1: The program’s selection of outcomes and indicative outputs are not clearly justified in terms of a program theory
of change. There is no or limited relationship between the program’s narrative and selected priority areas and the
Evidence As per page 19 links between
outputs and barriers . Also
reflected in log frame IV.
12. Are the indicators selected to monitor the results of the program appropriate with fully populated baselines and milestones?
3: Outcomes and indicative outputs are accompanied by SMART, results-oriented indicators that measure the key
expected changes identified in the theory of change, each with credible data sources and fully populated baselines,
milestones and targets, including appropriate use of gender sensitive, sex-disaggregated and/or target group-
focused indicators where appropriate. The RRF includes all relevant IRRF indicators at the outcome and output
2: Outcomes and indicative outputs are accompanied by SMART, results-oriented indicators with specified data
sources. Most baselines and targets populated. Some use of gender sensitive, sex-disaggregated and/or target
group focused indicators, but there is scope to improve further. The RRF includes some relevant IRRF indicators.
1: Indicators not appropriately specified with corresponding baselines and targets. No gender sensitive, sex-
disaggregated or target group-focused indicators. No clear inclusion of relevant IRRF indicators in the RRF. 3
Evidence Log Frame outcome 4
indicator page 63 –gender
indicators. Log Frame
indicators linked to IRRF
indicator 2.5.1 Number of
countries with legal, policy and
institutional frameworks in place
for conservation, sustainable use,
and access and benefit sharing of
natural resources, biodiversity
13. Are the monitoring arrangements adequate?
3: Provides details on data sources to be used for monitoring all program indicators, including responsibilities for
data collection with timing and cost of direct data collection activities specified. Highlights particular issues
regarding availability, quality, frequency or reliability of selected data sources, and appropriate plans to address
these (e.g., systems strengthening, use of proxies, etc.) Plans are in place for generating appropriate analytics from
available data, and ensuring adequate staff capabilities for enhanced M&E. Key risks relating to M&E are included
in the program risk log.
2: Provides details on data sources identified in the RRF, with a particular focus on sources for which direct data
collection is required or for which existing M&E or statistical systems need to be strengthened, with a budget
allocated for these activities. Appropriate plans are in place to address major data gaps or weaknesses, with some
reference to use of data for analytics and ensuring adequate staff capacities for enhanced M&E.
1: Does not identify the main data sources to be used in tracking program results or consider their quality. Does not
clearly identify who will participate in generating data or using it for monitoring.
3 2 1 Evidence Project Results Framework
(pages 54 – 58) notes of
relevant means of verification
under outcome 1 & 2
Page 113 Data specialist
recruited each year through
out project & log frame page
60 (BAF data base)
14. Is there an adequate, realistic and costed evaluation plan?
3: Detailed plans are provided for an appropriate set of strategic evaluations, including final and mid-term
evaluations, with timing and relevant partners specified. A realistic estimate of the costs is provided, with expected
funding source(s) identified. UNDP contributions towards the cost of evaluation are included in the program
budget. Program design takes into account evaluation requirements.
2: An appropriate set of strategic evaluations are listed with timing and relevant partners specified. A realistic cost
estimate is provided for each evaluation, even if a funding sources are not provided, and included in the budget.
1: Insufficient details are provided to judge the suitability of evaluations planned. Some details are missing on the
timing, evaluation type, relevant partners, or estimated cost of the evaluations, or stated costs are unrealistic. 3 2 1 Evidence Table 3: Monitoring and
Evaluation Budget page 68 &
15. Have the key program risks and opportunities been identified, linked to the assumptions in the theory of change, with clear plans stated to respond?
3: Program risks and opportunities fully described in the CPD, based on comprehensive analysis which references
key assumptions made in the project’s theory of change. Clear and complete plan in place to manage and mitigate
each risk and take advantage of opportunities.
2: Program risks and opportunities identified in the CPD. Clear plan in place to manage and mitigate risks.
1: Some risks identified in CPD, but no or inadequate response measures identified.
Table 2 project risks and
management outlines risks
and management measures –
16. Does the program document include explicit consideration of strategies for scaling up to achieve greater impact?
3: The CPD specifically mentions potential for scaling up to achieve greater impact with available resources
results framework includes suitable indicators to monitor changes in the scale of benefits achieved over time
2: The CPD includes some consideration of current or future opportunities for scaling up to achieve greater impact
with available resources.
