WHOLE-OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION URBAN RESILIENCE TO CLIMATE CHANGE PROJECT (CLIMA - Ciudades Líderes en Iniciativas y Metas de Adaptación) USAID/DOMINICAN REPUBLIC MONITORING, EVALUATION, AND LEARNING PLATFORM June 15, 2018 USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Panagora Group for the USAID/Dominican Republic Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Platform Task Order, IDIQ No. AID-OAA-I-15-00025, Task Order No. AID￾517-TO-16-00003. Panagora Group’s Evaluation Team: Team Leader: Thomas Moore, and William J. Cartier, Panagora Group USAID/Dominican Republic Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Platform Chief of Party. Recommended citation: USAID Dominican Republic Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Platform Task Order. 2018. Final Report. Whole-of-Project Performance Evaluation of Urban Resilience to Climate Change Project (CLIMA - Ciudades Líderes en Iniciativas y Metas de Adaptación). Kensington, Maryland: Panagora Group. Cover photos of vulnerable neighborhoods in National District, Ward 3; and in Barrio Hospital, Las Terrenas. Thomas Moore. Panagora Group Contact: William Cartier Chief of Party Panagora Group 8601 Georgia Ave, Suite 905 Silver Spring, MD 20910 USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................................................................1 I. Evaluation Purpose, Questions, and Design.....................................................................................................11 A. CLIMA Background..........................................................................................................................................11 B. Evaluation Purpose and Questions...............................................................................................................14 C. Evaluation Design and Methods....................................................................................................................16 II. Findings and Conclusions......................................................................................................................................19 Question 1....................................................................................................................................................................20 Question 2....................................................................................................................................................................22 Question 3....................................................................................................................................................................25 Question 4....................................................................................................................................................................26 Question 5....................................................................................................................................................................29 Question 6....................................................................................................................................................................31 Question 7....................................................................................................................................................................32 Question 8....................................................................................................................................................................34 III. Recommendations..................................................................................................................................................38 Annex A. Evaluation Scope of Work..........................................................................................................................41 Annex B. Written Resources Reviewed ....................................................................................................................52 Annex C. Key Informant Interviews...........................................................................................................................61 Annex D. Focus Group Discussions...........................................................................................................................65 Annex E. Data Collection Instruments.......................................................................................................................67 ● Key Informant Interview - Technical, Administrative Staff of IPs, Subs...............................................68 ● Key Informant Interview - Technical, Administrative Staff in Allied GoDR Agencies .....................70 ● Key Informant Interview - Municipalities....................................................................................................72 ● Key Informant Interviews – Local Communities in Municipal Areas...................................................74 ● Key Informant Interview – Farmers and Local Organizations...............................................................76 ● Focus Group Guide - Municipalities.............................................................................................................78 ● Focus Group Guide - Farmer Beneficiaries................................................................................................80 Annex F. Field Work Schedule.....................................................................................................................................81 Annex G. Statement of Differences............................................................................................................................85 Annex H. Conflict of Interest Declarations..............................................................................................................88 USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT ACRONYMS ADN Municipality (Ayuntamiento) of the National District, Santo Domingo AECID Spanish Agency for International Cooperation for Development ALT Municipality (Ayuntamiento) of Las Terrenas AS Municipality (Ayuntamiento) of Santiago de los Caballeros ASP Municipality (Ayuntamiento) of San Pedro de Macorís CA Cooperative Agreement CAASD Santo Domingo Water and Sewerage Corporation CATIE Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza CCA Climate change adaptation CDCS Country Development Cooperation Strategy CDES Santiago Center for Strategic Development CEUR Center for Urban Regional Studies, ISA University, Santiago CLIMA The Urban Resilience to Climate Change Project (Ciudades Líderes en Iniciativas y Metas de Adaptación) COE Center for Emergency Operations CONADIS National Council on Disability CORAASAN Santiago Water and Sewerage Corporation CRII Climate Resiliency and Index Insurance Project CRIS Climate Risk Infrastructure Services Project CRR Climate Risk Reduction Project DGODT General Directorate for Land Use and Development of the MEPD DO Development objective DR Dominican Republic ENA National Environmental School, Jarabacoa FEDOMU Dominican Federation of Municipalities FGD Focus group discussion FtF Feed the Future Climate and Agriculture Program FY Fiscal year GCC Global climate change GODR Government of the Dominican Republic IADB Inter-American Development Bank ICMA International City/County Management Association IDDI Dominican Institute for Integral Development IGN National Geographical Institute INAPA Dominican National Institute for Potable Water and Sewerage INDRHI Dominican National Institute for Hydraulic Resources INTEC Technological Institute of Santo Domingo IP Implementation partner KII Key informant interview LGBT Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans-gender MEL Monitoring, evaluation, and learning MEPyD Ministry of the Economy, Planning, and Development MINARENA Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources OFDA USAID's Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT ONAMET National Office of Meteorology ONAPLAN National Planning Office ONE National Statistics Office PAD Project appraisal document PAPA Participant agency program agreement PMD Municipal development plan PMOT Municipal land use plan Q Quarter QPR Quarterly progress report RED Rural Economic Diversification Project REDD+ Reduction of emissions from deforestation and the degradation of forest lands REDDOM Dominican Rural Economic Development Foundation SOW Scope of work TNC The Nature Conservancy UCE The Central University of the East (Universidad Central del Este), San Pedro de Macorís USAID United States Agency for International Development USAID/DR United States Agency for International Development/Dominican Republic USFS United States Forest Service USG United States Government WB World Bank WRF Weather research and forecasting USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The U. S. Agency for International Development/Dominican Republic (USAID/DR) has engaged the Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) Platform contract to conduct an external whole-of-project performance evaluation of USAID/DR’s Urban Resilience to Climate Change (CLIMA) project. This project is being implemented under five separate agreement mechanisms by four different implementing partners (IPs). CLIMA is a multi-year, $20,627,165 project, authorized on April 14, 2014, with activities that began in fiscal year (FY) 2015 and will end in FY 2018. CLIMA's purpose is to increase the resilience of urban and rural communities to climate change in target urban and upper watershed communities where some of the most climate vulnerable and socio-economically marginalized people live. While intended originally as a mid-term performance evaluation, USAID/DR has recently reduced the project timeline and funding; in practical terms this is principally a final evaluation. Project Background The CLIMA project was designed in FY2014 in the context of USAID/DR's Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) for 2014-2018, within the framework of the CDCS Goal: The Dominican Republic Improves Citizen Security to Promote Economic Growth; and in function of Development Objective 2, "Increased Resilience of People to the Impact of Climate Change". Its purpose is to "increase the resilience to global climate change in target urban and upper watershed communities where some of the most climate vulnerable and socio-economically marginalized people live". It is being implemented through five separate cooperative agreements (CA) with different IP: 1) Improved Climate Information (CLIMA-Info), a three-year activity with a $1.7 million USAID contribution awarded to the Technological University of Santo Domingo (INTEC) to improve access to relevant and usable climate-related information; 2) Planning for Climate Adaptation (CLIMA-Plan), a four-year activity with a $6.7 million USAID contribution, awarded to the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) for participatory municipal planning processes that integrate climate change information and impacts; 3) Climate Adaptation Measures (CLIMA-Adapt), a four-year activity with a $3.9 million USAID contribution, awarded to the Dominican Institute for Integral Development (IDDI) to implement small￾scale climate change adaptation interventions that increase the resilience of people and communities in the four target municipalities; 4) Climate Adaptation Measures (CLIMA-Adapt), a three-year activity, with a $1.8 million USAID contribution to the Dominican Rural Economic Development Foundation (REDDOM) to increase the resilience of urban and upper watershed communities to climate change with risk reduction measures at the community and municipal levels; and USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 2 5) Feed the Future Climate-Smart Agriculture, a three-year activity with a $1.4 million contribution to REDDOM to reduce surface and groundwater contamination in the upper Yaque del Norte river basin, while increasing food security and livelihood within farming communities. Evaluation Purpose and Questions The evaluation seeks to measure the progress of the CLIMA project activities towards the overarching goal of the project, to “increase the resilience to global climate change in targeted urban and upper watershed communities where some of the most climate vulnerable and socio-economically marginalized people live”.1 USAID/DR has identified eight focused evaluation questions, as follows: 1. In what ways did the local government elections affect CLIMA implementation? 2. Has there been integration and coordination among the different CLIMA IPs to use information (approaches, tools, data, lessons learned, institutional and personal contacts, etc.) into their respective activities? 3. How have CLIMA’s local government partners utilized the experience, knowledge and resources that are accessible through the CityLinks exchange? 4. Have local governments changed how they access, analyze and utilize climate data since joining CLIMA? 5. Have the other institutional counterparts effectively engaged with CLIMA and taken up the project’s strategies and messages? 6. Do the adaptation activities supported by CLIMA support the beneficiary communities and also comply fully with the GCC adaptation guidelines? 7. Which farm level practices adopted by CLIMA beneficiaries have been most effective in terms of resiliency to climate change, and sustainable increases in productivity and incomes? 8. Have CLIMA’s impacts been expanded to other local governments in the DR? The evaluation was organized around these questions. For each of these questions, USAID/DR formulated several “sub-questions” to clarify the intent of the main questions and focus the evaluation research. These will be presented and discussed in the body of the evaluation report. Evaluation design and methods The evaluation drew upon utilization-focused methodologies to ensure that the information generated by the evaluation is useful to USAID. These included document review, key informant interviews (KII), focus group discussions (FGD), and field observation. The evaluation team examined data from each of 1 USAID Dominican Republic, Project Appraisal Document (PAD) for Urban Resilience to Climate Change, p. 10. USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 3 these sources for gender-related issues and noted vulnerable population data, including people of Haitian origin, at risk youth, people with disabilities and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. The team asked permission prior to conducting interviews and FGDs and avoided questions that could be unsettling to the participants. KIIs were recorded selectively and the data transcribed; this was not done when the team felt it might inhibit participant responses. The notes from KIIs and FGD were translated into English and transcribed in a findings matrix disaggregated by question, allowing for triangulation of responses. The evaluation team included the team leader, Thomas Moore, an expatriate environment and natural resources and governance specialist with prior USAID evaluation experience, and the MEL Platform chief of party, William Cartier, and supported in logistics by the MEL Platform team in the DR and the USA. Findings and Conclusions To summarize the more detailed findings and conclusions presented in Section III of this report, the evaluators found that overall CLIMA has met most of its performance indicator targets. At the same time, the data collected in response to the different evaluation questions show that CLIMA has addressed successfully most of the implementation challenges that have emerged during the first two years. Almost without exception, the stakeholders interviewed by the evaluation team have expressed positive opinions about the different CLIMA activities. The negative findings have mostly to do with the activity design—and in particular the decision to implement the project through multiple awards—than with implementation. 1. Question 1: In what ways did the local government elections affect CLIMA implementation? Findings: Nearly all sources agreed that the 2016 municipal elections and resulting changes in trained staff resulted in substantial delays, from a few months to nearly a year in the different municipalities. In San Pedro de Macorís, among CLIMA municipalities, the re-elected mayor kept his planning staff. Despite the delays, in all cases CLIMA IPs were able to conduct data collection and analysis (ICMA and INTEC) and community awareness raising and organization (IDDI and REDDOM) and occasionally engage the municipal administrations during this period. Conclusions: The elections in 2016 did impact CLIMA interventions, slowing progress and disrupting relations between the CLIMA IPs and their municipal counterparts over a six to ten￾month period, during which the CLIMA IPs continued to work and significantly increased municipal capacity. While the disruption limited municipal uptake of CLIMA interventions, it did not prevent the program's achievement of its objective. 2. Question 2: Has there been integration and coordination among the different CLIMA IPs to use information (approaches, tools, data, lessons learned, institutional and personal contacts, etc.) into their respective activities? Findings: All informants, even the IPs, agree that integration and coordination among CLIMA IPs has been limited, particularly on the municipal level. ICMA had a coordination role, but it was not USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 4 specified in the other CAs, and it was limited to monthly meetings of key IP staff in Santo Domingo, not done on the municipal level. Training was neither coordinated nor integrated, and municipal staff felt saturated by it. INTEC climate information tools for the municipalities were reported delivered in December 2017, too late to be incorporated into the municipal land use plans designed by ICMA; the other IPs developed their information data bases from available sources. Conclusions: CLIMA interventions, for the most part, have operated independently, without sufficient integration and coordination among IPs, a problem originating in the project design and award process, which did not allow for appropriate sequencing of activities, and did not require the IPs to coordinate closely. Moreover, the CLIMA-Adapt interventions prioritized the community￾level; the scale of the municipality vulnerability assessments was too broad. 3. How have CLIMA’s local government partners utilized the experience, knowledge and resources that are accessible through the CityLinks exchange? Findings: Most informants in the CLIMA municipalities, the Government of Dominican Republic (GoDR) participating agencies, IPs and FEDOMU and other local partners consider the CityLinks exchanges to have been very useful, raising climate change awareness, offering solutions to critical problems, and contributing to development plans. They referred to the importance of learning about planning approaches in the CityLinks exchanges, emphasizing how these cities use detailed data, GIS, data visualization, and participatory planning exercises. The informants believe that ICMA’s choice of the counterpart cities in the USA was appropriate. Conclusions: The CityLinks component was a valued ICMA contribution that was successful in exposing the target municipalities to climate change adaptation options by observing how their sister cities in the USA handled situations similar to theirs. As a collateral effect, it raised awareness of the need for more administrative and financial autonomy for city governments in the DR to respond to climate change risks. 4. Question 4: Have local governments changed how they access, analyze and utilize climate data since joining CLIMA? Findings: In all four urban CLIMA Municipalities local authorities affirmed and IPs confirmed that they exercised leadership and were fully engaged in their land use plans (PMOT) and in the design and implementation of adaptation measures. Santiago had significant prior planning experience. ICMA’s contributions and innovations were in the integration of climate change topics, which had not been included in the previous PMOT, participatory planning and tools, and the incorporation of rural areas into the planning exercises. The municipalities report that their PMOTs must be approved by the municipal councils through ordinances, and the infrastructure will require support from central government agencies. The two smaller municipalities (LTs and SPM) have a low capacity to continue to update and deepen their adaptation measures. INTEC's training events and weather stations information, and the City College of New York's climate analyses were integrated into national agency planning but have less impact at the municipal level. The work with the Committee for Emergency Operations (COE) and the Red Cross are USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 5 recognized by the municipalities as useful contributions. (See findings and conclusions for Question 5.) The Santiago and ADN stakeholders referred positively to the INTEC support for capacity development support for the use of i-tree applications for landscaping components of planning. Conclusions: The municipal land use planning process has been successful in all four localities, although the uptake by the municipalities of CLIMA approaches varies. The success of municipal planning will depend upon approval by the municipal councils of the corresponding ordinances and support from central government agencies, since the municipalities lack own-source revenue for adaptation measures. In the final instance, success in this respect will depend on their ability to negotiate budget/project support from GoDR agencies. 5. Question 5: Have the other institutional counterparts effectively engaged with CLIMA and taken up the project’s strategies and messages? Findings: The majority of informants in GoDR agencies and among local CLIMA partners agree that in preparation for both land use planning and adaptation and risk reduction measures, CLIMA has engaged community-based organizations and linked them to municipal decision makers. This finding is also supported by the IP reports. Community leaders have committed community resources (volunteer labor, organization, and land) to adaptation measures. The National Meteorology Office (ONAMET) said that they benefited from training and from the weather and forecasting (WRF) prediction software and appreciate the Climate Change Observatory. The National Institute for Hydraulic Resources (INDRHI) confirmed that INTEC supported them with hydrological modeling, information on water levels in rivers and from rainfall for disaster risk management, tools for prediction of floods and droughts, design and management of potable water systems and irrigation, and for vulnerability assessments in regional and municipal land use planning. The Center for Emergency Operations (COE) said they received support from INTEC for a mobile application, Alerta COE. The National Institute for Potable Water and Sewerage (INAPA) reports that they sent people to training events and certificate courses (diplomados) and that they have cooperated with IDDI and REDDOM in improving local water and sanitation systems. CLIMA IPs do not report significant engagement of GODR entities in broader climate change policy and planning. Donor agencies thought that CLIMA could have been more useful if it had been involved the Water Resources Round Table hosted by the Ministry of the Economy, Planning, and Development (MEPyD) and its commissions, and that CLIMA could have supported more active Dominican Federation of Municipalities (FEDOMU) engagement in the round table and its commissions to bring to the fore CLIMA Plan and CLIMA Adapt innovations. All reports and informants indicate that the General Directorate for Land Use and Development (DGODT) of the MEPyD has been the most engaged of the GODR institutions. ICMA provided substantial capacity building through training and participation of DGODT staff in the PMOT processes. Less so with Ministry of the Environment (MINARENA), the Ministries of Tourism and Agriculture, whose engagement has been more at the regional/local levels. FEDOMU provided four ICMA municipal coordinators and received training from INTEC, ICMA, and IDDI. Conclusions: Among the GODR ministries and agencies, INTEC closely engaged ONAMET, INDRHI, and COE, which have taken up the information tools provided by CLIMA. Other GODR USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 6 ministries and agencies have been less engaged at the national level. There has been no engagement with the National Council on Climate Change and the Clean Development Mechanism. 6. Question 6: Do the adaptation activities supported by CLIMA support the beneficiary communities and also comply fully with the GCC adaptation guidelines? Findings: The CLIMA activities are funded with both Global Climate Change (GCC) Adaptation and Water directive funds. The GCC Adaptation program objectives are in alignment with the SPSD2 and report on relevant standard indicators. For example, the activities implemented by IDDI and REDDOM in the four urban municipalities test and disseminate best practices increasing climate resilience and report on indicator EG 11-2, Number of institutions with improved capacity to assess or address climate change risks supported by USG assistance The CLIMA activities also contribute indirectly to GCC Sustainable Landscapes pillar objectives, such as the climate-smart agroforestry practices that REDDOM is implementing in Jarabacoa, are in compliance with GCC guidelines. The CLIMA activities are also implemented with water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) funds, which support activities that increase improved access to sustainable water supply and sanitation services. The local CLIMA partners in the municipalities and the community leaders interviewed and who participated in the FGDs all say that the CLIMA Adapt interventions address community priorities in that they mix risk prevention measures (soil erosion, water contamination, and flood prevention) with improvements in potable water and sanitation. They say that it would be difficult to maintain community interest and participation in the selected adaptation measures (green infrastructure) without the water and sanitation elements. Conclusions: The CLIMA-Adapt interventions being implemented in the five CLIMA municipalities support activities consistent with the respective GCC Adaptation and WASH funding guidelines. The climate change adaptation solutions that IDDI and REDDOM provide in the four urban CLIMA municipalities require developing community awareness and capacity for maintaining green infrastructure and systems. Also, immediate basic needs like water and sanitation services take precedence in community demands and are essential to ensure their commitment to green infrastructure. 