget (Delivery Plan).
CCCA. 2010. Draft Agenda. 2nd PSB Meeting. Aug. 11, 2010.
CCCA. 2010. Draft Media Advisory for CCCA Inception Workshop.
CCCA. 2010. Draft ToRs for Technical Advisory Panel for CCCA.
CCCA. 2010. First PSB Meeting Minutes, May 19, 2010.
CCCA. 2010. Inception Report for CCCA.
CCCA. 2010. May 2010 draft agenda for 1st PSB Meeting.
CCCA. 2010. Minutes of 2nd PSB Meeting. 11 August 2010.
CCCA. 2010. Minutes of First PSB Meeting.
CCCA. 2010. Minutes of Second PSB Meeting.
CCCA. 2010. NCCC Baseline Summary.
CCCA. 2010. Process/Methodology to Establish Career Development and Skill up Mechanism for CCD Staff.
CCCA. 2010. Programme Operations Handbook. Draft Version One.
CCCA. 2010. Progress Towards the First Board Recommendations.
CCCA. 2010. Q1 2010 Report.
CCCA. 2010. Q2 2010 Report.
CCCA. 2010. Q3 2010 Report.
CCCA. 2010. Questionnaire: Baseline Survey for CCCA Logical Framework (MoE; MoEYS; MoWA).
CCCA. 2010. Revision of CCCA ProDoc.
CCCA. 2011. A Brief Note on Delivery Status.
CCCA. 2011. Agenda for 3rd PSB Meeting, Feb. 2, 2011.
CCCA. 2011. Annex D. Administrative Screening Checklist for Concept Notes.
CCCA. 2011. Annex E. Technical Appraisal Form for Concept Notes.
CCCA. 2011. Annex VIII. MoE Capacity Assessment.
CCCA. 2011. Call for Proposals. Grant Window # CCCA-TF 2011/01.
CCCA. 2011. CCCA 2010-2012 Budget, with 2010 Expenditures.
CCCA. 2011. CCCA 2011-2012 Budget.
CCCA. 2011. CCCA 2011-2012 Implementation Schedule.
CCCA. 2011. CCCA Trust Fund – Projects Approved Under the 1st Call for Proposals.
CCCA. 2011. CCCA Trust Fund Operational Manual.
CCCA. 2011. CCCA Trust Fund. 2011 Grant Application Guidelines Version 1.
CCCA. 2011. Checklist for Technical Quality Review of Proposal for CCCA Grant.
CCCA. 2011. Climate Public Expenditure and Institutional Review. Overview.
CCCA. 2011. Communication and Visibility Plan. CCCA Trust Fund Secretariat Programme 2012-2014.
CCCA. 2011. Concept Note Appraisal Report.
CCCA. 2011. Draft Agenda for 4th PSB Meeting – June 16, 2011.
CCCA. 2011. Draft Agenda. 3rd PSB Meeting. Feb. 2, 2011.
CCCA. 2011. Draft Response to ROM Mission.
CCCA. 2011. Draft Terms of Reference. CCTT Sub-Group on Climate Finance (CCTT-CF).
CCCA. 2011. Draft ToRs for CCTT.
CCCA. 2011. Full Amended ProDoc.
CCCA. 2011. Interim CCCA Trust Fund Operational Manual.
CCCA. 2011. Inter-Office Memorandum to UNDP. Review and signing of five Micro-Capital Grant Agreements.
CCCA. 2011. Key Features of CCCA ProDoc Revision and TF Operational Manual.
CCCA. 2011. List of All Received Concept Notes and Results.
CCCA. 2011. List of CCTT Members.
CCCA. 2011. Minutes of 4th PSB Meeting Minutes. June 16, 2011.
CCCA. 2011. MoU Between UNDP and CEDAC for grant.
CCCA. 2011. Outlines of CCCA Grant Component.
CCCA. 2011. ProDoc Amendment.
CCCA. 2011. Public Information Strategy. NCCC. CCD.
CCCA. 2011. Q1 2011 Report.
CCCA. 2011. Q2 2011 Progress Report.
CCCA. 2011. Roadmap for the Development of the Cambodia Climate Change Strategic Plan.
CCCA. 2011. 3rd PSB Meeting Minutes, Feb. 2011.
CCCA. 2012. Annex A: Guidance Notes on Concept Note.
CCCA. 2012. Annex B: Guidance Notes on Project Proposals.
CCCA. 2012. CCCA Annual Project Report 2011.
CCCA. 2012. Climate Change Education and Awareness Strategy 2012-2014 (reviewed).
CCCA. 2012. Draft Annual Work Plan 2012.
CCCA. 2012. Draft TFS Workplan 2012 (rev. 15 Feb 2012).
CCCA. 2012. Proposal for Case Study Nomination.
CCCA. 2012. Summary of CCTT Meeting (21 February 2012).
CCCA. 2012. TFS Structure. Feb. 2, 2012.
CCCA. 2011. Annual Project Report 2010.
CCCA. 2011. CCCA Organogram for Grants.
CCCA. nd. A Generic Outline of the Sectoral Review for Climate Change Strategic Plan.
CCD. 2011. CCD Organizational Structure.
CCD. 2011. Outlines of Cambodia Climate Change Alliance Grant for Discussion.
CEDAC. 2011. Building resilience against climate change for small-scale farmers and local authorities in Ratanakiri province. Proposal and budget for CCCA.
CEDAC. 2011. Letter showing proof of approved co-financing.
Climate Investment Funds. 2010. PPCR. Cambodia: Proposal for Phase 1 Funding.
Danida. 2008. Climate Change Screening of Danish Development Cooperation with Cambodia.
Dany, V., U. Kamal, and V. Chanmakaravuth. 2010. Climate Change Training Need Assessment. Ministry of Environment, Cambodia.
EC. 2010. Action Fiche; CCCA.
EU. 2010. ROM Monitoring Report for CCCA. October 1, 2010.
EU. 2011. ROM Monitoring Report for CCCA. April 15, 2011.
Fisheries Administration (MAFF). 2011. Proposal and Budget. Building Capacity for Integrating Climate Change Adaptation in Fisheries Sector in Cambodia.
Forestry Administration (Community Forestry Office). 2011. Proposal and Budget. Adaptation to Climate Change Through Alternative Livelihoods in Community Forestry.
Kamal Uy. 2011. Update on Recent CC Development and Key CC Initiatives in Cambodia. Second National Forum on Climate Change, October 2011.
Khim Lay (UNDP). 2011. Sectoral Policies Relevant to CCCSP. Second National Forum on Climate Change, October 2011.
Kien Tran-Mai. 2011. Mekong Climate Change Adaptation Initiative (CCAI): Example of Adaptation from a Regional Perspective. Second National Forum on Climate Change, October 2011.
Kimsrean, Din. 2012. Centre for Agricultural and Environmental Studies. Royal University of Agriculture. Pictorial Records: Building Capacity of Institutions to Help Farmers Better Adapt to Climate Change and Variability in Cambodia. BUILD-FARM-ADAPT. PPT.
Kimsrean, Din. 2012. Centre for Agricultural and Environmental Studies. Royal University of Agriculture. Summary of Planned Program: On-Farm Demonstrations. BUILD-FARM-ADAPT. PPT.
Kurihara, R. 2011. Orientation to CCCA Trust Fund. Second National Forum on Climate Change, October 2011.
Kurihara, R. 2012. CCCA GRANTS - Different Funding Flow & Reporting. TFS Workshop, 2 Feb 2012. PPT.
Kurihara, R. 2012. Session 1: Background to CCCA Programme. TFS Workshop, 2 Feb 2012. PPT.
Kurihara, R. 2012. TFS Workplan 2012-2014. TFS Workshop, 2 Feb 2012. PPT.
Lay Khim. 2009. Making Climate Change Work. Challenges and Opportunities for Economy and Development in Cambodia. Asia Economic Forum, April 7, 2009.
M. Alam. 2011. Key Highlights of Recent CC Negotiations. Second National Forum on Climate Change, October 2011.
MAFF. 2011. Decision on the Establishment of Technical Working Group for Policy and Strategy to Response to Climate Change of the MAFF.
Meas Sophal. 2011. Strategic Pilot Programme for Climate Resilience (PPCR). Phase 1 Cambodia. Second National Forum on Climate Change, October 2011.
Ministry of Environment. 2010. Prakas No. 047. The Establishment and Functioning of the Department of Climate Change.
Ministry of Environment. 2012. Invitation Letter. Inception Workshop on Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Programme for Climate Change within the Coastal Zone of Cambodia.
Mitsugu Saito. 2010. Assignment Detailed WorkPlan.
MoE. 2011. Proposal and Budget. Capacity Strengthening for Community Protected Area (CPA) Communities in Boeung Per Wildlife Sanctuary to Adapt to the Impacts of Climate Change.
MoE. 2012. CCD Website.
MoWA. nd. Decision on Establishment of Gender and Climate Change Working Group.
NCCC. 2009. List of NCCC Members.
NCDD. 2011. Proposal and Budget. Local Governments and Climate Change.
NCDDS. 2012. Local Governments and Climate Change. Quarterly Progress Report to December 31, 2011.
Oxfam. 2011. Owning Adaptation. Country-Level Governance of Climate Adaptation Finance. Oxfam Briefing Paper 146.
Ponlok, Tin. 2012. Key Challenges FOR CCCA & TFS. PPT.
PPCR. 2010. Pilot Program on Climate Resilience Cambodia. Consultancy Report – Civil Society Engagement. August-September 2010.
Provincial Government of Preah Sihanouk Province. 2011. Proposal and Budget. Sustainable Sihanoukville Through Climate Change Planning and Adaptation (SS-CCPA).
RGC (Council for Administrative Reform). 2010. Priority Operating Costs. Implementation Guide.
RGC. 2010. Cambodia Human Development Report on Climate Change. Communication and Dissemination Strategy.
RGC. 2010. Sub-Decree on Establishment and Implementation of the Priority Operating Cost (POC) within the Framework of Development Cooperation.
RGC. nd. National Strategic Development Plan. Update 2009-2013.
RGC/NCCC. 2011. Agenda. Second National Forum on Climate Change.
Royal Government of Cambodia. 2011. Strategic Program for Climate Resilience (SPCR). Prepared for PPCR.
Royal University of Agriculture. 2012. BUILD-FARM-ADAPT. Quarterly Progress Report to December 31, 2011.
RUA. 2011. Full Project Document. Building Capacity of Institutions to Help Farmers Better Adapt to Climate Change and Variability in Cambodia.
Saito, M. 2010. End-of-Consultancy Report – CCCA.
Saito, M. 2010. M&E Requirements and Risk Management Strategy. CCCA Inception Workshop.
Sayed. 2010. Presentation to CCCA on TF Management.
Sophoan Phean (Oxfam). 2011. Adaptation Finance. Second National Forum on Climate Change, October 2011.
Sothanarith, V. 2011. Climate Change Blamed as Flooding Continues. Voice of America. October 6, 2011.
Staab, M. 2012. Institutional Arrangements. PPCR and CCD. Excel File.
Stabb, M. 2012. Pilot Programme for Climate Resilience. Strategic Programme for Climate Resilience PPCR / SPCR. General Introduction. PPT.
Sum Thy. 2011. The Cambodia Climate Change Alliance. Second National Forum on Climate Change, October 2011.
Sum Thy. 2011. Towards Cambodia’s Climate Change Strategic Plan. Second National Forum on Climate Change, October 2011.
Sum Thy. 2011. Towards Durban, South Africa. Draft Cambodia’s Positions. Second National Forum on Climate Change, October 2011.
Tara, Pin. 2012. CSUK. BUILD-FARM-ADAPT. Progress of WP1-3. PPT.
Tin Ponlok. 2011. Background on CCCA Trust Fund. Second National Forum on Climate Change, October 2011.
Tin Ponlok. 2011. Key Finding of Cambodia’s Second National Communication. Second National Forum on Climate Change, October 2011.
UNCDF. 2011. Local Climate Adaptive Living Facility. Cambodia Mission Report, November 2011.
UNCDF. 2012. Summary of Expected Results in Takeo Province.
UNDP. 2009. Contribution Agreement with Danida.
UNDP. 2009. Contribution Agreement with EU.
UNDP. 2009. Contribution Agreement with Sida.
UNDP. 2009. Minutes of Fifth Informal Meeting of Development Partners on Climate Change. Aug. 20, 2009.
UNDP. 2009. Minutes of First Informal Meeting of Development Partners on Climate Change. Feb. 19, 2009.
UNDP. 2009. Minutes of Fourth Informal Meeting of Development Partners on Climate Change. July 2, 2009.
UNDP. 2009. Minutes of Second Informal Meeting of Development Partners on Climate Change. March 19, 2009.
UNDP. 2009. Minutes of Seventh Informal Meeting of Development Partners on Climate Change. Nov. 20, 2009.
UNDP. 2009. Minutes of Sixth Informal Meeting of Development Partners on Climate Change. Oct. 13, 2009.
UNDP. 2009. Minutes of Third Informal Meeting of Development Partners on Climate Change. May 7, 2009.
UNDP. 2010. Capacities to Conserve Biodiversity and to Respond to Climate Change. Outcome Evaluation 2006-2010.
UNDP. 2010. EU ROM Schedule September 2010.
UNDP. 2010. Internal Control Framework for CCCA.
UNDP. 2010. Letter of Agreement with RGC for Support Services.
UNDP. 2010. Minutes of Eighth Informal Meeting of Development Partners on Climate Change. Feb. 17, 2010.
UNDP. 2010. Minutes of Eleventh Informal Meeting of Development Partners on Climate Change. Aug. 4, 2010.
UNDP. 2010. Minutes of Meeting: CCCA Inception – Development of Annual WorkPlan.
UNDP. 2010. Minutes of Ninth Informal Meeting of Development Partners on Climate Change. April 1, 2010.
UNDP. 2010. Minutes of Tenth Informal Meeting of Development Partners on Climate Change. June 10, 2010.
UNDP. 2010. Minutes of Thirteenth Informal Meeting of Development Partners on Climate Change. Nov. 17, 2010.
UNDP. 2010. Minutes of Twelfth Informal Meeting of Development Partners on Climate Change. Sep. 16, 2010.
UNDP. 2010. UNDP Staff Engagement in CCCA.
UNDP. 2011. Addendum #1 to Contribution Agreement for CCCA.
UNDP. 2011. Blending Climate Finance Through National Climate Funds. A Guidebook for the Design and Establishment of National Funds to Achieve Climate Change Priorities.
UNDP. 2011. Building Resilience: The Future for Rural Livelihoods in the face of Climate Change. Cambodia Human Development Report.
UNDP. 2011. Cambodia Country Programme Action Plan.
UNDP. 2011. Clarification Letter Regarding Narrative Report.
UNDP. 2011. Climate Change and Agriculture. Cambodia Human Development Report.
UNDP. 2011. Climate Change and Forestry. Cambodia Human Development Report.
UNDP. 2011. Climate Change and Local Action. Cambodia Human Development Report.
UNDP. 2011. Climate Change and Water Resources. Cambodia Human Development Report.
UNDP. 2011. Contract with DHI (for Result 4, CCCA).
UNDP. 2011. Country Programme Document (2011-2015).
UNDP. 2011. EU ROM Schedule March 2011.