1: The CPD does not consider strategies for scaling up in the program priorities or results framework.
Page 55 IV. Sustainability and
scaling up 17. Does the CPD provide a convincing account as to how the expected size and scope of the results can feasibly be delivered with the available resources and resource mobilization opportunities?
3: The size and scope of the program is very congruent with the indicative resources available for the program and
resource mobilization opportunities emerging from donor intelligence. The CPD outlines a “Plan B” to scale down
the expected results if there are challenges raising the required funds.
2: The size and scope of the program is consistent with the indicative resources available for the program and
resource mobilization opportunities emerging from donor intelligence. While the CPD does not outline a “Plan B” to
Evidence Page 69: Section X total
budget and work-plan.
Further budgetary notes
P a g e
scale down the expected results if there are challenges raising the required funds, it is reasonably likely that the
country office will have the flexibility to adjust the program if needed.
1: The size and scope of the program is not congruent with the indicative resources available for the program
and/or with the resource mobilization opportunities emerging from donor intelligence. It is not likely that the
program will be able to mobilize the required resources to implement the program.
18. Has the proposed program adequately used evaluation findings and other outcome-level evidence from other/prior program performance?
3: Knowledge and lessons learned backed by credible evidence from evaluation, analysis, corporate
policies/strategies, and monitoring have been explicitly used, with appropriate referencing, to develop the
program’s theory of change and justify the approach used by the program over alternatives.
2: The program design references knowledge and lessons learned backed by evidence from evaluation, analysis,
corporate policies/strategies, and monitoring and/or other sources, but these references have not been explicitly
used to develop the program’s theory of change or justify the approach used by the program over alternatives.
1: There is only scant, or no, mention of knowledge and lessons learned informing the program design. Existing
references are not backed by evidence.
Evidence The project takes into
account lessons learnt from
other projects but does not
specifically make mention of
19. Has the program effectively identified targeted groups/areas and are strategies in place for regular engagement throughout implementation to ensure voice and participation?
3: Target groups/areas are clearly specified and the theory of change explains why these group will be targeted.
The program has a strategy to identify and engage target groups/areas through program monitoring, governance
and/or other means to ensure the program remains relevant to their needs.
2: Some target groups/areas are mentioned in the CPD in broad terms. The program mentions how it will engage
targeted groups/areas throughout implementation.
1: The target groups/areas are not specified in the CPD. The program does not have a written strategy to identify or
engage the target groups/areas throughout implementation.
Evidence Page 42 – 44 Table 1:
Stakeholder Involvement Plan
notes stakeholders, roles,
potential role in project as
well as involvement
20. Has the CPD integrated adequate analysis and explicit measures to promote and utilize South-South and Triangular Cooperation?
3: South-South and Triangular Cooperation opportunities are fully described in the CPD, based on up-to-date and
comprehensive demands assessment and demand-supply matching results. Clear indication of measurable results
to be achieved through South-South and Triangular Cooperation in the CPD.
2: Specific South-South and Triangular Cooperation opportunities are described in the CPD, based on consideration
of demand and UNDP comparative advantage. Some indication of measurable results to be achieved through
South-South and Triangular Cooperation in the CPD.
1: CPD may refer to South-South and Triangular Cooperation but does not give specific plans for how it will be used.
There is no evidence to support why or why not South-South and Triangular Cooperation has been opted.
Page 50 South – South
Cooperation -project specific
to Fiji but has implications for
rest of Pacific. Experiences in
biosecurity important of rest
of Pacific islands
S USTAINABILITY & N ATIONAL O WNERSHIP 21. Have national partners proactively engaged in the design of the program?
3: The program has been developed jointly by UNDP and a range of national partners (government, donors, civil
society, beneficiaries, etc.), with credible evidence of this provided in the CPD.
2: The program has been developed by UNDP in consultation with national partners (esp. government), with some
evidence of this mentioned in the CPD.
1: The program has been developed by UNDP with limited or no engagement with national partners. There is little
to no mention of engagement with national partners on the program design in the CPD.
Page 41 stakeholder
engagement notes wide
range of stakeholders during
22. Are key institutions and systems identified, and is there a strategy to ensure the sustainability of results (i.e., to ensure that results last and even grow beyond UNDP’s engagement?)
3: The program has a strategy for strengthening capacities of national institutions integrated throughout the
program, which is reflected in the identification of outcomes, indicative outputs and indicators.