7. Question 7: Which farm level practices adopted by CLIMA beneficiaries have been most effective in terms of resiliency to climate change, and sustainable increases in productivity and incomes? Findings: The Feed the Future Climate-Smart Agriculture initiative in the upper Yaque del Norte watershed by REDDOM incorporates a strategy of strengthening and working with existing locally￾based organizations (Plan Yaque, the coffee and greenhouse clusters, and ENA) to promote climate￾smart agricultural practices that provide farmers with some short- to medium-term income from cash crops, along with climate change adaptation measures that help prevent soil erosion and water contamination, as well as small reservoirs to ensure sustainable access to water supply during droughts. Moreover, informants report that the CLIMA-provided weather stations are helping plan for water use and soil erosion prevention. REDDOM reports that they planted leaf rust-resistant 2 https://www.state.gov/f/releases/other/255986.htm#EGcc3 USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 7 coffee plants (Catimor) in 61 Jarabacoa coffee farms, and that in coordination with the coffee cluster and Plan Yaque, they supported 25 of these farmers with the introduction of soil erosion and water contamination prevention measures in 176.12 hectares, and small reservoirs to store water for times of drought. The evaluation team observed some of these farms where crop diversification was combined with soil erosion and water contamination prevention measures, such as natural barriers, reservoirs, and timber species, following the analogue forestry model. Extension work involves the National Environmental School (ENA) in Jarabacoa, Plan Yaque and the producers’ organizations. The producers’ organizations (clusters) expressed interest in expanding these efforts. Other Dominican NGOs report successful applications of analogue forestry models, on a watershed basis. Conclusions: REDDOM's strategy of engaging local organizations like Plan Yaque, the ENA, the coffee and greenhouse vegetable clusters, and introducing agroforestry concepts through them has been effective and productive. More extension work needs to be done, but the agents for it are in place and active. If market forces remain stable, this model is promising for future interventions. The major challenges to expanding the impacts will be further up in the value chain, particularly in accessing national and export markets for coffee, cacao, nuts and greenhouse crops. 8. Question 8: Have CLIMA’s impacts been expanded to other local governments in the DR? Findings: ICMA reports that the proposed replication of the CLIMA experience with four additional municipalities, developing peer-to-peer relationships with the first four municipalities, planned for the third year of their agreement has been eliminated. Their implementation time frame and budget have been truncated by USAID budget constraints. DGODT says that CLIMA support has allowed them to train a group of technical staff that will be able to provide ongoing support for new PMOTs incorporating climate change adaptation and that CLIMA has generated demand from other municipalities for PMOTs. ICMA and FEDOMU affirm that FEDOMU has increased its technical capacity in the central office and regional staff substantially with CLIMA-supported expertise in climate change adaptation and land use planning. They also consider the National Coalition of Resilient Cities (NCRC) to be a positive contribution. The Spanish Agency for International Development (AECID) reports plans to continue support to municipalities, working with FEDOMU and the National Geographic Institute (IGN), using the DGODT methodology and incorporating climate change vulnerability and adaptation measures. The World Bank (WB) would welcome a discussion about PMOTs as a requisite for municipal participation in WB programs. Conclusions: The possibility of expanding project results beyond the four urban CLIMA municipalities will not happen within the original CLIMA scope of work. FEDOMU's new role as champion of municipal planning, in close coordination with central GODR agencies like the DGODT and the MINARENA, and of incorporating climate change adaptation and disaster risk management into the municipal planning processes, is one of the most impressive results from the CLIMA-Plan experience. The efforts of FEDOMU and DGODT could be augmented through a concerted strategy led by USAID to document, disseminate and promote CLIMA innovations within GODR policy spaces, in concert with FEDOMU, DGODT, MEPyD and other donor agencies. Gender, Youth and Vulnerable Populations USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 8 As a cross cutting aspect, the evaluation team paid attention to CLIMA’s impact on vulnerable and marginalized populations. Indicators were disaggregated by sex and, in the case of the FGDs, relative age cohorts (30- and 30+). Success in obtaining local community ownership of CLIMA project interventions required attention to working with women and youth. This was especially true in IDDI's adaptation work in the National District third ward, but it was also noted by REDDOM beneficiaries, and municipal planning staff. Young people, particularly young women, play important volunteer roles in CLIMA beneficiary communities, but the neighborhood organizations (juntas vecinales) are led by older men in most communities. IDDI and REDDOM worked to bring in a younger generation of activists. In disaster relief prevention, people with disabilities require special attention. IDDI has worked with the National Council on Disability (CONADIS) to develop stickers that identify homes with disabled residents, so that they can be given the necessary assistance when disaster relief is needed. These stickers were conspicuous in flood-vulnerable communities in Ward 3 of the National District. Conclusions about Progress Towards Project Purpose The evaluation findings lead to a conclusion that overall, the CLIMA project has made progress towards its main purpose to increase the resilience of targeted communities to climate change, especially in areas where flooding is the main climate impact, and to improve access to sustainable water and sanitation services in those marginal communities targeted in the four municipalities. Recommendations The evaluation generated eleven recommendations to USAID for future planning and program design in different program areas: 1. USAID should make every possible effort to design and implement a strategy aimed at ensuring uptake of CLIMA results through major GODR stakeholders (FEDOMU, DGODT, MEPyD, MINARENA, and the water corporations CORAASAN, CAASD, and INAPA) to ensure their continued engagement with and uptake of CLIMA innovations in the incorporation of climate change adaptation measures in their own strategies, plans, policies and budgets. This would require a focus on policy advocacy and could be partially addressed through the Mission’s existing grant mechanism to the local NGO, Participación Ciudadana. USAID should review carefully the planned program activities under this grant and make appropriate modifications to focus advocacy on engaging GODR ministry leadership in negotiations with CLIMA municipalities. 2. The Mission should explore how CLIMA CCA results can be achieved through future WASH, environment, biodiversity, natural resource management, democracy and local governance, and economic growth initiatives, depending on funding availability. WASH initiatives should consider incorporating a municipal and community focus like that piloted by CLIMA, using PMOTs to identify vulnerable communities and prioritized climate change adaptation measures. This would contribute to consolidating the municipal planning process, integrating climate change adaptation and disaster risk management components. Further USAID work at the local level could incorporate support for the design of PMOTs with disaster risk (vulnerability) assessments and USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 9 risk reduction strategies and even require municipalities to approve PMOTs as a condition for USAID support. 3. Future interventions in agriculture and climate change should include a robust evaluation component to provide data on costs and benefits of the different interventions at the farm level. Are there major changes in farm level income from the new crops? What is the time line required for farmers to see an increase in income? The CLIMA IPs talk about this in general terms, but do not provide data. It is recommended that the Mission apply USAID’s Feed the Future technical guidance on the qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis methodologies and apply experimental and quasi-experimental design to rigorously and objectively examine the impacts that the programs have on the targeted beneficiaries. 4. In decentralization or local government strengthening, a grant to FEDOMU could help provide continuity to the program among DR municipalities and ensure greater replicability and sustainability of CLIMA initiatives in the field of land use planning. The CLIMA project has created significant capacity in FEDOMU and DGODT to take this forward. A grant to FEDOMU would require involving other GODR entities, including DGODT, the IGN, the National Statistics Office (ONE), in supporting climate change adaptation inputs to PMOTs, ensuring municipal approval of the implementing policy (ordinances) and focusing their efforts on PMOT implementation on engagement and negotiation with GODR ministries. Such a grant would leverage FEDOMU’s existing capacity (created by the CLIMA project) and allow for replication to additional municipalities at a much lower cost. 5. Selection of beneficiary municipalities is complex. While in principle municipalities with greater financial and human capacities might better absorb the technical interventions, the fact is that most local governments in the Dominican Republic have a tiny staff and very limited budget. Future USAID work with small municipal governments should have realistic expectations about municipal capacity. Referring to Recommendation 4 above, USAID should seek to work with groups of municipalities, supporting planning processes but not expecting that they will have a sustained technical capacity to carry on planning activities. Rather, program design should focus on building effective relationships between municipalities, FEDOMU, DGODT and other GODR agencies. 6. USAID/DR programming in WASH, environment, natural resources or biodiversity should incorporate support for municipal and/or regional planning within the POT framework established by Dominican Republic law, again ensuring continuity of USAID efforts and institutionalization of CLIMA results. Specifically, USAID work in any of these program areas within municipal jurisdictions should require completion of a PMOT supported and approved by the DGODT, if allowed as an activity under the respective guidelines. 7. IDDI has invested considerable resources in planning and community organizing and had raised expectations among partner municipalities and communities. The challenges reported by the IP in completing the infrastructure work (owing in part to difficulties in obtaining tax exemptions from the GODR) could lead to further delays in completing the work. If necessary, USAID should USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 10 consider a no-cost extension to IDDI's CA to ensure completion of their projects in the selected communities. 8. USAID should support REDDOM and its associates in developing proposals to be included in the REDD+ project portfolio that is being developed by the MINARENA with WB and Green Climate Fund resources. The proposal development process has been slow and uneven and could benefit from further technical inputs. REDDOM’s experience with CLIMA can provide applicable experience and criteria for project design and development with MINARENA. 9. In future interventions in local governance in the Dominican Republic, USAID might want to consider specific attention to the needs of LGBTI communities, in addition to its gender focus and inclusion of at risk youth, disabled persons, and racial or ethnic minorities. The existing grant to Participación Ciudadana should incorporate fully this element in its support for civil society advocacy at the local level. 10. In future interventions, the USAID/DR Mission would do well to encourage climate information platforms that are more user-friendly to municipalities and other local actors to ensure their effective use. Also, products like the hydrological modeling should have more training and documentation for users to allow them to be utilized by other agencies and local governments. As well, they could be disseminated to other organizations, including local governments outside of the CLIMA target municipalities. Similarly, to relevant GODR agencies, such as the Ministry of the Environment, and MEPyD. 11. Future project design should be realistic in setting expectations for communications and outreach strategies aimed at promoting citizen participation in planning. In urban and regional planning, the spaces for participation occur at different moments in the process and involve different kinds of actors. For example, the city-wide development strategies should be aimed at specialized organizations, including political parties, social movements, NGOs, business interests, academic centers, etc. whereas community/neighborhood level planning should use techniques to encourage broad consultations among inhabitants. In CLIMA these spaces were not always clearly differentiated. Statement of Differences Annex G of this report contains a statement of differences from one of the CLIMA implementing partners, the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 11 I. EVALUATION PURPOSE, QUESTIONS, AND DESIGN A. CLIMA Background This document reports the results of a performance evaluation of the USAID/DR Mission’s Urban Resilience to Climate Change Project, called the “CLIMA Project”, which comprises five separate awards: Improved Climate Change Information, No. AID-517-A-15-00002; Planning for Climate Change Adaptation, No. AID-517-A-15-00003, Climate Change Adaptation Measures, No. AID-517-A-15-00008; Climate Risk Reduction, No. AID-517-16-000001; and Feed the Future Dominican Republic Climate and Agriculture Program, No. AID-517-A-15-00007. These are described in greater detail below (see page 27 for a graphic of the CLIMA implementation). In the USAID policy framework, a project is a set of complementary activities, over an established timeline and budget, intended to achieve a discrete development result, aligned with an Intermediate Result (IR) in the CDCS Results Framework. Project designs are developed through a Project Appraisal Document (PAD), which is based on Agency/Mission results frameworks, with their respective Development Objectives and Intermediate Results. The CLIMA project responds to USAID/DR’s Development Objective (DO) 2, "Increased Resilience of People to the Impact of Climate Change" and its intermediate results (IR) 1. "Land Use Planning Reduces Negative Impact from Climate Change"; and 2. "Climate-Related Risk Reduction Measures Implemented". With geographical and technical overlap and activity coordination, it complements the efforts under DO 1 "Crime Prevention Strengthened", contributing to the overarching CDCS goal of “The Dominican Republic Improves Citizen Security to Promote Economic Growth”. The CLIMA Project purpose is to increase the resilience to global climate change in target urban and upper watershed communities where some of the most climate vulnerable and socio-economically marginalized people live. The results framework for the CLIMA project is as follows: Purpose: Increased resilience of people to global climate change in target areas • Subpurpose 1: Improved land use planning enables the diagnosis and reduction of climate risk o Outcome 1.1: Improved access to relevant and usable climate information o Outcome 1.2: Developed participatory land use planning processes that integrate GCC information • Subpurpose 2: Climate risk reduction measures are implemented at the municipal and community Level o Outcome 2.1: Increased access of municipalities and vulnerable communities to technical and financial tools USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 12 o Outcome 2.2: Technical and financial tools are used to implement new adaptation activities to improve clean drinking water provision and reduce the impacts of urban and coastal flooding The CLIMA Project employs USAID global best practice and experience in the Dominican Republic to reduce climate change risks faced by the most vulnerable Dominicans. The project seeks to reduce environmental, human health and economic risks associated with climate related impacts, particularly those affecting the poorest and most marginalized urban Dominican populations. Prior to CLIMA approval, USAID’s Climate Change Resilient Development (CCRD) project had put in place the Climate Resilience Infrastructure Services project (CRIS) to build local government capacity to reduce the vulnerability of key infrastructure in Santo Domingo to climate change impacts. USAID/ Central America Regional program also had previously supported the Regional Climate Change Program with the Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza (CATIE) of San José, Costa Rica, for training activities promoting sustainable landscapes through interventions for the reduction of emissions from deforestation and the degradation of forest lands (REDD+) as well as climate change adaptation through the generation of climate change data with end users, including a regional clearinghouse, thematic networks, and global development alliances. USAID/DR also had in operation at the time CLIMA was authorized, the Climate Resiliency and Index Insurance (CRII) program, also known as the Index Insurance Innovation Initiative (I4) program through a cooperative agreement (CA) with the Dominican Rural Economic Development Foundation (REDDOM) to facilitate access by small-scale farmers to climate risk insurance in the DR to help them adapt to climate change risks. REDDOM also held a CA for the recently concluded Sustainable Cacao Farming in the Dominican Republic program. Additionally, there was a small USAID Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) grant to a local organization, Santiago Solidario, to implement disaster relief measures in 11 slum neighborhoods of Santiago. CLIMA was intended to continue and enhance those ongoing interventions. The CLIMA project responds to USAID/DR's Development Objective (DO) 2, "Increased Resilience of People to the Impact of Climate Change" and its intermediate result (IR) 2.1 "Land Use Planning Reduces Negative Impact from Climate Change"; and (IR)2.2 "Climate-Related Risk Reduction Measures Implemented". 3 With geographical and technical overlap and activity coordination, it complements the efforts under DO 1 "Crime Prevention Strengthened". 4 The project appraisal document (PAD) for the CLIMA project was approved by the USAID/DR Mission on April 25, 2014. The CLIMA project is implemented through five separate CAs that are the subjects of this whole-of￾project evaluation. These include: 1. The Improved Climate Information Program (CLIMA-Info) is a three-year, US $1.6 CA, including a US·$247,000 cost share, with the Technological University of Santo Domingo (INTEC) for the 3 Dominican Republic Country Development Cooperation Strategy, FY 2014-2018 (CDCS), pp. 30-37. Santo Domingo: USAID/Dominican Republic, December 2013. 4 CDCS, pp. 17-2 USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 13 period from March 2, 2015 through March 1, 2018. Its purpose is to improve access to relevant and usable climate-related information, ensuring that it is accessible and comprehensible for municipal, community, and individual decision-making. 2. The Planning for Climate Adaptation Program (CLIMA-Plan), originally intended to be a four￾year US $7.7 million CA, including a US $1 million cost share, with the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) for the period from March 6, 2015 through March 5, 2019. Its purpose is to develop participatory municipal planning processes that integrate climate change information and impacts. ICMA was notified by USAID/DR in August 2017, that, because of budgetary constraints, no additional obligations beyond the existing obligation of US $5.2 million will be forthcoming, and that this activity is scheduled to conclude on March 1, 2018. That modification had not yet been formalized at the time of the evaluation. 3. The Climate Adaptation Measures Program (CLIMA-Adapt), originally intended to be a four￾year US $4.6 million CA, including a US $700,000 cost share, with the Dominican Institute for Integral Development (IDDI) for the period from August 13, 2015 through August 12, 2019. Its purpose is to implement small-scale climate change adaptation interventions that increase the resilience of people and communities in the four target municipalities. ·IDDI has incorporated into its Year 3 Work Plan, following USAID guidance not yet formalized in a CA modification, a plan to conclude its interventions eight months earlier, by December 12, 2018, with a $536,641 reduction (de-obligation) in USAID funding. 4. The Climate Risk Reduction Program (CLIMA-Adapt), originally intended to be a three-year US $2.1 million activity, including a US $317,647 cost share, CA with REDDOM for the purpose of increasing the resilience of urban and upper watershed communities to climate change by implementing risk reduction measures at the community and municipal levels. These complementary climate risk reduction and adaptation measures were designed to demonstrate the potential for cost effective and scalable interventions in key geographic locations with vulnerable populations in the cities of Las Terrenas and Santiago. With Modification 2, July 11, 2017, USAID increased the total obligation to date to US $ 1,124,806.40. 5. The Feed the Future Dominican Republic Climate and Agriculture Program is a three-year US $1,718,588 CA, including a US$ 258,588 cost share with REDDOM for the purpose of reducing surface and groundwater contamination in the upper Yaque del Norte river basin, in Jarabacoa municipality, while increasing food security and livelihood within farming communities through climate smart agricultural practices. The CLIMA project, encompassing the above-mentioned activities, is complemented within the USAID/DR DO2 portfolio by a four-year US $1.35 million Participant Agency Program Agreement (PAPA) with the United States Forest Service (USFS), for the period from September 2014 through September 2018, which provides technical assistance to local partners in the implementation of climate change adaptation (CCA) measures; a recently concluded three-year US $800,000 CA with REDDOM and its private sector partner Mondalèz; and a USAID/Caribbean Development Unit-funded five-year $12.5 million CA with The Nature Conservancy (TNC) for the Caribbean Marine Biodiversity Program, USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 14 which works in target marine management areas off the coast of the DR and four other countries. These activities are not part of this evaluation. Each of the CLIMA CA holders also works with sub-awardees, which have specific responsibilities within the corresponding awards. On the national level, the CLIMA project is coordinated with the Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (MINARENA), the General Directorate of Land Use Planning and Development (DGODT) of the Ministry of Economy, Planning, and Development (MEPyD), and the National Office for Planning (ONAPLAN), all pertinent Government of the Dominican Republic (GODR) agencies, as well as with the Dominican Federation of Municipalities (FEDOMU). CLIMA is being implemented in five municipalities in the Dominican Republic: the National District in Santo Domingo, Santiago, San Pedro de Macorís, and Las Terrenas, where it targets population sectors living in poverty in areas subject to flood disasters in critical watersheds, and also in Jarabacoa for the Climate and Agriculture program. CLIMA focuses on empowering target municipalities and their citizens with adequate climate information and the necessary tools to anticipate and plan for appropriate policies and infrastructure to reduce climate-related risks. B. EVALUATION PURPOSE AND QUESTIONS Though intended as a mid-term performance evaluation in the USAID/DR’s current evaluation plan, with the intention of informing CLIMA activity implementation going forward, the recent changes in USAID budget allocations have led to reductions in the length of the CLIMA project activities and in their respective budgets, with four of the five CLIMA activities ending in 2018. The remaining activities will end in early and mid-2019. Thus, for practical purposes, this report should be considered a final performance evaluation. USAID’s Automated Directives System (ADS) states that whole-of-project performance evaluations examine an entire project, including all its constituent activities and progress toward the achievement of the project purpose. A whole-of-project evaluation in the USAID context is a “particular type of performance evaluation that primarily examines progress of all the constituent parts of the project toward achievement of the Project Purpose. It may also inform how a project was implemented; how it was perceived and valued; and other questions that are pertinent to design, management, and operational decision making”.5 Following ADS guidance, this evaluation seeks to measure the progress of the CLIMA activities towards the overarching goals of the project: “The project will increase the resilience to global climate change in target urban and upper watershed communities where some of the most climate vulnerable and socio-economically marginalized people live. The target municipalities and communities of this project will have increased knowledge and improved planning processes to anticipate climate impacts and develop 5 See whole of project evaluation policy and technical guidance in USAID, Program Cycle: ADS 201 Additional Help. Whole of Project Evaluation, p. 2-4. USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 15 prevention and response strategies. They will have greater access to financial and technical tools to implement the strategies that they have developed. Lastly, as a result of the implementation of these adaptation strategies, they will have improved drinking water supply and reduced negative impacts to livelihoods, health, and property from flooding.”6 The evaluation scope of work (SOW) is presented in Annex A. USAID identified eight evaluation questions. In developing the evaluation questions, the USAID/DR DO2 team gave emphasis to questions that will illuminate ways in which the entire project is making progress toward the stated Project Purpose or not; and identify the assumptions or gaps in the project’s design or management approach to help inform new program design. The questions are listed below along with their sub-questions, which were designed to clarify the intent of the main question. This evaluation focuses on answering the key questions to the extent possible. The instruments and design of the evaluation research were based on the proposed questions. The recommendations are based on the conclusions and, in some cases, responses overlap among the questions. 1. In what ways did the local government elections affect CLIMA implementation? Did staff elections disrupt the CLIMA activities? Was there significant staff turnover and changes in CLIMA counterparts? What were the impacts of these staff changes? What measures did CLIMA take to mitigate the effects? 2. Has there been integration and coordination among the different CLIMA IPs to use information (approaches, tools, data, lessons learned, institutional and personal contacts, etc.) into their respective activities? Has the climate information, climate vulnerability assessments and planning practices been effectively disseminated and utilized by the different IPs? What has been the role of the CLIMA IP meetings in this regard? 3. How have CLIMA’s local government partners utilized the experience, knowledge and resources that are accessible through the CityLinks exchange? Have the approaches, methodologies and solutions used by US counterparts been taken up by CLIMA local governments? 4. Have local governments changed how they access, analyze and utilize climate data since joining CLIMA? What have been the results of the training and technical assistance on use of climate data? Have the different technologies developed by CLIMA been effective in developing local capacity? 5. Have the other institutional counterparts effectively engaged with CLIMA and taken up the project’s strategies and messages? Which institutional counterparts have been most engaged with CLIMA and supported CLIMA activities? 6 USAID Dominican Republic, Project Appraisal Document (PAD) for Urban Resilience to Climate Change, p. 10. USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 16 6. Do the adaptation activities supported by CLIMA support the beneficiary communities and also comply fully with the GCC adaptation guidelines? Are there other initiatives that might comply more fully? 