UNDP. 2011. Letters of Agreement for Grants (with CEDAC, FA, FiA, NCDD-S, RUA, Sihanoukville, Women).
UNDP. 2011. Minutes of Fifteenth Informal Meeting of Development Partners on Climate Change. May 11, 2011.
UNDP. 2011. Minutes of Fourteenth Informal Meeting of Development Partners on Climate Change. March 2, 2011.
UNDP. 2011. Response to Second ROM of CCCA. April, 2011.
UNDP. 2011. UNDP Roles in CCCA.
UNDP. 2012. 2011 Annual Narrative and Financial Reports.
UNEP (DHI). 2010. Coastal Adaptation and Resilience Planning Component (revised June 2011).
UNEP. 2011. Adaptation Fund Proposal. Enhancing Climate Change Resilience of Rural Communities Living in Protected Areas of Cambodia.
University of Gothenburg. 2010. Cambodia Environmental and Climate Change Policy Brief.
WOMEN. 2011. Full Project Proposal and Budget. Together Addressing Climate Change Initiative – Prey Veng.
WOMEN. 2012. Together Addressing Climate Change Initiative – Prey Veng. Quarterly Progress Report to December 31, 2011.
Yusuf, A.A. and H. Francisco. 2009. Climate Change Vulnerability Mapping for Southeast Asia. IDRC.
***
4. Climate Change Context in Cambodia
Introduction
Climate change is perceived to be a real phenomenon in Cambodia. Assessments by scientists (MoE, 2010) and perceptions of rural people (MoE/BBC Trust, 2011) point to significant recent changes that are compelling people to finally take action. Climate changes have far-reaching implications for rural livelihoods in Cambodia, and for the future of national development.
The recent study on Public Perceptions of Climate Change showed that three-quarters of people across Cambodia believe that “climate change is a priority issue”. They believe they have felt the impacts of climate change in terms of health issues, decline in agricultural production, more frequent occurrence of drought, increasing temperatures and water shortages. Seventy-four per cent of farmers say their work has been badly affected by changes in weather (MoE/BBC Trust, 2011).
Recently, the Cambodian government has set a high priority in dealing with climate change issues, with the key focus on those impacts that will endanger progress toward reaching its MDG goals by 2015 and the prospect of growth of GDP. Climate change issues cannot be addressed by a single actor. Management of climate change needs close cooperation between both government and development partners and the engagement of stakeholders at all levels, from national and international organizations down to grassroots organizations. This will require relevant action, from national policy planning and implementation, in line with the National Strategic Development Plan, to community-based adaptation and mitigation activities, with a priority being to take ‘No Regrets[2]’ actions to build climate change resilience that will give priority to existing areas of vulnerability and poverty.
Overview of Projected Impacts of Climate Change in Cambodia
Predicting climate change is fraught with difficulty. Most of the work has focused on predicted changes in temperature and shifts in rainfall patterns; rapid increases in temperature are expected in less than two decades.
The draft Second National Communication (SNC) prepared by MOE in 2010 (on behalf of the Cambodian government) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has clearly demonstrated that temperatures in the country have risen steadily over the last 50 years, and that “a rapid increase in temperature is expected to occur after 2030” (MoE, 2010). Rainfall patterns are also shifting (Eastham et al., 2009).
Climate change predictions for Cambodia can be summarized as follows:
• increases in temperature; Cambodia’s temperature has already been increasing and will keep increasing;
• shifts in the timing and duration of the seasons, with shorter, wetter rainy seasons, and longer, drier dry seasons;
• increased frequency and intensity of floods and droughts; and,
• ongoing sea level rise in coastal areas.
These changes inherently lead to greater variability and less predictability. Much of the impact will be felt through water resources, with changes in availability, quantity, and quality of water. Natural hazards, such as storms, floods, and droughts are likely to become more prevalent and more intense. Shifts in seasonal patterns will have enormous implications for the way that people in Cambodia farm: there will be changes in the growing times, changes in water availability, and reduced productivity of traditional crop varieties (Johnston et al., 2010; Eastham et al., 2009). The impacts will also have broader implications for all other key areas of economic activity that are profoundly influenced by water and temperature, including fisheries, forestry, and food security.
Sectoral Impacts in Cambodia
Based on the scientific projections noted above, future climate change is likely to impact a wide range of human activities in Cambodia. Climate change impacts in the following sectors have been analysed by MoE (2010): agriculture, water resources, forestry, coastal zone, and health. The key impacts discussed in the SNC are summarized below:
|Key sectors |Key sectoral impacts due to climate change, as discussed in the draft SNC 2010 |
|Agriculture (focus on rice |Under the high emission scenario, wet season rice yield will decrease until 2080, possibly down to 70% less the |
|production) |current yield levels. |
| |Under the low emission scenario, the yield decrease ranges from 60% (wet season rice) to about 20% (dry season |
| |rice). |
|Water resources (focus on the |Climate change is likely to bring significant changes to the Mekong River Basin. However, more studies are |
|river basins and soil-water |required to fully understand the impacts. |
|balance) |Under future climate (2025 to 2050), most of Cambodia’s agriculture areas are predicted to be exposed to higher |
| |drought risks. |
|Forestry |Under the high and low emission scenarios, up to 2050, most lowland forest will be exposed to a longer dry period|
| |(6-8 months or more). However, it will go back to the current conditions after 2080. |
| |Increase in the risk of forest fire. |
|Coastal zone |A total of about 25,000 ha will be permanently inundated by a sea level rise of 1m, increasing to 38,000 ha at a |
| |sea level rise of 2m. |
|Health (focus on malaria) |It is very likely that the malaria risk may increase in the future until 2050, particularly in provinces located |
| |in the NE. In 2080, the risk may decrease again following the change in climate. |
Flooding and Drought
Flooding and drought are major influences on rice production[3] in Cambodia. The regular seasonal pattern of flooding and drought is central to traditional agricultural practices, ensuring fertility and productivity. Traditionally, farmers have been able to plant different rice varieties according to what they expect from the upcoming seasons. Yet, climate change will not only result in more flooding and drought (more intense and more frequent), but it will also will make the onset of seasons less predictable. This will of course have a large impact on productivity, especially for rice, which is very sensitive to the timing of first rains. Climate change is also associated with “mini-droughts’’ in the wet season and unexpected rains during the dry season, all of which further affect productivity and the livelihoods of farmers.
MoE (2010) has recorded areas of rice crop that have been affected by flood and drought in various years (see below). Such events now happen with some regularity, and floods and droughts can occur in the same year (for example, 1996 and 2002). The period 2000-2002 also saw three consecutive years of significant flooding.
|Flood |Drought |
|Year |Area (ha) |Year |Area (ha) |
|1984 |400,000 |1991 |200,000 |
|1995 |150,000 |1994 |250,000 |
|1996 |450,000 |1996 |400,000 |
|2000 |400,000 |1997 |430,000 |
|2001 |200,000 |2002 |150,000 |
|2002 |100,000 |2004 |300,000 |
Between 1987 and 2007 alone, the total cost of floods has been estimated at US$327 million, with US$138 million in damages caused by drought. Most significant is that drought periods increasingly are being followed by destructive floods.
Cambodia continues to experience variable natural phenomena, such as the delayed rains in 2010, which underscored the extreme dependence of rural livelihoods on the regularity of seasons, controlled by the climate, and the availability of natural resources like water. The late onset of the rainy season resulted in record-low water levels on the Tonle Sap and Mekong Rivers, and stirred public dialogue about implications of climate change. Many poor farmers have now found themselves in a tenuous position, having lost their crops in 2009, due to the highly unusual and devastating Typhoon Ketsana (see figure above[4]), and then a flash flood in 2011.
In 2010, the country also experienced prolonged drought, during which thousands of hectares of rice crops were destroyed, with an estimated hundred million dollars of rice production lost.
In late 2011, the country was further affected by the Mekong floods, which resulted in at least 250 deaths, inundation of 430,000 hectares of rice paddy (including 280,000 ha completely destroyed), bringing the number of affected families and people to 350,000 families and 1.5 million people, respectively, with an estimated US$520 million loss.
Impacts on Different Agro-Ecological Zones
Climate change has different impacts, depending on the livelihoods of people and the agro-ecological system of the country. Below is a summary of the possible implications of projected climate changes, based on the agro-ecological zones in Cambodia (see figure above; FAO/MOP, 2010):
• Tonle Sap Zone: Given the central importance of agriculture, particularly rice, for rural livelihoods in Cambodia and national economic development, any climate change impacts on production will have far-reaching implications, most notably for the poor. Even with the apparently rising levels of production and rice exports (RGC, 2010), the number of Cambodian people considered food-insecure remains high. With a large concentration of poor people and a heavy dependence on agriculture and fisheries production, the Tonle Sap Zone stands out as being particularly vulnerable to climate change.
• Plains Zone (the Mekong Delta): This area comprises the land from Phnom Penh down to the Viet Nam border, including the Mekong and Basac floodplains. It has an estimated population of 4,326,825, including 2,251,752 women involved with agriculture. It is one of the main agriculture production areas in Cambodia, and is already susceptible to floods, droughts, and siltation, all causing agricultural losses and soil degradation. While poverty levels are not as high as in other parts of the country, the relatively high population density means that there are many people who are vulnerable to climate variability stresses within this zone.
• Coastal Zone: This zone includes areas within four provinces (Koh Kong, Sihanoukville, Kampot, and Kep) and is projected to be vulnerable to sea level rise and increased salinization, with related impacts on agriculture, fisheries, and access to safe drinking water. Mangrove ecosystems are especially vulnerable to coastal erosion (especially when combined with mangrove tree clearing); their ongoing degradation can intensify climate change vulnerability. Poverty levels within the coastal zone are high, with few alternative employment options. Coastal resources are coming under greater pressure particularly from tourism development, industrialization, urban expansion, and inappropriate fisheries exploitation practices.
• Plateau/Mountain Zone: This zone covers the upper stretches of the Mekong River and its tributaries (the Sekong, Sesan and Srepok in the north-east) as well as other upland areas, such as the Cardamom Mountains. These forested uplands contain a diverse range of relatively undisturbed old-growth rainforest and support globally significant biodiversity. The zone consists of sparsely populated areas of semi-subsistence shifting cultivation, but recent rapid land use change has given rise to increasing pressure from encroachment of agricultural land for plantations, grazing, deforestation, and mining. The increasing licensing of economic concession zones is an additional pressure (this is also evident in the Coastal Zone). More pressure is now occurring with regard to livelihoods dependent on natural hydrological systems and the productivity of natural forests. The zone includes some of the poorest areas and already faces numerous development constraints.
The overall impacts summarized above reveal that Cambodia’s vulnerability stems from its characteristics as an agrarian country that is laying at a low elevation (the Mekong River Basin) and that is yet to develop the required adequate copying capacities in the communities and the necessary resilience of infrastructure and services. Overall, there is low adaptive capacity in the country and people do not prepare for and respond to shocks and crises adequately. In addressing these constraints, the arrangement of institutions and key stakeholders is the key to dealing with on-going and future climate change issues.
Institutional Arrangements and Stakeholder Analysis
Institutional Arrangements
The National Climate Change Committee (NCCC) is the main national institution responsible for climate change co-ordination and policy. It was established in 2006 and is based in the Ministry of Environment. The NCCC is responsible inter alia for (a) coordinating the implementation of climate change activities in Cambodia; (b) developing climate change policies, strategies, legal instruments, plans and programs; and (c) the integration of climate change concerns into relevant policies, strategies, and legal instruments. It has been partly effective in carrying out its mandate, but has only recently begun to meet regularly to address climate change issues. The Committee is cross-sectoral and multidisciplinary in nature and is composed of high-level representatives (Secretaries and Under-Secretaries of State) from 19 ministries, including the Ministry of Economics and Finance (MEF), and government agencies. The Minister of Environment chairs the NCCC, and in late 2009, the Prime Minister accepted the role of the Honorary Chair of the NCCC.
The current NCCC has made efforts to improve the coordination of climate change activities in Cambodia. Up to now, the NCCC has organized two National Forums on Climate Change. The first one took place in October 2009, with participation of over 300 representatives of Government ministries and agencies, the National Assembly and Senate, development partners, private sector, academia, and NGOs. The second took place in late 2011 with similar participants. These fora have covered an extensive scope of issues: climate change science, the UNFCCC process, mitigation, adaptation, climate change mainstreaming, gender, biodiversity, communications, a low-carbon society, and the government positions towards COP-15, 16 and 17.
The NCCC is functioning through its secretariat: the CCD[5] (Climate Change Department) which was upgraded from office to department level in 2009 (CCCA is embedded in the CCD).
Summary of Key Stakeholders
Government Agencies
There are many stakeholders from government line ministries involved with climate change issues. These include:
NCDD and Sub-National Development Reform: Key ministries involved with sub-national development include the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Planning. Climate mainstreaming into sub-national development is required in line with the current Organic Law. The two ministries play an important role in coordinating the current National Committee for Democratic Development (NCDD). The Royal Government of Cambodia has recognized climate change as a development priority by proposing the development of a Cambodia Climate Change Strategic Plan as one of the key actions in the National Strategic Development Plan (NSDP) 2009-2013 (this is in fact one of the key components of CCCA). In addition, nine sectors have recognized climate change as a priority in their sectoral plans and policies. For example, the National Programme for Sub-National Democratic Development (NP-SNDD) for 2010-2019 recognizes climate change as one of the cross-cutting themes that requires mainstreaming of climate change through local actions.
At the sub-national level, in association with Provincial Rural Development Committees, the Provincial Departments of Planning (PDoP) coordinate the formulation of 5-year provincial development plans (PDPs), and three-year rolling investment plans with the participation of provincial line departments and sub-provincial authorities. The annual process includes preparation of commune investment plans which are integrated into district plans, and then revalidation of provincial level plans for funding via the relevant line ministries. Recent reforms involving a new policy on decentralization and deconcentration (D&D) mean that the provincial governance structure will be redefined, but there is expected to be increased planning and budgeting autonomy for sub-national entities, which promises to create a potential channel for mainstreaming climate change resilience measures at the sub-national and local levels (also being addressed by CCCA, through grants in Result 5).
Other line ministries also have some responsibility for addressing climate change, for example:
• MAFF (Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries): This ministry has been involved with various projects and policies in responding to current climate change adaption and mitigation needs. The ministry has involved key internal institutions which include Forestry Administration (FA), General Directorate of Agriculture, Fishery Administration (FiA), Animal Health and Production, and Cambodia Agricultural Research and Development Institute (CARDI). Most of the institutions have their own long-term visions (10-year and 20-year strategies). A MAFF Technical Working Group on Climate Change has been established to deal with climate change issues.
• National Committee for Disaster Management (NCDM): This committee was established in 1995 and is chaired by the Prime Minister. It comprises five ministries (including the armed forces). The NCDM is the national inter-ministerial body responsible for providing emergency relief and disaster risk management, including climate hazards. In 2008, the committee formulated a Strategic National Action Plan for Disaster Risk Reduction (SNAP) 2008-2013 to serve as a working framework. However, the linkages with the NCCC and other national committees are diffuse and there is limited coordination between the entities. In 2010, a US$40 million[6] project from the World Bank (grant and loan), was established in response to Typhoon Ketsana (the Ketsana Emergency Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Project). NCDM was allocated with US$3 million for institutional strengthening and capacity building.
