1 There is no comprehensive IAS
developed at the national level,
without informed decision-
making on prevention,
management and awareness of
IAS in Fiji will remain under
The development, population
and enabled access to the
national database will support
IAS prevention and
management across multi-
sectorial efforts and allow both
managers and policy makers to
better understand IAS and
improve development and
implementation of regulations,
policy and field actions
throughout the country to
address IAS concerns by
complying both existing and
new IAS information for the
nation into one database that
policy makers and managers
can readily access.
4 CR 4: Capacities for management and implementation 4.1. Existence
s The funding
2 While BAF is able to mobilize
reasonable resources for the
tasks it currently undertakes,
there is requirement for
additional resources as and
when its requirements are
assessed based on the need for
a more comprehensive
biosecurity program that
expands beyond pre-border and
border preventive measures
More efforts are needed to
leverage additional revenue to
1,2,4 4.2. Availability
limited to pre-
1 Technical skills limited to pre-
border and border surveillance
and preventive measures and
limited risk assessment and
rapid response plans
Training of frontline staff on
basic tools and techniques of
prevention and control of IAS
and expansion to inter-island
movement as well as enhanced
capacity in GII eradication will
enhance skills and coverage
2, 3, 4
This indicator is modified from the standard template to reflect the situation in Fiji as follows: The availability of biosecurity
and IAS information for decision-making is lacking (0); Some biosecurity and IAS information exists but it is not sufficient to
support decision-making processes (1): biosecurity and IAS information is made available to decision-makers but the process
to update this information is not functioning properly (2) and Political and administrative decision-makers obtain and use
updated biosecurity and IAS information to make decisions (3)
P a g e
CR 5: Capacities to monitor and evaluate 5.1. Adequacy of
and how to
0 Any monitoring data records are
at best scattered in notebooks
Development of a
comprehensive IAS clearing
house and database for Fiji as
well as the NISFSAP
development process should
support monitoring gap
determination of how best to
address any gaps that are
identified. Gaps in monitory
will likely be addressed
through the BAF strategy
4 5.2. Adequacy of
0 Components of the current
biosecurity system are reviewed
as part of the review of other
systems such as international
port reviews, etc., but no
review system appears to exist
Establishment of a national IAS
committee and the
development of both the
NISFSAP and BAF multi-year
strategy should support both
the mechanism and the
specific strategies) for
monitoring and evaluation
4 Total Score 14/45
HACT micro assessment -
To be submitted during Project Inception.
This indicator is modified from the standard template to reflect the situation in Fiji as follows: The necessary required
technical skills and technology are not available and the needs are not identified (0); The required technical skills and
technology needs are known, but application is limited; (1); The required technical skills and technology needs are known but
their access depend on foreign sources (2); and The required technical skills and technologies are available and there is a
national-based mechanism for updating the required skills and for upgrading the technologies (3)
P a g e
1. Sustainable development pathways; 2. Inclusive and effective democratic governance; 3. Resilience building
Sustainable production technologies, access to modern energy services and energy efficiency, natural resources management, extractive industries,
urbanization, citizen security, social protection, and risk management for resilience
A NNEX 16 P ROGRAM QA A SSESSMENT : D ESIGN & A PPRAISAL O VERALL P ROGRAM E XEMPLARY (5)
H IGH (4)
S ATISFACTORY (3)
N EEDS I MPROVEMENT (2)
I NADEQUATE (1)
APPROVE – the program is of sufficient quality to continue as planned.
APPROVE WITH QUALIFICATIONS – the program has issues that must be addressed before the country program document can be cleared for submission
to the Executive Board.
DISAPPROVE – the program has significant issues that require substantial revision before it is reviewed again.
RATING CRITERIA (For each question, select the option from 1-3 that best reflects the program)
1. Is the program’s analysis of the issues rigorous and credible, and does the Theory of Change specify an evidence- based and plausible change process/pathway?
3: The program has an analysis and theory of change with a clear and plausible change pathway backed by credible
evidence that has been used to define the program priorities. The CPD describes why the program’s strategy is the
best approach at this point in time.
2: The program has an analysis and theory of change backed by some evidence that has been used to define the
1: The program is described in generic terms and analysis is not backed by credible evidence. There are no citations
of evaluations, assessments, research or data. Program priorities are poorly articulated.
Evidence Refer to Figure 3.