7. Which farm level practices adopted by CLIMA beneficiaries have been most effective in terms of resiliency to climate change, and sustainable increases in productivity and incomes? Which have been best received by farmers? 8. Have CLIMA’s impacts been expanded to other local governments in the DR? Have the “peer-to-peer” relationships between beneficiary municipalities and other local governments been effective? Is there evidence that CLIMA innovations are being taken up by other local governments? C. EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODS The evaluation drew upon utilization-focused methodologies to ensure that the information generated by the evaluation is useful to USAID. The evaluation team applied a gender perspective to the entire evaluation process that is consistent with USAID’s evaluation policy, and disaggregated data by gender. It employed a mixed-methods approach including document review, key informant interviews (KIIs), focus group discussions (FGDs), and field observation. DOCUMENT REVIEW During the initial phase of the evaluation, the team thoroughly reviewed 147 background documents related to CLIMA and its implementing environment, including USAID guidance on whole-of-project evaluation procedures and requirements, USAID’s Climate Change and Development Strategy (2012– 2016), USAID’s Climate-Resilient Development Framework (2014), the USAID/DR Project Appraisal Document (PAD) for CLIMA, and documents produced by the CLIMA IPs, their sub-agreement partners, and the partner GODR agencies. A complete list of the relevant documents reviewed is presented in Annex B. KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS (KII) The evaluation conducted 102 KIIs with IP Chiefs of Party (COPs), Monitoring and Evaluation staff and other staff members, their sub-award partners, government officials, municipal authorities, local partner NGOs, community members, beneficiary farmers, locally-based NGOs, and other donor representatives in coordination with USAID/DR, the IPs, and the MEL Platform team. Following field work in the target municipalities and farming communities IP COPs and their staff were consulted again to clarify issues or questions that arose during the fieldwork period. A complete list of the evaluation KIIs is presented in Annex C. FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS Nine Focus Group Discussions (FGD) were conducted with municipal authorities and staff, and with CLIMA beneficiaries in their local communities. It was not possible to conduct FGDs for men and USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 17 women separately. The evaluation team members reviewed FGD notes to ensure accuracy and consistency and to avoid biased interpretations. A complete list of the evaluation FGDs is presented in Annex D. FIELD OBSERVATION The evaluation team conducted field research in each of the four target municipalities: Ward 3 of the National District in Santo Domingo, Santiago, San Pedro de Macorís, and Las Terrenas. In each municipality the team visited at least two of the vulnerable communities benefiting from the climate change adaptation and risk reduction measures implemented by IDDI and REDDOM. We also conducted field research with farmer beneficiaries and associations in Jarabacoa Municipality. The team discreetly observed CLIMA implementation activities in the field and noted the natural environment conditions as well as social and psychological responses. GENDER AND SOCIAL INCLUSION METHODS Consistent with USAID’s evaluation policy and recognizing that effects of integration and the success of the activity might vary across gender, the team applied a gender perspective to the entire evaluation process. Starting with the background document review, data related to gender-based variances in outcomes were examined, and activity documents were reviewed with a gender-sensitive lens, in order to inform a better understanding of gender dynamics in the implementation environment. We looked at gender composition of the IP staff, and those of their partners, municipalities, and GODR entities. We sought a gender balance in respondents and noted age cohorts (30- and 30+) among FGD participants. The team also noted vulnerable population data, including people of Haitian origin, at risk youth, people with disabilities and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. However, there was no gender data collected at the activity level. The relevant findings, conclusions, and recommendations are included in sections III and IV of this report. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS Ethical considerations were considered throughout the evaluation, from inception phase, design, implementation, data collection, analysis and reporting. We asked for permission prior to conducting interviews, offered and ensured the anonymity of interviewees and FGD participants, and avoided questions that could be unsettling to the participants. Moreover, KIIs were recorded selectively and the data transcribed. The team made a conscious effort to avoid recording KIIs and FGDs when we felt that participants might be inhibited in their responses. We prepared a 49-page detailed Findings Matrix combining evidence obtained from all our sources: the background documents, KIIs, FGDs, and field observations. This document is available in the USAID/DR MEL Platform Office for selective review by USAID, but it is not attached as an Annex to this report, nor should it circulate, since it identifies the sources of our detailed findings, and we have guaranteed our informants' anonymity. DATA ANALYSIS All data have been provided and are easily accessible from the USAID/DR MEL Platform team to share with USAID (per Evaluation Policy). All the field notes from KIIs, FGDs and observations were USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 18 translated and transcribed in English into a findings matrix in Word. In drafting the out-brief presentation to USAID and this complete evaluation report, the evaluation team members reviewed all the transcribed findings from the field work and triangulated them with the CLIMA document review. Care has been taken to separate findings statements from conclusions and recommendations. EVALUATION LIMITATIONS The evaluation team composition was limited to the team leader and the PANAGORA DR MEL Platform chief of party, with logistical support from the DR MEL Platform team. It was not possible to include a planned ex-pat climate change adaptation expert, for reasons of budget constraints. Timing was also constrained by holidays in the United States and the Dominican Republic (Thanksgiving and the upcoming Christmas season), which limited the availability of informants in the last week of November and after December 15. Thus, only three and a half six-day weeks were available for the in-country research for this complex project with numerous partners and multiple field sites. Even so, the evaluation team was able to visit and assess CLIMA interventions in all the targeted geographical areas; these visits could have been more exhaustive, had there been more time. For example, we could have visited more urban sites in the four cities, and more farmers in the Jarabacoa area. As far as methodological limitations, it was not possible to separate out fully the effects of other interventions in the targeted municipalities. FEDOMU provides technical support to SPM and LT on topics of municipal strategic planning. For its part, Santiago has received support from the Interamerican Development Bank, through the Emerging and Sustainable Cities Initiative (ICES in Spanish). In the Jarabacoa region, there are other donor funded projects with a climate adaptation component, notably the activities funded by the European Union through the Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre (CCCCC). All of these activities have developed capacities in local governments to incorporate climate change adaptation measures into policies and decision making in vary degrees, and Santiago de los Caballeros in particular. In the cases of farmers in the Jarabacoa region, while they farmers interviewed were able to attribute decisions in agro-forestry activities to CLIMA, they also mentioned other programs that were promoting solutions to problems of erosion of steep slopes in the Yaque watershed. TEAM The evaluation team was composed of two individuals: Thomas Moore, the Team Leader, an expatriate environment and natural resources and governance specialist with prior USAID evaluation experience, and William Cartier, the MEL Platform chief of party. Both team members were essential for implementing the evaluation, and budget constraints did not allow for a larger team. The team had access to the evaluation expertise, logistical, and other support from the MEL Platform’s in-country staff, making maximum and efficient use of existing resources. USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 19 II. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS This section presents the findings for each research question based on the data obtained from the combination and triangulation of the document review, KIIs, FGDs, field observations, and review of areas that were not clear with the IP chiefs of party and staffs. Conclusions are drawn based on the findings. The recommendations are provided in Section V of this report. OVERALL CLIMA PERFORMANCE The scope of work for this mid-term, whole-of-project performance evaluation was focused on specific aspects of CLIMA implementation. It did not look at performance understood in terms of the activities’ performance indicators. Having said that, reviewing the available data on performance indicators, the activities appear to have made acceptable progress towards meeting their targets in FY17, the second year of program implementation (these data were deemed more relevant for this evaluation than FY16, which was concentrated on project startup, diagnostic and baseline work, and establishing institutional partnerships). FINDINGS • In FY17, referring to indicator EG.11-1 - Number of people trained in climate change adaptation supported by USG assistance, the various CLIMA activities trained 6,728 people, against a target of 7,259 people. This training is directed to community members (neighborhood associations and local disaster management committees), local/municipal government employees, academia, non￾government organizations, central government employees, and students. • With respect to indicator EG.3.2-1 - Number of individuals who have received USG-supported short￾term agricultural sector productivity or food security training, the CLIMA project exceeded targets in FY17. Against a target of 700 people trained, CLIMA trained 1,425 people this year. CLIMA provided training, information, and networking opportunities to small farmers, enabling them to invest in proven risk reduction practices, improve their management and marketing skills, apply environmentally friendly techniques, and compete in niche markets. • For indicator EG.11-2 - Number of institutions with improved capacity to assess or address climate change risks supported by USG assistance, CLIMA gain exceeded targets. In FY18, against a target of 51 institutions, CLIMA supported capacity development of 140 national and local institutions through the training of personnel, procurement of equipment such as weather stations, computers, global positioning systems (GPS), and others, as well as through administration and financial management training for local partners, including community-based organizations. In total, 111 community-based organizations participated in different events and activities addressing climate change. • For indicator EG.11-5 - Number of people supported by the USG to adapt to the effects of climate change, again CLIMA activities exceeded the FY17 target, with 26,688 people supported by USAID funded activities, against a target of 23,449 people. The Improved Climate Information Program developed the www.climainford.org website that, in FY 2017, received a total of 4,900 unique visits. In addition, the mobile application AlertaCOE that provides early warnings during USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 20 natural hazards was downloaded by 13,162 users. Both technologies improve people’s resilience to climate change by improving access to reliable weather data that can be used for decision￾making. • One particularly important indicator, EG.11-6 - Number of people using climate information or implementing risk-reducing actions to improve resilience to climate change as supported by USG assistance, shows the broad communications and outreach impact of the CLIMA activities. Against a FY17 target of13,897, the CLIMA interventions reached 24,971 people. As well as measuring the impacts of the communications technologies mentioned above, this indicator tracks the people benefiting from the education and sensitization campaigns to strengthen the community and municipal prevention, mitigation and response structures of San Pedro de Macoris, Santiago, Las Terrenas and the National District as well as the community education programs on solid waste management. • The only indicator for which CLIMA showed a low performance was EG.11-3 - Number of laws, policies, regulations, or standards addressing climate change adaptation formally proposed, adopted, or implemented as supported by USG assistance. Against the FY17 target of 25, CLIMA achieved 8 new laws, policies, regulations, etc. at national and local levels. This reflects in part the delays in formalizing land use plans and implementing regulations in targeted municipalities. 7 CONCLUSIONS Overall, from the perspective of the CLIMA performance indicator data for the second year of project implementation, and despite delays and disruption of relations with municipal counterparts owing to the municipal elections in the first year of implementation, by the second year all the activities have performed well. They reached a large population in the targeted municipalities and appear to be on track for meeting their targets for FY18. The only concern that might be raised is the absence of hard data on the impact of the farm level practices adopted by CLIMA beneficiaries in terms of resiliency to climate change, and sustainable increases in productivity and incomes. This is addressed in the findings below. QUESTION 1 In what ways did the local government elections affect CLIMA implementation? Did staff elections disrupt the CLIMA activities? Was there significant staff turnover and changes in CLIMA counterparts? What were the impacts of these staff changes? What measures did CLIMA take to mitigate the effects? A. FINDINGS Nearly all informants agree that local government elections with resulting staff changes substantially delayed CLIMA implementation and results in every CLIMA municipality. Only in the San Pedro de 7 It also reflects in part methodological difficulties in indicator definition and data collection by the CLIMA partners, which was corrected for FY18 (beyond the scope of this evaluation). Having said that, the evaluation team found that the CLIMA activities made less head way than expected in obtaining approval of the land use plans and getting them enacted through local ordinances. USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 21 Macorís Municipality (ASPM) was there no change in municipal leadership and staff, but some transition period delays were reported there as well. In the Santiago Municipality (AS), the Planning Director and staff were fired, then subsequently reinstated, but this process delayed CLIMA Plan by at least six months. In the National District Municipality (ADN) all the planning staff was replaced. The new staff came in with sufficient technical capacity but were critical of ICMA’s work and have not assumed full ownership of the municipal land use plan (PMOT). In the Las Terrenas Municipality (ALT), CLIMA initiatives were embraced with enthusiasm by the new mayor, but the planning director has been replaced twice under the new administration. Current planning staff have a low level of capacity for implementing and updating the PMOT. The lack of technical expertise and trained staff resulted in slow, progressive assumption of CLIMA activities. In Jarabacoa, the new mayor and staff have been reported as supportive of REDDOM's CLIMA activities and have incorporated climate risk assessment into their planning Despite the delays caused by the local elections, in all cases the ICMA and INTEC were able to continue with data collection and analysis. ICMA continued with the vulnerability assessments, collection of socio-economic data and land use plan design, but without an active counterpart during the election period and in the transition. INTEC continued with its climate change and hydrological modeling. Some of the municipal informants in ADN and AS stated that the transition limited municipal ownership of the strategies in the PMOTs, while in ALT the planning staff showed a low level of understanding of the PMOT, stating that implementation was largely in the hands of the Mayor. In ASPM, in contrast, the municipal staff and Mayor showed familiarity with the PMOT strategies and measures and the planning staff explained how the municipality was engaging with GODR ministries to implement the measures. IDDI and REDDOM continued in the preparatory activities for the adaptation and risk reduction measures, conducting data collection, community engagement and awareness raising and occasionally engaging with the municipal administrations during this period. The initial field visits for the CityLinks program with US cities was put on hold in three of the four municipalities until after the elections (except in ASPM). B. CONCLUSIONS The municipal and national elections in 2016 did impact CLIMA interventions, slowing progress and disrupting relations between the CLIMA IPs and their municipal counterparts over a six to ten-month period, during which the CLIMA IPs continued to work, but the disruption limited municipal uptake and ownership of the CLIMA interventions in three of the four municipalities. It should be noted that elections in democratic societies will always bring about politically-motivated staff turnover whether on national or sub-national levels; the DR was not exception in this respect. The only way to avoid the loss of trained technical staff following political changes is through a comprehensive civil service system, which is not yet in place in the DR. While ICMA created a tool for measuring local capacity, the changes from the baseline measure are hard to interpret, owing to the high level of turnover in three of the four municipalities. More importantly, there was no evidence that the capacity tool was a reference point for the targeted municipalities, for example, in their human resource policies, training or other capacity development. In spite of this situation, evaluation team was told by municipal managers that technical capabilities have increased in all four CLIMA target municipalities. USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 22 QUESTION 2 Has there been integration and coordination among the different CLIMA IPs to use information (approaches, tools, data, lessons learned, institutional and personal contacts, etc.) into their respective activities? Has the climate information, climate vulnerability assessments and planning practices been effectively disseminated and utilized by the different IPs? What has been the role of the CLIMA IP meetings in this regard? A. FINDINGS USAID/DR’s Project Appraisal Document (PAD) for the CLIMA Project stated (p. 22) "Achievement of the project's overall results requires that the three activities [CLIMA-Info, CLIMA-Plan, and CLIMA-Adapt] [be] integrated so that the organizations and communities are receiving USAID's complete intervention rather than just one or two of the components." For CLIMA-Info and CLIMA-Plan linkage it calls for a coalition of partners to integrate activities. For linkage between CLIMA-Info and CLIMA-Adapt, it calls for workshops for CLIMA-Adapt organizations to disseminate and solicit input on climate change information use and analysis and training on environmental monitoring of results on water supply and flooding. It states that CLIMA-Adapt activities will not wait for completion of municipal land use plans, but notes that it is critical that CLIMA-Plan and CLIMA-Adapt be coordinated "to ensure that implementation is not divorced from the planning process." ICMA had a coordination role, but this was not specified in the other CAs. It was limited to monthly meetings of key IP staff in Santo Domingo and not put into effect on the municipal level. All four CLIMA municipalities question why they were not involved in this coordination. The coordination meetings were limited to logistical issues, such the dates of planned training activities, not training content. All informants, even the IPs, agree that integration and coordination among CLIMA IPs has been limited, particularly on the municipal level. One IP partner informant noted that CLIMA appeared to be funded by three different donors. Similar comments, although less dramatic, were made by informants in the other municipalities. USAID’s concept of CLIMA (put in graphic form on the following page) assumed a high degree of coordination and data flows between the different implementing partners. Indeed, the CLIMA design assumed a flow of information to the municipalities that would orient planning and adaptation measures, but all four municipalities say that the INTEC data needed to be transformed into tools that municipal staff could use. Then the staff would need to be trained on how to use these tools in planning and policy. The final version of the INTEC climate adaptation tools for the municipalities were reportedly delivered in December 2017 and could not be assessed by the evaluation team. ICMA reported that it did not incorporate the INTEC data into the PMOTs in the four CLIMA municipalities. None of the "INTEC made a big splash, presenting the climate scenarios to CDES, but it should have been done first with ICMA and the municipalities." (Another CLIMA IP partner in Santiago). "There have been no joint CLIMA activities in Santiago, not even meetings with authorities or partners. IDDI did very detailed data collection and analysis in vulnerable areas of the city, but these were not coordinated into the planning process." (A CLIMA IP partner NGO) USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 23 planning staff interviewed in the four municipalities were aware of the hydrological modeling carried by INTEC. A second problem is sequencing. INTEC completed its analyses well after ICMA had completed the assessment stage. Thus, as mentioned, the INTEC climate change and hydrological models were not incorporated into the PMOTs. The other IPs reported that they developed their own information data bases from available sources. So, INTEC data and tools were not available or applicable timely. Again, they were reported to have been delivered to the municipalities in early December 2017. USAID’s concept of CLIMA Project Management Source: USAID Power Point Presentation on the CLIMA Project, by Monserrat Acosta-Morel, undated. Another major problem was the design and delivery of the training. Each of the four CLIMA IPs designed its own training program with scarce coordination, except for resolving scheduling conflicts. Municipal staff members and local IP partners and associates say that training was not designed in an integrated manner; thus, training contents overlapped considerably. Municipal staff said they were overwhelmed at times by CLIMA funded training events. The national GODR counterparts (ONAMET, COE and INDRHI) interviewed by the evaluation team also thought that there was an excess of training with repetition of contents. USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 24 Prior to the award of its CA, IDDI conducted detailed consultations with local authorities, communities and local partners for its proposal to USAID. These data were not shared with the other IPs, in particular ICMA, which might have benefitted from them for the vulnerability assessments within the PMOT process. While the ICMA vulnerability assessments were available by the time IDDI implementation began, they were not incorporated into IDDI’s interventions, which relied upon their previously obtained information. ICMA’s vulnerability assessments however were reported to have been given in draft form to REDDOM, which incorporated them into the site selection and intervention design in CLIMA-Adapt. One issue that was reiterated by all the municipal informants and local counterparts was the lack of a single CLIMA steering mechanism in each municipality. The municipal planning staff of ADN and AS note that ICMA, REDDOM and IDDI each convened their own technical meetings, usually with the same members representing municipal government and national ministries and agencies. As well as creating an “overload” of meeting requests, it was an obstacle to coordination and information sharing during the PMOT process. The Center for Emergency Operations (COE) says that INTEC’s mobile phone application Alerta COE has had 12,000 downloads and that some municipalities have downloaded it, but INTEC did not coordinate with ICMA, FEDOMU, IDDI or REDDOM to disseminate this tool. FEDOMU was particularly critical on this point, saying that INTEC and COE have lost an opportunity to create greater capacity in municipal governments in disaster early warning and disaster risk reduction. INTEC’s hydrological modeling was transferred to the National Institute for Hydraulic Resources (INDRHI), which reports they are using it and showed the evaluation team their equipment in use. The municipalities and regional water corporations have not had access to these data at the time of the evaluation field work. The hydrological modeling was not incorporated into the PMOTs designed by ICMA, because it occurred to late in the process. B. CONCLUSIONS CLIMA interventions, for the most part, have operated independently, without sufficient integration and coordination among IPs. This situation was particularly acute regarding training. While CLIMA programs, their staffs, and stakeholders were often invited to participate in the other programs' training events, there was little joint planning for them. The evaluation team considers that this is more of an activity design and award problem than one of performance of the IPs. The sequencing of the awards made it challenging to sequence the activities efficiently. The coordinating role assigned to ICMA did not resolve the issue. The findings point to the lack of coordination between ICMA, IDDI and REDDOM on the selection of the adaptation and risk reduction measures, particularly with respect to site selection and prioritization of measures. Nevertheless, all four municipalities noted that IDDI and REDDOM, despite this lack of coordination, are focusing their efforts on areas that have been identified as vulnerable to climate change in the PMOTs. Rather, the weak integration of the adaptation and risk reduction measures is felt more in the lack of ownership of city planning authorities, who admit that they know very little about the interventions. While DGODT, FEDOMU, CASD, CORAASAN, INAPA and local MINARENA staff USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 25 were very much involved in the design process of each of the IOs, the evaluation team found little evidence of similar intervention by the central government levels of the other GODR agencies. QUESTION 3 How have CLIMA’s local government partners utilized the experience, knowledge and resources that are accessible through the CityLinks exchange? Have the approaches, methodologies and solutions used by US counterparts been taken up by CLIMA local governments? A. FINDINGS Most informants in the CLIMA