• National Mekong River Committee (CNMC): This was established in 1957 as an inter-ministerial committee. It is also a member of the NCCC and is currently involved with a demonstration activity as part of the MRC Climate Change Adaptation Initiative (CCAI) in Prey Veng province, with about US$100,000 (in collaboration with MoE, Climate Change Department; the total fund for the regional initiative is estimated at about US$6 million - from Sida).
• MoWRAM (Ministry of Water Resources and Meteorology): The ministry’s Department of Meteorology (DoM) is the government focal point for weather and climate information. The DoM maintains an observation network of 21 manual and 9 automatic stations, many of which are not operating. Currently, the Ministry has installed US$7 million worth of meteorological technology, which will help predict storms, weather, and precipitation more accurately. Since 2010, the ministry has also been involved with irrigation projects and flood control dike systems throughout the country.
• Ministry of Women Affairs (MoWA): The ministry has been actively involved with gender and climate issues. They are involved with joint implementation of the current NAPA Follow-Up project, based in Kratie and Preah Vihear. The ministry has also established a sub-working group to deal with climate change issues, as well as being an active member of the NCCC.
• Ministry of Rural Development (MRD): The ministry is involved with rural road infrastructure rehabilitation (with the current loan from ADB to deal with climate change) and rural sanitation programs. They also have a representative on the CCTT and the NCCC.
• Ministry of Public Works and Transportation (MPWT): They have recently received fund from JICA to conduct an emission study (transportation sector).
Development Partners: International Financial Institutions, UN, and Bilateral Aid Agencies
• EU (European Commission): The EC is the largest institution representing all European countries. The EC has funded many NGOs and currently supports the CCCA programme.
• World Bank/ADB - PPCR (Pilot Project on Climate Resilience): PPCR involves two phases: the first one with a grant of US$1.5 million focusing on capacity building at the national level, sub-national climate mainstreaming, civil society and gender, and science-based development. The second phase involves both a grant and loan (US$86 million), focusing on three major sectors: agriculture, water resources (irrigation) and rural infrastructure development and renovation. The project is chaired by the Ministry of Economics and Finance and is implemented by the Ministry of Environment. Cambodia is one of eleven countries which have received this type of climate investment fund (CIF).
• JICA focuses on the UN-REDD project, mostly working with Forestry Administration.
• AusAid (Australian Agency for International Development) has funded various projects. One of the most notable is the current CAVAC (Cambodia Agricultural Value Chain) project, with AU$43 million focusing on agriculture, value chains and irrigation renovation and development. AusAid also funds the current UNDP project: CCBAP (Cambodia Climate Change Community Based Adaptation).
• USAID (United States Agency for International Development): USAID-HARVEST (Helping Address Rural Vulnerabilities and Ecosystem STability) is a five-year project (2010-2015) with the key ultimate goal to improve food security through enhanced agricultural development and rational management of natural resources. Climate change is one of the four components addressed through better national resource management. The project aim to increase rural income for 100,000 households in the provinces surrounding Tonle Sap. There is also a USAID project on Mekong River Basin Climate Change Adaptation Project (MRB-CCAP), USAID/RDMA, Thailand. This is also a multi-year project with about a hundred million dollars support.
• FAO (Cambodia): FAO is also involved with UN-REDD and has projects being implemented in Preah Vihear, Kratie, Siem Reap, and Banteay Meanchey, dealing with agricultural value change, which also has some implications for climate change adaptation.
• UNDP has been involved with several key projects in Cambodia which include the current NAPA Follow-Up[7], CCCA, UN-REDD, Sustainable Forest Management, and CCBAP (Cambodia Community Based Adaptation Programme). The CCBAP has been active at the community level within different geographical zones. Its objectives are to improve community-based adaptation and climate resilience in vulnerable communities in the flood/drought prone provinces of Cambodia. The CCBAP has three outputs: (1) improved capacity within NGOs, CBOs and local communities to implement community adaptation measures; (2) mainstreamed adaptation to climate change at the commune level; and, (3) lessons learned and good practices documented and shared to influence changes of policy and programme development. To date, the CCBAP has provided funding to 45 LNGO/CBO projects, to demonstrate climate-resilient techniques at both the community and household levels in the priority geographical areas. Those 45 projects are implemented in 96 communes, 49 districts, and 18 provinces, working closely with commune council members and technical institutions to support communities in implementing adaptation measures. The project is being funded by AusAid, GEF, and SIDA.
Overall, UNDP serves as a key broker in national and sub-national policy dialogues on climate change adaptation.
International and Local NGOs
The major international NGOs involved in research and capacity development in the conservation, environment, and natural resource sectors in Cambodia include Concern Worldwide, OXFAM, Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF), World Conservation Union (IUCN), Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), Fauna and Flora International, Conservation International, Wetlands International, and the International Development Research Centre. A significant number of local NGOs have developed in recent years; these are becoming increasingly involved in natural resource management through community development activities (see table below).
Summary of Recent and On-going NGO Climate Change Related Projects:
|Name of Project |Timeframe |NGO / Funding Agency |
|Climate Mitigation and Livelihood Improvements through Sustainable Agricultural |2008- 2011 |CEDAC/ NORDECO |
|Practices. Prey Veng Province | | |
|Integrated Commercial Farms for Small Farmers Project. Takeo Province | 2009-2010 |CEDAC / UNDP GEF SGP |
|Community Based Livelihood Improvements in Protected Areas. Kampong Chhang |2008-2010 |CEDAC / UNDP GEF SGP |
|Province | | |
|Integrated Community Development and Advocacy Programs. Ratanakiri, Mondulkiri,|2010 – 2012 |DPA / CAFOD, Trocaire, OA, EC, Manos |
|Kampot and Stung Treng | |Unidas |
|Joint Climate Change Initiative on Capacity Building of Local NGOs |2010 |Forum Syd, DCA/CA, Cord / SIDA |
|Climate Change Awareness |Since 2006 |GERES Cambodia |
|Carbon/energy auditing and services |Since 2006 |GERES clients |
|Agro-forestry projects for sustainable biomass supply |Since 2005 |GERES Cambodia |
|Capacity building project |Since 2007 |GERES Cambodia |
|Nexus project |Since 2007 |GERES Cambodia |
|Research project |Since 2007 |GERES Cambodia |
|Emission reduction project development |Since 1996 |GERES Cambodia |
|Barrier Removal for Solar Energy for Rural Electrification |2009-2011 |Kamworks Ltd |
|Climate Change Awareness Raising for Legislators Project |2010 |Heinrich Boll Foundation |
|Solar Battery Charging Stations Project |2010-2013 |Local Capacity Builder (LOCAB) |
|Solar Power Organic Garden Project |2010-2013 |LOCAB |
|Adaptation to Climate Change in Cambodia (improved water management and drought |2008-2009 |Lutheran World Federation (LWF) / FCF |
|resistant agricultural methods in Kampong Chhhang). To be rolled out in 3 other| | |
|provinces | | |
|Environmental Radio Program |2010-2011 |Miup Baitong |
|Environmental Issues Project (advocacy) |2010 |NGO Forum Cambodia |
|Hydropower and Community Rights Project |2010 |NGO Forum Cambodia / Various |
|Pesticides Reduction and Sustainable Agriculture Project |2010 |NGO Forum Cambodia / Various |
|Climate Modeling and Prediction for Better Decision Making (at community level) |2010 |Oxfam America |
|Awareness Campaign and Capacity Building Project |2009-10 |Oxfam America |
|Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices (KAP) Climate Change Study |2010 |BBC World Service / Danida, OA, UNDP |
| | |and SIDA |
|Oddar Meanchey Community Forestry REDD project |2008-ongoing |Pact Cambodia |
|Engaging Children in Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Project |2010-2012 |Plan International Cambodia / Various |
|Mobilizing youth in radio program on awareness raising on climate change |2009-2011 |Sarika F.M. |
|Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction and Disaster Management into Area |2009-2011 |World Vision Cambodia |
|Development Program and Communities | | |
|Cambodia Country Program Study |- |Oxfam Hong Kong |
|Climate Change and Perceptions for Better Decision Making Through Visual |- |On Photography Cambodia |
|Communication | | |
|Youth Movement for Climate Change Response Project |- |Youth Resource Development program |
Source: NCCN, 2010
***
5. Matrix of MTR Observations (for Each CCCA Output)
|OUTPUT 1.1: National Climate Change policy and legislation that reflect development priorities. |
|Output Indicators |Baseline |Target |Current |MTR Observations |
| |2010 |2012 |status | |
| | | |Dec 2011 | |
|Draft documentation on CC|UNEP supported|Adoption of |No action|The V&A assessment may be languishing, as it has not been referred|
|policy and legislation |assessment of |recommendations by |taken |to at all by any stakeholders as a guiding document. Previous |
|development with |V & A |NCCC | |policy analyses are therefore not serving as platforms for current|
|recommendations relevant |legislation | | |work. |
|to Cambodia | | | |The advancement of the CCCSP (which should inform CC legislation |
| | | | |and institutional structures) has been very slow, with lack of |
| | | | |technical support to guide it. This has now been accelerated as a|
| | | | |two-month exercise to be undertaken by each of the Line Ministries|
| | | | |(but perhaps as individual initiatives, with no overall guidance |
| | | | |and therefore a risk of inconsistency when all the Ministry CC |
| | | | |strategies are clipped together). |
|No action yet taken (this activity is slated for 2012/2013), however |The main risk here is that all the other CCCA elements are |
|initial information is being collaged (collated?) under the CCCSP |operating without a coherent strategy, and may be causing a |
|development process. |divergence of activity directions, when in fact a single vision |
| |and coordination mechanism are required. This activity should |
| |have been taken up right from the beginning of CCCA, if there had |
| |been a consolidated CCD and CTA effort with this. |
|Other MTR Observations |
|Relevance and suitability of the indicators in the logical framework. |
|The first output would normally be a policy, legislation, and institutional gap analysis, with a climate change focus (perhaps the UNEP |
|document did this, but needs updating). The current performance indicator is therefore relevant. However, there might also be some |
|assessment of NCCC understanding of and commitment to policy renewal and legislative reform. How have their attitudes changed as a result |
|of their involvement with COP 16 and 17, for example, and how should this be captured in new CC policies and legislation? |
|Extent to which the planned activities allow for attainment of project objectives (appropriateness). |
|The plan for this output, apart from advancing the CCCSP, is not really very clear. How will a CCCSP translate into actual revised policy |
|and drafting of new laws? It is unlikely that new policy and legislation will be drafted and endorsed within the CCCA timeframe. |
|Strategies developed and implemented in addressing the key challenges faced in programme implementation. |
|The main challenge here has been lack of technical guidance, and inability of Government staff to be fully engaged with the CCCSP process, |
|especially beyond the MoE (the other line ministries, and also within the civil society community). This has now been defined as an |
|accelerated two-month activity, which may short-change the strategy development process. It is understood that there is a need to get |
|going with the CCCSP process, as it has stalled for almost two years, but to now rush it without coherent leadership is a big risk. |
|Appropriateness of budget expenditures against outputs produced to date (elapsed time, cost effectiveness, value-for-money). |
|Difficult to determine, as expenditure reports do not capture the effort that goes into each output or deliverable. Much of the budget for|
|R1 has gone to Government staff travel (the various COP activities and related events), which may have helped to inform and improve the |
|capacities of individuals, but not necessarily feeding the CCCSP process. |
|Linkages to other CCCA activities and other donor initiatives. |
|This activity has been deferred so far, and does not have clear linkages to other CCCA activities. For example, it is not clear that the |
|policy implications of “on-the ground” experiences within the grants (Result 5) and the coastal adaptation initiative (Result 4) will be |
|captured and directed back to CCD, or feed into the CCCSP process. The corollary is that the grants may not be properly addressing and |
|testing policy gaps (such as climate change planning at the local level), as there is no strategic direction being provided (apart from |
|some general sector criteria for the grant proposals and a requirement for partnerships between CSOs and Government). |
|PPCR is also intending to develop CC strategies and plans, based on gap analysis of all institutions that have some connection to CC. This|
|is a duplication of the original CCCA plan; however, with a late start for CCCA policy and legislation activity, PPCR may eclipse the CCCA |
|CCCSP activity. Close coordination is required, and this needs to be driven by CCD, which has involvement with both PPCR and CCCA. |
|Ownership, sustainability. |
|As this will be a consultant-driven and accelerated exercise, done perhaps independently within each Line Ministry, there is a risk that |
|there is no single owner or champion for the proposed strategy coming from the process. In theory, CCD (actually the NCCC) should be the |
|driver and owner. |
|Possible adjustments (if such are needed to achieve the objective and outcomes of the programme); alternative approaches, other |
|opportunities. |
|See below; consolidated under Output 1.6. |
|OUTPUT 1.2: National buy-in and ownership of CCCSP and other key outputs of INC, SNC, NAPA etc… |
|Output Indicators |Baseline |Target |Current status |MTR Observations |
| |2010 |2012 |Dec 2011 | |
|CCCSP endorsed by |No CCCSP |CCCSP endorsed |First draft of CCCSP |The roadmap apparently defines the process for developing the |
|NCCC | | |roadmap was endorsed |CCCSP, rather than setting a template for the CCCSP itself. |
| | | |by NCCC and key |Nevertheless, it is some measure of progress that the CCCSP |
| | | |sector ministries met|process is now being activated (but see comments above). |
| | | |to agree on 17 |There is still an issue that the previous analyses of legislation|
| | | |priority sectors. |are not referred to as anchors for the CCCSP process; similarly, |
| | | | |the NAPA, NSDP, and CHDR (and other related documents) need to be|
| | | | |filtered for possible inputs to a new CCCSP. This should be a |
| | | | |coordinated activity within CCD, and certainly needs some |
| | | | |technical assistance or leadership. The CCCSP then would |
| | | | |harmonize and crystallize climate change action in each of the |
| | | | |active sectors. |
|# of sector policies|None |At least 2 |None, since CCCSP is |Will the CCCSP be a series of sector actions, or an overarching |
|and programmes which| |sectors’ policies |not yet developed |set of policies and guidance that provide direction and coherence|
|refer to CCCSP | |and programmes | |to all Government entities and civil society? What is the vision|
| | | | |and purpose of the CCCSP? This is not clear to the MTR Team. |
| | | | |Will responsibilities and coordinating mechanisms be clarified, |
| | | | |or will each sector have its own course of actions, without clear|
| | | | |accountability to CCD? |
| | | | |Having a target of just 2 sector policies suggests that 15 may be|
| | | | |in limbo; this is not a very ambitious target, and the lack of |
| | | | |sector policies could completely undermine the CCCSP. The point |
| | | | |here is that a strategy, if it is to actually work and provide |
| | | | |guidance for all actions, must be taken up by all entities and |
| | | | |stakeholders, not just some. |
| | | | |The relationship between a CCCSP, which should provide |
| | | | |over-arching CC management guidance, and sector policies which |
| | | | |“refer” to the CCCSP, is obscure; possibly reflecting a lack of |
| | | | |clear vision about the purpose of a Strategic Plan. |
|# of NAPA follow-up |2 projects|6 projects defined|Two projects on |While the NAPA has helped frame two projects to date, it is not |
|projects implemented|defined | |Agriculture/Water |clear that these reflect strategic priorities. Will the CCCSP |
| | | |Management and |clearly define the priority needs in sector, geographical, and |
| | | |Coastal Zone ongoing.|temporal terms? There is a whole suite of quite small CC |
| | | | |projects that appear to have developed within separate sectors or|
| | | | |at national and sub-national levels that do not reflect a |
| | | | |coherent CC strategy; furthermore, they do not appear to be |
| | | | |properly catalogued to determine how they could possibly meet |
| | | | |strategic needs, even if these were defined. |