2: The CPD has identified indicative outputs that will be undertaken to strengthen capacity of national institutions,
but these outputs are not part of a comprehensive strategy and it is not clear how capacity and sustainability of
results will be measured.
1: There is mention in the program document of capacities of national institutions to be strengthened through the
program, but there is no evidence of a specific strategy, measurement or incorporation into the results framework.
Evidence Outputs under outcome 1 are
nationally oriented, Outputs
under outcome 2 are focused
on prevention and
surveillance on four islands,
Outcome 3 is on eradication
of GII on 4 islands and
outcome 4 is on knowledge
They are strategically
positioned and linked to
23. Does the program include a strategy for using nationally-owned data sources and working with partners to strengthen national statistical systems and capacities?
3: The RRF includes some relevant country-specific outcome and output indicators that will be monitored using
nationally-owned data sources. The M&E section includes an analysis of the availability and quality of existing
national data sources and states clear plans for how UNDP will work with partners to strengthen national M&E and
statistical systems where needed, in a way that contributes towards sustainable country capacities.
2: The RRF includes some relevant country-specific outcome and output indicators that will be monitored using
nationally-owned data sources. The M&E section includes some consideration of the quality of relevant national
data sources and states plans for how UNDP will work with partners to strengthen these, with some consideration
of building sustainable country capacities.
1: The RRF does not include relevant country-specific outcome or output indicators or does not identify relevant
national sources to be used in monitoring. The M&E section may include some plans to develop M&E systems
required for program monitoring, but does not address weaknesses in the broader national statistical system or
Evidence Under outcome 2 outputs
include database collation,
clearing house mechanism
established for executing
agency -page 29
P a g e
Annex 17 Gender Analysis and Action Plan
Gender equality is one of 17 Global Goals that make up the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
According to the Global Gender Gap Report released by the World Economic Forum (WEF) in 2015
was ranked 121 on the Gender Gap Index (GGI) among 145 countries polled.
Fiji has made considerable progress in recognizing gender issues in relation to legal and human rights and
gender and development, as reflected in legislative and policy progress since 1988
. It has made
commitments to eight major international agreements and programs for action on gender equality and
advancement of women. It is committed to achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs),
including those associated directly or indirectly with the status of women and gender equality. The
National Gender Policy
provides a framework for including gender perspectives in all activities of
government and civil society, thereby promoting full and equal participation of men and women in the
development process. The policy is consistent with the Government’s commitment to implementing the
Women’s Plan of Action (WPA 2010-2019) based on the Beijing Platform for Action, and with Fiji’s
commitment to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.
Despite, these efforts, gender inequality in Fiji persists amidst high rates of economic growth. Women
participation in economic activities and decision-making is much less, than men, although in terms of
health and survival, and enrollment in primary, secondary and tertiary education there is little gender
differences between men and women. Although recent indicators show little difference in the
educational levels and achievements of men and women, and despite government commitments to
gender equality, occupational discrimination in the Fiji Islands labor markets are strong and persistent.
About 39% of women in Fiji aged 15 years and over are categorized as economically active. One third of
those involved in informal sector economic activities are women, and women form 30% of the non-
agricultural workforce. Around 78% of all informal sector activity in Fiji involves agriculture, forestry and
fishing, and one third of those involved in such activities are women. Women actively participate in
almost all aspects of agricultural production in Fiji, including farming, marketing, food processing and
distribution, and export processing. Rural women typically farm land that belongs to their male relatives
as father-to-son inheritance practice tend to make it difficult, if not impossible, for women to own land.
iTaukei (native Fijian) women are frequently excluded from formal inheritance rights to customary land,
tend to have no rights to land other than those permitted by their fathers or husbands, and do not
customarily receive land rents
. Consequently few women own businesses, because the inheritance laws
practiced by both major ethnic groups (iTaukei and Fijian of Indian descent) usually also exclude women
from inheriting other fixed assets.
World Economic Forum, The Global Gender Gap Report, 2015
Asian Development Bank. Country Gender Assessment (2006).
