2.5 Country programme performance ratings

gender working group, which provided assessments and guidance for enhancing gender integration in climate action in various sectors. Most of the other gender results could be classified as “gender targeted”, meaning they were limited to counting the number of men and women that were involved in the activities.

UNDP had a mixed approach to targeting the livelihoods that women typically engaged in. The ‘Adaptation Fund’ project made deliberate efforts to ensure that 60 percent of the project beneficiaries for each of the livelihood activities such as bee‑keeping, agro‑processing schemes, shea butter processing, dry season farming and fishing were women.131 Key informant interviews with eight different NGOs implementing different activities confirmed this was achieved. In the design of the ‘Ghana Shea Landscape’ project, a gender assessment and action plan was developed. However, the cocoa project has significantly lower numbers of women participants compared to men in nearly all activities, many of which were project‑provided agricultural training or aspects of community governance/roles to which the project could relatively easily promote the inclusion of women. The project documents for the above projects recognized that household decision‑making often influenced whether women fully benefited from livelihoods initiatives, however no interventions sought to address this element.

UNDP has done some limited work to introduce gender considerations when working in sectors where men hold the majority of institutional positions, such as energy. UNDP undertook a gender analysis of the energy sector to support the gender mainstreaming component of the Ghana Renewable Energy Masterplan. UNDP also supported the conduct of a gender audit of the energy policy, leading to a review of the draft policy to integrate gender considerations. Although the masterplan outlined the broad issues faced by women in the energy sector, it provided less detail on the corrective measures than the proposals in other sections of the plan. UNDP supported the masterplan through the ‘South‑South Cooperation on Renewable Energy Technology Transfer’ project, which contained no gender disaggregated initiatives. Under the K‑CEP project, 246 refrigeration practitioners were trained, all of whom were men. Given the preponderance of male position holders in these sectors, UNDP would not have met project targets if required to balance male and female participation. Nevertheless, both donors were open to gender‑response designs, and UNDP could have added subcomponents to these initiatives and expanded partnerships with institutions or CSOs with greater gender expertise.

The following table provides an overview of the performance of the country programme, using the five internationally agreed evaluation criteria: relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability, and a set of parameters for each of the criteria. A four‑point rating scale is used, with 4 being the highest and 1 the lowest rating.132 This ratings table should be read keeping in mind the findings presented in the previous sections, which provide more detailed justification for the ratings.

131 Antonio Arenas Romero et al., January 202, Ibid. 132 4 = Satisfactory/Achieved: A rating of this level means that outcome exceed expectations/All intended programme outputs and outcomes have been delivered; 3 = Moderately satisfactory/Mostly achieved: A rating of this level is used when there are some limitations in the contribution of UNDP programmes that prevent an excellent rating but there were no major shortfalls. Many of the planned programme outputs/outcomes have been delivered and expected results likely to be achieved. Overall, the assessment is substantially positive, and problems were small relative to the positive findings; 2 = Moderately unsatisfactory/Partially achieved:

A rating of this level is used when significant shortfalls are identified, but there were also some positive findings. Only some of the intended outputs and outcomes have been completed/achieved. Overall, the assessment is less positive; 1= Unsatisfactory/Not achieved: A rating of this level means that the contribution of the UNDP programme faced severe constraints and the negative assessment outweighs any positive assessments. There has been limited or no achievement of planned outputs/outcomes.