| | | | |Nevertheless, the eight grants under R5 are a significant |
| | | | |contribution to the CC project portfolio. |
|# of CCTT review |None |CCCSP, INC, SNC, |CCCSP roadmap, PIS, |The CCTT is quite new (20 ministries), and while this is a |
|reports submitted to| |NAPA covered in |CCTT-ToR, |positive step, it lacks leadership, and does not appear to have a|
|NCCC | |CCTT quarterly and| |concrete mandate and workplan. The CCTT appears to be responsive|
| | |annual reports | |to the CCCA (CCD), and individuals in the CCTT can take advantage|
| | | | |of opportunities provided by CCCA, rather than taking direction |
| | | | |from the NCCC (which appears to be somewhat removed from the |
| | | | |daily activities of CCD). |
| | | | |A better measure of CCTT effectiveness would be the quality of |
| | | | |advice that they provide to the NCCC (and NCCC willingness to |
| | | | |take the advice into consideration), rather than the number of |
| | | | |reports that they submit to the NCCC. |
|Other MTR Observations |
|Relevance and suitability of the indicators in the logical framework. |
|The indicators are mostly based on production of reports, rather than variables which would reflect the utility of the CCTT (such as the |
|ability of the CCTT to persuade the NCCC to take up certain positions on CC, catalyzing important policy shifts, etc). |
|The targets appear to be somewhat arbitrary (numerical targets, and not very ambitious); with regard to the CCCSP, the innovativeness, |
|coherence, and practicality of the strategy would be more useful indicators than whether or not the CCCSP is endorsed. |
|Extent to which the planned activities allow for attainment of project objectives (appropriateness). |
|Certainly establishing the CCTT and embarking on the CCCSP are two important steps in generating national buy-in and ownership of any |
|initiatives related to CC. |
|Strategies developed and implemented in addressing the key challenges faced in programme implementation. |
|Perhaps there has been a rather passive stance in pushing key activities, such as fleshing out the CCCSP and energizing the CCTT; technical|
|assistance for these activities has been inconsistent (currently no one in place to support these). |
|Appropriateness of budget expenditures against outputs produced to date (elapsed time, cost effectiveness, value-for-money). |
|See comments above; expenditures are not aligned to individual outputs, so it is very difficult to determine whether or not any |
|expenditures in this category of good value-for-money, or not. |
|Linkages to other CCCA activities and other donor initiatives. |
|See comments above regarding the CCCSP. |
|Ownership, sustainability. |
|The CCTT is still rather limp and has yet to really demonstrate its worth; this may come in time, but leadership is needed soon, so that it|
|shifts from being responsive to ad hoc CCCA needs to more directed and pre-emptive work. |
|The real issue here is that other planning and strategy processes (such as the NSDP) are (or have been) developed in relative isolation of |
|the cross-cutting functions of the Ministry of Environment. In other words, the MoE has a tendency to look at what is mentioned in the way|
|of climate change as part of its analysis of Government guiding documents, rather than being pre-emptive and providing guidance on |
|pro-resilient development and growth in Cambodia. The CCD, in particular, should be the driver of all such strategy and plan content, |
|rather than being a post facto voyeur of Government development processes. This unfortunately reflects the relatively light weight of MoE |
|compared to the sector Line Ministries. In future, the NSDP process will need to be vetted by CCD (or some agency that provides the |
|function), by first of all setting the CCCSP guidance that troubleshoots all sector development (determining the issues that can be |
|factored in), then checking near the end of the process that climate resilient development has been optimized and harmonized (that |
|individual sectors are not in conflict with others with regard to climate change resilience). Over time, the CCD (or some agency) should |
|be seen as the single clearinghouse for all climate change development issues. |
|Possible adjustments (if such are needed to achieve the objective and outcomes of the programme); alternative approaches, other |
|opportunities. |
|See below; consolidated under Output 1.6. |
|OUTPUT 1.3. The NCCC and CCD are enabled to deliver on their mandated roles. |
|Output Indicators |Baseline |Target |Current status |MTR Observations |
| |2010 |2012 |Dec 2011 | |
|% of capacity gaps |None |25% |Capacity |This is a key component of CCCA, and should have been undertaken to inform |
|identified in the | | |assessment not |all the other activities within CCCA. Without it, there is not a clear |
|Capacity Development | | |taken place |sense from year to year that the priority needs of NCCC and CCD are being |
|Plan addressed through| | | |addressed; instead, there is a risk that activities could tend to be |
|CCCA support | | | |responsive to events, rather than being preemptive in capacity-building. |
| | | | |Some work in capacity assessment was set up, but not completed, and there |
| | | | |is currently no CTA who is driving this process (some difficulties in |
| | | | |retaining effective consultants). Any capacity development plan must also |
| | | | |include the structure, function, and individual mandate of units with CCD –|
| | | | |these all need to be properly rationalized to future CC management |
| | | | |requirements. |
|% of NCCC members and |None |25% |Individual |Not completed, but apparently initial steps were taken (see above). As |
|CCD staff completed | | |learning plan not|noted above, individual learning needs should be set in a larger context of|
|individual learning | | |developed |the specified functions of CCD, its relationship with other Government |
|plan | | | |agencies and civil society, and with job descriptions established, to help |
| | | | |guide the information needs and skill sets of individuals. |
| |See above; the Environmental Education and Communication capacity |
|Comprehensive capacity assessment for CCD and NCCC did not |assessment is a positive step. |
|take place during 2010 mainly due to lack of guidance. CTA |Technical assistance is required to complete the overall analysis of CCD |
|and CCD have not began together by studying the products and |functions, and to examine models for CC management and coordination in |
|recommendations put forward by the Start-up Management Advisor|Cambodia (that might be different from the current CCD set-up); this would |
|who worked closely with CCD for nine months and initiated some|include overall CC planning and fund disbursement (the current CCD role and|
|questionnaires as a basis for individual learning plan with |the Trust Fund Secretariat function), whether still within Government or |
|CCD staff. However, the communication capacity assessment of |operating as a semi-autonomous entity in some other fashion. |
|CCD and Department of Environmental Education and |Apart from the COP delegations, NCCC have not been specific targets of CCCA|
|Communication has been conducted. |activities. |
|Other MTR Observations |
|Relevance and suitability of the indicators in the logical framework. |
|Without the individual and institutional capacity needs assessments, it is difficult to set indicators that would show evidence of CCCA |
|positive impact; CCCA activities are not following a specific capacity-building plan. |
|Extent to which the planned activities allow for attainment of project objectives (appropriateness). |
|It is good to plan for comprehensive capacity assessments, but these in themselves will not increase CCD and NCCC capacity; CCCA activities|
|then tend to be ad hoc as needs and opportunities arise over the remaining timeframe for CCCA. |
|Strategies developed and implemented in addressing the key challenges faced in programme implementation. |
|Difficulties in creating traction between technical assistance consultants and CCD have slowed down delivery; but, recruitment of technical|
|assistance consultants seems to be picking up pace (however, without a CTA providing overall guidance). The overall plan for technical |
|assistance through to the end of CCCA is unclear to the MTR Team. CCD is not fully staffed, in any case, and this presents a challenge to|
|just undertaking routine daily activities (if such can be defined). There are also challenges in getting CCD staff involvement in CCCA |
|activities, due to lack of incentives and perhaps too frequent travelling, which leaves work undone in Cambodia. |
|Appropriateness of budget expenditures against outputs produced to date (elapsed time, cost effectiveness, value-for-money). |
|As noted previously, large expenditures related to travel of CCD and NCCC staff may be taking away from opportunities for |
|cost-effectiveness in delivering other capacity-building activities. |
|Linkages to other CCCA activities and other donor initiatives. |
|CCD and NCCC individuals do have opportunities to be involved in activities/events under Result 2, which is positive. |
|Ownership, sustainability. |
|There is a concern about CCD and NCCC being able to assume a capacity-building programme without priority needs and delivery approaches |
|being clearly defined first. |
|Possible adjustments (if such are needed to achieve the objective and outcomes of the programme); alternative approaches, other |
|opportunities. |
|See below; consolidated under Output 1.6. |
|OUTPUT 1.4 Cambodia’s negotiation capacity on CC matters and ability to comply with UNFCCC obligations is strengthened. |
|Output Indicators |Baseline |Target |Current status |MTR Observations |
| |2010 |2012 |Dec 2010 | |
|# of official |5 staff |At least 8|3 staff with more |CCCA has certainly helped in this regard, with travel support for |
|negotiators with more | |staff |than 3 yrs |individuals to COP 16 and 17 (for COP 17, the representation was as |
|than 3 year continuous| | |continuous |follows: Ministry of Environment = 9; Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, |
|experience of | | |experience have |and Fisheries = 8; Ministry of Planning = 2; Ministry of Women’s Affairs = |
|negotiations, | | |attended COP16 |2; one each for Ministry of Rural Development, Ministry of Industry, Mines,|
|participating in | | |and 17 |and Energy, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, |
|international CC | | | |Ministry of Economy and Finance, and Ministry of Water Resources and |
|meetings | | | |Meteorology; 4 women). Actual negotiation capacity changes would be hard |
| | | | |to measure, without a solid baseline; however, there are some signs |
| | | | |(anecdotal) that individuals involved with the COP activities are more |
| | | | |familiar with terms and able to maintain informed dialogue on CC issues. |
|% of inter-ministerial|Need info |80% |22 and 24 |See above. |
|technical team | | |inter-ministerial | |
|involved in at least | | |delegates attended| |
|one key international | | |COP 16 and 17 | |
|CC negotiation | | |respectively. | |
|meetings | | | | |
|# of regular CC |Need info |4 events |0 for CCCA |A dissemination session for COP 17 was recently held, and the Second |
|negotiation related | |per 12 | |National Forum on CC was also somewhat related to this. |
|events (e.g. meetings,| |months | | |
|forums, field trips) | | | | |
|held in Cambodia | | | | |
| |See above; the reviewers noted that most people in CCD and other ministries|
|CCCA supported 14 Cambodian delegates, which compose of the |are very familiar with the CC issues in Cambodia. |
|member of NCCC and CCTT and its representatives to participate | |
|in COP17/CMP 7 in Durban from 28 November to 09 December 2011. | |
|In addition, CCCA also assisted MoE as the UNFCCC Focal Point | |
|in coordinating the all overall aspects, including preparation | |
|country’s position and logistical arrangement for COP. The | |
|Cambodian Position, which reflecting Cambodia’s interests was | |
|developed and submitted to Prime Minister’s Office. The | |
|outcomes of COP was also reported to Prime Minister. | |
|Other MTR Observations |
|Relevance and suitability of the indicators in the logical framework. |
|The indicators are numerical for number of individuals and numbers of events, but do not reflect possible changes in negotiation capacity |
|per se. |
|Extent to which the planned activities allow for attainment of project objectives (appropriateness). |
|Support to the COP delegations has certainly been appropriate; it is not clear how exactly CCCA helped support development of the position |
|paper or a negotiation strategy. |
|Strategies developed and implemented in addressing the key challenges faced in programme implementation. |
|Not clear; the main delivery mechanism for this result is financial support to the Cambodia delegation. |
|Appropriateness of budget expenditures against outputs produced to date (elapsed time, cost effectiveness, value-for-money). |
|As noted previously, travel costs are quite high and may reduce the value-for-money in delivery of capacity-building. |
|Linkages to other CCCA activities and other donor initiatives. |
|Some links between the COP activities and input to information dissemination under Result 2. |
|Ownership, sustainability. |
|The activities have created a dependence on CCCA for travel cost support; this is not in itself sustainable. |
|Possible adjustments (if such are needed to achieve the objective and outcomes of the programme); alternative approaches, other |
|opportunities. |
|See below; consolidated under Output 1.6. |
|OUTPUT 1.5: Institutional arrangements to support CC mainstreaming in key ministries are in place. |
|Output Indicators |Baseline |Target |Current status |MTR Observations |
| |2010 |2012 |Dec 2011 | |
|# of ministries and |4 |8 ministries |20 NCCC members and |Certainly some progress within some ministries; MoWA quite impressive|
|government agencies | |and government|24 CCTT play role as |in the size and organization of their CC group. |
|with CC focal person | |agencies |CC focal person in |CCTT members not really activated; tending to be in ad hoc CCCA |
|appointed or CC | | |their respective |activities; their linkage between CCCA (CCD) and individuals within |
|functional units | | |institution. MOWA is|their own ministries may not be as rigourous and functional as it |
|identified and | | |establishing a |could be (in other words, how do CCTT discussions and decisions |
|participating in CC | | |working group on CC |translate into specific actions within specific ministries?). |
|mainstreaming | | |and Gender. Fishery | |
| | | |Administration of | |
| | | |MAFF established | |
| | | |sub-working group on | |
| | | |climate change. | |
| | | |MAFF established a CC| |
| | | |TWG for the Ministry.| |
|# of agreements |2 |At least 6 |MoE has made MoU with|It is not clear exactly how CCCA is supposed to facilitate the |
|between ministries or| |agreements |three CSOs, namely |agreements between various ministries and other entities; it seems |
|Government agencies | | |Oxfam America, Forum |that the CCCSP should be in place first before CC priorities and |
|and CSOs for CC | | |Syd and Nexus to |delivery mechanisms for activities can be properly defined and acted |
|related alliances | | |promote climate |on. |
| | | |change awareness | |
| | | |raising both | |
| | | |adaptation and | |
| | | |mitigation. However,| |
| | | |these activities are | |
| | | |not directly | |
| | | |initiated by CCCA. | |
|The member of NCCC and CCTT is playing a key role as CC focal person|See above. |
|for in their respective institution. As mentioned in summary | |
|session, CCCA team also works closely with both NCCC, CCTT and other| |
|relevant stakeholders to promote climate mainstreaming, capacity | |
|building and networking. This has contributed, to some extent, to | |
|the establishment of climate change teams in key line ministries and| |
|agencies such as the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries| |
|(MAFF), and the Ministry of Women’s Affairs (MoWA). | |
|Other MTR Observations |
|Relevance and suitability of the indicators in the logical framework. |
|Again, the indicators are numerical, without reflecting the nature and quality of institutional arrangements or the functional roles of |
|partners (Government, civil society) in delivering CC messages. |
|Extent to which the planned activities allow for attainment of project objectives (appropriateness). |
|Without a CCCSP, it is not clear that there is actually a pre-defined CCCA set of activities that can support strategic partnerships and |
|institutional linkages. |
|Strategies developed and implemented in addressing the key challenges faced in programme implementation. |
|In reality, CCD (MoE) is not really in a strong position to promote or enforce institutional linkages or Ministerial-CSO partnerships |
|related to CC. While the concept can be promoted by CCD, and the message conveyed back by CCTT members to their respective ministries, it |
|is really up to the individual ministries to drive this, and this tends to happen on the basis of the CC projects that they are actively |
|involved in, rather than according to a coherent strategy. |
|Appropriateness of budget expenditures against outputs produced to date (elapsed time, cost effectiveness, value-for-money). |
|Cannot be properly assessed, without expenditures assigned to individual outputs. |
|Linkages to other CCCA activities and other donor initiatives. |
|Result 5 should help promote and strengthen partnerships between Government and civil society, at the national and sub-national levels. |
|Ownership, sustainability. |
|Clearly MAFF, MoE, and MoWA have assumed some ownership of CC responsibilities within their respective mandates. |
|Possible adjustments (if such are needed to achieve the objective and outcomes of the programme); alternative approaches, other |
|opportunities. |
|See below; consolidated under Output 1.6. |