2. Does the CPD adequately describe UNDP’s comparative advantage in the chosen program priorities?
3: Analysis has been conducted on the role of other partners in the areas that the program intends to work, and
credible evidence supports the proposed engagement of UNDP and partners through the program, including
through evaluations and past lessons learned (i.e., what has worked in similar contexts.)
2: Some analysis has been conducted on the role of other partners in the areas that the program intends to work,
and relatively limited evidence supports the proposed engagement of UNDP and partners through the program.
1: No analysis has been conducted on the role of other partners in the areas that the program intends to work to
inform the design of the role envisioned by UNDP and other partners through the program.
on roles of other partners
defined as per table on page
47 .History of supporting
biodiversity conservation .Key
partners such as Airport Fiji
Limited, Fiji Inland Revenue
and Customs Authority have
been heavily involved in
Is the program thematically aligned with the UNDP Strategic Plan?
3: Program priorities explicitly reflect one or more areas of development work
as specified in the Strategic Plan
(SP.) It integrates among program priorities one or more of the proposed new and emerging areas
program’s RRF includes at least one SP outcome indicator per program outcome.
2: Program priorities are consistent with the three areas of development work as specified in the SP. The program’s
RRF includes at least one SP outcome indicator per program outcome.
1: Some program priorities clearly fall outside of the three areas of development work as specified in the SP
without any justifiable programmatic rationale.
Evidence UNDAF Outcome(s): UNDAF for
the Pacific Sub-region 2013-2017
– Outcome Area 1:
climate change and disaster risk
UNDP Strategic Plan Environment and Sustainable Development Primary Outcome: Output 2.5. Legal and regulatory
frameworks, policies and
institutions enabled to ensure the
conservation, sustainable use,
access and benefit sharing of
and ecosystems, in line with
international conventions and
3. Is UNDP working with other UN agencies to achieve joint results?
3: The program includes up to four outcomes which exactly match the relevant UNDAF outcomes. The CPD explains
UNDP’s role in relation to other UN agencies in achieving these results, based on comparative advantage. Priorities
for strengthening partnerships with other UN agencies are clearly identified.
2: The program includes up to four outcomes which exactly match the relevant UNDAF outcomes. Some
explanation is given of the roles of UNDP and other UN agencies in achieving these results, and of the partnerships
required for this.
1: Some program outcomes may not be directly aligned with the UNDAF outcomes. There is not a clear explanation
of the roles of UNDP and other agencies in achieving joint results.
3 2 1 Evidence
Project executed by
Government and supported
by UNDP. UNEP not stationed
4. Is the proposed program responsive to national priorities?
3: There is credible evidence that all of the proposed program outcomes and indicative outputs are fully responsive
to national priorities.
2: There is some evidence that the proposed program outcomes and indicative outputs contribute to national
Evidence Page 13: is aligned with the
strategic priorities of the
National Biodiversity Strategy
P a g e
1: There is no evidence that the program responds to national priorities. and Action Plan (NBSAP) of
2007 and its Implementation
Framework that identifies
control of IAS as critical to the
success of biodiversity
conservation and proposes
Page 10: Biosafety Authority of
Fiji (BAF) through the
Biosecurity Promulgation of
The Fiji Invasive Species
Taskforce (FIST) constituted by
the National Environment Council
(NEC) under the National
Environment Management Act of
2005, and convened under the
chairmanship of BAF will advise
and facilitate the coordination of
5. Does the CPD consistently apply an issue-based approach to its rationale, program priorities, partnerships and monitoring and evaluation?
3: The program rationale elaborates on multidimensional development issues in describing the development
context of the country. Program priorities involve collaborative and integrated multi-sectoral work (e.g., around
target groups or geographic areas) and the engagement of partners to complement UNDP expertise. M&E
frameworks are built around a broad range of evidence that facilitate understanding of interconnections among
development results and challenges in different areas.
2: The program rational describes the development context of the country, exploring at least some
interconnections among identified development challenges. Program priorities are defined as collaborative and
multi-sectoral areas of work, including by engaging partners to complement UNDP expertise. M&E frameworks
help understand the interconnection of development results and challenges.
1: The program rationale mostly describes a list of development challenges, without exploring their
interconnections, and the country profile is not clear. Program priorities are mostly formulated on a
sectoral/practice base and without a clear role for partners. The M&E framework relies mostly on sectoral
3 2 1 Evidence Outputs 1.3 & outcome 4.3
involves cross-sectoral approach
to training & capacity building.