Fiji National Gender Policy, Ministry for Social Welfare, Women and Poverty Alleviation, 2014
Role and participation of women in biosecurity-related activities While the proportion of women in the economically active population and civil service has increased
since 1988, employment opportunities for women are concentrated in a small part of the labour market
and in the civil service in the Ministries of Health and Education. Women’s share in the central
government service is around 30%, a significant proportion of which are on the daily or weekly wage
basis. This reflects the different terms of employment in the civil service. However, in terms of the
Biosecurity Authority of Fiji, around 43% of technical staff are women, who participate in aspects related
to disease management, emergency responses, awareness and outreach, surveillance, prevention and
management of IAS and biosecurity related activities. This figure is above the national average.
Consequently, women staffers will benefit immensely from the training, capacity development, new
technologies and tools that would be used by the project.
Role and participation of men and women in biodiversity conservation In the selected four-Island area of the project, Gender is a key dimension in sustainable conservation,
management, agriculture and livelihoods and use of biodiversity resources. Women and men have
complementary knowledge and perceptions of their natural environment and the biodiversity around
them as a result of gender differences in functions, responsibilities, needs, social relations, behaviors,
resource accessibility, ownership, and awareness. Gender and social differences, which are location-
specific and socially constructed and can be changed, strongly influence the way women and men
experience environmental and socioeconomic changes.
Men and women undertake different roles, responsibilities and task in biodiversity conservation,
management and livelihoods in the four-island site. Women play a critical role in maintaining and
sustaining local-level biodiversity, including the domestication of wild plants, genetic manipulation of
plants and animals, and seed management. Despite their lack of adequate representation in local
committees and decision-making, women are more involved in natural resource management than men.
Women are involved in the collection of wild species.
In terms of natural disasters and the impacts of climate change, women experience their impacts in ways
that are distinct from men. Rising sea levels and changes in air and water temperature have distinct
impacts on women’s traditional economic, agricultural and fishing duties, as do the impacts of over-
fishing. Women also face an increased vulnerability to violence and deprivation after natural disasters. It
is vital that communities respect and utilize women’s unique skills, and give women a voice in how
communities rebuild after disasters. Temporary and/or permanent displacement as a result of climate
change and natural disaster place women in vulnerable economic and social positions, as communities
struggle to adapt to the changes in their natural environments
It is essential therefore to incorporate gender perspectives into the project based activities in the four-
island area. Assimilating gender perspectives makes one more conscious of the impact of gender in
defining roles and responsibilities, the division of labor, needs, knowledge, and inequalities, and the
differences inherent in the unequal power relations between men and women in terms of land
P a g e
ownership, resource use and access. This can help to lessen the impact on women (in particular, if IAS,
including GII, establish and increase substantially in numbers that could cause potentially significant
impacts on local agriculture, livelihoods, and health.
Strategy/Action Plan for Gender Mainstreaming in project Special mechanisms are envisaged under the project to promote the role of women in various activities.
These include in particular the following:
Gender Mainstreaming Objective Gender Mainstreaming Activity
Gender mainstreaming Target
To enhance capacity, skills and
competence of women in
technical aspects related to
Participation in technical training
programs, study tours and other
skills development activities
At least 40% of technical and
front-line staff in BAF and
partner agencies trained under
the project are women
To enhance knowledge and
awareness of rural women of the
risks and impacts of IAS on native
ecosystems and biodiversity,
agriculture, tourism and human
Participation of women in
biosecurity outreach activities
At least 40% of people benefiting
from the outreach program and
various project initiatives are
To encourage active participation
of women in delivery of outreach
at Taveuni and encourage
greater participation of women
Recruitment of women from
local communities (iTaukei and
Fijian of Indian descent) as part
of Outreach teams in Taveuni
At least 20% of Outreach team
members are women.
To enhance and measure
women’s participation in project-
Use of gender-sensitive
indicators and collection of sex-
disaggregated data for
monitoring project outcomes and
Gender disaggregated data
included in Results Framework
for measuring (i) capacity
enhancement; and (ii) outreach
Enhancing women’s role in
The outreach and
communication strategy will
include specific efforts to
encourage women’s role
Outreach and communication
strategy will be designed with a
Improve women’s role in
representation and active
participation of women decision-
Women representation in project
specific committees (e.g.
coordinating committee, FIST,
FIIT, etc.) and participation
technical workshops, strategic
planning events (e.g. NISFSAP,
EDRR, GII eradication plan,
outreach plan), etc. would be
Enhanced role of women in
Encouragement of qualified
women applicants for positions,
under BAF rules and regulations.
Recruitment of new biosecurity
and technical staff maintained at
40% or more