MID-TERM EVALUATION

INCREASING THE RESILIENCE OF

INFORMAL URBAN SETTLEMENTS IN FIJI
THAT ARE HIGHLY VULNERABLE TO
CLIMATE CHANGE AND DISASTER RISKS

A mid-term evaluation report on the Adaptation

Fund project

Client: UN-Habitat

October 2020
Authors:

Katherine Drakeford, Consultant

Sara Vargues, Consultant

| October 2020

kdrakeford08@gmail.com
smvargues@gmail.com

Cover Photo: UN-Habitat, Kamsin Raju (2020)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction The Fiji Resilient Informal Settlements (FRIS) project financed by the
Adaptation Fund provides support to addressing climate change and
disaster risk issues, with a strong focus on informal settlements. This is a
four-year project implemented by UN-Habitat and executed by the Ministry
of Housing and Community Development (MHCD) and the Ministry of Local
Government (MLG). The overall objective of the project is to increase the
resilience of informal urban settlements in Fiji that are highly vulnerable to
climate change and disaster risks.

The purpose of the mid-term evaluation is to provide the Adaptation Fund

and implementing partners with an assessment of the performance of the
FRIS project to date, identify lessons learnt and develop recommendations
that can be taken forward to the next stages of the project. The evaluation
focuses on examining the project’s four components: Institutional
strengthening to enhance local climate response actions, Local
(community/informal settlements) resilience strengthening, enhancing
resilience of community level physical, natural and social assets and
ecosystems, and Awareness raising, knowledge management and
communications. The components are evaluated against the results criteria
laid out in the mid-term evaluation TOR: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency
and sustainability.

Methodology The mid-term evaluation utilized a desk review of project documents,

questionnaires and structured interviews with key information to collect
the data that is used to inform this report. Key informants were identified
through stakeholder mapping and were selected based on their role and
involvement in the project activities to date.

Results

Relevance There have been no changes to the project’s objectives nor the project
rationale. The changes in context that have occurred since the project’s
inception, namely COVID-19, have resulted in greater vulnerabilities in
informal settlements and thus this evaluation finds that the project is even
 more relevant. Additionally, the project is aligned with the principles laid
out in the Paris Agreement of the UNFCCC, the Sendai Framework for
Disaster Risk Reduction, and the New Urban Agenda. The mid-term
evaluation identified challenges regarding prioritization of activities and
overall ownership by the project’s executing partners due to a lack of
resources. However, a high level of support for the project at the
community level is present, which is likely due to the successful use of a
participatory approach throughout the participatory vulnerability
assessment and action planning (VAAP) process.

Effectiveness The achievement of results at the time of the mid-term evaluation varies
significantly by component and output. However, a significant number of
outputs are delayed due to a number of different factors. The main issues
affecting the achievement of results are the lack of human resources,
limited technical knowledge, low stakeholder engagement and long/
complicated bureaucratic procedures of executing partners. As a result,
UN-Habitat has provided significant additional support to the executing
partners with its limited resources. Despite the challenges that are present,
the project has had some great successes. The major achievements to date
include the inclusiveness of activities, in regards to vulnerable groups, the
establishment of resilience officers (ROs) in four town councils and the
completion of the VAAPs, both of which pave the way for greater
implementation effectiveness of the remaining outputs.

Efficiency The project’s overall performance is considered average. The completed

activities have been implemented in a cost-efficient and timely manner.
Furthermore, the project has been comprehensive in its consideration and
application of ESS and Gender Policy. However, the challenges that are
discussed in the previous section also impact the project’s efficiency.

Sustainability There are numerous existing factors that impact the sustainability of the
project results. Along with the issues described earlier regarding ownership
and effectiveness, appropriate design of physical works, budget
management at Ministry level and integration of project outputs to MHCD
work plans are also factors that are likely to influence sustainability.
 However, there are also factors present which can promote the longevity
of results. The work of the ROs within the Town Councils and at the
community level enables consistent engagement and capacity building with
these stakeholders. Furthermore, the participatory approach used by the
project when engaging with communities has been crucial for building trust
and thus promoting the sustainability of results.

Recommendations 1. MHCD must invest in human resources to address challenges of

ownership and prioritization of activities.

2. UN-Habitat and MHCD to co-develop work plans and monitoring

framework for the next stages of the project to increase accountability and
ownership of executing partners.

3. Continue regular meetings to check progress of work plans against

monitoring framework.

4. Engage additional executing partners for physical works and capacity

building activities to ensure effectiveness and efficiency of the project.

5. Hard and soft components should be designed in a way that could be

easily replicated in additional settlements across Fiji.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 PROJECT BACKGOUND AND CONTEXT ...................................................................................1
1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES..............................................................................................................1
1.3 PURPOSE AND FOCUS OF THE EVALUATION..........................................................................2

2 PROJECT RATIONALE ............................................................................................................ 2

3 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................... 5

3.1 MID-TERM EVALUATION APPROACH .....................................................................................5
3.2 MID-TERM EVALUATION METHODS ......................................................................................5
3.2.1 Desk review of project documents ....................................................................................5
3.2.2 Key informant interviews and consultations .....................................................................6
3.2.3 Field visits and phone interviews with representatives from informal settlements to
assess communities’ perceptions on implemented activities ........................................................6
3.3 MID-TERM EVALUATION LIMITATIONS AND MITIGATION ....................................................8

4 RESULTS .............................................................................................................................. 9
4.1 RELEVANCE .............................................................................................................................9
4.1.1 Rationale of the results and its objectives.........................................................................9
4.1.2 Relationship to the SDGs, Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, Paris
Agreement and the New Urban Agenda and ‘Next Steps’ .............................................................9
4.1.3 Changes in result context during implementation ............................................................9
4.1.4 Institutional and partner priorities ................................................................................. 10
4.1.5 Ownership by national and local stakeholders ............................................................... 10
4.2 EFFECTIVENESS .................................................................................................................... 13
4.2.1 Actual or expected achievement of results at the time of the mid-term evaluation .... 13
4.2.2 Factors and processes affecting the achievement of results ......................................... 15
4.2.3 How appropriate and effective are the partnerships and other institutional
relationships? ............................................................................................................................... 16
4.2.4 Outcomes to date on the project partners ..................................................................... 17
4.2.5 Outcomes/foreseen impact on local collaborating partners, consultants and
professionals involved in the implementation of the project ..................................................... 17
4.2.6 Are vulnerable groups and crosscutting issues of gender, youth, climate change and
human rights integrated in the design, implementation and monitoring of the project?.......... 18
4.3 EFFICIENCY........................................................................................................................... 18
 4.3.1 Action on progress compared to plans, budget and overall performance .................... 18
4.3.2 Translation and application of donor policies such as Environmental and Social Policy
and Gender Policy ........................................................................................................................ 19
4.3.3 Were the activities and outputs delivered in a cost-efficient and timely manner? ....... 19
4.3.4 Implementation efficiency .............................................................................................. 19
4.4 SUSTAINABILITY ................................................................................................................... 20
4.4.1 Factors affecting or likely to affect sustainability of the results..................................... 20
4.4.2 Established networks among institutions ....................................................................... 21
4.4.3 From “built capacities to building capacity” ................................................................... 21
4.4.4 Using new knowledge to build up confidence ................................................................ 22
4.4.5 Implementing capacity of the cooperation partners to take the activities forward ...... 22