|OUTPUT 1.6: Multi-stakeholder CC mainstreaming roadmaps, guidelines and concepts prepared for progressive integration into sector |
|activities at national and sub-national level. |
|Output Indicators |Baseline |Target |Current |MTR Observations |
| |2010 |2012 |status | |
| | | |Dec 2011 | |
|# of national and |None |8 national and |Not yet |This activity seems to hinge on a relevant, detailed and practical CCCSP, |
|sub-national government | |8 sub-national,|started |which is not yet developed; so, government and CSO activities (ongoing and|
|entities and CSOs | |and 4 CSOs | |in the near-term) will not necessarily be addressing priority CC |
|completing at least 50% | | | |mainstreaming needs, as they have not been articulated in any harmonized |
|of activities identified| | | |fashion. |
|in approved | | | | |
|mainstreaming roadmap | | | | |
|% of capacity needs |None |50% addressed |Not yet |See above. |
|identified in roadmaps | | |started | |
|funded | | | | |
|% of policy, regulatory |None |50% addressed |Not yet |See above; the institutional and policy gap analysis is still urgently |
|and legal gaps | | |started |needed as an anchor activity for all other CCCA elements (and CCD in |
|identified in roadmaps | | | |general). |
|funded | | | | |
|% of data and knowledge |None |50% addressed |Not yet |See above. |
|gaps identified in | | |started | |
|roadmaps funded | | | | |
|% of pilot opportunities|None |20% implemented|Not yet |Result 5 (the grants) and perhaps Result 4 contribute to this result, but |
|identified in roadmaps | | |started |it is not clear at all that priority needs for CC management are being |
|funded | | | |addressed with the current set of activities, as the CCCSP is not yet |
| | | | |developed. They do seem to make sense and clearly address CC management |
| | | | |needs, but it is difficult to determine if they are addressing the most |
| | | | |important priorities. |
|Other MTR Observations |
|Relevance and suitability of the indicators in the logical framework. |
|Without the CCCSP and related roadmaps, the numerical and ratio indicators and targets do not allow real measurement of change, which might|
|be due to CCCA activities and influences. |
|Extent to which the planned activities allow for attainment of project objectives (appropriateness). |
|The CCCSP (severely delayed) is now accelerated, but may end up being done too quickly to allow it to reflect real priority needs and to |
|take root in the various ministries; on the other hand, activities in Result 5 (the grants) will help facilitate mainstreaming of CC into |
|ministries at the national and sub-national levels (but perhaps not in a strategic manner). |
|Strategies developed and implemented in addressing the key challenges faced in programme implementation. |
|The CCCSP activity is being kick-started again. |
|Appropriateness of budget expenditures against outputs produced to date (elapsed time, cost effectiveness, value-for-money). |
|Cannot be properly assessed (see comments above). |
|Linkages to other CCCA activities and other donor initiatives. |
|As noted previously, Result 5 will contribute to CC mainstreaming, even in the absence of a CCCSP. |
|Ownership, sustainability. |
|For MoWA and MAFF, which have CC units, CC mainstreaming is more likely and possibly more sustainable over the near-term. |
|Possible adjustments (if such are needed to achieve the objective and outcomes of the programme); alternative approaches, other |
|opportunities. |
|Encourage clear Ministerial endorsement of the CCD coordinating function. |
|Complete the required organizational analysis (need for job descriptions) and individual skill assessments. |
|Explore other modalities for the CCD coordinating function (overall CC planning and management of grant disbursements); for example, a |
|semi-autonomous agency (still a Government entity); or, an adjunct to the PMO or Council of Ministers; etc. This could accommodate |
|professional salaries and informed decisions on fund disbursements that fit the priorities in the CCCSP (one “clearinghouse” for this |
|function). CCTT function would still be maintained, and NCCC also still in place. |
|Take the necessary time to develop the CCCSP, with a consistent approach through all the sectors (need for overall CCD guidance on this). |
|Ensure that the various Ministerial sector plans are coherent and harmonized for effective CC management (how can other related strategies |
|contribute to the overall CCCSP?). Who is undertaking the overall analysis of existing strategies and CC plans? This is the job of CCTT |
|(or the CCD policy person). So, slow down the CCCSP process (unfortunately), but get it right and ensure that it has utility for 10-15 |
|years, at least. |
|The CCCSP process must include an updated policy/legal analysis (this takes time). |
|Assistance should focus on “facilitating” the participatory processes required above, rather than just defining technical options. |
The proposed outcome for Result 1 and related indicators and targets are summarized below:
|Description |Indicator |Baseline in 2010 |Target by 2012 |
|Improved capacity to coordinate |1. CCD as the Secretariat of NCCC |1. CCD sub-decree. |1. NCCC Secretariat fully staffed|
|national policy making, capacity |formally established and |2. First draft of the ToRs. |and functioning. |
|development, outreach/advocacy |functional. |3. 2 ministries. |2. Appointed Inter-Ministerial |
|efforts, and to monitor the |2. Establishment of full |4. None. |Technical Team and functioning in|
|implementation of national climate |functioning National | |accordance with approved ToRs. |
|change strategy, policy, and plans. |Inter-Ministerial Technical Team | |3. At least 8 ministries. |
| |(CCTT) | |4. At least one adviser to NCCC. |
| |3. # of NCCC member institutions | | |
| |with CC focal point. | | |
| |4. # of advisers appointed to | | |
| |NCCC. | | |
|OUTPUT 2.1: Multi-Stakeholder CC information sharing and knowledge management at national and sub-national level established. |
|Output Indicators |Baseline |Target |Current status |MTR Observations |
| |2010 |2012 |Dec 2011 | |
|Endorsed National CC|Nil |National CC |So far, Public |Good progress in getting this in place initially, then it slowed |
|Information and | |Knowledge |Information |somewhat; now being revised according to recent CCD review in March |
|Knowledge Management| |Management |Strategy has been |2012. There is some confusion between the Public Information Strategy|
|Strategy | |Strategy |finalized but it |(which identifies information types and media), the Climate Change |
| | |endorsed |has yet to be |Education and Awareness Strategy (not clear if this is the |
| | | |properly launched/ |over-arching strategy; it has an associated Communication Action Plan,|
| | | |disseminated to the|or at least a Communication Work Plan for 2012, and there is reference|
| | | |members of the |to formal and non-formal education, DRR, adaptation, mitigation and |
| | | |NCCC. |sector communication plans, so it seems to be situated at a higher |
| | | | |level), and the CCCA Communication and Visibility Plan, the latter |
| | | | |identifying the information needs of various target groups and how |
| | | | |they will be addressed. These various documents do not seem to have |
| | | | |cross-references, and the time sequence of their production is not |
| | | | |clear; it is not clear how one feeds the other, or is nested within |
| | | | |other strategies. |
| | | | |The CCE&A Strategy is expected to support the CCCSP, with openings for|
| | | | |sector approaches, but the CCCSP is out-of-phase (not yet produced), |
| | | | |so the communication strategy does not have the actual “substance” in |
| | | | |place to transmit. The risk here is that there is no coherence to the|
| | | | |“message”. |
|# of key CC-relevant|Need info |30 primary data|KAP and CHDR |The actual platform is not in place (no physical library, although |
|primary data sources| |sources |finalized; and |there is a website, with more than 2,000 visitors to date). Not all |
|accessible to | | |draft SNC policy |documents that might be available on the platform are actually |
|platform | | |papers. |produced by CCCA. There is scope for a wide range of documents from |
| | | | |various sources. The CHDR especially is a very useful round-up of all|
| | | | |current climate change issues in various sectors. |
|% of V & A |Need info |50% compliant |A questionnaire on |It is not clear what exactly CCCA is doing in the way of promoting |
|assessments and MRV | | |the GHG inventory |coordinated V&A assessments. Completion of the SNC (a very slow |
|actions undertaken | | |preparation was |process) should help consolidate current assessments of vulnerability |
|which are compliant | | |filled out. This is|and adaptation in the various regions in Cambodia; results from the |
|with national | | |the starting point |grants under Result 5 should also feed into this. |
|framework | | |for MRV on the | |
| | | |National GHG | |
| | | |Emission. | |
|Annual CC forum held|No Annual |At least 2 CC |2nd National Forum |Good progress with delivery of 2 CC forums; the range of content and |
| |CC Forum |Forum |organised in Oct |wide spectrum of stakeholders has been impressive; media coverage was |
| | | |2011. |quite good. The CC Forum seems to be the main vehicle for informing |
| | | | |members of the NCCC about the latest CC initiatives; however, they |
| | | | |should be more directly plugged into ongoing activities through the |
| | | | |CCTT, which represents all the relevant ministries and agencies. |
| |See above; this activity seems to be proceeding quite well now, and is|
|Public Information consultant started working with CCD in Q4 and |picking up pace, after a year of “staging” during which information |
|produced some dissemination materials for CCCA as well as drafting |dissemination concepts were captured in various draft documents. |
|a Public Information strategy and assisting CCD with preparing for |Another consultant is being hired to move this activity along. There |
|KAP study launch scheduled for Q1 2011. The Climate Change |is still lingering concern about the possible uptake of the |
|Education and Awareness Strategy for 2012-2014 was also drafted by |information dissemination needs by CCD, as this work is presently |
|Climate Change Education and Awareness Specialist. CCCA Result 2 |being done by a person hired specifically for the CCCA. |
|is collecting and published climate change materials, such as KAP, |As noted above, the MTR team has some concern about the relationship |
|CHDR, and Climate Change Calendar for the year 2012 by highlighting|between the various communication strategies and plans (which one is |
|key concept of climate change and achievements. The Second |the driver?), and there is reference to a CCCA Trust Fund |
|National Forum on Climate Change was organized from 03-05 October |Communication Plan for 2012 as well, which the Result 2 Team notes has|
|2011 in Phnom Penh. The forum also provided an opportunity for the |some overlap with their work. This should all be coordinated, with |
|Government to further develop its negotiating position for the |the guidance of the CCCA Programme Manager (or a CTA, if one can be |
|forthcoming 17th Conference of Parties (COP 17) to the United |put in place). Ideally, it all resides with a CCD knowledge and |
|Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to be held |information dissemination team. |
|in Durban in November 2011. The forum was attended by more than 700| |
|guests on the first half day and more than 300 participants on the | |
|following second and third day, including government officials, | |
|representatives of diplomatic missions, development partners, NGOs | |
|and the private sector, and Buddhist monks and students. | |
|Other MTR Observations |
|Relevance and suitability of the indicators in the logical framework. |
|The indicators should actually reflect implementation and performance of the National CC Information and Knowledge Management Strategy, not|
|just its endorsement. The effectiveness of information sharing and knowledge management would then be reflected in the actions of |
|Government and civil society (how well they implement CC initiatives). Rather than the number of documents on the information platform, it|
|would be more useful to note the relevance, innovativeness, and utility of documents. Similarly, the delivery of the Annual Climate Change|
|Forum can be better measured by attendance and range of stakeholders, as well as development of any consensus-based policy directions, as a|
|result of attendance at the Forum. |
|Extent to which the planned activities allow for attainment of project objectives (appropriateness). |
|Good sequence of activities and support from a national “staff” member and other consultants has led to capturing of information |
|dissemination approaches in various strategies and plans (these now need to be activated). Documents are being collected (and could be |
|made available on the website). The target for two Annual Climate Change fora has been met. It is not clear what exactly is the plan for |
|the V&A assessments and the MRV actions (the annual reporting is somewhat weak in clarifying immediate future plans). |
|Strategies developed and implemented in addressing the key challenges faced in programme implementation. |
|The main challenges appear to be engagement of CCD in the information management aspects of CCCA and sporadic inputs from consultants |
|(there is currently a call for a new consultant to help with implementation of the Communication Plan). There is also a problem in the |
|staff member hired for the communication role not knowing what budget she has to work with, and therefore waiting for approval of specific |
|activities. Not having a physical location for a library is also a serious concern (this needs to be addressed as soon as possible). |
|Appropriateness of budget expenditures against outputs produced to date (elapsed time, cost effectiveness, value-for-money). |
|Almost $355,000 was spent on R2 to the end of 2011. This is almost half the budget for R2; it is difficult to assess value-for-money |
|without specific expenditure reporting for each output. There is a risk that R2 will produce various strategies and plans, but not |
|actually implement them in the CCCA timeframe. |
|Linkages to other CCCA activities and other donor initiatives. |
|There is a need to pick up the experiences from the Result 5 grants. There are good linkages between Result 1 and 2 (the COP 17 |
|dissemination and Second National CC Forum). |
|Ownership, sustainability. |
|Still an issue, as there is no physical library, and the person responsible for Result 2 at CCD has been hired temporarily (funded by |
|CCCA). The main messages, which should reflect the direction being achieved with CCCA, are not yet developed for prime content, and CCD |
|staff do not appear to be very actively engaged in the information dissemination activities. |
|In general, there is quite good sharing of information (at least as experienced by the MTR Team); however, there is always a risk that |
|individuals try to retain their own information, which they feel is proprietary and may have future value in other projects (this can be |
|evident especially within the universities). |
|Possible adjustments (if such are needed to achieve the objective and outcomes of the programme); alternative approaches, other |
|opportunities. |
|See below; consolidated under Output 2.3. |
|OUTPUT 2.2: A National CC information and Knowledge Management and Learning Centre that acts as a clearing house for CC data, information |
|resources, and learning services. |
|Output Indicators |Baseline |Target |Current status |MTR Observations |
| |2010 |2012 |Dec 2011 | |
|# of visitors to the|None |2,000 |Centre not yet |The process to select a location and establish a centre has stalled |
|Centre segregated by| | |established. CCD has |(there is a stalemate, whether or not to keep the centre in the MoE,|
|sex, age group, and | | |established mini-library|or in various universities). The MTR Team believes that a centre in|
|sector | | |for CC. Currently, at |a high traffic area in Phnom Penh, with potential for revenue |
| | | |least 18 visitors per |generation, is the best option, and would increase the visibility of|
| | | |month. Development of |climate change actions. |
| | | |NCCC website concept is |The website is quite useful, and has good potential with more |
| | | |ongoing. |information populating it and increased user-friendliness. |
| | | | |The target seems to be arbitrary; 2,000 visitors is good, but that |
| | | | |is only about 8/day. |
|# of CC reading |None |300 entries |Centre not yet |See above; the target is also arbitrary; the quality of the |
|materials compiled | |in Khmer and|established. However, |documents and their utility is most important. |
|in learning centre | |1,000 |several CC reading | |
|database segregated | |entries in |documents/materials have| |
|by languages | |English |been collected. | |
|(English and Khmer) | | | | |
|# of accesses to |None |50 |Centre not yet |See above. |
|documents on website| |access/day |established, but CCD | |
|and database | | |website is put for | |
| | | |operation and also hosts| |
| | | |many documents on its | |
| | | |website. | |
| |The location for the information centre needs to be selected soon |
|An IT assistant was recruited to help updating the CCD Website. A |and made operational before the end of CCCA. See comments above |
|number of reports and official documents were uploaded, especially |regarding the website. |
|during the Second National Forum on Climate Change. It is noted that | |
|there is an increase number of visitors, since the start of CCCA. | |
|However, it is recommended to restructure the design for friendly use.| |
|The current CCD’s library is being operated by one librarian supported| |
|by CCCA. This library will serve as CC information and Knowledge | |
|Management and Learning Centre in the future. | |