municipalities consider the CityLinks exchanges to have been very useful, raising climate change awareness, offering solutions to critical problems, and contributing the strategic development plans and the land use plans. All the CLIMA municipalities referred to the importance of learning about planning approaches in the CityLinks exchanges, emphasizing how these cities use detailed data, GIS, data visualization, and participatory planning exercises. ASPM and ALT note, however, that they have no financial or technical capacity to install similar systems. In contrast, AS and ADN are using GIS applications for all aspects of spatial planning, but not permitting. AS, ADN, ASPM and ALT all report having incorporated disaster risk prevention and climate change adaptation measures into their PMOTs, or that they are in the process of doing so. While they all agree that the CityLinks program has raised awareness and understanding of the issues, this process has been most immediately important in ASPM and ALT, where Fort Lauderdale and Miami Beach technicians helped them to identify strategies to mitigate beach erosion. As discussed elsewhere in this document, the plans in ASPM and ALT are yet to be implemented, as the local governments do not have resources to make significant infrastructure investments. AS and ADN report the best use of technical information provided by the CityLinks exchanges with Dubuque, Iowa, and Austin, Texas, respectively, in their PMOTs and development plans. The ADN planning team reported that the links with Austin has helped them understand strategies for adaptation through locally financed, cost-effective green infrastructure, transport planning and mitigation of river flooding. However, to date they had not taken steps to develop specific project proposals, owing to the absence of financial resources. The AS planning staff was less specific in their comments on the results of the exchange with Dubuque, mentioning water management generally, but also emphasizing the role of citizen participation in creating consensus for the land use planning decision process and ensuring approval of ordinances. They point out that implementation will depend on actions of GODR ministries. ADN and AS expressed frustration over the lack of autonomy and resources that they manage compared to their US counterparts, saying that PMOT implementation in the DR will depend on GODR ministries and agencies, since the municipalities have scarce own-source revenues that can be used for infrastructure investments. Law 166, 2003 establishes that the national government shall transfer the equivalent of ten per cent of all current income to municipalities, but in practice this has not happened. Successive national governments have resisted further financial decentralization. Recent estimates put the transfer to municipal governments at about 4 per cent of the national government’s current income. The transfer formula is based mainly on population. This means that most local governments in the DR have USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 26 no resources for new infrastructure; at current levels of inter-governmental transfers, they are barely able to fund operations and maintenance for existing infrastructure. B. CONCLUSIONS The CityLinks component was a valued CLIMA contribution that was successful in exposing the political leaders and senior staff of target municipalities to land use planning approaches and tools, and to climate change adaptation strategies. ASPM and ALT had limited technical capacity to fully absorb the contributions from their sister cities, but ASPM fully assumed the challenge and learned from the experience. Staff turnover in ALT has severely limited uptake in this respect. AS and ADN gave the contributions from these exchanges less political importance, but showed higher technical capacity to benefit from them, and they told the evaluation team that the benefits received will continue after the CLIMA projects ends. Nevertheless, it should be noted that municipalities have few resources for this kind of activity. Thus, while all the municipal teams praised the CityLinks activity, they recognized that under current Constitutional and legal arrangements for decentralization, local governments will depend on national government agencies to develop and fund any projects in the area of climate change adaptation QUESTION 4 Have local governments changed how they access, analyze and utilize climate data since joining CLIMA? What have been the results of the training and technical assistance on use of climate data? Have the different technologies developed by CLIMA been effective in developing local capacity? A. FINDINGS In ALT and ASPM local authorities affirmed and IPs confirmed that they exercised leadership and were fully engaged in their PMOTs and in the design and implementation of adaptation measures. These municipalities had almost no data or previous planning exercises and have benefited greatly from the ICMA-supported PMOT design process and the CityLinks experiences. Yet, the interviews with staff in each of these municipalities show significant differences. The political continuity and resulting low turnover of staff in ASPM has meant that the municipality has a clear understanding of the PMOT vulnerability assessment, the land use strategies and adaptation measures. In contrast, in ALT the planning staff was unfamiliar with the contents of the PMOT and unsure about its eventual implementation. The main reason for this appeared to be staff turnover and the absence of a formal transition process to bring new teams up to speed after the municipal elections. In AS the informants interviewed by the evaluation team all report that that municipality has significant planning experience with two previous municipal development plans (PMD), a previous PMOT for the urban area, and numerous studies and assessments of climate change vulnerability, disaster management, and other relevant topics funded by the IADB and other donors. Santiago municipal staff and staff from other local counterparts report that ICMA applied too literally the methodology laid out in the DGODT guide, and did not build on the previous work. They saw ICMA’s main contributions and innovations in Santiago in the integration of climate change vulnerability assessment and adaptation into planning, which had not been included in the previous PMOT; the use of participatory planning approaches and tools for USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 27 it; and the incorporation of rural areas into the planning exercises. For the first time, the municipal districts now have their own spatial planning documents, which is a major achievement of the CLIMA project. These documents, like the land use plan itself, await formal approval by local councils in the form of ordinances. In ADN, the planning staff said that “the process was successful, but not the product”. ADN values the participatory planning process led by ICMA and reinforced by the CityLinks experience, but they say the technical aspects are deficient. The vulnerability assessment and diagnostic data are lacking in detail, and they wanted disaggregated data by Ward, which ICMA was unable to provide. ADN wanted ICMA to conduct primary data collection at the Ward level, however there were not sufficient resources available for this level of data collection. The mapping products are seen by the ADN planning team as inadequate, and ADN is currently redoing some of them. They questioned why ICMA did not incorporate into the PMOT document the detailed data collected by IDDI in its own vulnerability assessments in Ward 3. They consider that the inventory of adaptation measures is inadequate and needs improvement. They believe that a data collection effort at the Ward level would have produced a larger, more detailed set of measures. In both ADN and AS, the planning staff say that ICMA lacked the resources to conduct land use planning in large, complex urban areas. This was reiterated in KIIs with DGODT and FEDOMU staff, who thought that the PMOTs in ADN and AS were not of sufficient technical quality and detail. They saw this problem of capacity more in function of the limited financial resources available to ICMA for the PMOT data collection, vulnerability assessments and mapping than of the technical capacity of ICMA staff and consultants. Municipal staff in all the CLIMA municipalities made clear, when asked, that the completion of PMOTs does not ensure their application and use, although that is their intention. They must be submitted to the municipal councils with accompanying ordinances that will require council approvals before they can be put into effect. That had not happened yet in any of the CLIMA municipalities at time of writing. The obstacles are mainly political, as local councils are hesitant to put into place restrictions on land use that will create conflicts with powerful national and local interest groups (commercial, industrial, agricultural and tourism interests as well as well as residential developers). All the CLIMA municipalities say they recognize that implementation of their PMOTs with corresponding adaptation and disaster risk prevention infrastructure will depend in large measure on the ability of local authorities to work effectively with GODR ministries and agencies. ALT and ASPM gave examples of central government interference with their plans. ADN was emphatic on this point, stressing their lack of autonomy in decision making. They expressed expectation that the pending Municipal and Regional Land Use Law will help, once enacted. IDDI and REDDOM and all four CLIMA urban municipalities where they work say that the municipalities have cooperated fully in approving and permitting the climate change adaptation and disaster risk prevention projects. They also report that uptake of CLIMA adaptation approaches in vulnerable communities varies. Some of the local community leaders interviewed expressed greater interest in access to water and sanitation, or in the case of Jarabacoa, short- to medium- term income generation, as their priorities; so, these were incorporated into the interventions, within a climate change adaptation USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 28 context. The CLIMA-contributed weather stations are considered helpful by those few informants who mentioned them. ASPM and IDDI report that the ASPM is fully engaged in their design and implementation. In Santiago, all informants made clear that the uptake of climate change adaptation is more a function of networked decision making among local actors, including the Council for the Strategic Development of Santiago (CDES), the Center for Urban and Regional Studies (CEUR) of the ISA University, the Santiago Water and Sewerage Corporation (CORAASAN), Santiago Solidario, and other representations of civil society. In ALT, municipal staff and the National Institute for Potable Water and Sewerage (INAPA) report more CLIMA project interaction with INAPA and the Ministry of the Environment than with the municipality itself. In ADN, informants report that the municipality is not effectively engaged with IDDI. It should be noted that ADN planning staff say they perceive these as small-scale interventions that do not address major climate change risks in the city. Thus, the weak engagement isn’t necessarily because IDDI hasn’t made the effort. The central government agencies ONAMET, INDRHI, and COE, expressed appreciation for the new weather stations, but the municipalities said they are unaware of them or unable to assess their utility. Moreover, they are unclear over who has access to that information and what use can be made of it. The Universidad del Este (UCE), in San Pedro de Macorís, said they participated in many CLIMA training events and expressed appreciation for them, but they were unaware of the new weather station there, which they had hoped would be located on their campus to facilitate their students' use of it in their training. The evaluation team was unable to assess the utility of the municipal climate information tools presented by INTEC in December 2017, while the evaluation field work was underway in the municipalities. B. CONCLUSIONS The PMOT design process has been successful, although its uptake of CLIMA approaches by the municipalities varies. There was less capacity but more engagement in ALT and ASPM, greater capacity and appreciation but less perceived utility of the climate information and planning efforts in ADN and AS. In AS the uptake was mixed, with the municipality insistent in defining its own agenda, but that municipality has incorporated important climate change adaptation and disaster risk prevention criteria into its pending new PMOT and other planning instruments and policies. The current challenge is to transform the PMOTs into legal instruments through municipal ordinances and get them approved by the city councils. The municipal staff did not frame their responses to the evaluation question in terms of innovations or piloting of adaptation/risk reduction measures that could be taken up by the municipality or GODR agencies as a result of CLIMA successes. They saw the IDDI and REDDOM activities as “interesting” but not necessarily as relevant to their planning and policy. More importantly, they were clear that the municipalities lack the authority and resources to carry out climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction measures on their own; they will need to involve national-level agencies to ensure their implementation. Political and financial support from GODR ministries, water boards, and other central government agencies will be essential to effective implementation of the planned climate change USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 29 adaptation and disaster risk prevention measures contemplated by the municipalities in their PMOTs and PMDs. The new weather stations will provide improved information over time, but who has access to that information and what use will be made of it for planning and policy is unclear. CLIMA information is highly technical, much appreciated by ONAMET. INDRHI for its part received support from INTEC for hydrological modeling, water levels and rivers from rainfall information. They saw different uses for this. For disaster risk management, prediction of floods and droughts, design and management of potable water systems and irrigation, and for vulnerability assessments in regional and municipal spatial planning. But the use of these data by municipalities will depend on cooperation with these GODR agencies. QUESTION 5 Have the other institutional counterparts effectively engaged with CLIMA and taken up the project’s strategies and messages? Which institutional counterparts have been most engaged with CLIMA and supported CLIMA activities? A. FINDINGS The informants and the IP reports coincide in that in preparation for both land use planning and adaptation and risk reduction measures, CLIMA has engaged community-based organizations and linked them to municipal decision makers. Community leaders have expressed support for climate change adaptation interventions and have committed community resources (volunteer labor, organization, and land) to them. Both IDDI and REDDOM have established a strong presence in the beneficiary communities. With respect to GODR counterparts, ONAMET reports that they benefited from training. Twelve of their staff members participated in INTEC, IDDI and REDDOM training. They say they are using the weather and forecasting (WRF) prediction software and were particularly interested in Dr. Jorge González’s work on heat waves. They say they appreciate the Climate Change Observatory but think this activity should have been more closely integrated into ONAMET operations. The ONAMET KIIs do not refer at all to the hydrological modeling done by INTEC—ONAMET staff was unaware of this activity. INDRHI reports that they received support from INTEC for the hydrological modeling, to analyze river water levels from rainfall information. They saw different uses for this. For disaster risk management, prediction of floods and droughts, design and management of potable water systems and irrigation, and for vulnerability assessments in regional and municipal spatial planning. The IP reports show that until time of writing INTEC has not integrated the planning of CLIMA staff municipalities into this activity with INDRHI. COE says they received support from INTEC for its mobile application, Alerta COE. INTEC designed and developed this app and trained COE staff on its use and maintenance. The system was hosted on an INTEC server, but COE informed the evaluation team that they are working to get an agreement with Microsoft to host it. At the time of the evaluation, however, the agreement had not been signed. USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 30 INAPA reports they sent people to training events on climate adaptation planning and territory (diplomados) and that they have cooperated with IDDI and REDDOM in improving local water and sanitation systems. They also confirm that they lacked financial resources to contribute to these projects but provided staff support to train and orient local communities in the management of these systems. CLIMA IPs do not report significant engagement of GODR entities in broader climate change policy and planning. Engagement with the Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (MINARENA), in particular, was through regional offices and staff. There was limited engagement reported with the National Climate Change and Clean Development Mechanism Council. Donor agencies thought that CLIMA could have been useful if it had been involved in the Water Resources Round Table hosted by MEPD and its commissions. CLIMA could have supported more active FEDOMU engagement in the round table and its commissions to bring to the fore CLIMA Plan and CLIMA Adapt innovations. All reports and informants indicate that the General Directorate for Land Use and Development (DGODT) of the Ministry of the Economy, Planning, and Development (MEPyD) has been the GODR institution most engaged with CLIMA. ICMA provided significant capacity building through training and participation of DGODT staff in the PMOT processes. DGODT assigned a staff member to each PMOT, who attended most of the technical meetings. DGODT considers that the application of its methodological guide was successful and confirms that their staff participated actively in INTEC and ICMA training programs. ICMA reports and FEDOMU confirms that FEDOMU provided the four ICMA municipal coordinators, and that FEDOMU's central management was also deeply involved. From all reports, FEDOMU was one of the major beneficiaries of INTEC and IDDI training. FEDOMU staff say that through CLIMA and the PMOT process FEDOMU was able to build a closer and more productive relationship with the DGODT. That improved relationship needs to be consolidated in future interventions in municipal strengthening. FEDOMU told the evaluation team that most of the municipalities in the country would never have the financial and human capacity to use complex planning tools, information systems and the like. For that reason, they see an important role for the Federation in providing that capacity on a permanent basis. In the DR context, that would mean joint activities funded by the GODR, possibly in conjunction with the DGODT. B. CONCLUSIONS Among the GODR ministries and agencies, INTEC closely engaged ONAMET, INDRHI, and COE, which have taken up the information tools provided by CLIMA. INTEC and the other IPs had less engagement with the Ministry of the Environment, on the national level, and with the Ministries of Tourism and Agriculture and the National Council on Climate Change and the Clean Development Mechanism. With CLIMA support through ICMA, the DGODT developed a productive and close working relationship with ICMA, the CLIMA municipalities, and particularly FEDOMU, which has fully assumed DGODT's municipal planning guide, used it in developing the four urban PMOTs, and plans to continue using it in future municipal planning. USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 31 Thus, FEDOMU was substantially strengthened by CLIMA support and is well positioned to provide continuity to the municipal planning process, including climate change adaptation and disaster risk prevention measures, in future municipal planning experiences in the DR. QUESTION 6 Do the adaptation activities supported by CLIMA support the beneficiary communities and also comply fully with the GCC adaptation guidelines? Are there other initiatives that might comply more fully? A. FINDINGS The GCC Indicator Handbook, p. 12, describes the GCC pillar framework, which includes GCC Program Element 11.3, Climate Resilient Practices, such as those being implemented by IDDI and REDDOM in the four urban municipalities, and GCC Program Element 13.2 Implementation of Low￾Emission Development Strategies, including Sustainable Landscapes and REDD+, such as the climate￾smart agricultural practices that REDDOM is implementing in Jarabacoa. A review of the project documents reveals, and USAID informants confirm, that the CLIMA adaptation mechanisms (implemented by IDDI and REDDOM) have water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) funding, in addition to GCC/Adaptation funding. The local community leaders interviewed and who participated in the FGDs all say that the CLIMA Adapt interventions address community priorities in that they mix risk prevention measures (soil erosion, water contamination, and flood prevention) with improvements in potable water and sanitation. IDDI's proposal and CA demonstrate their prior work with the communities where they are working in the National District, Ward 3, and in ASPM, where climate vulnerability assessments and basic needs assessments had been done prior to IDDI's involvement in CLIMA. They are doing similar work in Santiago and Las Terrenas, which were added to their CA from their proposal by USAID in negotiations for that CA. IDDI and REDDOM insist that green infrastructure solutions, like afforestation of river banks and drainage improvements, and maintenance of those improvements, require community ownership of the initiatives. To obtain and sustain that ownership, their strategy is to combine climate change adaptation measures with water and sanitation initiatives. FGDs with beneficiary communities have confirmed their ownership of the initiatives being implemented. Municipal staff, the IPs, and other informants agree that for these interventions to become sustainable, the municipalities depend upon support from the water corporations, CORAASAN, the Santo Domingo Water and Sewerage Corporation (CAASD), and INAPA with their very limited resources, or from another central government source, such as an MMA program in urban areas. Without buy-in from the national government they say that CLIMA adaptation and risk reduction innovations will not have broader dissemination and use. USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 32 The farmers interviewed in Jarabacoa all reported a need for short- and medium-term income from their farms, as well as long-term sustainability of their lands and forests. The informants all valued the activities with the main commercial “clusters” operating in the region (coffee, cacao, and greenhouse crops). One coffee farmer interviewed by the evaluation team in Manabao noted that only with the income from coffee production was there an incentive for him to plant trees on his family’s land. B. CONCLUSIONS The CLIMA-Adapt interventions being implemented in the five CLIMA municipalities are in compliance with GCC/Adaptation funding guidelines and/or are covered by WASH funding, in the cases of some IDDI and REDDOM interventions in the four urban CLIMA municipalities. The kinds of climate change adaptation solutions that IDDI and REDDOM provide in the four urban CLIMA municipalities have required investments in developing community awareness and capacity for maintaining green infrastructure and systems. For example, flood control in urban areas requires awareness raising not just on climate change issues, but also on potable water sources, sanitation, and management of solid waste to avoid blockage of drains and water courses. Both IDDI and REDDOM have consolidated support for climate adaptation and disaster risk reduction initiatives based on their intensive work with the communities and their organizations, including their perspectives on gender and on inclusion of vulnerable sectors of the population. To sustain those initiatives and maintain the infrastructure introduced will require continued strong local community organization and leadership. Future programs with similar CCA interventions will need either additional donor funding to cover the infrastructure costs or, preferably, commitment to assume those costs on the part of central government agencies, the regional water boards, or a new GODR program that can finance them. QUESTION 7 Which farm level practices adopted by CLIMA beneficiaries have been most effective in terms of resiliency to climate change, and sustainable increases in productivity and incomes? Which have been best received by farmers? A. FINDINGS The Feed the Future Climate-Smart Agriculture initiative being implemented in the upper Yaque del Norte watershed by REDDOM incorporates a strategy of strengthening and working with existing locally-based organizations to encourage them to adopt climate-smart agricultural practices that will provide farmers with some short- to medium-term income from cash crops, along with climate change adaptation measures that help prevent soil erosion and water contamination, as well as small reservoirs to ensure water supply during droughts. These local organizations include Plan Yaque, the coffee and greenhouse vegetable clusters, and the National Environmental School (ENA). USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 33 REDDOM reports (QPR FY2016, Q3) planting 90,700 leaf rust-resistant coffee plants in 61 Jarabacoa coffee farms. Additionally, in coordination with the coffee cluster and Plan Yaque, they supported 25 of these farmers with the introduction of soil erosion and water contamination prevention measures in 176.12 hectares, and small reservoirs to store water for times of drought. Subsequent reports refer to numerous successive additional interventions of this nature without providing cumulative totals. REDDOM's FtF QPR for FY2017, Q2 reports the introduction of macadamia nut trees (Macadamias integrifolia) in areas having appropriate soils for them; they also report (FtF QPR FY2017, Q3) the implementation of watershed management and landscape restoration plans with input from the Dominican NGO ProNatura in support of 33 additional farmers with payment for environmental services for analogue forestry systems in 8,30 hectares with macadamia, mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla), Caribbean pine (Pinus caribbea), cabirma (Guarea guidonea) and other timber species. This funding is made from counterpart contributions, not from USG sources. The evaluation team observed some of these farms with crop diversity in CLIMA beneficiary farm in Manabao and Jumunuco have associated leaf rust-resistant varieties of coffee with cacao, macadamia and subsistence crops (plantains, manioc, yautia, among others) with REDDOM support. Some have abandoned plans for unsustainable single crops like chayote (Sechium edule). Among the soil erosion and water contamination measures observed in these farms in Manabao and Jumunuco were runoff barriers along hill curves, strategic alignment of a diversity of different crops, including nitrogen fixers, and water retention procedures (reservoirs) to help prevent damage from intense rainfall and local flooding and to ensure water supply during droughts. Neighbors interviewed by the evaluation team who are not CLIMA beneficiaries, expressed interest in adopting climate-friendly agroforestry measures, but REDDOM and USAID are said to lack the