5 LESSONS LEARNED ............................................................................................................. 23

6 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................... 24
6.1 ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY OF ALL INVOLVED STAKEHOLDERS ......................................... 24
6.2 MODELS TO BE APPLIED IN FUTURE PROJECTS – EASY REPLICATION ................................ 25

ANNEX A – ADAPTATION FUND’S OUTCOMES ............................................................................. 26

ANNEX B – EVALUATION MATRIX ............................................................................................... 27

ANNEX C – TIMEFRAME AND IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE PROGRESS ....................................... 28

ANNEX D – LIST OF INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS ............................................................................. 29

ANNEX E – STAKEHOLDER MAPPING ........................................................................................... 30

ANNEX F – CONTACTS ................................................................................................................ 31

LIST OF ABREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AF Adaptation Fund
AoC Agreement of Cooperation
CAP Climate Action Plan
DRR Disaster Risk Reduction
DTCP Department Town and Country Planning
ESGY Environmental, Social, Gender and Youth
ESS Environmental and Social Safeguards
FRIS Fiji Resilient Informal Settlements
HHS Household Survey
KI Key Informant
MHCD Ministry of Housing and Community Development
MLG Ministry of Local Government
MoU Memorandum of Understanding
NAP National Adaptation Plan
RO Resilience officer
SDG Sustainable Development Goal
ToR Terms of Reference
UN-Habitat United Nations Human Settlements Programme
USP University of South Pacific
VAAP Vulnerability Assessment and Action Planning
 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROJECT BACKGOUND AND CONTEXT

The Fiji Resilient Informal Settlements (FRIS) project financed by the Adaptation Fund provides support
in addressing climate change and disaster risk issues, with a strong focus on informal settlements. This
is a four-year project implemented by UN-Habitat and executed by the Ministry of Housing and
Community Development (MHCD) and the Ministry of Local Government (MLG).

The overall objective of the project is to increase the resilience of informal urban settlements in Fiji
that are highly vulnerable to climate change and disaster risks. To achieve this, the project has four
components:

1. Institutional strengthening for enhanced local climate response

2. Local (community/informal settlement) resilience strengthening
3. Enhancing resilience of community level physical, natural and socio-economic assets and
ecosystems
4. Awareness raising, knowledge management and Communication

The project has a total budget of US$4,235,995 million and focuses on 16 informal settlements in four
urban areas: Lami, Sigatoka, Lautoka and Nadi.

Informal settlements are often located in hotspots of natural hazards, such as riverbanks and
wetlands. Additionally, informal settlements are characterized by poor living conditions, limited
access to urban services such as water, sanitation, electricity, lack of open spaces, insecure housing
structures, etc. The high levels of physical, economic, social and environmental vulnerabilities in
combination with poor levels of disaster preparedness and adaptive capacity often lead to high
climate-related hazard impacts in these areas.

1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The overall objective of the project is to increase the resilience of informal urban settlements in Fiji
that are highly vulnerable to climate change and disaster risks. This will be achieved by:

I. Institutional strengthening for enhanced local climate response;

II. Local (community/informal settlement) resilience strengthening;
III. Enhancing resilience of community level physical, natural and socio-economic assets and
ecosystems;
IV. Awareness raising, knowledge management and Communication.

1
 1.3 PURPOSE AND FOCUS OF THE EVALUATION
The mid-term evaluation of the Fiji Resilient Informal Settlements (FRIS) project is in accordance with
the requirements laid out by the Adaptation Fund. The purpose of the mid-term evaluation is to
provide the Adaptation Fund and implementing partners with an assessment of the performance of
the FRIS project to date, based on the agreement, logical framework, activities and budget. It is
expecting to assess the overall performance of the project with regards to its relevance, effectiveness,
efficiency and sustainability. Furthermore, the assessment will identify lessons learned and
recommendations for the remainder of the project implementation.

The key objective of this evaluation, as stated in the ToR, are to:

a) Assess the implementation progress made in activities towards achieving the planned results;
b) Assess the continued relevance, effectiveness and impact of the project in supporting local
government/settlements in increasing resilience of informal urban settlements in Fiji and
engagement of stakeholder groups in implementation actions;
c) Recommend strategic, programmatic and management considerations for implementing the
remaining part of the project.

2 PROJECT RATIONALE

Aiming at achieving the abovementioned objectives, the FRIS project adopts a comprehensive
framework built upon 4 main components.

Component 1, Institutional strengthening to enhance local climate response actions is aligned with
both the Adaptation Fund’s outcome 11 and Fiji priorities2 and focuses on reducing vulnerability to
climate-related hazards and threats both at the city/town and community level by:
o Conducting city-wide risk and vulnerability assessment;
o Producing hazard maps;
o Developing city-wide climate change action plans;
o Establishing Urban Planner / ROs in 4 towns/cities.

1
See annex A
2
Government of the Republic of Fiji, (2018). Republic of Fiji. National Adaptation Plan. A pathway towards climate resilience. Retrieved
from: https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/NAPC/Documents/Parties/National%20Adaptation%20Plan_Fiji.pdf

2
Component 2, Local (community/informal settlements) resilience strengthening, is aligned with both
the Adaptation Fund’s outcome 3 3 and Fiji priorities4 and focuses on strengthening awareness and
ownership of adaptation and climate risk reduction processes and capacity by:
o Developing an assessment and planning tool for community vulnerability assessment and
action planning;
o Community-based climate vulnerability and informal settlements assessments, including
hazard maps, conducted, in informal settlements in Lami, Sigatoka, Nadi and Lautoka;
o Developing community-level resilience, recovery and upgrading plans in identified informal
settlements (community action plans (CAPs)) supported by a ‘gender and inclusion
assessment’ of the resulting actions to take forward into component 3;
o Involving targeted population groups in adaptation and risk reduction awareness activities;
o Targeting household and community livelihood strategies strengthened in relation to climate
change impacts, including variability.

