1) Progress to date against the 2013 baseline is rated as on-track, and the risk governance building blocks (people, mechanisms and processes) are an effective foundation for risk informed development. Progress is most significant in Fiji followed closely by Vanuatu and then Tonga and Solomon Islands. In Fiji this is mainly due to risk-informed development work at the sub-national level and Vanuatu in the agriculture sector. In Tonga and Solomon Islands progress is on-track in the agriculture sector, but with some delays with progress in Solomon Islands at the subnational level. 2) Overall achievements to-date include: i) risk governance building blocks are progressing from a basic to intermediate stage of advancement; ii) establishing government posts is building capacity and leveraging change ‘from within’ country systems for risk-informed development; iii) there is significant ownership of the approach and resulting ‘behaviour change’ of agents at national and sub-national levels, including private sector; iv) increasing implementation of risk-informed development plans; v) significant prospects for replication and scale beyond the programme; vi) more meaningful and sustained engagement of the private sector in supporting risk informed development, which is now being replicated in other countries; and vii) diffusion of learning including release of the ‘Risk Governance Policy Brief’ and active inputs to gender dimensions on resilience via the ProPa network. This helps demonstrate how the Framework for Resilient Development in the Pacific (FRDP) is being implemented in the region and internationally.

An independent mid-term evaluation (MTE) was commissioned in 2016. Overall, PRRP was found to be contributing to building resilience, highly relevant to the Pacific context, and has achieved the level of results expected ‘at this point in time.’ Its risk governance building block framework is identified as an innovative approach to mainstreaming risk into development and promotes strong partnerships and ownership. Areas for improvement include a need for more collective learning across partners at all levels, and more deliberate programming for scale (or self-replication). Management responses to the MTE include: increased support/investment for risk governance in the Pacific; more targeted efforts to support replication and scaling-up of risk governance; and stronger connectivity between national and subnational work through singular ‘pathways’ for risk informed and gender responsive development planning and budgeting.

Key priorities for 2017/18 are to: replicate and scale-up risk informed development; renew focus on diffusion of learning with both internal and external stakeholders to increase knowledge and up-take of the risk governance building blocks as a foundation for resilient development (this will also include more deliberate engagement with the Pacific Resilience Partnership; assist partners with implementation (project preparation, funding mobilisation, delivery and oversight) to ensure that risk governance strengthening is moving beyond risk informed outputs (such as plans and policies) to tangible resilient development outcomes; and promote gender sensitive budgeting for risk informed development.

Government Partners 1) Establishment of new Government Posts for leverage change ‘from within’ country systems for risk-informed development: posts are government appointed within the national, subnational and sector levels. This has resulted in the formulation of 25 posts for risk-informed development. Despite constraints evident in some cases the post model is “highly relevant” and has “proved successful in many instances” (MTE, 2017). Out of the 10 posts that have completed their contracts with PRRP support 8 have been absorbed with government resources and one externally funded. PRRP maintains its work with these posts particularly in Tonga and Solomon Is. Government partners are mobilizing other posts to complement this work e.g. the Risk Resilience Unit in Vanuatu; and dedicated agriculture extension resilience officers each province in Solomon Islands. 2) Significant ownership of the approach and resulting ‘behaviour change’: all progam activities are delivered by government partners ‘from within’ local systems thereby nurturing significant ownership of ‘risk-informed’ development. Partners are displaying strong commitment to this approach with 82 percent of stakeholders agreeing that PRRP country partners are owning programme interventions (MTE, 2017). 3) Increasing implementation of ‘risk-informed’ development: for example, in Vanuatu, the risk informed Corporate Plan prepared by the new Risk Resilient Unit (RRU) in the agriculture ministry is being used to obtain funding for ongoing DRR activities and staffing. Similarly, the Tonga Agriculture Sector Plan (TASP) has mobilised significant funding for risk informed agriculture initiatives, and the newly risk informed community development planning process in Fiji has already mobilised resources for risk informed projects in Western Division including water harvesting in drought prone areas.