resources to provide them support in the program. Extension work has begun with, Plan Yaque and the producers’ organizations, using students from the National Environmental School (ENA) in Jarabacoa. Producers’ organizations (clusters) expressed interest in expanding these efforts. Other Dominican NGOs (for example ENDA Dominicana and ProNatura) report some successful applications of analogue forestry models, like that implemented in the REDDOM Farmer to Farmer Climate Smart Agriculture program, but on a complete watershed basis, including protected area buffer zones and upper watershed areas where some standing forest remains. Even so, such interventions are not widespread practice in DR programs. The World Bank says they have given MINARENA $3 million dollars to prepare projects for REDD+ and hope to see projects that will address climate change risks. B. CONCLUSIONS REDDOM's strategy of engaging locally present organizations like Plan Yaque, the ENA, the coffee and greenhouse vegetable clusters, and introducing agroforestry concepts through them has been effective and productive. More extension work needs to be done, but the potential agents for it are in place and active. If market forces remain stable, this model is promising for future interventions. USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 34 Farmers in Jarabacoa are receptive to climate-friendly innovations that include opportunities for short￾to medium-term income that allows them to remain on their farms while they introduce soil erosion and water contamination prevention measures, as well as water storage options. Analogue forestry, introduced by REDDOM through ProNatura, is a highly effective innovation in this area that adds value, as well as diversity, to agricultural production in areas like the upper Yaque del Norte watershed. For future interventions, a whole of watershed approach, including protected areas and their buffer zones, and other areas of standing forest with improvement of timber resources to complement the diversified cash crops could yield long-term productivity and profitability, as well as lower greenhouse gas emissions in a manner consistent with the REDD+ concept, especially given the lack of supply of domestic wood on the Dominican market. REDDOM, with is partners in the FtF activity, has come closer than most to a whole of watershed approach. QUESTION 8 Have CLIMA’s impacts been expanded to other local governments in the DR? Have the “peer-to￾peer” relationships between beneficiary municipalities and other local governments been effective? Is there evidence that CLIMA innovations are being taken up by other local governments? A. FINDINGS The ICMA CA, work plans, and first two years' progress reports propose a third-year replication of the municipal planning process among four additional municipalities to be selected, in coordination with FEDOMU, including a peer-to-peer initiative. ICMA reports (QPR FY2017, Q3) the announcement to them of an early close-out of the CLIMA-Plan program on March 1, 2018, because of budgetary constraints. This has meant that the plans for replicating the CLIMA approach to climate change adaptation through support for municipal land use planning (PMOTs) in the four additional municipalities in the DR will not proceed as planned, and ICMA say they have revised their third-year work plan accordingly. DGODT managers and technical staff interviewed by the evaluation team say that CLIMA support has allowed them to train a group of full time technical staff that will be able to provide ongoing support for new PMOTs incorporating climate change adaptation. They further report that the CLIMA project has generated demand from other municipalities to conduct their PMOTs. DGODT is preparing technical materials on how to incorporate climate change adaptation and risk reduction into the PMOT methodology. These will be distributed through the DGODT (in paper and on its website) in coming months. The KIIs with ICMA, DGODT, and FEDOMU concur that without support few other municipalities will be able to conduct a land use plan incorporating climate change adaptation and risk reduction measures. ICMA, DGODT and FEDOMU affirm that FEDOMU has increased technical capacity in the central office and regional staff with CLIMA-supported expertise in land use planning incorporating climate change vulnerability assessments, and adaptation and risk reduction measures. FEDOMU is currently trying to complete staffing of 10 full time positions for regional coordinators, with planned funding from a mix of USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 35 own resources and other donors. Assuming that funding materializes, they say they will be providing support to additional municipalities for conducting PMOTs, supported by DGODT and other GODR institutions. DGODT and FEDOMU say they are working together to review current practices in municipal planning and are proposing to unify the planning process for PMDs, Risk Management Plans and PMOTs, making climate change adaptation a transversal component, in some cases maintaining them as separate instruments. AECID reports that it is coordinating with DGODT to provide support to three municipalities in the South-West region (Neyba has been completed and work has started in two more - La Cienaga and Jimaní), working with FEDOMU and the National Geographic Institute (IGN), using the DGODT methodology and incorporating climate change vulnerability and adaptation measures. Jarabacoa municipality was used as the case study for some of the CLIMA-Plan training. Students conducted vulnerability assessments, and these were provided to the municipality. The municipal staff report that they are using this information in planning for their new PMOT in 2018. Other donor organizations say that they would welcome a discussion about PMOTs as a requisite for municipal participation in programs that operate locally, such as REDD+, water, sanitation, disaster risk management and other programs that have a climate change adaptation dimension. They recommend that USAID/DR work with the GODR (MEPyD and MINARENA) and other donors like the World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank (IADB) to promote PMOTs as instruments for aligning policy and planning between municipalities and GODR ministries and agencies. Several other informants mentioned that USAID should conduct dissemination and learning activities aimed at creating consensus within the GODR (led by MEPyD) about the need for PMOTs as an obligatory reference point for ministerial planning, budget allocations, project design and approval, and project implementation in municipalities. B. CONCLUSIONS The possibility of expanding project results beyond the four urban CLIMA municipalities will depend on a concerted strategy led by USAID, to document, disseminate and promote CLIMA innovations within round tables or other policy spaces, in concert with FEDOMU, DGODT, MEPyD and other donor agencies. For now, USAID-funded approaches to incorporating climate change will be disseminated through just four municipalities (Jarabacoa and three municipalities supported by AECID) beyond the original four CLIMA counterparts. More generally, the major CLIMA counterparts agree that the project has made a contribution to consolidating the institutional practice of land use planning in the Dominican Republic and in incorporating climate change adaptation and risk reduction strategies into planning. FEDOMU's expanded role as a champion of municipal planning and coordination with central GODR agencies like the DGODT and the MINARENA, and in incorporating CCA and disaster risk management into the planning processes, is one of the most promising results from the CLIMA-Plan experience. FEDOMU and other informants believe that the majority of municipalities in the country will not have the resources to conduct their own PMOTs and will continue to need financial and technical support in this area. While FEDOMU sees itself as a provider of technical and human capacity in this area of municipal planning, it has limited resources, and will require external funding to play this role at any significant scale. USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 36 GENDER AND SOCIAL INCLUSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The 2016 municipal elections brought new male mayors in Las Terrenas and Jarabacoa, replacing female mayors. Now all five CLIMA municipality mayors, including Jarabacoa, are male. Municipal staffs are largely male-dominated. Exceptions are in the ADN, where the new planning staff is female, and Jarabacoa, where the Planning Director is female. Key roles in FEDOMU are mixed, with women occupying some leadership positions. In central government agencies, the key positions are male dominated, with exceptions in the DGODT, and ONAMET, where women have leadership roles. CLIMA IP chiefs of party are 3-2 female; their staffs are gender balanced. CLIMA training events were careful to seek gender equity and document participant gender. Gender policies in CLIMA implementation were important factors for obtaining local community ownership of project interventions. This situation was made more explicit in the discussions in KIIs and FGDs about IDDI's adaptation work, particularly in the involvement of women leaders and activists in the vulnerability assessments and community priority setting in the National District third ward. It was also commented upon by REDDOM beneficiaries in ALT and municipal planning staff in ALT and SPM. Young people, particularly young women, play important volunteer roles in CLIMA beneficiary communities; most of their neighborhood organizations (juntas vecinales) are led by older men, the exceptions being in two Las Terrenas communities that we visited, where women are the prominent community leaders. In disaster relief efforts, people with disabilities require special attention. IDDI has worked with the National Council on Disability (CONADIS) to develop stickers that identify homes with disabled residents, so that they can be given the necessary assistance when disaster relief is needed. These stickers were conspicuous in flood-vulnerable communities in Ward 3 of the National District. The team observed no special attention in CLIMA implementation to LGBT people, nor were any local community beneficiaries identified as such. CONCLUSIONS ABOUT PROGRESS TOWARDS THE PROJECT PURPOSE As discussed above, overall the CLIMA activities have met or exceeded most of the performance indicator targets set out in the respective Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plans. The data collected in response to the evaluation questions point to the conclusion that the CLIMA activities have been able to resolve most of the implementation challenges that they have faced in the first two years. An important exogenous factor was the 2016 election process, which delayed implementation and disrupted the institutional relationships between CLIMA IPs and GODR counterparts at the national and local levels. The major unresolved implementation challenge was the lack of attention to activity sequencing in the design and award of the activities, which limited the uptake of INTEC innovations to ICMA, IDDI and REDDOM. By itself, ICMA was unable to resolve this issue. Thus, beyond agreeing on training dates, coordination among the CLIMA IPs was flawed. Other aspects of CLIMA project development were deemed successful. The communications products developed by INTEC helped to increase the project’s reach considerably by the second year and will continue to provide climate change information to people and institutions after the project ends. Other USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 37 products, especially the climate change modelling and the hydrological modeling, were well evaluated by national GODR agencies. However, they were not widely understood in the partner municipalities. All the local stakeholders agreed that ICMA’s land use planning methodology raised the bar considerably in terms of citizen participation in planning in the Dominican Republic. The partnership with FEDOMU created significant capacity in the Federation, which will give a good measure of sustainability to the interventions. The community level planning conducted by IDDI and REDDOM, while suffering at times from a lack of integration with the ICMA planning, is appreciated by most of the planning staff in the targeted municipalities. The adaptation and risk management interventions in urban communities have strong community support. The ability of municipalities to take up this kind of intervention is constrained by exogenous factors, mainly their financial and human capacities which reflect a weak framework for decentralization. The farm level adaptation interventions likewise are appropriate and relevant to farmers’ needs. REDDOM has increased its capacity to continue this kind of intervention in key watersheds. Thus, following USAID guidance on whole of project evaluations, discussed above in the section on methodology, the evaluation findings lead to a conclusion that overall the CLIMA project has made considerable progress towards its main purpose, Increased resilience of people to global climate change in target areas. The progress can be seen in the development of climate change information by INTEC and its growing use by GODR agencies. Another measure of progress is the completion of the land use plans supported by ICMA and the ongoing process of bylaw drafting and approval. At the same time, the project is on track to reduce vulnerability to flooding, and to access improved water and sanitation in the target municipalities and in the selected urban communities through the adaptation and risk reduction measures supported by REDDOM and IDDI. Similarly, in rural communities around the North Yaque watershed, small farmers supported by REDDOM report progress in adopting new agro-forestry techniques to reduce erosion on steep slopes and supporting sustainable livelihoods. Follow-on efforts are needed to consolidate this progress and ensure its sustainability. As mentioned, the project has created increased capacity in FEDOMU and DGODT to carry this forward in other municipalities and in this sense, it has contributed to sustainability of the approaches and tools for addressing climate change risks in urban areas in the Dominican Republic. In the absence of continued USAID funding, FEDOMU and DGODT will be able to carry on with support for the design and implementation of land use plans incorporating measures to increase climate change resiliency in other municipalities. USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 38 III.RECOMMENDATIONS On the basis of the findings and conclusions from the field work, the evaluation team has formulated eleven recommendations for future Mission planning and program design, as follows: 1. USAID should make every possible effort to design and implement a strategy aimed at ensuring uptake of CLIMA results through major GODR stakeholders (FEDOMU, DGODT, MEPyD, MINARENA, and the water corporations CORAASAN, CAASD, and INAPA) to ensure their continued engagement with and uptake of CLIMA innovations in the incorporation of climate change adaptation measures in their own strategies, plans, policies and budgets. This would require a focus on policy advocacy and could be partially addressed through the Mission’s existing grant mechanism to the local NGO, Participación Ciudadana. USAID should review carefully the planned program activities under this grant and make appropriate modifications to focus advocacy on engaging GODR ministry leadership in negotiations with CLIMA municipalities. 2. The Mission should explore how CLIMA CCA results can be achieved through future WASH, environment, biodiversity, natural resource management, democracy and local governance, and economic growth initiatives, depending on funding availability. WASH initiatives should consider incorporating a municipal and community focus like that piloted by CLIMA, using PMOTs to identify vulnerable communities and prioritized climate change adaptation measures. This would contribute to consolidating the municipal planning process, integrating climate change adaptation and disaster risk management components. Further USAID work at the local level could incorporate support for the design of PMOTs with disaster risk (vulnerability) assessments and risk reduction strategies and even require municipalities to approve PMOTs as a condition for USAID support. 3. Future interventions in agriculture and climate change should include a robust evaluation component to provide data on costs and benefits of the different interventions at the farm level. Are there major changes in farm level income from the new crops? What is the time line required for farmers to see an increase in income? The CLIMA IPs talk about this in general terms, but do not provide data. It is recommended that the Mission apply USAID’s Feed the Future technical guidance on the qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis methodologies and apply experimental and quasi-experimental design to rigorously and objectively examine the impacts that the programs have on the targeted beneficiaries. 4. In decentralization or local government strengthening, a grant to FEDOMU could help provide continuity to the program among DR municipalities and ensure greater replicability and sustainability of CLIMA initiatives in the field of land use planning. The CLIMA project has created significant capacity in FEDOMU and DGODT to take this forward. A grant to FEDOMU would require involving other GODR entities, including DGODT, the IGN, the National Statistics Office (ONE), in supporting climate change adaptation inputs to PMOTs, ensuring municipal approval of the implementing policy (ordinances) and focusing their efforts on PMOT USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 39 implementation on engagement and negotiation with GODR ministries. Such a grant would leverage FEDOMU’s existing capacity (created by the CLIMA project) and allow for replication to additional municipalities at a much lower cost. 5. Selection of beneficiary municipalities is complex. While in principle municipalities with greater financial and human capacities might better absorb the technical interventions, the fact is that most local governments in the Dominican Republic have a tiny staff and very limited budget. Future USAID work with small municipal governments should have realistic expectations about municipal capacity. Referring to Recommendation 4 above, USAID should seek to work with groups of municipalities, supporting planning processes but not expecting that they will have a sustained technical capacity to carry on planning activities. Rather, program design should focus on building effective relationships between municipalities, FEDOMU, DGODT and other GODR agencies. 6. USAID/DR programming in WASH, environment, natural resources or biodiversity should incorporate support for municipal and/or regional planning within the POT framework established by Dominican Republic law, again ensuring continuity of USAID efforts and institutionalization of CLIMA results. Specifically, USAID work in any of these program areas within municipal jurisdictions should require completion of a PMOT supported and approved by the DGODT, if allowed as an activity under the respective guidelines. 7. IDDI has invested considerable resources in planning and community organizing and had raised expectations among partner municipalities and communities. The challenges reported by the IP in completing the infrastructure work (owing in part to difficulties in obtaining tax exemptions from the GODR) could lead to further delays in completing the work. If necessary, USAID should consider a no-cost extension to IDDI's CA to ensure completion of their projects in the selected communities. 8. USAID should support REDDOM and its associates in developing proposals to be included in the REDD+ project portfolio that is being developed by the MINARENA with WB and Green Climate Fund resources. The proposal development process has been slow and uneven and could benefit from further technical inputs. REDDOM’s experience with CLIMA can provide applicable experience and criteria for project design and development with MINARENA. 9. In future interventions in local governance in the Dominican Republic, USAID might want to consider specific attention to the needs of LGBTI communities, in addition to its gender focus and inclusion of at risk youth, disabled persons, and racial or ethnic minorities. The existing grant to Participación Ciudadana should incorporate fully this element in its support for civil society advocacy at the local level. 10. In future interventions, the USAID/DR Mission would do well to encourage climate information platforms that are more user-friendly to municipalities and other local actors to ensure their effective use. Also, products like the hydrological modeling should have more training and documentation for users to allow them to be utilized by other agencies and local governments. USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 40 As well, they could be disseminated to other organizations, including local governments outside of the CLIMA target municipalities. Similarly, to relevant GODR agencies, such as the Ministry of the Environment, and MEPyD. 11. Future project design should be realistic in setting expectations for communications and outreach strategies aimed at promoting citizen participation in planning. In urban and regional planning, the spaces for participation occur at different moments in the process and involve different kinds of actors. For example, the city-wide development strategies should be aimed at specialized organizations, including political parties, social movements, NGOs, business interests, academic centers, etc. whereas community/neighborhood level planning should use techniques to encourage broad consultations among inhabitants. In CLIMA these spaces were not always clearly differentiated. USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 41 ANNEX A. EVALUATION SCOPE OF WORK The U.S. Agency for International Development/Dominican Republic (USAID/DR) has engaged the Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) Platform contract to conduct an external whole-of-project performance evaluation of USAID/DR’s Urban Resilience to Climate Change (CLIMA) project. This project is being implemented under separate agreement mechanisms for each of five principal activities by locally-based implementing partners (IPs). CLIMA is a five-year, $22,611,402 project, authorized in April of 2014, with activities that began in fiscal year (FY) 2015 and will end in FY 2019. CLIMA's purpose is to reduce the climate risks faced by the most vulnerable Dominicans. CLIMA PROJECT BACKGROUND CLIMA implementation is through five separate CLIMA CAs: The Technological Institute of Santo Domingo (INTEC); the International City/County Management Association (ICMA); the Dominican Institute for Integral Development (IDDI); and REDDOM. ICMA is responsible for inter-institutional coordination among the CLIMA IPs and with other USAID programs. INTEC holds the CA for the Improved Climate Information Program. ICMA's CA includes the Urban Land Use and Climate Change Adaptation Planning Program. IDDI holds the CA for Climate Change Implementation and Adaptation Measures. Finally, REDDOM held the CA for the Climate Resiliency and Index Insurance for Small Farmers in the DR, which began in early USG FY 2013 prior to launching the CLIMA program and was recently concluded. There also were separate CAs for the Feed the Future Climate and Agriculture Program, and, most recently, a CA for the Climate Risk Reduction Program. CLIMA is being implemented in four municipalities in the Dominican Republic: Santo Domingo, Santiago, San Pedro de Macorís, and Las Terrenas, where it targets population sectors living in poverty in areas subject to flood disasters in critical watersheds, as well as Jarabacoa in the upper Yaque del Norte watershed, where REDDOM is implementing climate-smart agricultural practices. CLIMA focuses on empowering target municipalities and their citizens with adequate climate information and the necessary tools to anticipate and plan for appropriate policies and infrastructure to reduce climate-related risks. On the national level, the CLIMA project is coordinated with the Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources, the General Directorate of Land Use Planning and Development (DGODT) of the Ministry of Economy, Planning, and Development, and the National Office for Planning (ONAPLAN), all pertinent GODR agencies, as well as with the Dominican Federation of Municipalities (FEDOMU). EVALUATION QUESTIONS USAID identified eight key evaluation questions. These are listed below, along with suggested sub￾questions to clarify the intent of the key questions. The evaluation will focus on the key questions, both USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 42 in the design of instruments and analysis tools, and in the overall findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the evaluation report. 1. In what ways did the local government elections affect CLIMA implementation? Did staff elections disrupt the CLIMA activities? Was there significant staff turnover and changes in CLIMA counterparts? What were the impacts of these staff changes? What measures did CLIMA take to mitigate the effects? 2. Has there been integration and coordination among the different CLIMA IPs to use information (approaches, tools, data, lessons learned, institutional and personal contacts, etc.) into their respective activities? Have climate information, climate vulnerability assessments, and planning practices been effectively disseminated and utilized by the different IPs? What has been the role of the CLIMA IP meetings in this regard? 3. How have CLIMA’s partner local governments utilized the experience, knowledge, and resources access through the CityLinks exchange? Have the approaches, methodologies and solutions used by US counterparts been taken up by CLIMA local governments? 4. Have local governments changed how they access, analyze, and utilize climate data since joining CLIMA? What have been the results of the training and technical assistance on use of climate data? Have the different technologies developed by CLIMA been effective in developing local capacity? 5. Have the other institutional counterparts effectively engaged with CLIMA and taken up the project’s strategies and messages? Which institutional counterparts have been most engaged with CLIMA and supported CLIMA activities? 6. Do the adaptation activities supported by CLIMA support the beneficiary communities and also comply fully with the GCC adaptation guidelines? Are there other initiatives that might comply more fully? 7. Which farm-level practices adopted by CLIMA beneficiaries have been most effective in terms of resiliency to climate change and sustainable increases in productivity and incomes? Which have been best received by farmers? 