Component 3, Enhancing resilience of community level physical, natural and social assets and
ecosystems, is in line with the Adaptation Fund’s outcomes 4 and 55 and aligned with Fiji priorities6. It
focuses on increasing the adaptive capacity of relevant development and natural resources sectors
and increasing ecosystem resilience in response to climate change and variability-induced stress by:
o Physical, natural, and social assets and ecosystems developed or strengthened in response to
climate change impacts, with a consideration of the following sectors and options: urban
development and housing; communications and DRR; food security and sustainable
agriculture sector; human health and welfare; marine and fisheries; waste and waste
infrastructure; and water resources and infrastructure.

Component 4, Awareness raising, knowledge management and communications, is in line with

Adaptation Fund’s guidelines 7 and is also aligned with the Fiji priorities 8. This component aims at
ensuring that the project implementation is fully transparent, all stakeholders are informed of
products and results and have access to these for replication. This is to be done through:

3 See annex A
4 Government of the Republic of Fiji, (2018). Republic of Fiji. National Adaptation Plan. A pathway towards climate resilience. Retrieved
from: https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/NAPC/Documents/Parties/National%20Adaptation%20Plan_Fiji.pdf
5 See annex A
6
Government of the Republic of Fiji, (2018). Republic of Fiji. National Adaptation Plan. A pathway towards climate resilience. Retrieved
from: https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/NAPC/Documents/Parties/National%20Adaptation%20Plan_Fiji.pdf
7 Adaptation Fund – Knowledge Management Strategy and Action Plan (2016). Retrieved from: https://www.adaptation-fund.org/wp-

content/uploads/2017/09/KM-strategy-action-plan.pdf
8 Government of the Republic of Fiji, (2018). Republic of Fiji. National Adaptation Plan. A pathway towards climate resilience. Retrieved

from: https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/NAPC/Documents/Parties/National%20Adaptation%20Plan_Fiji.pdf

3
o Lessons learned and best practices regarding resilient urban community development/
housing are generated, captured and distributed to other communities, civil society, and
policy-makers in government appropriate mechanisms;
o Regional advocacy and replication.

4
 3 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
3.1 MID-TERM EVALUATION APPROACH

The mid-term evaluation was undertaken over a period of one month and involved three methods of
data collection. A desk review of project documents, an email questionnaire, and structured
interviews. Key informants were provided the option of responding to an email questionnaire or
participating in an in-person or phone interview. The approach of using multiple methods of engaging
key informants was taken to increase the probability of receiving responses as this was highlighted as
a potential challenge prior to the start of the evaluation. The questions developed for the
questionnaires and interviews were informed by the analysis of key project’s documents and were
based on the evaluation questions as laid out in the ToR:

• Are the project’s adopted strategies pertaining to each Result and overall objective still valid?
• Are the delivery of activities and outputs contributing to the achievement of the Results and overall
objective?

• What is the efficiency of the implementation to date?

• To what extent are the project effects towards building capacity sustainable?

A stakeholder mapping (see annex F) was facilitated by UN-Habitat team members and the selection
of key informants was based on their level of involvement and role within the project. In order to gain
a holistic view of the project, stakeholders working at different levels and stages were selected as key
informants. Additionally, where possible, multiple stakeholders in similar roles were identified as key
informants in order to triangulate the data collected. The results of the mid-term evaluation are
summarised in the Evaluation Matrix (annex C). Each component is scored between numbers one to
five, one being very poor and five being excellent. The components are scored against the evaluation
questions listed in the ToR and the numbers correspond with the results in section 4. It is important
to note the scoring is purely qualitative and illustrates outcomes of the evaluation. Along with annex
C, the scorings are also summarised according to the ToR result categories of relevance, effectiveness,
efficiency and sustainability in section 4.

3.2 MID-TERM EVALUATION METHODS

3.2.1 Desk review of project documents

The initial desk review enabled the evaluation team to acquire a comprehensive understanding of
the project’s approach and methodology, as well as to gain an understanding of workplans, budgets,
indicators and targets. Relevant documents have been provided by UN-Habitat, and complementary
documentation was gathered by the evaluation team from online sources.

5
 • Project/programme proposal to the Adaptation Fund document
• Climate Resilience Fiji ESGY Scoping and Interim Management Report – July 2019
• Knowledge Management Strategy Fiji – August 2018
• FRIS Project Performance Report (PPR) – July 2019
• 16 informal settlements’ Vulnerability Assessment and Action Planning Reports

3.2.2 Key informant interviews and consultations

In addition to documentation review, the information gathering techniques included:

• Interviews with FRIS team members:
o Mr. Bernhard Barth, Programme Manager, Human Settlements Officer, UN-Habitat
o Ms. Inga Korte, Project Team Leader Urban Climate Resilience, UN-Habitat
o Ms. Begonya Peiró, Resilience and Informal Settlements Advisor, Ministry of Housing
and Community Development
o Ms. Mere Rayawa, Project Assistant, UN-Habitat
o Ms. Kamsin Raju, Resilience Officer for Nadi town, Nadi Town Council
• Interviews with key stakeholders/government officials involved in the project
o Mr. Sanjeeva Perera, Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Housing and Community
Development
o Mr. Keith Hornby, Policy Advisor, Ministry of Housing and Community Development
o Ms. Selaima Maitoga, Health Inspector from Lami Town Council
o Mr. Craig Powell, Chief Executive Officer Nadi / Sigatoka Town Councils
o Mr. Meli Koroitamana, General Manager Operations of Nadi Town Council
o Mr. Mohammed Anees Khan, Chief Executive Officer of Lautoka City Council
o Mr. Nilesh Prakash, Chair of the Project Management Committee, former Director of
the Climate Change Unit

3.2.3 Field visits and phone interviews with representatives from informal settlements to
assess communities’ perceptions on implemented activities

Field visits have been conducted in 3 of the 16 informal settlements that are part of the FRIS project.
Bilo and Vuniivi informal settlements are both located in Lami, outside the town boundaries. Korociri
informal settlement is located in Nadi, outside the town boundaries. Interviews have been carried out
with the community leaders of those three settlements:
• Mr. Kevueli Vunibaka, Community Leader of Bilo Informal Settlement
• Mr. Isereimi Vakosokoso, Community Leader of Vuniivi Informal Settlement

6
• Mr. Rahemat Ali, Community Focal Point of Korociri Informal Settlement

7
 3.3 MID-TERM EVALUATION LIMITATIONS AND MITIGATION

The main limitations of this mid-term evaluation are related to the methods of data collection. As
previously noted, key informants were given the option of answering a questionnaire or participating
in an in-person/phone interview. The majority of key informants chose the questionnaire, however,
in some cases responses were not detailed. Therefore, the time that key informants dedicated to
answering the questionnaires and thus providing comprehensive and thoughtful answers is seen as
one potential limitation. Furthermore, in both interviews and questionnaires, there was a risk that key
informants’ responses would be biased towards portraying an overly positive view of the project as
they are direct beneficiaries and thus would be hesitant to criticise. It is important to be aware of the
potential for biased answers particularly for community and MHCD responses.