|Other MTR Observations |
|Relevance and suitability of the indicators in the logical framework. |
|The first and most important indicator is actually the Information Centre itself, located in a high traffic area for the highest visitor |
|access possible, and properly staffed. The other indicators are appropriate. Some facility for cost-recovery could have been designed in,|
|which would greatly improve the operation and utility of the Centre. |
|Extent to which the planned activities allow for attainment of project objectives (appropriateness). |
|In theory, this is a very straightforward activity, and should be one of the easiest within CCCA to achieve. The planned activities should|
|be leading to attainment of objectives; however, the modality of the centre and its location seem to be stumbling blocks. A quick decision|
|is required here to unlock this problem, and create a very visible and accessible presence for CCCA, rather than having it hidden away with|
|the MoE. |
|Strategies developed and implemented in addressing the key challenges faced in programme implementation. |
|The only clear strategy has been to hire an individual to facilitate R2 activities, with some support from consultants. While there is |
|documentation that captures a “strategy”, many of the activities are event-based (such as the Annual CC Forum), rather than leading to a |
|more sustained information dissemination strategy. |
|Appropriateness of budget expenditures against outputs produced to date (elapsed time, cost effectiveness, value-for-money). |
|See previous comments. |
|Linkages to other CCCA activities and other donor initiatives. |
|Documents from the Second Annual CC Forum (R1) have been made available for information dissemination purposes. The results from R5 (the |
|small grants) should also supply information to R2. |
|Ownership, sustainability. |
|Unfortunately, the MoE appears to want to retain the assemblage of documents and control access to physical information (the website is |
|different; it is accessible); this “ownership” might defeat the purpose of creating wide access to CC information. Again, the MTR Team |
|believes a very public and accessible Information Centre has merit and would increase the visibility of CCCA, and increased public |
|understanding of CC issues and management approaches. |
|Possible adjustments (if such are needed to achieve the objective and outcomes of the programme); alternative approaches, other |
|opportunities. |
|See below; consolidated under Output 2.3. |
|OUTPUT 2.3: A CC outreach and learning campaign targeting all regions and vulnerable groups. |
|Output Indicators |Baseline |Target |Current status |MTR Observations |
| |2010 |2012 |Dec 2010 | |
|% of population |Unknown |30% |No action taken so |The information provided to the left is somewhat contradictory, as |
|covered by the | |coverage |far. A training on |clearly there has been some CCCA support to information campaigns. |
|outreach event | |for all |CC was conducted |However, these appear to be responsive activities (CCCA responding to |
|segregated by sex | |groups |for Samdech Chasim |upcoming events), rather than being part of the overall strategy being |
|and age groups | | |Kamchay Mea |developed (see above). |
| | | |University for | |
| | | |about 300 | |
| | | |participants | |
|% increase of media |Need info |50% |Six TV shows on |Clearly, there has been increased media attention to CC issues, and the |
|coverage focusing on| |increase |CTN, and a youth TV|flooding in 2011 may have been a significant factor in this. CCCA seems |
|CC | | |show on TVK were |to have been quite active in promoting more engagement with the media – |
| | | |supported by CCCA. |very good, and there is a plan to provide more CC training to the media, |
| | | |The team also |so that they can properly report on the various technical issues. |
| | | |joined 5 radio talk|Regarding the target, it is not clear that anyone is actually maintaining|
| | | |show programs to |a media file on a daily basis (this is quite a time-consuming activity). |
| | | |raise CC awareness.| |
| | | |CCCA also assisted | |
| | | |in organizing 2 | |
| | | |media briefings and| |
| | | |3 press | |
| | | |conferences. | |
| |This has all been noted above (repetitive reporting here); clearly CCCA |
|CCCA Result 2 actively promoted Six TV shows on CTN, and a |has created some traction with the various media. The results coming |
|youth TV show on TVK were supported by CCCA. The team also |from the grants under R5 should present many more opportunities for |
|joined 5 radio talk show programs to raise CC awareness. CCCA |information dissemination (activities actually “on-the-ground”). |
|also assisted in organizing 2 media briefings and 3 press |Similarly, it is the grants under R5 that provide the route into the |
|conferences. |vulnerable regions and sectors, and the information being advocated by |
| |the eight grantees should be checked by CCD information staff, or at |
| |least logged with them, for later reference. |
|Other MTR Observations |
|Relevance and suitability of the indicators in the logical framework. |
|The performance indicators are not very workable, as it is almost impossible to measure the extent to which the whole of the public is |
|reached by any information campaigns, let alone the extent to which the campaign message has any impact in changing public behavior |
|regarding climate change. Percentage increase in media coverage could be measured, but only if there is constant monitoring of all media |
|types on a daily basis, which is not very practical. |
|Extent to which the planned activities allow for attainment of project objectives (appropriateness). |
|The draft strategies and plans are not yet activated; activities to date have been opportunistic (taking advantage of events as they arise,|
|which is good, but not strategic). As with other proposed activities noted above, the actual future plan is not very clear, and the person|
|responsible is also not sure what will be funded (not knowing the available budget). |
|Strategies developed and implemented in addressing the key challenges faced in programme implementation. |
|In the absence of a fully implemented strategic information campaign, taking advantage of events as they arise is an appropriate approach. |
|There needs to be stronger linkage between the information content and results from the grants in R5 and the overall CCCA information |
|dissemination strategy. |
|Appropriateness of budget expenditures against outputs produced to date (elapsed time, cost effectiveness, value-for-money). |
|Cannot be properly determined. |
|Linkages to other CCCA activities and other donor initiatives. |
|Clearly, the main message in a CCCA information campaign could be dissemination of the CCCSP (if there were one) and dissemination of the |
|messages and results from the grants in R5. The latter could be worked on now, whereas incorporation of the CCCSP into any coherent |
|messages will have to wait. |
|Ownership, sustainability. |
|CCD ownership and sustainability not yet evident. Without a dedicated CCD information officer, it will be very hard for CCD to assume |
|ownership and proactivity with regard to information dissemination strategies. As the information dissemination campaign has not really |
|been initiated in a strategic manner, it is difficult to predict its sustainability; it may continue to be responsive (taking advantage of |
|opportunities that arise), which is okay as a default position. |
|Possible adjustments (if such are needed to achieve the objective and outcomes of the programme); alternative approaches, other |
|opportunities. |
|Perhaps the information/ communication needs (CC awareness and dissemination) of Government staff are not really clear; this should be an |
|explicit part of the developing communication strategies. |
|Examine the option of an information centre in a high traffic area in Phnom Penh, or in the universities. |
|Extract the capacity-building lessons learned from the Grant Projects, for broader dissemination. |
|More emphasis on CC dissemination at the sub-national levels (but look at all the existing material from other Gov/CSO initiatives; put it |
|to best use). |
|Set up time-series monitoring for key public perception variables related to CC (a slim version of the KAP study in selected urban and |
|rural areas); undertake every 2-3 years. |
The proposed outcome for Result 2 and related indicators and targets are summarized below:
|Description |Indicator |Baseline in 2010 |Target by 2012 |
|Improved access to updated CC |1. # of annual events with various |1. Unknown. |1. At least 2 annual events |
|information, knowledge and learning|knowledge sharing and learning |2. KAP study data. |(with at least one of them with|
|opportunities at all levels. |opportunities. |3. Unknown. |a gender focus). |
| |2. % of population who can describe | |2. 20%. |
| |the main causes and impacts of | |3. 20%. |
| |climate change. | | |
| |3. % of development projects which | | |
| |incorporate vulnerability and | | |
| |adaptation assessments in their | | |
| |design. | | |
|OUTPUT 3.1: Mechanism for providing financial resources from the CCCA Trust Fund is established. |
|Output Indicators |Baseline |Target |Current status |MTR Observations |
| |2010 |2012 |Dec 2011 | |
|Relevant guidelines |No Guideline |3 guidelines |1 guideline |There has been very good progress with this output, with all the |
|developed and | |approved (1 |approved |necessary operational procedures in place and now being implemented |
|approved | |Operational Manual|(Operational |(quite effectively) with the first call for proposals (a two-stage |
| | |for CCCA TF, 2 |Manual). Grant |process, to cull the early concepts, allowing serious development of|
| | |Grant Guidelines |application |proposals from the most appropriate grantees), selection of grantees|
| | |for Applications, |guideline |(8), and implementation of grant activities underway in all cases. |
| | |3. Implementation |prepared. |All grantees seem to understand the process and their reporting and |
| | |Guideline for | |financial obligations (some find the process a bit overwhelming, but|
| | |grantees) | |this is required for full accountability). |
|TF Secretariat |No TF |TF Secretariat |TF Secretariat |Well established and apparently functioning well, now with full |
|established and |Secretariat |fulfills its role |established |staffing, although the monitoring and evaluation function is only |
|fully functioning | |in the ToR | |just getting underway and may be a challenge initially for all |
| | | | |involved, depending on the quality and practicality of the |
| | | | |performance indicators for each of the eight grants. |
|Grant proposal |No formal |CCTT meets in |Pilot mechanism |See above; the process has worked well and eight grants are up and |
|appraisal mechanisms|appraisal |timely manner to |established and |running. It is, however, not clear that the CCTT has had a deep |
|established and |mechanism |appraise project |used during the |involvement in the appraisal and approval of the eight grants (even |
|fully functioning | |proposals |1st Call |less so the NCCC, which does not perhaps have much sense of the TF |
| | | | |function; at the same time the NCCC itself has a rather opaque |
| | | | |presence, and is hard to define and deal with as an discrete entity |
| | | | |that can even respond on a daily or weekly basis); these were |
| | | | |apparently reviewed by independent experts and then the PSB. The |
| | | | |CCTT (when met) did not articulate much involvement in the process. |
| | | | |Clearly, this function needs to be more embedded within the TFS |
| | | | |itself, over time. |
|# of TF supported CC|None |At least 7 |8 projects |Good start; eight grants underway (with a good mix of partnerships, |
|projects in line | |projects |awarded out of |sectors, and locations), with a second call for proposals pending. |
|with Cambodia’s | | |the 1st Call | |
|development | | | | |
|priorities | | | | |
| |The experience with the first call for proposals may help inform and|
|TF Secretariat was established in early 2011 with endorsement of the |streamline some of the process of selecting and approving new grants|
|ToR and Operational Manual by the PSB. |(learning-by-doing, which is fine). Overall, despite a slow start, |
| |the process appears to be rigourous and effective in initiating |
|Head of the CCCA TF Secretariat was appointed by MoE and TF |“on-the-ground” projects. Over time, the TFS may be more strategic |
|Administrator was seconded to the TF Secretariat. During the course of|in ensuring that certain locales, sectors, and partners are able to |
|the year, 5 Government officials from MoE work under the Secretariat |be engaged, so that all strategic directions (which may eventually |
|while 5 positions have been identified for external recruitment |be articulated in the CCCSP) can be addressed by the TF. |
|(including 2 admin/support functions). |The current TFA is leaving; there may be a learning curve with the |
| |new TFA, which could be an issue as the second call for proposals |
|1st call for proposals launched during 2011 produced good results with|goes ahead. |
|8 new projects implemented by both the Government and CSOs in several | |
|different provinces (see Annex D). | |
| | |
|Finalisation of outstanding guidelines will be carried over to 2012 | |
|when the second Call for Proposals will be used to further consolidate| |
|the process tested during the first call. | |
|Other MTR Observations |
|Relevance and suitability of the indicators in the logical framework. |
|These indicators are quite straightforward and reflective of the needs for setting up a TFS and related mechanisms. |
|Extent to which the planned activities allow for attainment of project objectives (appropriateness). |
|The planned activities have made sense and the fact that the TFS and mechanisms are in place is ample proof of such. The activities of the|
|Start-up Management Advisor at the very beginning of CCCA and the very competent TFA have been fundamental to proper execution of the |
|Result 3 activities. The CCTT does not seem to have had a very extensive role in operations of the TFS. |
|Strategies developed and implemented in addressing the key challenges faced in programme implementation. |
|The main strategy has been the full-time employment of the TFA. As noted previously, there is some risk in hiring a new person for this |
|position (their effectiveness will depend on their personality and mannerisms, as much as their previous experience with trust funds). |
|Appropriateness of budget expenditures against outputs produced to date (elapsed time, cost effectiveness, value-for-money). |
|The full cost of Result 3 (the TFS and related tasks) can be considered the management overhead associated with the activities under Result|
|5. With some of the expenditures to date being assigned to establishing the TFS itself, the total cost to the end of 2011($298,428) is |
|about 26% of the funds advanced to date (but not expended) for the 8 grants (a usual management overhead ratio for delivery of development |
|activities is about 20-25%, so the ratio of 26% is acceptable in the start-up phase). Note again, however, that the grant funds are not |
|expended, they are shown as commitments in the books, as they have only been advanced. |
|Overall, the ratio of R3 to R5 budgets is 34%, which is quite high, if new funding is not brought to CCCA, as a result of efforts of the |
|TFS. If additional funding is secured, due to the effectiveness of the TFS, then the ratio of management costs to funding to be delivered |
|as grants is expected to be lower (hopefully in the 20-25% range). |
|Linkages to other CCCA activities and other donor initiatives. |
|The TFS and R5 (the grants) are completely linked. There are apparently some overlaps in the communication plans for R5 and those being |
|developed under R2 (these need to be reconciled). |
|Ideally, the CCCSP should be the main driver of the emphasis and selection of grants, but at the moment the selection and approval of |
|grants is based mostly on the competencies of the proposers, within acceptable sectors and partnerships. There is certainly scope for more|
|strategic grant allocation. |
|Ownership, sustainability. |
|The TFS is not yet owned by the RGC, but it is certainly a model (in terms of its structure, staffing, and mechanisms) that could work well|
|with the appropriate Government people (or otherwise) in place and with suitable incentives and independence, to allow transparent and |
|fully accountable operations. |
|Possible adjustments (if such are needed to achieve the objective and outcomes of the programme); alternative approaches, other |
|opportunities. |
|See below; consolidated below under Output 3.5. |
|OUTPUT 3.2: Conduct grant selection process for each defined Grant Window that aligns with national CC priorities. |
|Output Indicators |Baseline |Target |Current |MTR Observations |
| |2010 |2012 |status | |
| | | |Dec 2011 | |
|# of Call for Proposals|None |2 calls for |1 Call |The first call for proposals was a two-step process (as noted previously), |
|launched | |proposals per|launched in |which separated trivial or unresponsive concepts from serious grantees (a |
| | |year |2011. |good approach). However, the process was long (about 8 months), which has |
| | | | |constrained the timeframes for the 8 grants approved. Grant priorities were|
| | | | |in agriculture, forestry, water, and coastal zone, which reflect the NAPA |
| | | | |priorities, and partnerships between Government and CSOs were encouraged, |
| | | | |which is very positive. The level of funding appears to be appropriate for |
| | | | |the financial management capabilities of the grantees ($150,000 - $300,000, |
| | | | |depending on whether or not Government or a CSO). |
| |The second call for proposals should be launched as soon as possible; |
|1st Call for Proposals was launched and concluded in 2011 with|hopefully with an accelerated review and approval process (depending on the |