8. Have CLIMA’s impacts been expanded to other local governments in the DR? Have the “peer-to-peer” relationships between beneficiary municipalities and other local governments been effective? Is there evidence that CLIMA innovations are being taken up by other local governments? APPROACH The approach will draw on utilization-focused methodologies to ensure that the information generated by the evaluation is useful to USAID. The evaluation team will apply a gender perspective to the entire USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 43 evaluation process that is consistent with USAID’s evaluation policy and disaggregate data by gender. It will employ a mixed-methods approach including document review, key informant interviews (KIIs), focus group discussions (FGDs), and field observation. ● Document Review. During the initial phase of the evaluation, the team will thoroughly review the relevant background documents related to CLIMA and its implementing environment, as well as USAID guidance on whole-of-project evaluation procedures and requirements. ● Quantitative Data. The CLIMA IPs have collected extensive data, most, but not all, of which is recorded in quarterly progress and financial reports. The evaluation team will review data in IPs’ offices, and discuss the data with these partners. Most of the data that will be analyzed will be taken from their reports, with updates and clarifications from their performance indicator data system managers. ● Key Informant Interviews. The evaluation team proposes to conduct up to 45 KIIs with IP chiefs of parties and staffs, government officials, municipal authorities, local community members, locally-based NGOs, other donor representatives, and others, to be determined in coordination with USAID/DR and the MEL Platform chief of party. We will prepare KII summaries as soon as possible after the interview and subsequently analyze these data in their context in an objective, unbiased manner. ● Focus Group Discussions will be conducted with a random selection of municipal authorities and staffs, and with CLIMA beneficiaries in their local communities. A note taker will be present during the FGDs. The evaluation team members will review FGD notes collectively to ensure accuracy and consistency and to avoid biased interpretations. ● Field Work. The evaluation team will conduct field research in each of the four target municipalities: Ward 3 of the National District in Santo Domingo, Santiago, San Pedro de Macorís, and Las Terrenas. We also will conduct field research with farmer beneficiaries in Jarabacoa. The team will discreetly observe CLIMA implementation activities in the field and note the natural environment conditions as well as social and psychological responses. TEAM COMPOSITION The evaluation team will be composed of three individuals, who will work collectively as a horizontal team. The team members will be: ● Team Leader. Thomas Moore, a US anthropologist with extensive USAID experience in natural resource management, governance, and project evaluation. He will be responsible for coordinating the activities of the evaluation team; he has the authority to make programmatic decisions regarding the evaluation, but it is expected that most of the decisions taken by the evaluation team will be collective and inclusive, incorporating USAID and MEL Platform chief of party recommendations. He will serve as the main point of contact between USAID and the MEL Platform regarding this evaluation. The Team Leader will draft the final evaluation design, USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 44 oversee and support the development of evaluation instruments, participate in data collection and analysis, integrate the findings of different team members, and coordinate preparation of the final report. ● Evaluation Specialist. The MEL Platform chief of party, William Cartier has extensive USAID evaluation experience, and has expertise in municipal government, capacity development, and strategic planning. He will complement the role of the Team Leader. He will provide technical support to orient the evaluation methodology, help conceptualize the evaluation instruments, sampling strategy, and data analysis, as an active team member, who will offer technical recommendations to orient the evaluation. He will also be engaged with USAID and the Team Leader throughout the evaluation to ensure adherence to USAID and MEL Platform quality standards and procedures and timely completion of the work. ● Logistics Coordinator. This person will be a member of the MEL Platform team. S/he will work with the local partners to plan travel, schedule data collection, interviews, and assessment activities as needed, respective. S/he will support the other evaluation team members in all logistical and administrative aspects of the evaluation. METHODOLOGY To effectively respond to USAID's questions, the evaluation team will review the array of documents produced since CLIMA was initially conceived, the CLIMA performance management system (PMS), and both quantitative and qualitative data to be obtained from KIIs, FGDs, and field observations, as described below. Document Review During the initial phase of the evaluation and prior to the arrival of the expatriate team members in the DR, the team will have conducted a thorough review of background documents related to CLIMA and its implementing environment. These documents will have provided the team with a deeper understanding of the activity’s operations to date. They will also allow the team to finalize the evaluation design and data collection tools and will inform and orient the overall activity assessment process, including developing conclusions and recommendations for future programming. Additional documents not made available to the evaluation team prior to the initiation of the in-country evaluation activities will be reviewed after arrival of the expatriate team members in the DR. These documents will include, but not be limited to, the following: 1. USG Country Development Cooperation Strategy for the Dominican Republic (CDCS) 2. USAID Climate Change policy documents 3. USAID MEL policies and guidance 4. Other relevant USAID policy documents 5. Other USAID project evaluation reports 6. CLIMA Project Appraisal Document (PAD) 7. CLIMA cooperative agreements and program modifications USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 45 8. CLIMA activity baseline reports and data 9. CLIMA MEL plans and PMPs 10. CLIMA IP Annual Work Plans 11. CLIMA activity quarterly progress and financial reports 12. CLIMA Special studies 13. Success stores and other relevant communication materials developed for USAID/DR 14. Studies conducted in the DR by other organizations on climate change adaptation issues 15. CLIMA activity performance indicator data 16. Site listings and contact matrices 17. Staff contact lists 18. Lists of CLIMA partners and descriptions of their roles and functions 19. USAID/DR Fact Sheets describing its portfolio interventions 20. Relevant GODR policy and strategy documents and technical reports 21. Relevant reports from other donor agencies on climate change adaptation in the DR Review of Quantitative Data During the implementation process, the IPs have collected a wealth of data and produced reports and special studies related to document their progress and orient their planning. Moreover, USAID has provided the IPs with a recommended data quality assessment (DQA) checklist and recommended procedures for standardizing data input into their performance indicator data systems (PIDS) and consolidating their MEL reports. These data are robust and representative of CLIMA's outcomes to the extent that can be determined prior to conducting the evaluation in the field. Therefore, the evaluation team will examine existing CLIMA quantitative monitoring and evaluation data to determine the level of progress made by the activity over the implementation period, map efforts to develop climate change resilience, and report on the relationships among the different CLIMA IP interventions and performance outcomes. The data to be examined will include, as available: 1. IP Performance Monitoring Plans (PMP) 2. CLIMA baseline surveys and reported quantitative data 3. CLIMA PMP updates in quarterly progress reports 4. Complementary PMP data provided by the MEL staff of each of the IPs 5. Supplementary monitoring data relevant to the CLIMA project Key Informant Interviews (KII) The evaluation team proposes to conduct up to 45 KIIs with the USAID/DR leadership, the Climate Change Office team, the IP teams, key GODR officials interacting with CLIMA IPs, FEDOMU representatives, local and international NGOs and donors (UNDP, World Bank, BID, GIZ and AECI), the IP partner organizations, municipal authorities and staff in the target municipalities, farmers and local community members in Jarabacoa, and a random sampling of local community beneficiary communications. Data collection protocols that address the evaluation questions will guide KIIs, which will be semi-structured, with probe questions to pursue information that responds to the key USAID USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 46 questions. The KIIs will be sufficiently flexible to allow for a natural flow of the conversation, as the evaluation team identifies points of particular interest to address the research questions. The evaluation team will conduct KIIs in Santo Domingo, in all four target municipalities, and in the farming area of Jarabacoa. Since the DR is a small country, logistics should not be difficult to manage. These interviews will cover as broad a sample as time and other conditions allow, to ensure that as many perspectives as possible are recorded and avoid sample bias. Notes will be taken discretely and a summary report of each KII prepared as soon afterwards as is logistically possible. The KIIs will not be taped in order to avoid intimidation of the respondents who might be less than forthcoming if they know that the conversation is being taped. A tentative list of proposed key informants is included as below. In cases where several respondents of the same type are available in the same location and agree to meet, a group KII or FGD format may be used to maximize the number of perspectives gathered during the limited data-gathering period. The evaluation team assumes that not all the target KIIs will be available, and that time constraints will limit the number that can possibly be conducted. Based on documents and guidance from USAID and the IPs, the evaluation team will finalize the list of key informants, with a view of obtaining information from the broadest and most inclusive cross-section of CLIMA stakeholders possible within the time limitations. KIIs with stakeholders located outside the DR (in the United States or third countries) will be conducted by telephone or Skype. Proposed KIIs Institution Name Position Note USAID/DR Arthur Brown Mission Director USAID/DR Ron Savage CCO Chief USAID/DR Erick Conde DO2 COR USAID/DR Monserrat Acosta ex-COR CLIMA now at TNC USAID/DR Program Office rep USAID/DR FMO rep ICMA Isabelle Bully-Omicitin Director, LAC Programs US ICMA Indhira De Jesús CLIMA CoP IDDI Evaydee Pérez CLIMA Adapt COP IDDI Paola Feliz CLIMA Adapt Tech Mgr. IDDI Jairo Martínez Las Terrenas Coordinator Las Terrenas INTEC Rosaura Pimentel CLIMA Info CoP INTEC Solhanlle Bonilla CLIMA Info Tech Manager INTEC Víctor Gómez Valenzuela Vice-Rector, Research, Alliances REDDOM Jesús de los Santos CRR, C&A CoP REDDOM Pilar Emilio Ramírez Executive Director REDDOM Jeffrey Pérez M&E Specialist Participación Ciudana Carlos Pimentel DO1 project CoP USFS responsible person for CLIMA US USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 47 CDES Reynaldo Peguero Director ICF International Joanne Potter Principal, Impacts, CC Washington ICF International Molly Hellmuth Manager Plan Yaque Humberto Checo Executive Director Plan Yaque Saúl Abreu Plan Yaque Walkiria Esteves Water funds AGROFORSA Margarita Gil Legal PRONATURA Máximo Herrera Guakia Ambiente Michela Izzo Executive Director CCNY Jorge González Professor, Mechanical Eng. New York Fundación Plenitud Laura Rathe Research Coordinator Santo Domingo POT Marcos Gómez Executive Director ENMARN Martha Fernández Executive Director CORAASAN Silvio Durán Executive Director Santiago CORAASAN Sub-Director Santiago INAPA Elvira Segura Environment, Risk Management INDHRI Olga Fernándes Executive Director Munic. Las Terrenas Alex García George Mayor Las Terrenas Munic. San Pedro de Macorís Tony Echavarría Mayor Munic. Santiago Abel Martínez Durán Mayor Ward 3, National District Council Member Munic Jarabacoa José Antonio Abreu Mayor Universidad ISA Benito Ferreiras Rector Santiago FEDOMU Víctor D'Aza Executive Director AECID Adoración León Moruno Program Officer UNDP María Eugenia Morales Program Officer Interviews with USAID personnel will focus upon USAID's interests and the results desired from the evaluation. They will also address the Mission's own internal assessment of the successes and problems with the CLIMA project. In this regard, their perspectives will be taken into account, but the evaluation will provide a balanced assessment of the CLIMA project drawing form all of the stakeholders' criteria. ● Interviews with IP leadership and staff will address their specific activities, thoughts on successes, problems, and opportunities for the future. FGDs and Field observation will complement these KIIs. ● Interviews with IPs working with municipalities, municipal authorities and staff will focus on CLIMA implementation in their municipalities. They will also be complemented by interviews with beneficiary community members, FGDs, and Field Observation. USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 48 ● Interviews with REDDOM, Plan Yaque and selected farmers in the Jarabacoa area will assess the issues around climate-smart agriculture, what has worked, what has not, and what changes they consider desirable. The evaluation team will make a conscientious effort to ensure that the KIIs reflect the universe of the subject stakeholders equitably, avoiding bias toward any particular gender, racial or socio-economic group, etc., and will look at how persons with disability, LGBT people, and others traditionally marginalized in the society are impacted in the CLIMA project. USAID and IP recommendations will help orient KII scheduling, but some KIIs will be selected among stakeholders not prioritized by them to ensure a balanced KII universe that includes stakeholders not favored by CLIMA interventions. The evaluation final report will include an Annex that lists the persons interviewed in the KIIs and their institutional affiliations. The report will not identify respondents in the context of the interpretations provided by them without their permission, in the interest of protecting their anonymity. Focus Group Discussions The evaluation team will conduct four FGDs with target municipality officials and key staff, two with randomly selected beneficiary community members, and one with beneficiary farmers in the Jarabacoa area. The MEL Platform chief of party and staff will coordinate pre-mobilization to make sure participants will be available and the discussions scheduled at appropriate times. When recruiting FGD participants, the evaluation team will clarify that participants will receive no financial compensation or transportation reimbursement. Moreover, the selection will reflect a random sample that avoids pre￾selection by the IPs or other CLIMA staff of favorites they know will respond as they like. The evaluation team will use FGDs to determine municipal and local community ownership of and satisfaction with CLIMA interventions, as well as to promote idea sharing and collaborative group assessments. While the exact parties for FGDs will be finalized in conjunction with the CLIMA IPs, the likely FGDs will include the following: Targeted FGDs by Category Type of Informant Total #of FGDs targeted Municipal authorities and staffs in each target municipality 4 Randomly selected beneficiary community citizens in the target municipality areas 2 Randomly selected farmers in the Jarabacoa site 1 Subtotal 7 The evaluation team will conduct one FGD in meetings with municipal authorities and staffs in each of the target municipalities, two in randomly selected beneficiary neighborhoods or other suitable venues in the field, and one among randomly selected farmers in Jarabacoa. Team members with strong facilitation skills will conduct the FGDs of approximately 1 hour each. A modified and abbreviated field force analysis will be applied to determine perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of CLIMA USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 49 project interventions, as well as of the opportunities offered through them and the threats posed to their success. Team members will use FGD guides prepared ahead of time with tailored questions for each group that will provide structure but also allow flexibility to pursue areas of particular interest. When appropriate, these guides will incorporate mapping exercises or activities to provoke group collaboration in thinking through the questions and assessing answers to them. In each session one team member will take notes discretely. Fieldwork The evaluation team will begin data collection in Santo Domingo on November 29, 2017, with interviews IPs, municipal officials, farmers, other donors, etc. The team will conduct data collection in the selected CLIMA program sites from December 5-16, 2017. The Team Leader and the MEL Platform chief of party will coordinate evaluation interventions with CLIMA IP staff but work independently of them. The evaluation shall also include among interviewees CLIMA project and municipal staff not prioritized by the IPs, as well as randomly selected farmers in the upper Yaque watershed. ILLUSTRATIVE FIELD WORK SCHEDULE Day Activity Location Sunday November 26 Team Leader arrives in Santo Domingo Monday November 27 Team meeting Schedule adjustments, planning In-brief with USAID MEL Platform office USAID Tuesday November 28 In-briefs with ICMA, INTEC, IDDI, REDDOM KIIs with IPs, quantitative data collection Data analysis and transcription Their offices MEL Platform office Wednesday November 29 Continued KIIs with IPs, data collection, and discussion, Data analysis and fieldwork planning Their offices MEL Platform office Thursday November 30 Data review with IPs in Santo Domingo Data analysis and transcription Their offices MEL Platform office Friday December 1 Site Visit to Santiago KIIs and/or FGD with municipal authorities, staff Random interviews or FGD with beneficiary populations Ayuntamiento, other field sites, communities Saturday December 2 Site visit to Jarabacoa farm sites and sub-IP contractors Return to Santo Domingo Data review and analysis field sites hotel Sunday December 3 REST AND REFLECTION Monday December 4 Evaluation team meeting KII and field visit planning Further KIIs in Santo Domingo MEL Platform office their offices Tuesday December 5 KIIs with GODR entities, other donor organizations Data review and analysis Their offices MEL Platform office USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 50 Wednesday December 6 KIIs with GODR entities, other donor organizations Data analysis and transcription Their offices MEL Platform office Thursday December 7 Follow-on meetings with CLIMA IPs to update information Further KIIs in Santo Domingo Their offices Friday December 8 Site Visit to San Pedro de Macoris KIIs and/or FGD with municipal authorities, staff Random interviews or FGD with beneficiary populations KIIs with IP partners and associates Ayuntamiento Field sites Saturday December 9 Site visits and FGDs Return to Santo Domingo Data transcription, analysis Field sites Hotel Sunday December 10 REST AND REFLECTION Monday December 11 Team meeting in Santo Domingo Schedule adjustments, site visit planning KIIs with GODR officials MEL Platform office Their offices Tuesday December 12 Site visits in Ward 3, National District KIIs with municipal authorities, other stakeholders Data transcription and analysis Site locations Their offices MEL Platform office Wednesday December 13 KIIs with previously unavailable respondents, other donors, national institutions Data analysis and transcription Their offices MEL Platform office Thursday December 14 Follow-on KIIs with IP partners, municipalities, GODR officials Data analysis and transcription Their offices MEL Platform office Friday December 15 Site visit to Las Terrenas KIIs and/or FGDs with municipal authorities, beneficiary communities, other stakeholders Ayuntamiento, Other field sites, Local communities Saturday December 16 Return to Santo Domingo Analysis/internal evaluation team meetings, Hotel Sunday December 17 REST AND REFLECTION Monday December 18 Evaluation team meeting USAID presentation preparation MEL Platform office Hotel Tuesday December 19 USAID de-brief presentation, feedback IP de-brief presentation, feedback USAID MEL Platform office Wednesday December 20 Team leaders departs DEBRIEF AND REPORTING The team will present initial findings in a Power Point presentation during a debrief at USAID/DR, once the data collection has been completed, tentatively Tuesday, December 19. The team will also present findings collectively to the project IPs (as appropriate and approved by USAID) that same day. Those USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 51 debriefs will include a discussion of achievements and activities, with preliminary discussion of recommendations for emphasis on most effective approaches and activities during the final years of implementation. Feedback will be requested and different perspectives respected. The evaluation team will submit the draft evaluation report to USAID/DR, incorporating feedback provided during the debrief, on Wednesday, January 3, 2018. The report will answer all of the evaluation questions and make clear how each was answered. We request that USAID provide comments on the draft report by Wednesday, January 10, 2018. The evaluation team will then revise the draft report to fully reflect USAID comments and suggestions, submitting the final draft by Friday, January 12, 2018. Panagora Group will perform final internal quality control to ensure a high￾quality product. The final report will be reviewed by the Team Leader, MEL Platform CoP and Panagora home office to ensure that it meets the criteria laid out in ADS 200 and ensure the evaluation report quality. The final version of the evaluation report will then be submitted to USAID on Tuesday, January 16, 2018. USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 52 ANNEX B. WRITTEN RESOURCES REVIEWED Abbot, Riley 2015 Trip Report, Information Needs Assessment for Climate Information, September 10-18, 2015. INTEC-FHI 360. Acosta Morel, Montserrat n. d. USAID DR Ciudades Líderes en Iniciativas y Metas de Adaptación (CLIMA). Power Point presentation. Santo Domingo: USAID/DR. 2017 Approval Memo. Plan de Evaluación y Monitoreo de INTEC, May 24, 2017. USAID/DR. Amex International; DevTech Systems, Inc. 2011 USAID/Dominican Republic Tri-Project Performance Evaluation Integrated Report, September 9, 2011. USAID/DR. Anonymous n. d. Cuestionario Base a Productores Agrícolas de la República Dominicana. Ayuntamiento de Jarabacoa 2011 Plan de Ordenamiento Territorial del Área Urbana y Periurbana de Jarabacoa. 2013 Plan Municipal de Desarrollo Jarabacoa 2013-2016. Ayuntamiento de San Pedro de Macorís 2017 Plan Municipal de Ordenamiento Territorial San Pedro de Macorís 2016-2028. Bouvier, Ioanna 2017 Mission Out-brief, May 19, 2017, Geospatial Analytics Support to USAID/Dominican Republic. USAID/DR. Caribbean Risk Managers, Ltd.; GC Micro Risk Solutions; REDDOM 2013 Market Research Assessment. May 23, 2013. Chirouze, Manuel 2015 USAID - Climate Resilience and Index Insurance for Smallholder Farmers in the Dominican Republic. Product Redesign. April 14, 2015. Conde, Erick; Clausen, Rob 2016a Field Trip Agenda to Monitor [CRII] Program Implementation in Monte Cristi, Santiago Rodríguez, Dajabon, and Valverde Provinces, May 24-25, 2016. USAID/DR. 2016b Site Visit Check List and Report to Las Caobas, Estancia Vieja, at Santiago Rodríguez; and Betsy Walterio, Batey Maguaca, Batey Madre y Batey Isabela, at Montecristi, May 24-25, 2016. USAID/DR. 2016c Trip Report, Food Security and Sanitation, NW Region; Climate Resiliency and Index Insurance for Small Farmers in DR (CRII), May 24-25, 2016. USAID/DR. 2017a Field Visit, Climate Adaptation Measures, Climate Risk Reduction Program, June 28-29, 2017, USAID/DR. 2017b Site Visit Checklist and Report to Buena Vista, Villa Verde, Calle 10, Calle 7, and Barrio Los Santos at Santiago, March 23 and June 29, 2017. USAID/DR. Conde, Erick; Soto, Miguelina 2016a Field Trip Agenda, Santiago and Las Terrenas, November 30-December 1, 2016, USAID/DR 2016b Field Visit to Climate Risk Reduction Sites at Santiago and Las Terrenas, November 30- December 1, 2016, USAID/DR. 2016c Site Visit Checklist and Report, to Santiago and Las Terrenas, November 30-December 1, 2016. USAID/DR. 2016d Trip Report. Climate Risk Reduction Program, Santiago and Las Terrenas, November USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 53 30-December 1, 2016, USAID/DR. 2017 Site Visit Checklist and Report, to Jarabacoa, September 28, 2017, USAID/DR. Dorwood, Peter; Clarkson, Graham; Stern, Roger; et al. 2015 Participatory Integrated Climate Services for Agriculture: A Step-by-Step Guide to Using PICSA with Farmer. Walker Institute, University of Reading, October 2015. ENDA Dominicana; ProNatura; IDDI 2015a Memorandum de Entendimiento Relativo al Proyecto Corredor Biológico Cordillera￾Los Haitises. 2015b Proyecto Corredor Biológico Cordillera Central-Los Haitises. Propuesta al Green Climate Fund. FEDOMU 2016 Desafíos de la Gestión Municipal 2016-2010. 2017 Avance de FEDOMU 2017. Gandini, Gustavo n. d. Utilización de la Información Meteorológica o Climática dentro de los Sistemas de Producción Orgánica de Banano en la Asociación de Bananos Ecológicos de la Línea Noroeste, Banalino. González Cruz, Jorge E. 2016 Hydro-Climate and Extreme Events for the Caribbean and Dominican Republic. INTEC￾CCNY-NOAA CREST. February 10, 2016. González Cruz, Jorge E.; Ángeles Malaspina, Moisés 2015 Progress Report by NOAA CREST Center, City College of New York, Period July￾September 2015. INTEC-CCNY. 2016 Progress Report Develop Hydro-Climatic Information at Multiple Time Scales. City College of New York-NOAA CREST. González Cruz, Jorge E.; McDonald, Kyle; Ángeles Malaspina, Moisés 2016 Climate Change Informatics in Dominican Republic: Preliminary Analysis of Atmospheric and Hydrological Variables. INTEC-CCNY-NOAA CREST. Power Point. Hasbun, Carlos; Pérez, Odalis; Ramírez, Pilar; Nin, Luis 2014 Site Visit Checklist and Report, El Corozo community, Peralvillo, Monte Plata, Sustainable Cacao Project. October 3, 2014. USAID/DR, REDDOM. SCF Report 003. Hasbun, Carlos; Pérez, Odalis; Acosta, Monserrat 2015 Site Visit Checklist and Report, San Pedro de Macorís. Visit January 23, 2015. USAID/DR. ICMA 2015a Documento Base para la Evaluación Territorial de Vulnerabilidad y Adaptación del Municipio de Las Terrenas, August 2015. 2015b Planning for Climate Adaptation Program, Quarterly Report 1 (FY2015, Q2), January￾March 2015. 2015c Planning for Climate Adaptation Program, Quarterly Report 2 (FY2015, Q3), April-June 2015. 2015d Planning for Climate Adaptation Program, Third Quarterly Report (FY2015, Q4), July￾September 2015. 2016a Minutas, Reunión de Planificación y Coordinación, CLIMA, 16 de marzo de 2016. USAID/DR. 2016b Minutas, Reunión de Planificación y Coordinación, CLIMA, 20 de abril de 2016. USAID/DR. 2016c Planning for Climate Adaptation Program, Quarterly Report, October-December 2015 FY2016, Q1. USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 54 2016d Planning for Climate Adaptation Program, Quarterly Report, January-March 2016 (FY2016, Q2) 2016e Planning for Climate Adaptation Program, Quarterly Report, April-June 2016. (FY2016, Q3). 2016f Planning for Climate Adaptation Program, Quarterly Report, July-September 2016 (FY2016, Q4). 2017a Conteo Quarterly (Actividades), October-December 2017. 2017b Planning for Climate Adaptation Program, Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (Revised, January 10, 2017. USAID/DR. 2017c Planning for Climate Adaptation Program, Quarterly Report, October-December 2016 (FY2017, Q1). Revised 2/20/2017. 2017d Planning for Climate Adaptation Program, Quarterly Report, January-March 2017 (FY2017, Q2). 2017e Planning for Climate Adaptation Program, Quarterly Report, April-June 2017 (FY2017, Q3). 