The evaluation team attempted to mitigate these limitations by selecting several key informants who
have similar or the same roles regarding the project. Triangulating data from multiple sources allowed
the team to verify the information provided by the key informants.

8
 4 RESULTS

4.1 RELEVANCE RELEVANCE:

score 3.9 out of 5
4.1.1 Rationale of the results and its objectives

The overall objective of the project is to increase the resilience of the informal urban settlements in
Fiji that are highly vulnerable to climate change and disaster risks by responding to varies gaps that
were identified. Based on the review of project documents and data collected from the key informants
(KIs) it is possible to state that the project’s objectives have not changed and that the project’s
rationale is still valid and very relevant. According to the information gathered during the KIs, the
FRIS project is currently even more relevant as challenges and vulnerabilities faced by community
residents have been increasing in the last 6 months. As a result of the economic impact of COVID-19,
employment and food security represent now top concerns for Fijian communities. As community
members rely more on natural resources for subsistence, they become increasingly vulnerable to
climate-related hazards which frequently affect their crops and livestock. Furthermore, many people
in the informal settlements have reported loss of employment or reduced hours, which further limits
their ability to response to emergencies and allocate resources to strengthen their adaptive capacity.

4.1.2 Relationship to the SDGs, Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, Paris
Agreement and the New Urban Agenda and ‘Next Steps’

Climate change is seen as one of the main barriers to reducing inequalities and a major threat to the
achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This view is reflected `in the Fijian
Government’s National Climate Change Policy, which states that building climate resilience is critical
to the implementation of the SDGs9. Existing development deficits exacerbate communities’
vulnerability to climate change. Consequently, enhancing climate resilience within the context of
informal settlements at the community-level will enable improved adaptive capacity and progress of
many of the SDGs. The desk review showed that all 17 SDGs are integrated into the action
identification and prioritization process, following a holistic approach. Furthermore, the project is
aligned with the principles laid out in the Paris Agreement of the UNFCCC, the Sendai Framework
for Disaster Risk Reduction, and the New Urban Agenda.

4.1.3 Changes in result context during implementation

In terms of changes in result context during implementation, one of the main challenges reported by
the majority of the KIs was the outbreak of the global COVID-19 pandemic. With regards to the project
implementation, the major impacts were perceived at the community level. VAAP household surveys

9 Ministry of Economy, Republic of Fiji, (2019). National Climate Change Policy 2018-2030.

9
were halted in one of the informal settlements which reduced the size of the sample analysed. VAAP
workshops were delayed but ended up being carried out with some adjustments to the original work
plan (e.g. the number of community representatives targeted to attend the workshop was reduced to
20 people which hindered the level of community engagement in some settlements).

At the community level, the current economic crisis (due to COVID-19) has changed communities’
perception on vulnerabilities. The primary concern of communities is currently food security, and thus
an improved understanding of how climate-related hazards impact their ability to grow crops is even
more pressing. Hence, the rationale of the project at the local level is also of even greater relevance
due to COVID-19.

4.1.4 Institutional and partner priorities

At the national level, although the project is aligned with the government’s plan and strategies, it has
not been considered as a top priority by government counterparts; mainly due to the lack of human
resources and technical capacity to perform on the ongoing projects. At the local level, the project is
also not perceived as a priority, essentially due to jurisdiction factors as informal settlements do not
fall under Councils’ mandate. City/town councils’ focus is on urban and peri-urban communities
located inside the city/town boundary and to whom the council is responsible for providing services
and regulation. Additionally, according to the information obtained during consultations, the lack of
resources available to support the planning and implementation has been raised as one of the major
challenges to prioritizing the project faced by the councils.

4.1.5 Ownership by national and local stakeholders

As outlined in section 2, the desk review revealed that the project is fully aligned to the Fijian
Government’s National Adaptation Plan (NAP). The NAP was conceived in response to international
commitments and national needs as the main overarching process to comprehensively address
climate change10. It contains 160 adaptation measures that are to be prioritized over the five-year
period of the NAP, organized across a total of 10 components (five systems components and five
sectoral components). The objectives of the project are in line and respond to the aforementioned
focus areas and with the governments’ objectives of informal settlements’ upgrading strategies.
Furthermore, it is important to note the high level of engagement and support of Fiji Prime Minister
who considers informal settlements upgrading as well as climate change action as government

10Government of the Republic of Fiji, (2018). Republic of Fiji. National Adaptation Plan. A pathway towards climate resilience. Retrieved
from: https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/NAPC/Documents/Parties/National%20Adaptation%20Plan_Fiji.pdf

10
priorities. However, as discussed in section 4.1.4, the project has not been seen as a top priority for
national stakeholders and thus the level of ownership has been compromised.

Furthermore, the lack of capacity of the Ministry of Housing and Community Development (MHCD),
to a large extent caused by change in personnel and long vacancies, following the restructuring in
2018 has been reported by the KIs as one of the major challenges throughout the first half of the
project implementation. Additionally, the lack of ownership by new personnel of the MHCD has also
been highlighted as hindering the level of commitment of MHCD to the FRIS project. More
communication between the MCHD staff and the FRIS project team has been identified as a potential
way forward in order to better align the project with MHCD’s strategic work plan and priorities.
Furthermore, more human resources with technical knowledge are to be considered for the next
phases of the implementation to ensure the success of the varies activities and the achievement of
project’s outcomes.

At a local level, the municipal councils reveal a certain level of engagement with the work that is being
developed by the ROs both within the councils and with the communities. However, this differs from
council to council. According to the information gathered during the interviews, the level of
involvement and support of the councils would be higher in the city/town-wide vulnerability
assessment as councils’ focus on providing services and regulation within city/town boundaries. The
city-wide component would highly benefit the councils and hence increase their
ownership/involvement in the project.

There is an overall high level of support for the project at the local community level. The review of
project documents and KIs showed that the participatory approach used in the planning and validation
workshops, whereby participants identify climate vulnerabilities and prioritize potential solutions, has
helped create a sense of ownership over the project. Ownership is also reflected in the undertaking
of small tasks by some communities to address the challenges discussed in the workshops. For
example, in Vuniivi settlement, following the workshops, one household built a new septic tank so
waste no longer pollutes the environment. Furthermore, in Bilo settlement, the community has been
building a new drainage system, stating that they are doing what they can now to address the actions
identified during the workshop. While community attendance at the planning and validation
workshops and the amount of engagement during this process varied, generally communities were
well involved in this stage, further illustrating that the participatory approach of the VAAPs has been
successful.