Pages 23 – 45 elaborate on issues
6. Has adequate gender analysis been conducted for the proposed program, and has the design of the program addressed the results of the gender analysis?
3: Gender analysis has been conducted, and gender equality concerns are fully and consistently reflected in the
program rationale, priority areas and corresponding RRF through at least one gender-specific outcome, and
indicative outputs and indicators, where appropriate, and at least 15% of the budget allocated for gender specific
2: Gender analysis has been partially conducted, and gender equality concerns are reflected in the program
rationale, priority areas and corresponding RRF through gender-specific outcomes, and/or indicative outputs and
indicators, where appropriate.
1: Program priorities do not consider gender-specific needs or issues.
Evidence Page 46 – 51 mainstreaming
gender describes mechanisms
to promote role of women in
S OCIAL & E NVIRONMENTAL S TANDARDS 8. Has the program adequately considered the potential risks and opportunities related to gender equality and women’s empowerment?
3: The CPD explicitly describes how women will benefit from program opportunities and benefits. The CPD has
identified and fully addressed any relevant risks related to potential gender inequality and discrimination against
women and girls.
2: The CPD mentions how it intends to consider how women will benefit from program opportunities and benefits.
The CPD has identified and partially addressed any relevant risks related to potential gender inequality and the
situation of women and girls.
1: The CPD does not describe how women will benefit from program opportunities and benefits. It does not
identify or address relevant risks related to potential gender inequality and the situation of women and girls.
Evidence Social and Environment
screening Report assessment
(page 138) rules out risks to
9. Does the program apply a human rights based approach adequately and evenly across the program?
3: Strong evidence that the program actively promotes the fulfillment of human rights and prioritizes the principles
of accountability, meaningful participation, and non-discrimination. Any potential adverse impacts on enjoyment of
human rights were rigorously identified and assessed and any relevant appropriate mitigation and management
measures incorporated into program rational, strategy, and results and resource framework.
2: Partial evidence that the program promotes the fulfillment of human rights and the principles of accountability,
meaningful participation, and non-discrimination were considered. Potential adverse impacts on enjoyment of
human rights were identified and assessed and any relevant appropriate mitigation and management measures
incorporated into the program rationale, strategy, and results and resources framework.
1: No evidence that opportunities to promote the fulfillment of human rights were considered in the program,
including consideration of the principles of accountability, meaningful participation and non-discrimination. Limited
evidence that potential adverse impacts on enjoyment of human rights were considered.
Evidence Page 71
northern division task force, Fiji
Invasive Species Task Force.
Page 138 Social and
Environmental Risk Screening
Human Rights Checklist
10. Does the program consider potential environmental opportunities and adverse impacts, applying a precautionary approach?
3: Strong evidence that opportunities to enhance environmental sustainability and integrate poverty-environment
linkages were fully considered and integrated in program strategy and design as relevant. Strong evidence that
potential adverse environmental impacts have been considered, and avoided where possible, in the program
design. The risk management approach includes potential environmental risks and how the program will ensure
appropriate assessment is conducted and management measures put in place.
2: Partial evidence that opportunities to strengthen environmental sustainability and poverty-environment linkages
were considered as relevant. Partial evidence that potential adverse environmental impacts have been considered,
and avoided where possible, in the program design. The risk management approach considers potential
environmental risks and management measures.
1: No evidence that opportunities to strengthen environmental sustainability and poverty-environment linkages
were considered. Limited or no evidence that potential adverse environmental impacts and risks were adequately
Evidence Social and Environmental Risk
Screening on page 133 on
biodiversity conservation and
sustainable natural resource
Staff will be trained to identify
and native species. Risk
assessment of eradication plan
will be developed as per page
P a g e
i.e., through significant geographic or target group coverage, strategic partnership strategies for up-scaling UNDP pilots or innovations, and/or contribution to
policy change that can effect results at scale.
For example, indicators related to policy-making processes do not measure just the adoption and implementation of a policy, but also its intended benefits on
M ANAGEMENT & M ONITORING
11. Are the program’s outcomes and indicative outputs at an appropriate level and relate clearly to the theory of change and selected priority areas as described in the narrative?
3: The program’s proposed outcomes and indicative outputs are at an appropriate level and relate in a clear way to
the program’s theory of change. There is a strong congruence between the CPD rational, program priorities and
2: The program’s proposed outcomes and indicative outputs are at an appropriate level and are consistent with the
program’s theory of change. There is general coherence between the CPD narrative and the results framework.