|award to 8 projects. The second Call is due to be launched in |skills of the new TFA). Current grantees should be excluded, and sectors |
|early 2012. |not currently being addressed by grants should be emphasized (see R5 below).|
| |At least 18 months should be allowed for implementation of the grants |
| |(including those in the first round), so that there is proper development |
| |and implementation of activities within each of the grants. |
|Other MTR Observations |
|Relevance and suitability of the indicators in the logical framework. |
|More appropriate performance indicators would include the number of grants approved, the sectors addressed, the nature of the partnerships,|
|the geographic spread of grants, and the focus of activities (whether on planning, institutional strengthening, or actual “on-the-ground” |
|demonstration of adaptation). See further discussion of this in R5 below. |
|Extent to which the planned activities allow for attainment of project objectives (appropriateness). |
|This is a pretty straightforward activity, which has been set up by Output 2.1. |
|Strategies developed and implemented in addressing the key challenges faced in programme implementation. |
|Although with a slow start, the development of the operational procedures and the grant selection criteria has been rigourous and |
|appropriate, and has led to a good start with the first round of grants. |
|Appropriateness of budget expenditures against outputs produced to date (elapsed time, cost effectiveness, value-for-money). |
|See previous discussion (above). |
|Linkages to other CCCA activities and other donor initiatives. |
|R2 and R5 are intrinsically linked (one serves the other). |
|Ownership, sustainability. |
|Not yet, but, as noted above, the elements of the TFS and the grant selection process are suitable for future operations, whether inside |
|Government or outside: the main attributes are transparency and accountability, dynamic leadership and adequate staffing, with all roles |
|clearly defined, and of course accessibility to potential grantees. |
|Possible adjustments (if such are needed to achieve the objective and outcomes of the programme); alternative approaches, other |
|opportunities. |
|See below; consolidated below under Output 3.5. |
|OUTPUT 3.3: CCCA Trust Fund becomes a key mechanism to provide financial support to CC initiatives in Cambodia. |
|Output Indicators |Baseline |Target |Current status|MTR Observations |
| |2010 |2012 | | |
| | | |Dec 2011 | |
|$ of additional |None |US$4M |No additional |The problem here is that the TF needs to define itself and prove its worth |
|contribution to Trust | | |funding to |with the first round of grants, to instill confidence in the TF mechanism |
|Fund or parallel | | |CCCA TF |and its unique ability to address key CC issues in various sectors, with |
|funding mobilized for | | | |unique partnerships, and in the most vulnerable parts of Cambodia. In the |
|financial support | | | |meantime, other ministries maintain their own CC projects which compete for |
| | | | |donor funding, and this may continue for a while, until there is RGC policy |
| | | | |otherwise. |
| | | | |The TFS has made a conscious decision to not pursue additional funds (apart |
| | | | |from what is in the current CCCA donor commitments). |
| |It perhaps would be better to ensure that the funds are in place before |
|No new pledge to CCCA TF from existing or new donors in 2011. |calling for proposals and going through a review process, if funds cannot be|
|Additional funds will be sought in 2012 to support the new |guaranteed. The MTR Team believes that the TFS and its mechanisms are solid|
|grants to be awarded under the 2nd Call for Proposals. |(subject to some risk, though, with a new TFA), such that donors could |
| |support the facility and the nature of grants that are currently in the |
| |portfolio. Although only just getting underway, the current grants all have|
| |merit, and should inspire confidence that the TFS and grant concepts are |
| |appropriate, sound, and workable (worthy of further donor financial |
| |support). This can continue in the current mode (with a dedicated TFA), |
| |even if not inserted within Government; in the meantime a mechanism for |
| |inserting the TFS within a Government structure (or otherwise; for example, |
| |as a semi-autonomous agency) needs to be explored (this process should be |
| |informed by the ongoing CPEIR). |
|Other MTR Observations |
|Relevance and suitability of the indicators in the logical framework. |
|Indicators are appropriate, as additional funds would clearly reflect donor (or RGC) endorsement of the TFS and its mechanisms. The target|
|also appears to be reasonable, as this level of funding ($4 million) would fit the current absorptive capacity of CCCA and grantees |
|(perhaps $1.3 million/year for three years, assuming that additional funds would then trigger a time/additional cost extension of at least |
|the TFS and grant system). |
|Extent to which the planned activities allow for attainment of project objectives (appropriateness). |
|Apart from trying to secure the existing donor commitments and maintaining their confidence in the TFS concept, there is no clear new plan |
|to attract additional funding. Direction of funds to other ministries/agencies (such as UN-REDD and PPCR) will continue to be a challenge |
|for the CCCA TF, until such time as there is strong RGC commitment to a single clearing-house for CC strategic planning and disbursement of|
|grants. |
|Strategies developed and implemented in addressing the key challenges faced in programme implementation. |
|Getting the TFS and its mechanisms in place, understood, and properly functioning has been absolutely the most important strategy for |
|attaining possible future funding. The MTR Team believes that the people involved with this process have done a good job and now with |
|grant implementation and M/E underway, the TFS can prove its worth and attract additional funding. |
|Appropriateness of budget expenditures against outputs produced to date (elapsed time, cost effectiveness, value-for-money). |
|See previous comments on the ration of TFS costs to the budgets of the grants that the TFS supports. If additional funds are attracted, |
|then the TFS costs assume significant additional value-for-money. |
|There is a lingering concern, however, with the fact that some of the grants themselves have grants systems embedded within them, in which |
|the grantees then have a management overhead associated with the selection and monitoring of their own grants (grants nested within |
|grants). An additional concern here is that with these “grant” funds (within the CCCA overall grant) as yet undefined, there will be a |
|problem with selection, implementation, and monitoring/lessons learned with these smaller sub-grants. |
|Linkages to other CCCA activities and other donor initiatives. |
|R3 and R5 are fully linked. |
|Ownership, sustainability. |
|Not yet; see above. The MTR Team believes that a successful year or two of the TFS function and effective implementation of grants will |
|make the concept more compelling (to both donors and RGC). As noted previously, the basic concept and mechanisms are sound; there is |
|nothing in the TFS operations that would put off potential ownership by Government. |
|Possible adjustments (if such are needed to achieve the objective and outcomes of the programme); alternative approaches, other |
|opportunities. |
|See below; consolidated below under Output 3.5. |
|OUTPUT 3.4: Monitoring and Evaluation of CCCA Trust Fund done in accordance with agreed rules. |
|Output Indicators |Baseline |Target |Current |MTR Observations |
| |2010 |2012 |status | |
| | | |Dec 2011 | |
|% of deviation between |None |Expenditure is |N/A |The grants are only just getting underway. The M/E team has been put |
|approved budget and | |between 70% and | |in place (but the MTR Team has not seen the M/E guidelines; they need |
|expenditure | |110% of original | |to be based on realistic performance indicators for each of the |
| | |budget | |grants). M/E of the grants, of course, should include review of |
| | | | |expenditures, but more important is the achievement of climate change |
| | | | |adaptation capability, and whether or not the expenditures represent |
| | | | |good value-for-money. |
|# of fiduciary issues |None |Less than 1 case |N/A |This is an audit-type function; it would be included in any rigourous |
|raised, which results in| |in 12 months | |M/E – good. |
|disciplinary action or | | | | |
|compensation | | | | |
|% of activities rated |None |Less than 30% |N/A |Frequent M/E will pick up potential delays; it is important to |
|“delayed” | | | |anticipate these, rather than wait for them to unfold. Delays may |
| | | | |result from both the TFS side and the grantee implementation side. |
|% of periodical reports |None |More than 80% |N/A |Grantee reporting will be critical; but these reports should be |
|received/prepared on | | | |followed-up with spot checks, as well (perhaps unannounced, to ensure |
|time (including grant | | | |an accurate picture of what is going on at the ground-level). |
|project reports) | | | | |
| |See comments above. It is understood that the M/E guidelines are |
|CCCA Trust Fund Secretariat has yet to prepare a specific M & E |being developed now, with the M/E staff in place. |
|procedure to track progress on each component. This is an urgent | |
|activity for early 2012 and to be completed by end of Q1 2012. | |
|Other MTR Observations |
|Relevance and suitability of the indicators in the logical framework. |
|The indicators work for administrative M/E, but more important is monitoring of the progress of each grant towards proposed outputs and |
|outcomes (i.e., what difference is each grant making with regard to local capacity for adaptation planning and implementation; a more |
|difficult thing to measure accurately). |
|The targets are somewhat arbitrary, and while allowing for some usual delays and laggards in some of the grants, it is hard to determine |
|how they were set. |
|Extent to which the planned activities allow for attainment of project objectives (appropriateness). |
|Having the M/E guidelines and staff in place is an obvious first start and appropriate; it will be very important to communicate to each of|
|the grantees the M/E process that they will be subjected to, and how they are supposed to undertake monitoring themselves, in support of |
|their progress reports. The key to effective M/E (and the grant design in the first place) is to establish realistic performance |
|indicators that truly reflect capacity change, procedural development, and innovation (this does require training, and as just noted, is |
|better done before a project/programme is designed, to ensure that it can actually deliver capacity change. |
|Strategies developed and implemented in addressing the key challenges faced in programme implementation. |
|This comes down to clear and implementable M/E guidelines and well-trained staff. M/E functions require good observational skills and an |
|understanding of development; otherwise M/E tends to default to what is referred to as “administrative monitoring”, in which expenditures |
|and production of reports dominate, rather than understanding capacity change. |
|Appropriateness of budget expenditures against outputs produced to date (elapsed time, cost effectiveness, value-for-money). |
|The M/E costs are nested within the overall R3 costs, and this is assumed to be part of the management overhead for the grants in R5 (as |
|noted previously). |
|Linkages to other CCCA activities and other donor initiatives. |
|R3 and R5 are linked. |
|Ownership, sustainability. |
|Not yet; of all the TFS functions, the M/E will probably be the most challenging for TFS staff (whether Government or otherwise), and this |
|may affect Government ownership and sustainability of the TFS functions. Currently, the grantees have contracts with UNDP, but the M/E |
|function resides with the TFS (CCD may have little traction with this M/E function, yet much can be learned in that process). |
|Possible adjustments (if such are needed to achieve the objective and outcomes of the programme); alternative approaches, other |
|opportunities. |
|See below; consolidated below under Output 3.5. |
|OUTPUT 3.5: A legal framework and design for a nationally owned CC trust fund or CC financing explored and proposed. |
|Output Indicators |Baseline |Target |Current status |MTR Observations |
| |2010 |2012 |Dec 2011 | |
|# of assessments/interviews |None |At least|UNDP scoping |The plan for this activity is not very clear to the MTR Team. Having a |
|done on similar national and | |20 |mission on |target of 20 assessments of other TF modalities is arbitrary (5 might |
|international programmes and | | |climate fiscal |work, if well selected). To a large extent, the organic development |
|financing mechanisms | | |framework |(one that suits CC in Cambodia) of a Trust Fund modality requires a |
|(including TFs) | | |conducted in |clear vision of the purpose of the Fund, its target clients, and |
| | | |Dec 2011 |expected scale of operations. More will be gained from understanding |
| | | | |how the current TFS operates and its potential effectiveness, then |
| | | | |making adjustments as necessary, compared to detailed examination of |
| | | | |other modalities (the important point here is that the TFS is up and |
| | | | |running and already has the basic requirements in place). |
| | | | |With a new TFA coming in, it may be difficult to make review of TF |
| | | | |modalities an extra task (in addition to managing the current grants and|
| | | | |setting up the second call for proposals). The results of the CPEIR |
| | | | |will help. |
| | | | |The MTR Team believes that examination of the CCD function (a single |
| | | | |clearing-house for CC planning and management of grants; the actual |
| | | | |intention and orientation of the CCCA itself) needs to be an explicit |
| | | | |task (for example, examining the possible option of an independent |
| | | | |agency, with performance-based remuneration for staff and options for |
| | | | |revenue-generation; something that could be developed over 5-10 years). |
| | | | |Just examining TF modalities in isolation of a detailed examination of |
| | | | |options for CCD functions is too limited. |
| |What exactly are the recommendations from the December 2011 scoping |
|MoE commissioned scoping mission on Cambodia’s climate fiscal |mission? |
|framework was conducted by UNDP Regional Centre during December |It is understood that the CPEIR is underway; the MTR Team was |
|2011 producing a number of recommendations including the |discouraged from meeting with the CPEIR consultants as they were just |
|conducting of the Climate Public Expenditure and Institutional |getting started themselves. It will be critical to take up the |
|Review (CPEIR). |recommendations from the CPEIR in a larger assessment of possible |
| |structures and functions for CCD itself (see above). |
|Other MTR Observations |
|Relevance and suitability of the indicators in the logical framework. |
|In a way, with the establishment of the TFS already, after much thought and staffing, etc., the die is cast, and any changes would have to |
|be subtle differences compared to what is apparently working now, rather than a radical re-starting of the TF function in some other |
|manner. |
|A more suitable indicator here is articulation of the appropriate functions and structures of a Cambodia TF, based on review of other |
|modalities; but now we have the TFS in place. |
|Extent to which the planned activities allow for attainment of project objectives (appropriateness). |
|Undertaking a review of other TF modalities a year after the TFS has been set up for CCCA is a case of putting the “cart before the horse”.|
|Ideally, the review of possible modalities takes place before anything is put in place. It is a lot harder to change something that is |
|already in place and setting a local precedent than it is to examine options and then design the modality. In any case, the MTR Team |
|believes the TFS and its functions are appropriate for the current context, so comparative analysis of various TF modalities becomes less |
|important at this point in time. |
|Strategies developed and implemented in addressing the key challenges faced in programme implementation. |
|See above; a late start for this initiative. It is assumed to be the task of the TFA, who is now caught up in administering and monitoring|
|the existing grants, and setting up a second call for proposals. Now to be examining a reconfiguration of the TFS becomes a difficult |
|task; better to learn from how the TF function is going over the next year and make adjustments based on lessons learned. |
|Appropriateness of budget expenditures against outputs produced to date (elapsed time, cost effectiveness, value-for-money). |
|See previous comments. |
|Linkages to other CCCA activities and other donor initiatives. |
|As before, R3 and R5 are linked. |
|Ownership, sustainability. |
|Government needs to be fully involved in any discussions of the TF modality, in order for them to fully understand the implications and |
|nuances associated with grant management. As noted above, detailed examination of the current TFS experience should be the main platform |
|for analysis and discussion with RGC (MoE in particular). |
|Possible adjustments (if such are needed to achieve the objective and outcomes of the programme); alternative approaches, other |
|opportunities. |
|Having looked at the TFS set-up and function, which is now working, the modality probably does not need to change (over the next 2 years; |
|it will serve CCCA adequately; don’t modify it – that would be an unnecessary risk). |
|CPEIR is examining CC fund flows within Government; this might inform future TFS modality. |
|For national “ownership” of the TFS, grantee contracts need to be signed with Government (an LoA with Government entities and a contract |