11
Figure 1 Validation workshops in the informal settlements under component 2

12
When looking to the next stages of the project, the KIs reveal certain challenges that will need to be
addressed by the project. Interviews with both communities and project staff highlighted the issue of
having no contact with communities in the months following the workshops, particularly in regards to
the potential impact on future participation and cooperation. One KII explained that as communities
are not being frequently engaged they are unaware that the project has been continuing to work
towards implementation. The lack of consistent engagement in the communities also falls on the
Town Councils as the KIs note the difficulty in gaining support from the Council staff to carry out
activities that could be used to keep communities engaged in time between workshops and
implementation. The interviews suggested that a simple solution to local communities’ involvement
and continued cooperation with the project is provide quarterly updates, as well as, increase
involvement of the Town Councils who are well placed to make field visits to the communities more
frequently.

4.2 EFFECTIVENESS
4.2.1 Actual or expected achievement of results at the time of the mid- EFFECTIVENESS:
score 3.0 out of 5
term evaluation

The project is halfway through its planned duration. At the time of this mid-term evaluation, the
results achieved are as described/listed below (see Annex D Timeframe and Implementation Schedule
Progress):
1. Component 1 is fairly deviant from the planning due to frequent delays of government
sub-contracts to executing partners. The remaining outputs (1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3 – city-wide
VAAPs) are expected to get started shortly as the contracts between MHCD and the
University of the South Pacific (USP) has already been approved. According to the revised
work plan, those outputs are to be completed by January, March and May 2021,
respectively.
Output 1.1.4 – Urban planner/resilience officer established in three towns and one city.
2. Component 2 (outputs 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3) has been completed up to the date. Awareness
raising activities have not yet been implemented, although the assessment process has
also provided some awareness raising. Community Capacity Development Plan’s
implementation (outputs 2.1.4 and 2.1.5) is expected get started in the last quarter of
the year.
Output 2.1.1 – Assessment and planning tool for community vulnerability assessment and
action planning developed.

13
 Output 2.1.2 – Community-based climate vulnerability and informal settlements
assessments, including hazard maps, conducted, in informal settlements in participating
towns.
Output 2.1.3 – Assessment and planning tool for community vulnerability assessment and
action planning developed.
3. Component 3 is yet to start.
Outputs under Component 3 have not yet been completed.
4. Component 4 is a constant activity throughout the project – ONGOING
Output 4.1.1 – Lessons learned and best practices regarding resilient urban community
development/housing are generated, captured and distributed to other communities,
civil society, and policy-makers in government appropriate mechanisms
Output 4.1.2 – Regional Advocacy and replication.

14
 4.2.2 Factors and processes affecting the achievement of results

According to the information gathered during consultations, there are numerous factors that have
hindered the achievement of the abovementioned goals. These include: the lack of human
resources, limited technical knowledge of executing partners, low stakeholder engagement and
long/ complicated bureaucratic procedures. With regards to human resources, MHCD does currently
not have enough staff to support the project to the extent that is required. Additionally, human
resources with greater technical expertise and well versed with the government machinery, processes
and procedures would be required to advise the project management and meet the project’s
objectives. Being a critical partner of the project (particularly in the coming implantation phases), it
would be crucial to consider more technical expertise not only on the overall management of
upgrading processes but also with focus on the implementation of the physical works. Additionally,
MHCD’s staff turnover has been reported by KIs as a major challenge affecting the project’s
effectiveness. Senior technical staff who were involved with the project were reported to have
resigned at crucial stages, taking with them the knowledge of the project, which resulted in UN-
Habitat having to invest more time in building relationships, as well as an understanding of the project
within the MHCD. It is also important to note the impact the replacement of UN-Habitat’s Project
Manager in Fiji had on implementation progress. The former Project Manager had to leave the country
on a short notice due to personal reasons which translated into limited in-country oversight from
August to November 2019 until the replacement arrived.

Regarding stakeholder engagement, the main lessons learned from engaging with other external
executing partners are linked with the need of developing a proper guidance and close monitoring of
activities and outputs. During the consultations, KIs highlighted the importance of having a clear
understanding of the capacities of executing partners and whether these are adequate in relation to
the expectations. For any future engagements of external partners, clear directions, guidelines and
tools as well as main results/outputs expected have to be agreed from the beginning and
implementation need to be very closely monitored.

Complicated and long bureaucratic procedures have been heavily impacting timely project
implementation. Frequent delays in contracts between MHCD and other executing partners have
been negatively impacting the project implementation. For example, the process of subcontracting of
component 1 to an external partner was initiated early 2019 and is still not finalized. Moreover, limited
specialized expertise of the external partner (Live and Learn – LLEE) who was initially subcontracted
to implement the component 2 led to the hiring of two MHCD consultants to take over and finalize
LLEE’s deliverables. This lengthy recruitment process was further hindered by long bureaucratic

15
government procedures (e.g. approval of cabinet papers, advertisement requirements, etc.) required
for the recruitment of international staff. The abovementioned factors translated in delays of
approximately 1,5 years for Component 1 and Component 2 has been delayed by close to 6 months.
Consequently, Component 3 will also be delayed by approximately 6 months. Since the city-wide
assessments and strategies have not been done before the community assessments, the approach
had to be adjusted. The city-level assessments would have provided a more in-depth analysis that
would have been useful when selecting and informing the specific actions. Additionally, given that the
hazards maps have not yet been produced, the VAAPs are predominantly based on perceptions and
field observations. Nonetheless, other project activities have been adjusted to adapt to the situation
and try to minimize delays.

A further factor that is likely to impact the achievement of results is the mobility restrictions resulting
from the COVID-19 pandemic. International expertise is required to implement component 3;
however, Fiji’s border remains closed to non-essential travel thus hindering the potential of finding
the appropriate candidate for the project’s next stages. As previously emphasizes, the lack of technical
expertise has been a consistent challenge for the project and therefore COVID-19 restrictions may
result in further delays.

4.2.3 How appropriate and effective are the partnerships and other institutional
relationships?

As previously described, the project involves partnerships between stakeholders at the community,
local and national level. Feedback gained from one KI describes “the framework established by the
project to enable vertical integration [as] among the most positive and powerful aspects” of the
project. However, the KIs also show that there are many barriers to ensuring these partnerships are
effective. One contributing factor that emerged from the KIs is communication and coordination can
be highly challenging which contributes to a lack of clearly defined responsibilities and thus impede a
sense of ownership among government partners. One example provided in the KIs is regarding output
1.1.2 (hazard maps). Although extremely relevant for increasing awareness of hazard exposure and
climate risks at the city level, the Department of Town and Country Planning does not see the full
alignment with its work plan anymore (having requested support to the hazard mapping during
project planning) thus the hazard maps have been delayed.