2017f Planning for Adaptation Program. Quarterly Report, July-September 2017 (FY2017, Q4). ICMA- FEDOMU-CDES 2016 Evaluación de la vulnerabilidad climática del Municipio Santiago para el Plan de Ordenamiento Territorial Municipal, Documento de Trabajo. April 2016. ICMA-ICF-FEDOMU-ADN 2016 Evaluación de la vulnerabilidad climática del Distrito Nacional para el Plan de Ordenamiento Territorial Municipal, Documento de Trabajo, April 2016. ICMA-ICF-FEDOMU-ASPM 2016 Evaluación de la vulnerabilidad climática del Municipio San Pedro de Macorís para el Plan de Ordenamiento Territorial Municipal, Documento de Trabajo, April 2016. ICMA-ICF-FEDOMU-ALT 2016 Evaluación de la vulnerabilidad climática del Municipio Las Terrenas para el Plan de Ordenamiento Territorial Municipal, Documento de Trabajo, May 2016. IDDI 2014a Diagnóstico de Infraestructuras de Agua y Saneamiento en Barrios de la Zona Norte del Distrito Nacional, Orientado a la Definición de Políticas Territoriales de Reducción de la Vulnerabilidad Frente al Cambio Climático e Incremento de la Resiliencia. ADN, CAASD, IDDI. 2014b Incorporando la Adaptación al Cambio Climático y la Resiliencia en la Agenda de las Municipalidades. Guía para los Gobiernos Locales. ADN, IDDI 2015 Climate Adaptation Measures Program, Proposed Work Plan, 2015-2016. 2016a Climate Adaptation Measures Program, Quarterly Report FY 2016, Q1 (October￾December 2015). 2016b Climate Adaptation Measures Program, Quarterly Report FY 2016, Q2 (January￾March 2016). 2016c Climate Adaptation Measures Program, Quarterly Report FY 2016, Q3 (April-June 2016). 2016d Climate Adaptation Measures Program, Quarterly Report FY 2016, Q4 (July-September 2016). 2017a Climate Adaptation Measures Program, Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (ME&L) Plan. June 21, 2017. USAID/DR. 2017b Climate Adaptation Measures Program, Quarterly Report FY 2017, Q1 (October￾December 2016). 2017c Climate Adaptation Measures Program, Quarterly Report FY 2017, Q2 (January-March 2017). USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 55 2017d Climate Adaptation Measures Program, Quarterly Report FY 2017, Q3 (April-June 2017). 2017e Climate Adaptation Measures Program, Quarterly Report FY2017, Q4 (July-September 2017. INTEC 2015a Improved Climate Information Program, Quarterly Report, FY2015, Q2, March 2015. 2015b Improved Climate Information Program, Trimestral Report, FY2015, Q3, April-June 2015. 2015c Informe Final. Diplomado en Vulnerabilidad y Adaptación al Cambio Climático. September 2015. 2015d Improved Climate Information Program, Quarterly Report, FY2015, Q4, July-September 2015. 2016a Climate Information Needs in the Municipalities and Prioritized Sectors Report. 2016b Design and Construction of the Climate Change and Resilience Observatory. 2016c Improved Climate Information Program, Quarterly Report, FY2016, Q1, October￾December 2015. 2016d Improved Climate Information Program, Quarterly Report, January-March 2016 (FY2016, Q2). 2016e Improved Climate Information Program, Quarterly Report, April-June 2016 (FY2016, Q3). 2016f Improved Climate Information Program, Quarterly Report, July-September 2016 (FY2016, Q4). 2016g Report with the Climate Information in the Prioritized Sectors. 2017a Entrenamientos bajo el Programa de Información Climática durante el Períod0 2015- 2017. 2017b Improved Climate Information Program, Monitoring and Evaluation Plan. May 2017. USAID/DR. 2017c Improved Climate Information Program, Quarterly Report, October-December 2016 (FY2017, Q1). 2017d Improved Climate Information Program, Quarterly Report, January-March 2017 (FY2017, Q2). 2017e Improved Climate Information Program, Quarterly Report, April-June 2017 (FY2017, Q3). 2017f Improved Climate Information Program, Quarterly Report, July-September 2017 (FY2017, Q4). n. d. Equipo Programa de Información Climática. INTEC, FUNDACIÓN PLENITUD 2016 Marco Conceptual del Observatorio. IRI, Earth Institute, Columbia University 2012 Adaptation and Index Insurance, Introduction. Release 2.0.0, November 30, 2012. 2014 USAID DR CRII Dry-Run Results Report. Release 2.0.0, February 20, 2014. Izzo, Michela; Rathe, Laura; Arías Rodríguez, David 2013 Informe Final Puntos Críticos para la Vulnerabilidad a la Variabilidad y Cambio Climático en la República Dominicana y su Adaptación al Mismo. USAID, TNC, IDDI. Kernan, Bruce; Rivas, Carlos; Arellano-López, Sonia 2012 Evaluation of the USAID/Dominican Republic Biodiversity Portfolio, Final Evaluation Report, December 2012. USAID/DR. MEPyD-DGODT 2016 Guía Metodológica para la Formulación del Plan Municipal de Ordenamiento Territorial. Mesa, Ambar; González Cruz, Jorge E.; Ángeles Malaspina, Moisés USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 56 2017 Análisis de Inundación para Zonas Vulnerables de Santo Domingo. INTEC-CCNY￾NOAA CREST. Mesa de Adaptación del Sector Turismo 2013 Declaración. 3 de Julio de 2013. Meyreles, Lourdes; Ruiz, Víctor 2012 Resiliencia - Strengthening Capacities for Disaster Management in Vulnerable Communities in Azua Province, Dominican Republic, External Final Evaluation Report, Santo Domingo: USAID/OFDA, Plan. Panocchia, Karen; Clausen, Rob; Conde, Erick 2016a Site Visit Checklist and Report, Haiti North-East, and Dominican Republic, North-West, October 24-28, 2016, USAID/DR. 2016b Trip Report, Field Visit to Haiti North-East, and Dominican Republic, North-West, October 24-28, 2016. Dated November 28, 2016. USAID/DR. Red Comunitaria Jarabacoa 2013 Protocolo de Construcción de una Red Comunitaria para el Cambio Climático en el Municipio de Jarabacoa. REDDOM 2013 Initial Assessment for Climate and Weather Risk Report, July 2013. 2014a CRII Quarterly Financial and Progress Report, 2nd Quarter, FY 2014, January-March 2015. 2014b CRII Quarterly Financial and Progress Report, 3rd Quarter, FY 2015, April-June, 2015. 2015a CRII Annual Report, FY 2015 (October 2014-September 2015). 2015b Feed the Future Dominican Republic Climate and Agriculture Program. Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, October 27, 2015. USAID/DR. 2016a Climate Risk Reduction Program, Quarterly Financial and Progress Report, August 26- September 30, 2016 (FY2016, Q4). 2016b CRII Annual Report, FY2016 (October 2015-September 2016). 2016c CRII Quarterly Financial and Progress Report, 1st Quarter, FY 2016, October￾December 2015. 2016d CRII Quarterly Financial and Progress Report, 2nd Quarter, FY 2016, January-March 2016. 2016e CRII Quarterly Financial and Progress Report, 3rd Quarter, FY 2016, April-June 2016. 2016f CRII Quarterly Financial and Progress Report, 4th Quarter, FY 2016, July-September 2016. 2016g Feed the Future Dominican Republic Climate and Agriculture Program. Quarterly Financial and Progress Report, FY2016, Quarter 1 (September-December 2015). USAID/DR. 2016h Feed the Future Dominican Republic Climate and Agriculture Program. Quarterly Financial and Progress Report, FY2016, Quarter 2 (January-March 2016). USAID/DR. 2016i Feed the Future Dominican Republic Climate and Agriculture Program. Quarterly Financial and Progress Report, FY2016, Quarter 3 (April-June 2016). USAID/DR. 2016j Feed the Future Dominican Republic Climate and Agriculture Program. Quarterly Financial and Progress Report, FY2016, Quarter 4 (July-September 2016). USAID/DR. 2016k Request for No-Cost Extension, CRII, November 13, 2016-June 12, 2017. 2017a Annual Financial and Progress Report, CRR, FY2017 (October 1, 2016-September 30, 2017). 2017b Climate Risk Reduction Program, Quarterly Financial and Progress Report, October 1- December 31, 2016 (FY2017, Q1). 2017c Climate Risk Reduction Program, Quarterly Financial and Progress Report, October 1- December 31, 2016 (FY2017, Q1). USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 57 2017d Climate Risk Reduction Program, Quarterly Financial and Progress Report, January 1- March 31, 2017 (FY2017, Q2). 2017e Climate Risk Reduction Program, Quarterly Financial and Progress Report, April 1-June 30, 2017 (FY2017, Q3). 2017f Climate Risk Reduction Program, Quarterly Financial and Progress Report, July 1- September 30, 2017 (FY2017, Q4). 2017g CRII Quarterly Financial and Progress Report, 4th Quarter, FY 2016, September￾December 2016. 2017h CRII Quarterly Financial and Progress Report, 1st Quarter, FY 2017, October￾September 2016. 2017i Dominican Republic USAID Climate Risk Reduction Program. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan. January 31, 2017. USAID/DR. 2017j Feed the Future Dominican Republic Climate and Agriculture Program. Quarterly Financial and Progress Report, FY2017, Quarter 1 (October-December 2017). USAID/DR. 2017k Feed the Future Dominican Republic Climate and Agriculture Program, Quarterly Financial and Progress Report, FY2017, Quarter 2 (January-March 2017). USAID/DR. 2017l Feed the Future Dominican Republic Climate and Agriculture Program, Quarterly Financial and Progress Report, FY2017, Quarter 3 (April-June 2017). USAID/DR 2017m Feed the Future Dominican Republic Climate and Agriculture Program. Quarterly Financial and Progress Report, FY2017, Quarter 4 (September-December 2017). USAID/DR REDDOM et al. n. d.a The Payout. Drought Insurance Index. Mandatory Brochure. n. d.b Working Out Your Coverage. Drought Insurance Indes. Voluntary Brochure. Savage, Ron 2016a Climate Change Office Program Overview. USAID/Dominican Republic. Word document. September 2, 2016. Santo Domingo: USAID/DR. 2016b Climate Change Office Program Portfolio. USAID/Dominican Republic. Power Point Presentation, September 2016. Santo Domingo/USAID/DR. Savage, Ron; Acosta, Monserrat; Mancebo, Carmen 2016a Field Trip Brief, Visit to Santiago, NGO Santiago Solidario, April 7, 2016, USAID/DR. 2016b Visit to Santiago, NGO Santiago Solidario, April 7, 2016, USAID/DR. Savage, Ron; Clausen, Robert; Conde, Erick 2016a Field Visit to Sustainable Cacao Farming Program (SCF), June 23, 2016, USAID/DR. 2016b Site Visit Checklist and Report, to Corozo community, Peralvilla Municipality, Monte Plata Province, Cloning Site, Nursery, and Mr. Mariano Santos Farm, June 23, 2016, USAID/DR. 2016c Trip Report, Sustainable Cacao Farming (SCF) in the Dominican Republic Program, June 23, 2016, USAID/DR. Savage, Ron; Conde, Erick 2016a Climate Change Office Visits CRII and NW Program Sites, September 28-29, 2016, USAID/DR. 2016b Field Trip Agenda to Monitor Activities on the Following Programs: CRII, WASH, Farmer to Farmer Banalino Banana Projects; Fishing Activities; Mangrove Management; and National Park in Monte Cristi, September 28-29, 2016. USAID/DR. 2016c Site Visit Checklist and Report, to Rodríguez and Jorge farm, Batey Walterio, Conani, and Benlino, September 28-29, 2016, USAID/DR. Savage, Ron; Conde, Erick; Pannocchia, Karen; Thomas, Brittany USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 58 2017a Site Visit Checklist and Report, Supported Farms in Arenoso, Jumunuco, and Manabao, July 13 and 27, 2017. USAID/DR. 2017b Trip Report, Feed the Future Dominican Republic and Agriculture Program, July 13 and 27, 2017, USAID/DR. Savage, Ron; Conde, Erick; Soto, Miguelina; 2016a Agenda for CCO Site Visit to Six CLIMA Activities (FtF Climate and Agriculture; CRII; Planning for Climate Adaptation; Climate Adaptation Measures; Climate Risk Reduction 2; new RFA; FtF work), February 9-11, 2016. USAID/DR. 2016b Agenda for Field Trip to monitor Program implementation at farmer plots level and on￾the-Ground Project Activities, Hato Viejo and Coffee Cluster, Jarabacoa, August 24-25, 2016. USAID/DR. 2016c Field Visit to Climate-Smart Agriculture - Feed the Future Project Site, August 24-25, 2016. USAID/DR. 2016d Site Visit and Check List, La Ciénaga, Los Dajaos, Santiago, and Las Terrenas. February 9-11, 2016. USAID/DR. 2016e Site Visit and Check List, Hato Viejo and Coffee Cluster, Jarabacoa, August 24-25, 2016. USAID/DR. 2016f Trip Report. Feed the Future Dominican Republic and Agriculture Program in the Dominican Republic, AID-517-A-15-0007, August 24-25, 2016. USAID/DR. Savage, Ron; Conde, Erick; Soto, Miguelina; Thomas, Brittany; Pujols, Oscarina 2017 Field Visit Monitoring Report, Climate Risk Reduction Program, June 23, 2017, El Corozo, Monte Plata, USAID/DR. Savage, Ron; Conde, Erick; Soto, Miguelina; Webb, Judy; Jiménez, Jonathan 2016a Agenda for CCO Site Visit to Six CLIMA Activities (FtF Climate and Agriculture; CRII; Planning for Climate Adaptation; Climate Adaptation Measures; Climate Risk Reduction 2 -- new RFA; F2F work, February 9-11, 2016. USAID/DR. Shannon, Diana; Clausen, Robert; Savage, Ronald; Abellard, Abdel; Conde, Erick; Leggoe, Jesse; Panocchia, Karen 2016 Field Visit to Haiti North-East and Dominican Republic North-West, October 24-30, 2016, USAID. Taveras, María Antonia 2012a Adaptándonos al Cambio Climático. El Cambio Climático y los Gobiernos Locales en la Adaptación. USAID, TNC, IDDI. 2012b Importancia del Ordenamiento Territorial como Instrumento para Adaptación al Cambio Climático. USAID, TNC, IDDI. USAID/DR 2012 Award, AID-517-A-13-00001, Climate Resiliency and Index Insurance for Small Farmers in the Dominican Republic, November 13, 2012. 2013a CRII Annex 4. Pipeline Analysis, November 2013-November 2014. 2013b CRII Second Year Work Plan, November 13, 2013-November14, 2014. 2013c CRII Second Year Work Plan, Planning Matrix and Timetable, Year 2 Annex. 2013d Dominican Republic Country Development Cooperation Strategy, 2014-2018. https://www.usaid.gov/dominican-republic/cdcs. 2013e Modification No. 1, AID-517-A-13-00001, CRII Project, November 3, 2013. 2013f Modification No. 2, AID-517-A-13-00001, CRII Project, December 16, 2013. 2014a Award, AID-517-A-14-00001, Sustainable Cacao Farming in the Dominican Republic. January 31, 2014. 2014b Modification No. 3, AID-517-A-13-00001, CRII Project, January 27, 2014. 2014c Modification No. 4, AID-517-A-13-00001, CRII Project, June 2, 2014. 2014d Modification No. 5, AID-517-A-13-00001, CRII Project, August 1, 2014. USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 59 2014e Modification No. 6, AID-517-A-13-00001, CRII Project, November 5, 2014 2014f Project Appraisal Document, USAID/Dominican Republic, Global Climate Change Adaptation Program, Urban Resilience to Climate Change. April 25, 2014. 2015a Award, AID-517-A-15-00002 to INTEC for Improved Access to Relevant and Usable Climate Information, February 25, 2015. 2015b Award, AID-517-A-15-00003 to ICMA for Urban Land Use and Climate Change Adaptation Planning, March 4, 2015. 2015c Award, AID-517-A-15-00007 to REDDOM for Climate Change Implementation and Adaptation Measures, July 31, 2015. 2015d Award, AID-517-A-15-00008 to IDDI for Climate Change Implementation and Adaptation Measures, August 13, 2015. 2015e Modification No. 1, AID-517-A-15-00002, CLIMA-Info (INTEC), March 24, 2015. 2015f Modification No. 1, AID-517-A-15-00003, CLIMA-Plan (ICMA), March 24, 2015. 2015g Modification No. 1, AID-517-A-15-00007, Climate Change Implementation and Adaptation Measures (REDDOM), September 15, 2015. 2015h Modification No. 1, AID-517-A-15-00008, Climate Change Implementation and Adaptation Measures (IDDI), October 21, 2015. 2015i Modification No. 2, AID-517-A-13-00002, CLIMA-Info, May 6, 2015. 2015j Modification No. 2, AID-517-A-13-00003, CLIMA-Plan (ICMA), May 13, 2015. 2015k Modification No. 2, AID-517-A-15-00007, Climate Change Implementation and Adaptation Measures, November 3, 2015. 2015l Modification No. 2, AID-517-A-15-00008, Climate Change Implementation and Adaptation Measures (IDDI), December 22, 2015. 2015m Modification No. 3, AID-517-A-13-00002, CLIMA-Info, June 12, 2015. 2015n Modification No. 3, AID-517-A-13-00003, CLIMA-Plan (ICMA), June 15, 2015. 2015o Modification No. 3, AID-517-A-15-00007, Climate Change Implementation and Adaptation Measures, December 3, 2015. 2015p Modification No. 7, AID-517-A-13-00001, CRII Project, May 13, 2015. 2016a Award, AID-517-A-15-00001, to REDDOM for Climate Change Risk Reduction in Santiago and Las Terrenas, August 26, 2017. 2016b Data Quality Assessment Checklists and Recommended Procedures, ICMA-CLIMA-Plan; IDDI-CLIMA-Adapt; INTEC-CLIMA-Info, December 2016. 2016c Modification No. 1, AID-517-A-15-00001, Climate Change Risk Reduction in Santiago and Las Terrenas, October 20, 2016 2016d Modification No. 3, AID-517-A-15-00008, Climate Change Implementation and Adaptation Measures (IDDI), May 16, 2016. 2016e Modification No. 4, AID-517-A-13-00003, CLIMA-Plan (ICMA), April 29, 2016. 2016f Modification No. 4, AID-517-A-14-00001, Sustainable Cacao Farming in the Dominican Republic, October 14, 2016. 2016g Modification No. 4, AID-517-A-15-00003, to ICMA for Urban Land Use and Climate Change Adaptation Planning, April 29, 2016. 2016h Modification No. 5, AID-517-A-15-00003, to ICMA for Urban Land Use and Climate Change Adaptation Planning, May 20, 2016. 2016i Modification No. 8, AID-517-A-13-00001, CRII Project, May 6, 2016. 2016j USAID/REDDOM Climate Resiliency and Index Insurance for Small Farmers in the Dominican Republic (CRII), Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, August 2016. 2017a Modification No. 2, AID-517-A-15-00001, Climate Change Risk Reduction in Santiago and Las Terrenas, July 11, 2017. 2017b Modification No. 4, AID-517-A-15-00007, Climate Change Implementation and Adaptation Measures (REDDOM), August 25, 2017. USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 60 2017c Modification No. 4, AID-517-A-15-00008, Climate Change Implementation and Adaptation Measures (IDDI), March 3, 2017. 2017d Statement of Work. Mid-term Performance Evaluation, Caribbean Marine Biodiversity Conservation Project, March 28, 2017. USAID/Washington 2010 USAID, Program Cycle: ADS 201 Additional Help. Whole of Project Evaluation. 2011 Evaluation: Learning from Experience. USAID Evaluation Policy, January 2011. World Bank 2015 Gestión Financiera y Aseguramiento del Riesgo de Desastres en República Dominicana. 2017 Document for a Proposed Loan in the Amount of US$150 Million to the Dominican Republic for the Disaster Risk Management Development Policy Loan with a Deferred Drawdown Option for Catastrophic Risks, September 19, 2017. USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 61 ANNEX C. KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS Date Organization Name Position Interview er 2-Nov-17 USAID Monserrat Acosta CLIMA COR TM - Skype 21-Nov￾17 INTEC Rosaura Pimentel CLIMA Info CoP WC 22-Nov￾17 REDDOM Jesús De los Santos CLIMA CoP WC 22-Nov￾17 ICMA Indhira De Jesús CLIMA Plan CoP WC 23-Nov￾17 IDDI Eva Pérez CLIMA Plan CoP WC 24-Nov￾17 COE José Luis Germán INTEC partner WC 27-Nov￾17 ICMA Erick Dorrejo Planning Specialist TM, WC 27-Nov￾17 IDDI Eva Pérez Chief of Party TM, WC 28-Nov￾17 MEDP-DGODT Erica Oviedo Coordinator TM, WC 28-Nov￾17 INTEC Karem Rivero M&E TM 28-Nov￾17 ONAMET Miguel Campusano Sub-Director TM 29-Nov￾17 USAID/DR Haven Cruz Acting Mission Director TM, WC 29-Nov￾17 USAID/DR Maricela Ramírez Program Office TM, WC 29-Nov￾17 USAID/DR Katherine Raines Program Office Chief TM, WC 29-Nov￾17 USAID/DR Ron Savage DO2 USPSC TM, WC 29-Nov￾17 USAID/DR Erick Conde CLIMA COR TM, WC 29-Nov￾17 INDRHI Rafael Ovalles Hydrologist TM USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 62 29-Nov￾17 ADN Victoria de Lancer Planning Office WC 29-Nov￾17 ADN Mónika Sánchez Planning Office WC 29-Nov￾17 ADN Shaolin Saint-Hilaire Planning Office WC 29-Nov￾17 FEDOMU Dionys De la Cruz ICMA Coordinator TM, WC 30-Nov￾17 FEDOMU Carlos Díaz Santiago Coordinator TM, WC 30-Nov￾17 Ayunt. Santiago Gari Santos Procurement Planning TM, WC 30-Nov￾17 REDDOM Mirtha Saleta Field Coordinator, Santiago TM, WC 30-Nov￾17 Min Env & NR Iluminada Ortega Santiago Coordinator TM 30-Nov￾17 CORAASAN Tomás Hilario Chlorine monitor TM 1-Dic-17 CDES Reynaldo Piquero Executive Director TM, WC 1-Dic-17 CORAASAN Fidel Rivas Executive Director TM, WC 1-Dic-17 CORAASAN Melina Sunel Relaciones Internacionales TM, WC 1-Dic-17 FUNDOGER Delka Espinal Director TM, WC 1-Dic-17 Santiago Solidario Percy Álvarez Director TM, WC 1-Dic-17 Santiago Solidario Alex Rosario Technical Coordinator TM, WC 1-Dic-17 Barrio Arroyo Pastor Nena Payero President, Comité de Urgencia TM, WC 1-Dic-17 Comunidad Valle Encantado Jorge Rosario Junta Vecinal TM, WC 1-Dic-17 Comunidad Valle Encantado Pedro de Jesús Junta Vecinal TM, WC 4-Dic-17 Ayuntamiento Jarabacoa Katia Lambis Planning Director TM, WC 4-Dic-17 REDDOM - Jarabacoa Yocelyn Garcia Jarabacoa Coordinator TM, WC 4-Dic-17 Agricultor - Manabao Rubén Hipólito Pérez REDDOM beneficiary TM, WC 4-Dic-17 Agricultor - Manabao Félix Domínguez REDDOM beneficiary TM, WC 4-Dic-17 Agricultor - Manabao Benita Hernández REDDOM beneficiary TM, WC 4-Dic-17 Agricultor - Manabao Pascual Ramos REDDOM beneficiary TM, WC 4-Dic-17 Agricultor -Jumunuco Domingo Cruz REDDOM beneficiary TM, WC 4-Dic-17 Agricultor - Jumunuco Enrique Castilla neighbor (not beneficiary) TM 4-Dic-17 Agricultor - Jumunuco Francisco López REDDOM beneficiary TM, WC 5-Dic-17 Agricultor - La Lomita José Luís Marte REDDOM beneficiary TM, WC 5-Dic-17 Plan Yaque Julián Holguín REDDOM partner TM 5-Dic-17 Plan Yaque Andrés Brea REDDOM partner TM 6-Dic-17 FEDOMU Beatriz Alcxántara ICMA coordinator ADN TM, WC USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 63 6-Dic-17 ONAMET Juana Sille INTEC partner WC 6-Dic-17 IDDI - ADN Santa Sánchez Coordinator TM 6-Dic-17 IDDI - ADN Antonio Vásquez Organizer TM 6-Dic-17 Barrio Simón Bolívar Gerson García Community Leader TM 6-Dic-17 Barrio Simón Bolívar Víctor Manuel Santos Community Leader TM 6-Dic-17 Barrio Simón Bolívar Jesús Díaz Community Leader TM 6-Dic-17 Barrio Gualey Manuel Bandera Community Leader TM 6-Dic-17 Barrio Gualey Lucas Vargas Community Leader TM 6-Dic-17 ENDA Caribe Mamerto Valerio Executive Director TM 7-Dic-17 FEDOMU - ADN Kirsis Roa ADN Coordinator TM 7-Dic-17 INAPA Esther Reyes Directora - Áreas Rurales TM 7-Dic-17 INAPA Desirée Rodríguez Coordinadora Técnica TM 7-Dic-17 INDRHI Israel Acosta Hydrologist TM 7-Dic-17 INTEC Rosaura Pimentel Chief of Party TM 7-Dic-17 ADN - Gestión Ambiental Fernando Campos Director TM 7-Dic-17 ADN - Gestión Ambiental Cosme Bidó Coordinador Técnico TM 8-Dic-17 FEDOMU - SPM José Antonio Chevalier Coordinator TM, WC 8-Dic-17 SPM Ayuntamiento Antonio Echavarría Mayor TM, WC 8-Dic-17 SPM Ayuntamiento José Antonio Frías Secretary General TM, WC 8-Dic-17 IDDI - SPM Luis Manuel García Coordinator TM, WC 11-Dic-17 MMA - SPM Nicolás Montero Director SPM TM 11-Dic-17 INAPA SPM Wendy de León Directora SPM TM 11-Dic-17 Universidad Central del Este Walter Henry Extension Coordinator TM 11-Dic-17 ASPM Doningo Gelabert Community Affairs TM 12-Dic-17 USAID Ron Savage DO2 USPSC TM 12-Dic-17 IDDI Eva Pérez Chief of Party TM 12-Dic-17 IDDI María Antonia Tasveras Coordinadora institucional TM 12-Dic-17 IDDI Héctor Salir Monitoring, Evaluaiton TM 12-Dic-17 IDDI Paola Feliz Project Manager TM 12-Dic-17 IDDI David Luther Executive Director TM 12-Dic-17 ICMA Erick Dorrejo Planning Specialist TM 12-Dic-17 ICMA Indhira De Jesús Chief of Party TM 12-Dic-17 World Bank Rafael van de Borght DR Team Leader WC 13-Dic-17 REDDOM Jesús de los Santos Chief of Party TM, WC 13-Dic-17 REDDOM Luis Tolentino CC specialist TM, WC 13-Dic-17 REDDOM Jeffrey Pérez M&E, Field Coordinator TM, WC 13-Dic-17 ProNatura Máximo Herrera Climate Change specialist TM 13-Dic-17 ProNatura Laura Guzmán Analogue forestry specialist TM 14-Dic-17 REDDOM Jeffrey Pérez M&E, Field Coordinator TM, WC 14-Dic-17 REDDOM, LT Dante Castillo Water, Sanitation specialist TM, WC USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 64 14-Dic-17 Barrio El Jamito, LT Juliana Servacio Community organizer TM, WC 14-Dic-17 Barrio El jamito, LT Gregorio Polifano President, Junta de Vecinos TM, WC 14-Dic-17 Barrio El Bate, LT Ana María Lupe Community Leader TM, WC 14-Dic-17 Barrio El Bate, LT Antonia Johnson President, Junta de Vecinos TM, WC 14-Dic-17 CODIA, LT Wady Ureña Coordinator TM, WC 15-Dic-17 IDDI, LT Jairo Bruno Field Coordinator TM, WC 15-Dic-17 Federation Junta de Vecinos, LT Robinson Espino President TM, WC 15-Dic-17 Barrio 30 de marzo, LT François Berlanger Community Leader TM, WC 15-Dic-17 Barrio 30 de marzo, LT Elías Batista Community Leader TM, WC 15-Dic-17 Barrio La Granja, LT Benito de la Cruz Community Leader TM, WC 15-Dic-17 Barrio La Granja, LT Lucas de Aza Community Leader TM, WC 15-Dic-17 Ayuntamiento Las Terrenas Deyvi Ureña Planning Director TM, WC 15-Dic-17 Barrio Hospital, LT Deyanira Padilla President, Junta de Vecinos TM, WC 15-Dic-17 Barrio Hospital, LT Dionisio Salvador Community Organizer TM, WC 18-Dic-17 The Nature Conservancy Monserrat Acosta Former USAID CLIMA COR TM USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 65 ANNEX D. FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS Date Group Name Gender Age Group 30-Nov-17 Gurabo Resilience Brigade Víctor Manuel Días M 30+ (REDDOM Santiago) Añejandro Reyes M 30+ Pedro Juan Pichayo M 30+ José Nicolás Selva M 30+ Manuel González M 30+ José de Jesús Tavares M 30+ Víctor Antonio Resval M 30+ Francisco Javier Díaz M 30+ Manuel Guillén M 30+ Juan Martínez M 30+ José Luis Osbal M 30+ Félix De León M 30+ Rafael Abreu M 30+ José Pérez M 30+ 30-Nov-17 Gurabo-Cristo Rey volunteers Jana Gabriela Peralta F 30- (REDDOM Santiago) Neyeli Livorata F 30- Eliane Tavares F 30- 1-Dic-17 Barrio Nueva Luz - Santiago José René Peralta M 30+ (IDDI) Adelso Hiraldo M 30+ Jacqueline F 30+ Dulce María Pastuto F 30+ Silferio de los Santos M 30- Juan Pacino M 30+ 5-Dic-17 Jarabacoa REDDOM farmers Rosana Durán F 30+ Felix Pérez M 30+ Alicia Delgado F 30+ Alva Rodríguez F 30+ Carlos Echevarría M 30+ José Luis Marte M 30+ 6-Dic-17 IDDI ADN Community leaders Ángel Suriel M 30+ USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 66 Lucas Vargas M 30+ Richard Cladio M 30+ Josefina de Jesús F 30+ Robinson García M 30+ Daniel D'Oleo M 30+ Jacqueline Bea Posada F 30- Rafael Rosario M 30+ Gerson García M 30+ USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 67 ANNEX E. DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS This Annex contains the data collection instruments used during the evaluation. They are: ● Key Informant Interview - Technical, Administrative Staff of IPs, Subs ● Key Informant Interview - Technical, Administrative Staff in Allied GoDR Agencies ● Key Informant Interview - Municipalities ● Key Informant Interviews – Local Communities in Municipal Areas ● Key Informant Interview – Farmers and Local Organizations ● Focus Group Discussion Guide - Municipalities ● Focus Group Discussion Guide - Farmer Beneficiaries USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 68 ● KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW - TECHNICAL, ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF OF IPS, SUBS Name: Date: Role: Organization: Presentación, objetivos de la evaluación, metodología 1. ¿Qué papel tiene Ud. en la ejecución del Proyecto CLIMA? ¿Desde hace cuánto tiempo? ¿Dónde trabaja o realiza sus labores? 2. Desde su perspectiva personal, ¿el diseño y la estrategia del Proyecto corresponden a la realidad en la Repúblicas Dominicana? ¿Por qué o por qué no? 3. ¿Cómo manejan ustedes la información difundida a través del Proyecto CLIMA en sus prácticas? ¿Se difunde adecuadamente? 4. ¿Cómo se relaciona el trabajo que ustedes realizan con los planes de adaptación al cambio climático, de prevención o mitigación de desastres naturales como las inundaciones o la pérdida de fuentes de agua potable? ¿Cómo son recibidos por las municipalidades? ¿con las comunidades locales en las cuencas críticas? 5. ¿Ustedes han promovido o apoyado los intercambios CityLink? ¿Qué beneficios han brindado estos intercambios? ¿Cómo han funcionado? ¿Las municipalidades están aplicando estas experiencias? ¿Cómo? ¿Ustedes consideran que las relaciones par-a-par entre municipalidades han sido efectivas para facilitar la resistencia al cambio climático? USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 69 6. En su municipalidad, ¿cómo aprovecha, o no aprovecha, su institución los planes de prevención que ofrece el Proyecto CLIMA a través de las municipalidades? ¿Son apropiados para las municipalidades y cuencas donde se introducen? ¿Ofrecen opciones interesantes para disminuir los impactos dañinos de los desastres naturales? ¿Piensan aprovechar e a futuro? ¿Después de terminarse el Proyecto CLIMA? ¿Cómo? 7. ¿Ha participado Ud. o alguien de su institución en algún intercambio internacional, programa universitario o capacitación del Proyecto CLIMA? ¿Su institución ha recibido asistencia técnica del Proyecto CLIMA? ¿Cómo ha sido eso? ¿Les ha beneficiado en sus propios planes y programas? ¿Cómo? 8. ¿Qué más se podría hacer o qué se puede hacer mejor? Muchas gracias por su colaboración. USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 70 ● KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW - TECHNICAL, ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF IN ALLIED GODR AGENCIES Name: Date: Role: Organization: Presentación, objetivos de la evaluación, metodología 1. ¿Qué papel tiene Ud. en relación al Proyecto CLIMA? ¿Desde hace cuánto tiempo? ¿Dónde trabaja o realiza sus labores? 