|with CSOs, and others; full transparency and accountability in all cases); then streaming funds within Government budgets and financial |
|reporting systems. Still with a Board (Government, donors, CSO rep) that oversees TF decisions, and has the right of final grant |
|decisions. |
|Eventually (beyond current CCCA timeframe), all TFS staff under contract to the RGC. |
|Since, in the end, the TF modality (the ability to effectively plan for strategic CC interventions - a key role of CCD, the procedures for|
|disbursement of grants, and the ability to effectively implement and monitor/evaluate climate change management project on-the-ground is a |
|key outcome of CCCA and is expected to be the main engine for any future CCCA initiatives, sufficient time for its consolidation, |
|proving-of-worth, and adequate reflection is required. It is possible that at least an extra year (beyond mid-2014) may be required to |
|achieve the former, and to allow refinement of the TF modality for national ownership. The risk with this (if an extra year were to be |
|approved) is that the pace required to complete all CCCA activities would actually slow somewhat, as the time pressure is relieved. To be |
|honest, the MTR Team has mixed feelings about this (there are pros and cons). If an extra year were to be granted to CCCA to consolidate, |
|then there would have to be a very strict requirement (perhaps through a clearly defined technical assistance) to clarify the lessons |
|learned to date from all five result areas, determine convergences and synergies, and produce very discrete/concrete recommendations for |
|the CCCSP, policy reforms, legislative reforms, and a long-term vision of the CCD/TF operation (whether within Government or in a separate |
|semi-autonomous agency). |
The proposed outcome for Result 3 and related indicators and targets are summarized below:
|Description |Indicator |Baseline in 2010 |Target by 2012 |
|Strengthened capacity within the |1. Continued donor support to CCCA|1. US$ 8.9 million. |1. US$ 11 million. |
|NCCC to mobilize and to effectively |Trust Fund. | | |
|administer climate change funds and | | | |
|to prepare for a nationally owned | | | |
|trust fund. | | | |
|OUTPUT 4: Increased resilience of coastal communities and eco-systems to climate change through adaptation planning, demonstrated |
|targeted local interventions and provision of practical learning experience in adaptation planning to the NCCC/CCD. |
| |MTR Observations |
|No substantive progress to be reported for 2011. The contract with the |There has been a long and tortuous evolution of the Coastal |
|implementing partner (DHI) was signed only in November 2011 following |Component (Result 4), which actually preceded the CCCA concept. |
|the approval by UNDP HQ. |Staff are now being mobilized and some planning of specific |
| |activities within the overall Coastal Project (Results 1-7; with |
| |1-5 funded by GEF) has been undertaken. |
| |The reporting for Result 4 needs to be reconfigured to accommodate|
| |the LFA and the specific objectives and activities under Results 6|
| |and 7 (which are funded by CCCA). |
| |This is the single largest component of CCCA (not including Result|
| |5, which has a larger budget but spread over at least 8 grants), |
| |yet it remains in a separate stream, without clear accountability |
| |and management linkages to other aspects of CCCA. |
| |There is a serious concern about the conditionality between the |
| |GEF activities and those funded by CCCA (is this one project, or |
| |two?). Within the overall design of the Coastal Component, it |
| |appears that Results 1-5 are precursors to the actual planning and|
| |implementation (for example, development of vulnerability maps for|
| |each of the coastal provinces and associated adaptation plans) to |
| |be addressed in Results 6 and 7 (for example, implementation in |
| |Peam Krasaop in Koh Kong and Prey Nup in Sihanoukville, plans that|
| |must necessarily nest within any provincial vulnerability maps and|
| |adaptation plans), yet now these are apparently to proceed in |
| |parallel. |
| |It is not clear that there will be a separation between the GEF |
| |and CCCA activities in practice, or if the full GEF progress |
| |reporting will be integrated with the CCCA progress reporting (in |
| |other words, will CCCA have the full picture?). The Steering |
| |Committee for both projects met on March 14 at MoE, but the actual|
| |outcome of that meeting is not apparent to the MTR Team. |
| |There is not much time left to actually plan and implement and |
| |spend $2.2 million (in the remaining 2 years). This creates a |
| |very high risk of rushed activities and hasty commitments, which |
| |could compromise results. |
|Other MTR Observations |
|Relevance and suitability of the indicators in the logical framework. |
|As noted above, the LFA and performance indicators for Results 6 and 7 in the DHI technical proposal need to form the basis for CCCA |
|progress reporting and perhaps the TFS assume the role of M/E of the Coastal Component (as the Coastal Component will be accountable to the|
|Department of Wetlands and Coastal Zone in MoE, not CCD; yet another indication of the “separateness” of Result 4). |
|Extent to which the planned activities allow for attainment of project objectives (appropriateness). |
|The long list of activities under Results 6 and 7 of the DHI Technical Proposal, although ambitious, are appropriate for the intended |
|objectives. It is expected that the previous ten years of experience in the Cambodia coastal zone provide a “jump-start” for the CCCA |
|activities. |
|Strategies developed and implemented in addressing the key challenges faced in programme implementation. |
|Only just underway, so strategies to address challenges are not yet evident. There is a risk that financial commitments will be made to |
|initiate coastal zone initiatives, and that these will not be completed within the CCCA timeframe, in a manner which would allow lessons to|
|be learned and then to inform policy development/ reform. |
|Appropriateness of budget expenditures against outputs produced to date (elapsed time, cost effectiveness, value-for-money). |
|Cannot be assessed at this point ($463,000 has been advanced to date). |
|Linkages to other CCCA activities and other donor initiatives. |
|Builds on ten years of previous project activity in the coastal zone, and is linked to the GEF-funded Results 1-5 of the original proposal,|
|but as noted previously, there are no apparent linkages to other CCCA activities. |
|Ownership, sustainability. |
|It would be expected that after ten years, the Ministry of Environment and other relevant agencies would have assumed a high degree of |
|ownership of any initiatives in the coastal zone (whether CC or other kinds of planning interventions); this is not evident to the MTR |
|Team. |
|Possible adjustments (if such are needed to achieve the objective and outcomes of the programme); alternative approaches, other |
|opportunities. |
|Very regular and strict monitoring of the DHI activities, with a full evaluation/audit at the end of 2012, to determine the viability of |
|the Result 4 activities, and depending on the assessment, possible re-direction of funds to other CCCA components (evaluation/audit results|
|to be made available to all partners). As noted above, there is a high risk of elevated spending and multiple activities in parallel to |
|ensure spending according the available budget and time, which may not translate into useful and sustainable results. |
|OUTPUT 5: Strengthened capacity in RGC agencies and civil society organizations for developing and implementing CC response initiatives in|
|line with agreed national CC priorities, independently or in partnerships, through access to new financial and technical resources. |
|Output Indicators |Baseline |Target |Current status|MTR Observations |
| |2010 |2012 | | |
| | | |Dec 2011 | |
|# of ministries, |None |At least4 |3 NCCC members|These results reflect the 8 grants approved to date (4 months into |
|agencies and CSOs which| |NCCC member |and 2 CSOs |implementation), which is good progress (Results 3 and 5 now fully |
|receive CC and | |ministries |receiving |activated and relevant). |
|financial report (?) | |plus 5 other |financial |However, progress reporting here needs to reflect the individual |
| | |Agencies or |support |performance indicators of the 8 grants and then these in turn rolled up to |
| | |CSOs | |progress reporting by sector, partnership, location, and climate |
| | | | |vulnerability issue (the current format makes no allowance for that); this |
| | | | |being the single largest funding envelope within CCCA. |
| | | | |As noted previously, the grants under Result 5 are not yet being informed |
| | | | |by a CCCSP, which is a significant problem. |
| |There is a good cross-section of partnerships, with various Government/CSO |
|The 1st Call for Proposals produced 8 grants which comprised |partnerships (with CSOs leading in 2 cases); a municipality and UN agency |
|of project by MAFF, MoI and MoE as well as two local NGOs. |partnership; two universities partnered for one grant; Government and two |
| |regional training entities in two grants; Government and a UN agency in |
| |another; and one just involving Government. |
| |All grants have strong sub-national elements, and although there is no |
| |apparent strategy to distribute grants geographically (for example, Siem |
| |Reap and Prey Veng have multiple grants), there is quite wide geographical |
| |distribution, which is positive. |
| |Most vulnerability types (agriculture, fisheries, coastal zone, forestry, |
| |urban/coastal planning, infrastructure climate proofing) are addressed |
| |which is very positive for lessons learned. |
| |Missing elements include health issues, issues specific to gender, |
| |education opportunities (curriculum development), and water management; |
| |these could be prioritized in a second call. |
| |All appear to include information dissemination (national and sub-national)|
| |and in some cases scaling up (good); but need to ensure adequate time and |
| |specific activities to do this, especially for informing CC policy |
| |development and developing DRR mechanisms. |
| |All grantees feel challenged by the limited timeframe (just 12-15 months) |
| |and heavy reporting requirements. |
| |Communities (immediate beneficiaries) apparently not very involved in |
| |defining projects; they are still discovering what will be done and how it |
| |will benefit them. |
| |Some agriculture research does not have a climate change application (for |
| |example, rice planting density); another example is the effort to reduce |
| |illegal fishing – not directly related to CC. |
| |There will be a challenge in actual on-the-ground implementation |
| |(completing and learning within 12 months). |
| |How much will communities actually do? Will most things be done for them? |
| |Involvement of community members in CC adaptation activities may help |
| |reduce their involvement in illegal activities (e.g., illegal fishing); |
| |their perspective may change. |
| |The grants may not actually stimulate village and commune structures and |
| |processes; they may still be “projects” that may not embed within existing |
| |systems (CSO and facilitator delivery, rather than direct community |
| |engagement). |
| |Ongoing challenges with Government staff involvement in activities (lack of|
| |time, incentives). |
| |There has not been any networking of the 8 grantees up until now. |
|Other MTR Observations |
|Relevance and suitability of the indicators in the logical framework. |
|The performance indicator in this progress report is inadequate; it does not reflect the actual performance of the grants (see comments |
|above); individual grant performance indicators need to be incorporated into CCCA progress reporting. |
|There is a need to report on the quality of the partnerships, the progress with specific climate vulnerability issues, and the sector and |
|geographic spread of the grants, as well as the effectiveness of the capacity-building, institutional strengthening activities, and policy |
|building implications. |
|Extent to which the planned activities allow for attainment of project objectives (appropriateness). |
|The TFS and grant system are appropriate for the intended objectives (note again, however, that the CCCSP is not driving the grant system; |
|it may in the future). |
|Strategies developed and implemented in addressing the key challenges faced in programme implementation. |
|Not yet evident; all grantees feel somewhat challenged by the rather onerous reporting system and the limited time to complete activities. |
|Appropriateness of budget expenditures against outputs produced to date (elapsed time, cost effectiveness, value-for-money). |
|Too early to assess; however, the budget explanations for each grant are amenable to future value-for-money analysis, as individual |
|activities seem to be isolated for budget purposes. |
|Linkages to other CCCA activities and other donor initiatives. |
|Actually, linked to Result 3 and should be feeding Result 2 (information for dissemination); the results from the grants should also be |
|informing policy change and perhaps the CCCSP itself. |
|Ownership, sustainability. |
|Not yet evident, but the fact that various Government and CSO institutions are actually implementing “on-the-ground” activities will be a |
|good spur for ownership; sustainability is less evident at this point. |
|Possible adjustments (if such are needed to achieve the objective and outcomes of the programme); alternative approaches, other |
|opportunities. |
|Start a 2nd call, no later than April 2012, and allowing 18 months for implementation; start implementation no later than August 2012; |
|(exclude current grantees). |
|Facilitate networking of grantees (roundtable at 6 months and 1 year from now with both 1st and 2nd call). |
|Priorities in 2nd call to include sectors not currently being addressed. |
|Undertake gender analysis of all grants; encourage gender disaggregated data reporting for all activities. |
|Extend the current time for grantees, but maximum 6 additional months. |
|Clarify the learning and policy-informing aspects in each grant. |
|Need to clearly show the CC application of all proposed interventions in future proposals; avoid academic research, but encourage community|
|experimentation to demonstrate appropriate technologies and approaches. |
|Future grants need to be explicit about relevant community organizations and structures, for sustainability; not just focused on local |
|government capacity. |
|The M&E function (done by TFS) needs to be shadowed by CCD, and linked to Results 1 and 2. |
The proposed outcome for Result 5 and related indicators and targets are summarized below:
|Description |Indicator |Baseline in 2010 |Target by 2012 |
|Strengthened capacity in RGC |1. # of ministries, agencies and |1. None. |1. At least 4 NCCC member |
|agencies and civil society |CSOs which receive CC and | |ministries plus 5 other agencies |
|organizations for developing and |financial support. | |or CSOs. |
|implementing CC response initiatives| | | |
|in line with agreed national CC | | | |
|priorities, independently or in | | | |
|partnerships, through access to new | | | |
|financial and technical resources. | | | |
***
-----------------------
[1] For COP 17, the representation was as follows: Ministry of Environment = 9; Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries = 8; Ministry of Planning = 2; Ministry of Women’s Affairs = 2; one each for Ministry of Rural Development, Ministry of Industry, Mines, and Energy, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, Ministry of Economy and Finance, and Ministry of Water Resources and Meteorology; 4 women.
[2] This refers to the uncertainty of climate change impacts; this approach has suggested dealing with current country vulnerability and poverty, the need for social protection, education, health management, disaster risk reduction, and improving access to productive assets.
[3] This sector remains a key source of economic growth, with a large labour force employing about 72% of the whole population.
[4] In September 2009, Typhoon Ketsana affected 14 provinces, with 43 people dead and 67 severely injured. Homes and livelihoods of 48,000 families were destroyed. Most of the affected districts were among the poorest in the country, situated around Tonle Sap and the Mekong River system (see World Bank and NCDM, 2010, on Post-Disaster Needs Assessment of Katsana Typhoon in Cambodia).
[5] CCD also serves as secretariat of the Designated National Authority (DNA) for the Clean Development Mechanism.
[6]US$4 million for MRD’s project implementation support and US$25.1 million for rural road rehabilitation and reconstruction respectively; US$5 million for MEF’s support for emergency response and an additional US$2.9 million for contingencies.
[7] The project is being implemented by MAFF in collaboration with MoWRAM and MOWA at Kratie and Preah Vihear; it also aims to replicate climate change adaptation at the national and sub-national levels.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- state of maine
- 2019 2020 bill 5293 text of previous version feb 26
- prohibited items items that often require pre purchase
- solutions for homework accounting 311 cost winter 2009
- optus mobile phones nbn home internet entertainment
- midterm review report
- communicable diseases intelligence 2020 2019 ncov acute
- valentin ramirez iii
Related searches
- financial statement review report sample
- financial review report format
- sample review report financial statements
- cpa review report template
- accountants review report sample
- independent accountants review report example
- accountant review report template
- review report examples
- financial review report templates
- accounting review report example
- accountants review report example 2017
- review report examples aicpa