The KIs describe that the attempts by the project to rectify ineffective partnerships resulted in UN-
Habitat taking on many of the coordination responsibilities assigned to the MHCD. However, the

16
team’s limited resources cannot sustainably perform this role without mores human resources
support by the Ministry.

4.2.4 Outcomes to date on the project partners

The establishment of the ROs in the councils has presented many opportunities, as it facilitates
communication and engagement with the councils and communities, which highly contributes for the
strengthening of capacity at the local level, effectiveness and sustainability of the project. More
engagement from other staff members from the council would be beneficial; however, limitations on
personnel availability were identified as a major barrier to this. One good example where the project
and the role of the ROs have already proven to be successful for some communities is the clean-up
campaigns organized by the councils in the informal settlements after the lack of solid waste
management has been raised by the communities during site visits and training sessions.

Under Component 2, the assessment and planning tool has been completed, and has guided the
assessment and action planning process. VAAPs have been successfully completed, including
quantitative and qualitative information that establish a good baseline. Despite COVID-19, targeted
population groups have participated in the assessment activities (following the restrictions in terms
of number of participants). Awareness raising activities have not yet been implemented, although the
assessment process has also provided some awareness to the communities.

Outcomes under Component 3 have not yet been achieved. The delays under outcome 2 have
influenced this. Under Component 4 (awareness raising, knowledge management and
communications), the project implementation revealed a high level of transparency and all documents
that have been produced are accessible to various groups of audiences. There have been some
activities related to this outcome (e.g., Facebook page, brochures, etc.). Also, the methodology
employed that was adapted to the Fijian context has been included in a regional guide as case study
which contributes to the achievement of the main outputs.

4.2.5 Outcomes/foreseen impact on local collaborating partners, consultants and

professionals involved in the implementation of the project

According to the KIs, the project has been considerably impacting the stakeholders involved in
implementation. At municipal level, the trainings organized with the councils have contributed to
improving their knowledge on planning for climate change and strengthening partnerships. The
upcoming city-wide assessments (under component 1) was highlighted as a great opportunity to
further engage officers from the councils through a practical and hands on approach. However, a

17
greater engagement from MHCD and the Town Councils would be needed to maximize knowledge
exchanges and practices of local stakeholders. The ROs have been playing a crucial role both in the
community and city-level work. This year, they have been closely involved in the community-level
work (e.g. coordinating the household surveys on the ground, supporting the community workshops,
process the data with GIS, etc.), which has been contributing to improve their knowledge and skills
and could also be very beneficial for the tasks that they have to carry out for the council.

4.2.6 Are vulnerable groups and crosscutting issues of gender, youth, climate change and
human rights integrated in the design, implementation and monitoring of the project?

The information collected through desk review and KIs illustrate that inclusiveness is at the core of
the project. Each activity is designed to address the specific needs of vulnerable groups and cross
cutting issues through the collection of detailed disaggregated data and integrating these findings
into the action planning process. The VAAP has supported data collection in a disaggregated manner
to get a better understanding of the different vulnerable groups in the settlement (e.g., household
survey, participatory mapping identifying households that are vulnerable because of their exposure,
or because of their socio-economic condition, etc., identifying risk spots for vulnerable groups such as
children, etc.). Focus group discussions have been carried out following participatory approaches,
ensuring that all groups were involved and the interventions identified have included guidelines on
how to adopt a gender-based approach. Ensuring that community representatives keep being
involved during the next phases, through participatory design activities and during the
implementation will be crucial.

4.3 EFFICIENCY
EFFICIENCY:
4.3.1 Action on progress compared to plans, budget and overall score 2.9 out of 5
performance

The desk review and KIs detail the major delays that the project experienced as a result of the
previously mentioned challenges regarding the roles and responsibilities of partners, particularly that
of the executing agency. However, under UN-Habitat guidance, the project has been able to move
forward with component 2 and 4 and thus the project’s overall performance is considered average.
As a result of delays, project activities are currently underbudget while the project is over budget on
staffing due to taking on responsibilities originally assigned to MHCD.

18
 4.3.2 Translation and application of donor policies such as Environmental and Social Policy
and Gender Policy

According to the information collected during the interviews and from project documents’ review,
Environmental and Social Safeguards and Gender Policy have been considered and applied to the
activities implemented which targeted mostly data collection, community engagement, trainings
and awareness raising. Household surveys have integrated gender and age disaggregated data such
as number of people with disabilities in the settlements, households with female heads of the
household, etc. This provides a valuable baseline for the next phases of the project and can support
the monitoring and evaluation process. For the VAAPs, a bottom-up participatory approach that
allows community members to engage with the identification of vulnerabilities and prioritization of
actions. Prior to the organization of the workshops, guidelines were provided on how to ensure that
the ESS were applied (e.g., guidelines for selecting workshop participants).

Furthermore, the KIs explained that the ESS have informed the design of the capacity building
framework for trainings and awareness that will be implemented alongside hard actions. All capacity
building activities will be screened against the 15 environmental and social risks to mitigate any
potential negative impacts on people and the environment. Also, all subprojects will be screened
according to ESS principles prior to approval by the Project Management Committee (PMC).

4.3.3 Were the activities and outputs delivered in a cost-efficient and timely manner?

Overall, the activities and outputs have been delivered in a cost-efficient and timely manner with some
exceptions depending on the activity. The establishment of the resilience offices has been one
successful activity implemented in terms of cost-effectiveness and it has been strengthening
involvement and engagement of both municipal and community levels. As mentioned in the previous
sections, agreements with executing partners – particularly under component 2 – could have been
more cost-efficient had there been more oversight and quality control during the activities’
implementation. Having the project being executed through the government system could reduce
costs such as inflated staffing and logistics costs. However, this could also be translated into lower
quality of the deliverables as engaging technical expertise may be challenging.

4.3.4 Implementation efficiency

In terms of efficiency, challenges and opportunities have been reported during consultations. UN-
Habitat team has been fully involved throughout all stages of the project and has been contributing
to the success of the project implementation. Furthermore, the relevance of project activities to the

19
communities has greatly contributed to increasing their interest, involvement and sense of ownership
and thus the overall implementation efficiency. As mentioned, the establishment of the ROs within
the councils has been a major factor in the success of the project. Additionally, female beneficiaries
have been encouraged to participate and empowered due to the number of female team members
directly involved in community engagement. Challenges with regards to the project’s efficiency
include factors listed in previous sections, such as, lack of ownership and involvement of the MHCD
as well as the PMC; long bureaucratic procedures and various actors involved in the approvals; difficult
leadership of MHCD and lack of clear responsibilities; high and frequent staff turnover in counterparts
(MHCD and municipal councils).