2. Desde su perspectiva personal, ¿el diseño y la estrategia del Proyecto corresponden a la realidad en la Repúblicas Dominicana? ¿Por qué o por qué no? 3. Desde la perspectiva de su institución, ¿las intervenciones del Proyecto CLIMA apoyan o complementan las que viene realizando su institución de manera útil? ¿Han aprendido algo útil del Proyecto CLIMA? ¿Qué? ¿Cómo les sirve? ¿Cuál es la naturaleza de la coordinación entre su institución y las organizaciones ejecutoras del Proyecto CLIMA? ¿Qué proyecciones tienen para dar continuidad a los aportes del Proyecto CLIMA después de terminarse el proyecto? 4. ¿Su institución ha recibido información sobre los riesgos de cambio climático y cómo mejor prevenir o mitigarlos? ¿De quiénes? ¿Cómo? ¿Les ha sido útil? 5. ¿Cómo se relaciona el trabajo que ustedes realizan con los planes de adaptación al cambio climático, de prevención o mitigación de desastres naturales como las inundaciones o la pérdida de fuentes de agua potable? ¿Cómo son recibidos por las municipalidades? ¿con las comunidades locales en las cuencas críticas? ¿Con los que toman decisiones en el gobierno central? USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 71 6. ¿Como aprovecha, o no aprovecha, su institución los planes de prevención que ofrece el Proyecto CLIMA a través de las municipalidades? ¿Son apropiados para las municipalidades y cuencas donde se introducen? ¿Cómo podrían ser mejores? ¿Cómo se podría dar continuidad a ellos después de que el Proyecto CLIMA termina? 7. ¿Qué medidas de adaptación se han aplicado en las cuencas y municipalidades del Proyecto CLIMA? ¿Cómo coinciden las políticas GCC de USAID con las de su institución? ¿Cree Ud. que las medidas introducidas a través del Proyecto CLIMA van a ayudar en la prevención de los peores impactos de los desastres naturales, como las inundaciones o la pérdida de agua potable? ¿Por qué o por qué no? 8. Las municipalidades con las que ustedes trabajan ¿han podido compartir sus experiencias de adaptación al cambio climático con otras municipalidades en la República Dominicana? ¿Con FEDOMU? ¿Cómo se podría escalar esas experiencias a un número mayor de municipalidades? 9. ¿Tendrá algo más que quiere agregar o ampliar? Muchas gracias por su tiempo y sus respuestas. USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 72 ● KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW - MUNICIPALITIES Name: Date: Role: Organization: Presentación, objetivos de la evaluación, metodología 1. ¿Cómo ha trabajado el Proyecto CLIMA en su municipalidad? ¿Que beneficios han recibido de él? ¿Qué acciones ha tomado su municipalidad para prepararse para resistir a los desastres naturales como las inundaciones, la pérdida de agua potable, entre otros? 2. Desde que se realizaron las últimas elecciones municipales, ¿su municipalidad ha reemplazado personal que había desde la administración anterior? ¿De ser así, ¿cómo ha afectado, o no, esa situación en el avance hacia los objetivos de prevención de riesgos por el cambio climático? ¿Qué otros cambios, aparte de personal, se han dado en su municipalidad después de las elecciones? ¿Hay políticas nuevas o mejoradas en la actual administración municipal? ¿Cuáles? y ¿cómo son? 3. Desde la perspectiva de su municipalidad, ¿cómo ha visto Ud. la coordinación entre los diferentes socios del Proyecto CLIMA en su área? ¿Dónde están trabajando? ¿Qué labor realizan? ¿Se han dado retrasos en su trabajo? ¿Por qué? ¿Cómo podría mejorarse su trabajo? 4. ¿Cuáles han sido los retos para la ejecución del Proyecto CLIMA? ¿Dónde y cómo? ¿Cómo han afectado los avances del proyecto? ¿Qué hará su municipalidad después que termina el proyecto CLIMA para adaptarse a las condiciones de cambio climático y prevenir los impactos más críticos de los desastres naturales, como las inundaciones y la pérdida de fuentes de agua potable? USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 73 5. ¿Cómo se difunde la información sobre el cambio climático en su municipalidad? ¿Qué información sobre los riesgos de cambio climático se está difundiendo ahora, que no se difundía antes? ¿Qué información que estaba disponible antes se comparte ahora en su municipalidad? 6. ¿Qué capacitaciones se han dado en el Proyecto CLIMA en su municipalidad? ¿Son efectivas o no? ¿Cree Ud. que servirán para disminuir los riesgos del cambio climático? ¿Cómo y por qué? 7. Su municipalidad ha participado en un intercambio CityLinks? De ser así ¿con que ciudad de los EEUU? ¿Podría Ud. comentar esa experiencia? ¿Cómo les ha servido, o no? 8. ¿En su municipalidad, ¿cómo se planifican las medidas de prevención de los riesgos de desastres como las inundaciones o la pérdida de agua potable? ¿Cuáles de esas medidas se introdujeron en el marco del Proyecto CLIMA? ¿Qué perspectivas tienen esas medidas de continuar una vez que termina el Proyecto CLIMA? 9. ¿Cómo han hecho las organizaciones ejecutoras del Proyecto CLIMA y su municipalidad para llevar a cabo actividades para prevenir los riesgos del cambio climático, como las inundaciones o la pérdida de agua potable? ¿Su estrategia respalda la suya? ¿Cómo 10. ¿Qué medidas de ordenamiento territorial se han adoptado en su municipalidad con el apoyo del Proyecto CLIMA? ¿Cómo han funcionado? 11. ¿Cómo se involucran las comunidades de la cuenca en las actividades llevadas a cabo por el Proyecto CLIMA con su municipalidad? 12. ¿Ud. considera que las actividades del Proyecto CLIMA podrán seguir en práctica una vez que termina el Proyecto? ¿Qué es lo que habría que suceder para que continúen? ¿Qué más se podría hacer? ¿Cómo deben coordinar con otras organizaciones que trabajan en la prevención de riesgos del cambio climático? ¿Cuáles organizaciones? y ¿cómo? Muchas gracias. La información que Ud. ha brindado se mantendrá confidencial, a menos que Ud. la quiere difundir? ¿Habrá algo más que ustedes quisieran brindar? USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 74 ● KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS – LOCAL COMMUNITIES IN MUNICIPAL AREAS Name: Date: Role: Organization: Presentación, objetivos de la evaluación, metodología 1. ¿Conoce Ud. el Proyecto CLIMA? De ser así, ¿donde está trabajando en esta área? ¿Qué labores viene realizando aquí? ¿Cuáles organizaciones han venido aquí (ICMA, INTEC; IDDI, REDDOM, otras) del Proyecto CLIMA? ¿Ha beneficiado a su comunidad, u otras vecinas? 2. ¿Qué información ha recibido Ud. y su comunidad sobre los riesgos del cambio climático y posibilidades de prevenir los desastres como las inundaciones, pérdida de agua potable, etc.? ¡Cómo les ha servido esa información? ¿Ustedes se han reunido para discutir esa información? ¿Qué planes tienen para aprovecharla? 3. ¿Que planes de prevención de riesgos del cambio climático se han propuesto que involucra a su comunidad? ¿Ustedes los han discutido? ¿Qué ventajas, problemas presentan esos planes? ¿Cómo participa su municipalidad en estos planes? 4. ¿Qué medidas de adaptación al cambio climático se han adoptado que beneficia a su comunidad? ¿Quienes las han propuesto? ¿Cómo las ve Ud.? ¿Cree Ud. que van a ayudar cuando hay algún desastre futuro? ¿Cómo, o cómo no? 5. ¿Cómo coordinan entre diversas municipalidades, agencias del gobierno y organizaciones de la sociedad civil la difusión de información, planes de prevención y medidas de adaptación en la cuenca _________? USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 75 6. ¿Qué medidas innovadoras de resistencia a los desastres naturales les ha traído el Proyecto CLIMA? ¿Qué tanto les sirven? ¿Cómo se podrían hacer mejor? 7. ¿Cree Ud. que las innovaciones traídas por el Proyecto CLIMA continuarán después de concluirse el Proyecto? ¿Por qué, o por qué no? ¿Cómo se podría asegurar esa continuidad? 8. ¿Hay algo más que Ud. quiere comentar o preguntar? Muchas gracias por su colaboración. Su información será reservada, sin indentificarle, a menos que desee ser identificado. USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 76 ● KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW – FARMERS AND LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS Name: Date: Role: Municipality: Presentación, objetivos de la evaluación, confidencialidad. 1. ¿Conoce Ud. al Proyecto CLIMA? ¿Qué está haciendo? ¿Dónde? ¿Qué apreciación tiene Ud. sobre el Proyecto CLIMA? ¿Ud. se beneficia de CLIMA? ¿Cómo? 2. ¿Qué cultivos tiene Ud. ¿Cómo les ha venido trabajando? ¿Que cambios de han introducido mediante el Proyecto CLIMA? ¿Cree Ud. que resistirán a alguna inundación? ¿Qué haría si no tuviera agua potable? ¿Cómo les ha ayudado el Proyecto CLIMA? 3. ¿Ud. ha recibido alguna capacitación del Proyecto CLIMA? ¿Cómo le ha ayudado? ¿Que ha hecho con esa capacitación? 4. ¿Ud. maneja información sobre los riesgos del cambio climático? ¿Cómo la consiguió? ¿Le es útil? 5. ¿Ud. o sus vecinos han desarrollado actividades de agroforestería análoga? ¿De qué consiste y cuáles son las ventajas? 6. ¿Cómo es la agricultura clima-inteligente? ¿Le ha servido en algo? ¿Qué pasará si se presentara un huracán con altos niveles de inundación? 7. ¿Cómo hace Ud. para informarse sobre los temas de cambio climático? ¿Hasta dónde el Proyecto CLIMA ha generado conocimientos sobre los riesgos del cambio climático y cómo se puede anticipar y prevenirlos? USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 77 8. ¿Qué pasará cuando termina el Proyecto CLIMA? ¿Algo quedará? ¿Cómo se podría asegurar la continuidad de la información, la planificación y la adaptación después del cierre del Proyecto CLIMA? ¿Ud. y sus vecinos se sienten preparados para algún desastre? ¿Habrá alguna continuidad en el trabajo? Reflexione sobre su futuro sin el Proyecto CLIMA. 9. Si quiere compartir algo más, todavía hay tiempo. Muchas gracias. USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 78 ● FOCUS GROUP GUIDE - MUNICIPALITIES (Dirigir por separado a hombres, mujeres) Municipality: Date: Number of participants (males, females): Socio-economic status of participants: Presentación, objetivos de la evaluación, metodología del focus group, confidencialidad. Question 1. ¿Cómo participa Ud. y su municipalidad en las actividades de prevención de riesgos del cambio climático con el apoyo del Proyecto CLIMA? ¿Le parecen efectivas estas actividades de prevenir riesgos? ¿De ser así, cuál es la mejor forma de consolidarlas y sostenerlos? Question 2. ?¿Qué papel tiene FEDOMU en la diseminación de la mejor información del día sobre los riesgos de desastres naturales y las medidas que pueden limitar su impacto dañino? ¿En el desarrollo de planes y medidas de adaptación o prevención de riesgos? ¿Cómo? ¿Quién más debe colaborar en la diseminación de prácticas productivas alternativas? ¿Cómo? ¿Cuándo? Question 3. ¿Qué cambios de personal ocurrieron en su municipalidad después de las elecciones? ¿Qué otros cambios se han dado en la nueva gestión después de las elecciones? ? ¿Hay políticas diferentes sobre las medidas de adaptación al cambio al cambio climático diferentes de la administración anterior? ¿Qué capacitaciones y asistencia técnica necesitan para mejorar las habilidades de las personas del actual equipo municipal? ¿Qué más podría hacer el Proyecto CLIMA para facilitar el trabajo de su municipalidad en la prevención de mayores daños de los desastres naturales? USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 79 Question 4. ¿Cómo se coordinen entre las diferentes organizaciones que vienen ejecutando actividades del Proyecto CLIMA en su municipalidad o cuenca? ¿Cómo coordinan entre ellos? ¿Cómo se puede mejorar esa coordinación? Question 5. ¿Han participado las poblaciones vulnerables en sus medidas de ordenamiento territorial u otras medidas para prevenir desastres? ¿Cómo? ¿Cuándo? ¿Donde? De ser así, ¿cómo? Question 6. ¿Alguien quiere agregar algo más? Muchas gracias por su colaboración. USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 80 ● FOCUS GROUP GUIDE - FARMER BENEFICIARIES (DIRIGIR POR SEPARADO A HOMBRES, MUJERES, JÓVENES) Question 1 ¿Cómo participa Ud., sus vecinos y/ o su organización de agricultores en las actividades de prevención de riesgos del cambio climático con el apoyo del Proyecto CLIMA? ¿Le parecen efectivas estas actividades de prevenir riesgos? ¿De ser así, cuál es la mejor forma de consolidarlas y sostenerlos? Question 2. ¿Cómo se difunde la mejor información sobre el cambio climático y los riesgos de desastres naturales entre los agricultores aquí? ¿Cómo aprovechan ustedes esa información? ¿Qué más necesidades de información necesitan ustedes sobre los riesgos del cambio climático y la prevención o reducción de los impactos dañinos de los desastres naturales? Question 3. ¿Qué capacitaciones o asistencia técnica han recibido ustedes de los ejecutores del Proyecto CLIMA y/o de su municipalidad sobre las medidas que pueden limitar los impactos dañinos del cambio climático y los desastres naturales? ¿Cuáles han sido los más efectivos? ¿Cómo, y por qué? ¿Qué más se podría hacer? ¿Creen ustedes que estos aportes continuarán cuando termina el Proyecto CLIMA? ¿Por qué, o por qué no? Question 4. ¿Tiene su municipalidad un papel importante en esto, o no? ¿Qué cambios se han dado en la nueva gestión municipal después de las elecciones? ¿Cómo les ha afectado a ustedes? ¿Quién más debe colaborar en la diseminación de prácticas productivas alternativas? ¿Cómo? ¿Cuándo? Question 5. ¿Cómo se coordinen entre las diferentes organizaciones que vienen ejecutando actividades del Proyecto CLIMA en su municipalidad o cuenca? ¿Cómo coordinan entre ellos? ¿Cómo se puede mejorar esa coordinación? Question 6. ¿Han participado las poblaciones vulnerables en sus medidas de ordenamiento territorial u otras medidas para prevenir desastres? ¿Cómo? ¿Cuándo? ¿Donde? De ser así, ¿cómo? ¿Alguien quiere agregar algo más? Muchas gracias por su colaboración y cierre. USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 81 ANNEX F. FIELD WORK SCHEDULE Day Location Time Address Contact Tuesday, Nov. 21 INTEC 10:00am Av. de Los Próceres 49 Rosaura Pimentel Wednesday, Nov. 22 REDDOM 10:00am Avenida Rómulo Betancourt Núm. 1516, Plaza Thaly´s, Tercer Nivel Jesus de los Santos ICMA 3:00pm Calle Esperanza #12, Torre AP Cristal, Piso 8, Urbanizacion Real Indhira De Jesus Thursday, Nov. 23 IDDI 10:30am Calle H #17, esquina Diagonal, Zona Industrial de Herrera Evaydee Perez Friday, Nov. 24 COE 10:00am Calle Pepillo Salcedo Edif. Defensa Civil, # 419, Plaza De La Salud Jose Luis German Monday , Nov. 27 MEL Platform office Calle Filomena Gomez de Cova #58, Ensanche Serralles ICMA 2:00pm Calle Esperanza #12, Torre AP Cristal, Piso 8, Urbanizacion Real Erick Dorrejo IDDI 4:00pm Calle H #17, esquina Diagonal, Zona Industrial de Herrera Evaydee Perez Tuesday , Nov. 28 Direccion General de Ordenamiento Territorial 8:00am Calle San Nicolas Penson #48, casi esq. Rosa Duarte, Gazcue Erika Amor INTEC 10:00am Av. de Los Próceres 49 Karem Rivero ONAMET 2:30PM Calle Cuarta #1, Frente a los Astilleros Navales en los Mamelles. Miguel Campusano Wednesday Nov. 29 USAID 9:00am￾10:30am Avenida República de Colombia #57, Altos de Arroyo Hondo INDRHI 11:30 Av. Jiménez Moya, Feria de Centro de los Héroes. 3er piso Hidrologia. Rafael Ovalles Ayuntamiento de Santo Domingo 11:30am Ayuntamiento 4ta planta, dentro de la Secretaria General Victoria de Lancer & Monika Sanchez FEDOMU 2:00pm Calle Elvira de Mendoza 104 Dionys de la Cruz Thursday, Nov. 30 FEDOMU Santiago 9:00am Avenida hispanoamericana, Industrial Caribbean Park, Recicladora del Cibao Carlos Diaz USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 82 Ayuntamiento de Santiago 11:00am Ave. Juan Pablo Duarte # 85, Santiago de los Caballeros Gari Santos REDDOM 1:00pm Av. Gregorio Luperon Mirtha Saleta & Jeffrey Perez Friday, Dec. 1 CEUR 4:00 PM PUCMM Edificio Profesores II, 2ª Planta Daritza Nicodermo Ayuntamiento 8:30am Edificio Empresarial, Ave las Carreras, No. 7 Reynaldo Peguero CORAASAN 10:00am Av. Circunvalación #123, Nibaje, Santiago Silvio Duran, Fidel Rivas & Mikeidy Rosa FUNDOGER 11:30am Calle Independencia #196, Plaza Valerio Delka Espinal Corporacion Ciudadana Santiago Solidario 2:00pm Entre la calle el sol y Antonio Guzman. Frente al Centro de la Cultura. Casona Estilo Victoriana color crema Percy Alvarez Coordinador de Proyecto Monday, Dec. 4 Ayuntamiento 9:00am Calle Independencia #47, una cuadra despues de la Policia Nacional Katia Lambis Vistas fincas productoras 10:00am￾5:00pm TBD Yocelin Gracia Coord, REDDO Tuesday, Dec. 5 Cluster Invernaderos 9:00am Oficina REDDOM Rosanna Duran Cluster Invernaderos 10:00am Oficina REDDOM Rosanna Duran Asociaciones productores de café, coacao 2:00pm Oficina REDDOM Yocelin Garcia, Coord. REDDOM, Wednesday December 6 Federación Dominicana de Municipios - FEDOMU 9:00am Calle Elvira de Mendoza 104 Beatriz Alcantara ONAMET 11:00am Calle Cuarta #1, Frente a los Astilleros Navales en los Mamelles. Juana Sille Oficina IDDI Zona Norte 11:00am￾3:00pm Calle 33 Oeste #09 del Ensanche Luperon, (Por la calle Josefa Brea, Próximo al Hospital Francisco Moscoso Puello) Santa Sanchez USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 83 Ayuntamiento Distrito Nacional/ Direccion Gestion Ambiental 4:00pm Av. Anacaona esq. Av. Privada Fernando Campos Enda Dominicana 5:00pm Av. Republica de Colombia, edificio 3M 8, apartamento 1-1. Frente al parqueo del Jardin Botanico Nacional. Mamerto Valerio Thursday, Dec. 7 FEDOMU 8:30am Calle Elvira de Mendoza 104 Kirsis Roa INAPA 9:00am Calle Guarocuya, esq Presa de Valdesia El Millon Esther Reyes INDRHI Santo Domingo 10:30am Av. Jiménez Moya, Centro de los Héroes Edificio Viejo Judith Javier INTEC 2:00pm Av. de Los Próceres 49 Rosaura Pimentel Ayuntamiento 10:00am A Moscoso 1 , San Pedro de Macorís Jose Antonio Chevalier INAPA San Pedro de Macoris 10:00am Calle Circunvalacion o Francisco Alberto Caamaño. Frente al Estadio Tetelo Vargas. Edificio de Oficinas gubernamentales, 1er piso. Wendy de León Ayuntamiento de San Pedro de Macoris 11:00am Calle Anacaona Moscoso #1 Jose Frias Secretario General de San Pedro de Macoris IDDI San Pedro de Macoris 1:00pm Calle Sanchez, esq 10 de Septiembre. Plaza Sara 2do Nivel Luis Manuel Garcia Monday, Dec. 11 Ministerio de Medio Ambiente San Pedro de Macoris 9:00am Llamar y coordinar Nicolas Montero INAPA San Pedro de Macoris 10:00am Calle Circunvalacion o Francisco Alberto Caamaño. Frente al Estadio Tetelo Vargas. Edificio de Oficinas gubernamentales, 1er piso. Wendy de Leon Universidad Central del Este 11:30am Ave. Francisco Alberto Caamaño Deñó. Departamento de Ingenieria Walter Henry USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 84 World Bank 11:30am Av. Lope de Vega #29, Novocentro piso 10 Rafael Van der Borght USAID 4:00pm TBD Ron Savage Tuesday, Dec. 12 IDDI 10:00am Calle H #17, esquina Diagonal, Zona Industrial de Herrera Evaydee Perez ICMA 3:00pm Calle Esperanza #12, Torre AP Cristal, Piso 8, Urbanizacion Real Indhira De Jesus & Erik Dorrejo Wednesday, Dec. 13 REDDOM 9:00am Avenida Rómulo Betancourt Núm. 1516, Plaza Thaly´s, Tercer Nivel Jesus de los Santos ProNatura 11:00am Av. J.F. Kennedy, Km. 6 1/2, Edif. No. 3, Piso 3, casi frente a la rectoria. UNPHU Maximino Herrera & Laura Guzman Thursday, Dec. 14 Agencia Española de Cooperacion 9:00am C/ Dr. Delgado no. 166, Gazcue, Adoracion Leon Moruno TBD 10:00am Jeffrey Perez Ayuntamiento Las Terrenas 10:00am Nuestra Señora del Carmen y casi al final de la misma. Jeffrey Perez Oficina CODIA Samana 4:00pm Calle Duarte, Plaza Mediterranea Local #6 CODIA. Las Terrenas, Samana Wady Ureña Friday, Dec. 15 Ayuntamiento de Las Terrenas 9:00am Nuestra Señora del Carmen y casi al final de la misma. Deiby Ureña Federacion Junta de Vecinos de Las Terrenas 10:00am Llamarlo y coordinar Robinson Espino Ayntamiento de Las Terrenas 11:00am Ayuntamiento de Las Terrenas Alex Garcia Ayuntamiento Las Terrenas 1:00pm Ayntamiento de Las Terrenas Jairo Bruno Martínez Monday, Dec. 18 Nature Conservancy 10:00am Avenida 27 de Febrero esq. Winston Churchill Plaza Central, 3er Nivel, Local B￾339-B Montserrat Acosta USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 85 ANNEX G. STATEMENT OF DIFFERENCES USAID Evaluation Policy allows for statements of differences on the part of implementing partners. In this case, the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) submitted a statement of differences referring to some of the findings and conclusions in the CLIMA whole-of-project performance evaluation report. Statement of Difference 1: The footnote 7 on p.23 states that “the evaluation team found that the CLIMA activities made less headway than expected in obtaining approval of the land use plans and getting them enacted through local ordinances.” ICMA believes the opposite would be more accurate, considering that the program did not include within its scope and strategic objectives the enactment of ordinances. The program objective was to support the technical process of developing the land-use plans (Stages 1 to 4 in the PMOT methodology). That notwithstanding, program support through technical team meetings and dialogue with political leadership played a significant role in generating increased interest on the part of the municipalities of San Pedro de Macorís, Las Terrenas and Santiago to formally present land use ordinances (Stage 7 of the DGODT Methodology). Program technical staff guided the drafting of these ordinances in San Pedro de Macorís, Las Terrenas and Santiago. It would have been unrealistic to expect that the few months (and in the case of Santiago, weeks) between formal presentation and the end of project would be enough for the ordinances to be discussed and approved by the respective municipal councils. ICMA and USAID discussed these expectations on several occasions, and the idea was put forth that the Participación Ciudadana project should continue to work with civil society and the municipalities to promote the enactment and implementation of the land-use plans. Statement of Difference 2: On page 30, the evaluators noted that the KIIs in ADN “felt that the vulnerability assessment and diagnostic data are lacking in detail, and they wanted disaggregated data by Ward, which ICMA was unable to provide.” We would like to note that ICMA did not have the resources to conduct detailed ward-level investigations because that was not in the program design as envisioned by USAID. We must also point out that ADN did not inform us of those expectations until well after the studies had been completed. We met with ADN at every stage of the process to discuss methodology and scope, but only received written reactions to the final drafts. Although they indicated that they wanted to improve the vulnerability assessments, they never provided the ICMA Team with any substantive revisions to the assessments. Statement of Difference 3: On p. 30 the evaluators noted that “the mapping products are seen by the ADN planning team as inadequate, and ADN is currently redoing some of them”. USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 86 During the scenarios and programming stages, ADN provided its own ideas which were incorporated into the plan. Given the limitations in project staff and the fact that the Planning for Climate Adaptation Program was a capacity-building initiative, the land use plans from the beginning were envisioned to be municipal documents, developed by the municipalities with project support. Project specialists were there to guide discussions, provide ideas and ensure that a land use plan would be developed within the Program timeframe. In the final stages of the process, ADN took ownership of their land-use plan and started actively proposing how they wanted to shape the city´s future development and re-development. The program created the conditions for them to do it in an informed and participatory manner. ICMA provided ADN with the base cartography and the means to conduct a participatory planning process. We also proposed planning ideas that were not fully accepted by ADN. It was not that maps were inadequate, but rather that they depicted a planning decision that was different from ADN´s view. This is a normal part of a process such as this. Thus, ADN created its own maps based on the final decisions of the technical team. Again, as this was a capacity-building program, we expected that, given their resources and qualified staff, they would be a more active counterpart than other municipalities and develop their own maps based on their needs. ICMA feels the Evaluation document does not sufficiently emphasize the significance of ADN, the capital city, presenting a land use plan to its constituents for the first time ever. Statement of Difference 4: On p. 30, it is noted that the ADN staff interviewed question “why ICMA did not incorporate into the PMOT document the detailed data collected by IDDI in its own vulnerability assessments in Ward 3. They consider that the inventory of adaptation measures is inadequate and needs improvement. They believe that a data collection effort at the Ward level would have produced a larger, more detailed set of measures.” Although generating information at the Ward level was outside of our scope, we did produce a significant amount of information because INTEC was not ready to produce it in time (and what they eventually produced was not enough) and IDDI was never forthcoming about what information they had. In addition to the vulnerability assessment, we conducted a thorough territorial diagnostic that contains neighborhood level information. Finally, we facilitated a participatory process that gave ADN the opportunity to learn about each ward from its residents, something they had not done in many years. We find it surprising that ADN considers the adaptation measures inadequate. The adaptation measures that were included in the plan were all discussed with ADN and ADN ultimately decided which ones they wanted to have included. ADN does need more detailed information now so that they can turn the plans (both the Land Use Plan and the Adaptation Plan) into operational and investment plans. If we had had the final year, we might have been able to collaborate in that process, but they have an excellent starting point. Statement of Difference No. 5: Response to Question 2: Lack of coordination among CLIMA implementers and particularly at the municipal level. We agree that coordination with CLIMA partners could have been much better. We tried our best but did not always encounter implementing partners who wished to truly collaborate. Furthermore, we did not have any authority to shape work plans or deliverables by other implementing partners. We tried to USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 87 make sure that communications channels remained open; were pro-active in seeking to coordinate and in offering collaboration to others and convened regular meetings where we shared information. Ideally, USAID, which was present at the partner meetings, could have also supported this effort, but given the limitations of substantial involvement in cooperative agreements, we understand that this was difficult. One suggestion we would like to make is that in future projects, USAID require all implementing partners to coordinate with FEDOMU at the municipal level. While we had FEDOMU as a key implementing partner for the Project, this was not the case for the other CLIMA projects. FEDOMU could have been a common denominator which would have facilitated coordinated calendars and avoided redundancies. USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 88 ANNEX H. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS USAID.GOV FINAL REPORT – WHOLE OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CLIMA PROJECT | 89