4.4 SUSTAINABILITY SUSTAINABILITY:

score 2.6 out of 5
4.4.1 Factors affecting or likely to affect sustainability of the results

A crucial factor to secure the sustainability of the project’s implementation is the involvement of the
various stakeholders from national to local partners. Limited technical capacity to design, implement
and monitor the physical infrastructures being proposed could also be a barrier for the sustainability
of the project. The identification of suitable solutions to be implemented in the selected settlements
that could be easily maintained and monitored with a minimum of resources and technical knowledge
is likely to contribute to the sustainability of the project. Furthermore, integration of FRIS outputs such
as APs within the MHCD work plan would be highly beneficial for future upgrading programmes. One
positive factor that may contribute to the project’s sustainability is the ongoing government reforms
such as the review of the National Housing Policy. Among other aspects, this revision would be looking
at how incremental works of projects such as FRIS could fit into the strategic approach to informal
settlements’ upgrading and formalisation process. A clear definition of partners’ responsibilities is
highly recommended in order to the project to be sustainable (e.g. Who is going to be responsible for
the maintenance and monitoring of the actions implemented under the project?).

Budget management at the Ministry level has been identified by KIs as one of the major issues
impacting the sustainability of the project. Consistent delays in grant agreements between MHCD and
Town Councils have had negative consequences for the relationships between stakeholders,
particularly in regard to ROs’ payments and potential resources to be allocated to other areas for
municipal operations. Additionally, according to the AoC and project budget, the ROs are only funded
by the project until year 3. Initial discussions with the Project Management Committee included the
expectations that councils will provide funding for the ROs in year 4 to ensure the sustainability of the
project.

20
 4.4.2 Established networks among institutions

While some networks have been established by the project, the KIs noted that these will be expanded
upon as component 3 is implemented. The variety of actions proposed under component 3 will require
strong working relationships with various stakeholders, such as the Ministry of Lands, i Taukei Land
Trust Board, Water Authority of Fiji and the Fiji Roads Authority. However, a key issue observed by
the KIs is a perceived hesitation by the MHCD to involve certain implementing partners. This challenge
would need to be resolved prior to the start of component 3 as it is likely to impede establishing
further networks and partnerships.

At the local level, steering committees have been formed in the four towns/cities in order to support
the project implementation. The local steering committees are potentially an effective way to create
networks among communities and Town Councils as well as other stakeholders. However, it has been
reported by KIs that little involvement by the steering committees has been identified and thus more
active participation should be promoted by the project.

4.4.3 From “built capacities to building capacity”

Different levels of knowledge transfer have been reported during consultations. The ROs have been
engaged in several trainings carried out by the project consultants and USP. The trainings were
focused on ESS, VAAPs and household surveys. Project consultants have been guiding the ROs in the
execution of their tasks (e.g. household survey, data collection, mapping, and GIS mapping).
Furthermore, the ROs have been involved in activities by the Town Councils, such as organizing waste
collection campaigns or creating maps to support the COVID-19 emergency response. The degree to
which ROs have built capacity within the councils varies from one case to another. One example that
emerged from the KIs is how ROs have trained council staff on mapping tools such as QGIS and the
advantages of open source data management. To further promote the opportunity the ROs have to
build capacity within the town councils, the KIs suggested additional GIS training, along with providing
the appropriate software, and a focus on training junior staff. Finally, the KIs also emphasized the need
to facilitate knowledge sharing between council staff and project staff as a way to increase the teams’
capacity.

At the community level, in some settlements, community representatives who have attended the
validation workshop have transferred knowledge to other community members by engaging them in
some activities, including urban farming/small grater gardens techniques, regular clean-up activities
to stop vector and water borne diseases, improved waste management through community waste
disposal areas, etc.

21
 4.4.4 Using new knowledge to build up confidence

According to the KIs, the participatory approach has been critical, not only for the assessments, but
also to build trust with community members. Through the workshops, community representatives
gained a better understanding of the FRIS project and could clarify what benefits the project will bring
to their community. Community members could also engage with representatives from UN-Habitat,
the consultants, and the ROs. Furthermore, the workshops have raised discussions on subjects, such
as: hazard exposure and the impacts of climate change through exercises. These activities introduced
and explained many key concepts, including: climate hazards, trends and projections, highlighting
some of the potential future impacts. In this way, workshops have not only helped the consultants to
collect data, but also to raise awareness among community members. Furthermore, the involvement
of the ROs as representatives from the local councils in the household survey, the workshops, and on
site data collection has brought many benefits. Community leaders have now a clear focal point at the
council they can reach out to. Additionally, the ROs became familiar with the issues in the settlements
and are also aware of key vulnerable groups. KIs reveal that communities are grateful for being
included in the planning process, however, the level of expectations is very high and community
members are expecting to see prioritized actions to be implemented shortly. Hence, a participatory
approach should continue to be applied during the project design phase.

4.4.5 Implementing capacity of the cooperation partners to take the activities forward

As mentioned in previous sections, current capacities within executing partners are very limited and
existing staff are already overloaded with MHCD work. Hence, it is unlikely that the existing structure
would be able to support taking the project activities forward, particularly the implementation of
component 3. According to KIs, hiring at least two engineers (one international and one local) would
be strongly recommended in order to sustainably implement component 3. Additionally, the
recruitment of one international community capacity development consultant for the next 18 months,
for the implementation of component 2 (output 2.4 – awareness raising activities for targeted
population groups in various subjects and output 2.5 – training of target household and communities
on various topics) has also been highlighted as crucial to ensure the success of next phases’
implementation. Furthermore, according to the information collected, time extension will most likely
be needed in order to finalize the completion of all 4 components. Finally, the above-mentioned
recruitments should be done concurrently to prevent further delays of the programme.

22
 5 LESSONS LEARNED

Implementation

Detailed and concrete work plans, extensive monitoring as well as frequent follow-ups with the
executing agencies and partners are required in order to achieve a successful project implementation.
It has been proven that having staff embedded within the MHCD/municipalities – reporting directly
to the UN-Habitat team leader – is much more beneficial than outsourcing tasks to local partners.

Physical proximity is an important factor for timely implementation: the FRIS team is situated within
the MHCD and can thus interact closely with relevant counterparts. Moving out of the joint building
with MLG/ MHCD has weakened the working relationship with MLG and requires more efforts to
maintain interaction and MLG’s sense of ownership.

Resources and capacities of executing agencies are limited and require extensive guidance and
oversight from the team leader/ project assistant.

Community/National Impact

• Community Governance: Community organization has drastically improved, leading to

increased social coherence;
• Linkages: Connecting target communities with municipalities as well as national government
has been important for the target communities. In several cases, issues are now being
addressed more easily and faster (for example trash collection, water pollution, local disputes)
with the help of Resilience Officers;
• Climate Resilient Assets: Building community assets that are urgently needed;
• Advocacy: The project highlights the importance of incremental informal settlements
upgrading to a wide range of stakeholders through continued advocacy, potentially leading to
an increase in programming targeted specifically at informal settlements;
• Increased awareness: through continued engagement and capacity development,
communities have benefitted extensively from awareness raising activities on a range of
topics, including COVID-19 and health related issues, impacts of climate, and DRR.

Ensuring sustainability

• Strong focus on capacity building/ knowledge transfer to communities;

• Strong focus on improving community organization to improve governance structures;
• Strong alignment with national policies and NAP;

23
 • Implementation modality that ensures strong involvement of MHCD: instead of outsourcing
various tasks to local executing agencies (such as Live and Learn, or engineering
subcontractors), a team within MHCD will take lead in engineering as well as capacity building
activities. This approach will allow for more technical and managerial oversight as well as more
timely implementation, and will directly impact sustainability.

6 RECOMMENDATIONS

The evaluators rate the project performance as average, with high potential for improvement if some
corrective measures are taken. Project implementation is ongoing and has already been contributing
to increased resilience of informal urban settlements in Fiji that are highly vulnerable to climate
change and disaster risks. To improve the process, the efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of
the project’s implementation, the evaluation team has some recommendations which are presented
in the following sections.

6.1 ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY OF ALL INVOLVED STAKEHOLDERS

Human resources

As mentioned in previous sections, the lack of involvement of the MHCD and the limited staff
dedicating time to support the project have been highlighted as major factors impacting in the overall
project’s performance. Although there have been efforts to increase their involvement, often there
are other more urgent projects that take up most of their time. Some limited additional resources
have been allocated to the project by MHCD to address the issue which has been beneficial and has
led to some improvements, but more dedication will be required to meet the project’s objectives.
Also, staff with specific expertise and fully dedicated to the project implementation would be
required.

Integration of project work within MHCD, definition of responsibilities and establishment of

monitoring framework of project staff to follow through on responsibilities

FRIS project needs to be better integrated within MHCD day to day activities and individual work plans.
A monitoring framework could serve as an efficient tool to track deliverables and activities of project
staff against project outputs and should be developed quarterly by UN-Habitat and MHCD to promote
greater accountability and ownership. Furthermore, structured work plans, including clearly defined
responsibilities and milestones, need to guide the implementation in order to achieve objectives more
promptly and efficiently.

24
Improving communication among all stakeholders involved in the project is to be prioritized in the
implementation of next phases. More frequent meetings with project team and the MHCD are to be
included in the revised work plan. Additionally, regular check-ins with the councils to update them on
the project progress and suggestions on how they can further support the project are highly
recommended. Frequent follow ups with the communities while planning/designing the next phases
would be strongly advisable in order to ensure continued community engagement which would highly
contribute to the project’s effectiveness and efficiency. Specific recommendations for stakeholder
engagement include:

• A minimum of quarterly but ideally monthly meetings with UN-Habitat regional team,
Permanent Secretary of MHCD and/or ministry’s staff;
• A minimum of monthly but ideally bi-weekly meetings of MHCD with the Fiji project team;
• Quarterly PMC meetings with core group, 6 monthly with expanded group (key government
partners), and yearly with all stakeholders.

Finally, a more structured stakeholders’ engagement would enable the project to stay informed of any
development that may influence future results (e.g. potential changes in settlements’ context and
social structure).

Executing partners

The involvement of one or two more non-governmental executing partners (depending on further
agreements) besides MHCD to move the implementation forward (e.g. engage a specialized
organisation to implement improved sanitation facilities in selected communities) is strongly
recommended.

6.2 MODELS TO BE APPLIED IN FUTURE PROJECTS – EASY REPLICATION

It is recommended that in the design and implementation of hard and soft components, the project
ensure that processes and actions are appropriate for scaling up. By utilizing the project to identify a
set of hard and soft components that can be replicated in additional settlements, the project could
contribute to the climate resilience of a greater number of informal settlements. Furthermore,
government ownership would likely increase if the project partners could see how activities could be
applied to their mandate. This is especially the case of the MHCD, as component 3 activities could
directly inform the formalization of the informal settlements the ministry is responsible for.

25
ANNEX A – ADAPTATION FUND’S OUTCOMES

Project Project Outcome Fund Outcome Fund Outcome

Outcome Indicator Indicator
Outcome 1.1: Relevant threat and Outcome 1: 1. Relevant threat
Reduced hazard information Reduced exposure and hazard
vulnerability at the generated and at national level to information
city-level to disseminated to climate-related generated and
climate-related stakeholders on a hazards and disseminated to
hazards and timely basis – threats
 stakeholders on a
threats number of timely basis
assessments,
maps and plans
available online
Outcome 2.1: Percentage of Outcome 3: 3.1. Percentage of
Strengthened targeted population Strengthened targeted
awareness and aware of predicted awareness and population aware
ownership of adverse impacts of ownership of of predicted
adaptation and climate change, adaptation and adverse impacts
climate risk and of appropriate climate risk of climate change,
reduction responses reduction and of appropriate
processes and processes at local responses
capacity at the level
community level
with particular
emphasis on
women, youth,
older people and
other people in
vulnerable
situations
Outcome 3.1: Physical Outcome 4: 4.2. Physical
Increased infrastructure Increased adaptive infrastructure
adaptive capacity improved to capacity within improved to
with relevant withstand climate relevant withstand climate
development and change and development and change and
natural resource variability-induced natural resource variability-induced
sectors stress sectors stress
Ecosystem Outcome 5: 5. Ecosystem
services and Increased services and
natural assets ecosystem natural assets
maintained or resilience in maintained or
improved under response to climate improved under
climate change and change and climate change
variability-induced variability-induced and variability-
stress stress induced stress

26
ANNEX B – EVALUATION MATRIX

27
ANNEX C – TIMEFRAME AND IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE PROGRESS

28
ANNEX D – LIST OF INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS

29
ANNEX E – STAKEHOLDER MAPPING

30
ANNEX F – CONTACTS

CLIENT
United Nations Human Settlement Programme (UN-Habitat)
Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific - Fukuoka 1-1-1 Tenjin, Chuo-ku, Fukuoka 810-0001 JAPAN

habitat.fukuoka@un.org
www.fukuoka.unhabitat.org

AUTHORS
Katherine Drakeford | kdrakeford08@gmail.com
Sara Vargues | smvargues@gmail.com

DATE
October 2020

STATUS
Finalised

31