Climate Smart Urban Development Challenge

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2016-2020, Serbia
Evaluation Type:
Mid Term Project
Planned End Date:
12/2019
Completion Date:
04/2020
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
20,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document ToR_MTR CSUD International Consultant Final 2019.docx tor English 74.95 KB Posted 59
Download document Climate Smart Urban Development Challenge (CSUD) MTR.pdf report English 2264.75 KB Posted 33
Title Climate Smart Urban Development Challenge
Atlas Project Number: 00094603
Evaluation Plan: 2016-2020, Serbia
Evaluation Type: Mid Term Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 04/2020
Planned End Date: 12/2019
Management Response: Yes
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021)
  • 1. Output 2.1.1 Low emission and climate resilient objectives addressed in national, sub-national and sectoral development plans and policies to promote economic diversification and green growth
Evaluation Budget(US $): 20,000
Source of Funding: GEF
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 20,000
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Manfred Stockmayer manfred.stockmayer@gmail.com
Mirjana Strugar Mirjana Strugar mstrugar@gmail.com SERBIA
GEF Evaluation: Yes
GEF Project Title: Climate Smart Urban Development Challenge
Evaluation Type: Mid-term Review
Focal Area: Climate Change
Project Type: MSP
GEF Phase: GEF-5
GEF Project ID:
PIMS Number: PIMS 5551
Key Stakeholders:
Countries: SERBIA
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1

Increase efforts to secure cash co-financing from MoEP: The cash contribution from the MoEP will be key for achieving the project targets. Immediate action needs to be taken to secure cash co-financing by the MoEP, with the majority of the missing funds to be provided in the coming budget year. The Project is operational for another 2 years, if majority of funds committed but not provided yet (USD 4.5 million) are provided in 2020, additional projects can be co-financed and there will be sufficient time to provide the necessary support during preparation and implementation. A contribution in 2021 will have a much smaller impact, as there might not be sufficient time to implement additional pilots. All available channels (Resident Representative, Project Team) should be used to secure the co-financing, the EU Delegation has expressed its willingness to support UNDP in these efforts.

Project Team and UNDP should put immediate efforts at finalizing discussions with the Embassy of Sweden on financing an additional challenge. If funds are secured in early 2020, this leaves sufficient time for preparation and implementation of the challenge. The EU Delegation hasn’t provided co-financing up to now, but is open for discussions. These discussions should be held by the Project Team in early 2020.

2

Improve definition of term “direct beneficiary”: There is a need for further definition of the term “direct beneficiary” used in Indicators 2 and 9, as it is not clear how the term is being used in the project. The definition should be prepared by the Project Team in cooperation with the MRV consultant (support should be sought from the Regional Hub in Istanbul on guidance available from GEF) and should be the basis for the further monitoring of these two indicators. Definition should be finalized in Q1 of 2020 to allow proper monitoring. Due to the various events and activities carried out under the Project, a clear definition of the term “direct beneficiary” is not easy. For workshops, info days and events, where the Project is the organizer or has a main role in organizing and financing the event, all participants should be counted as direct beneficiaries. If the CSUD Team participated – as one of many participants – in a bigger public event, the number of participants should not be accounted towards the target. For the pilot projects financed, there should be a direct connection between the funding and beneficiaries. Examples are the Green Energy Point project, where the project led to contracting 200 small suppliers of wood or the activities of Esotron, where 25 new clients were contracted. These examples should help as guidelines in defining the term “direct beneficiary”.

3

Revise focus on open data work: Experience from the initial work with the municipalities on the Data Challenge has shown that a lot of effort needs to be put into collecting, editing and publishing data. There is a risk that this is only done if there is support through projects such as CSUD, but there is no follow up and as a consequence data collected is not being updated. Focus should be given on automatic collection of data, such as in the example of the swimming pool in Zvezdara, as this reduces the effort of collection to a minimum and also provides real-time data. Regarding data sets, focus should be given on such data, which lead to immediate benefits in the municipalities, such as fuel consumptions in public buildings. This should encourage and further develop the use of data collected and published.  Work on this recommendation will have to be led by the Project Team and should be implemented from January 2020 onwards.

4

Revise additionality considerations and GHG calculations using the approved GEF methodology: Analysis has shown that there are issues with the additionality of some of the selected innovation projects. The figures provided by the innovation projects during the application process need to be critically reviewed, as these are not prepared by experts and applicants are biased. Expected GHG emission reductions have to be re-calculated based on a review of additionality of each of the projects. Ramp-up periods need to be considered when calculating results over a 20-years lifetime and the likelihood of required capacity extensions taking place needs to be critically reviewed if projects are currently not operating at the expected output. It is advised that external capacity (consultant) is contracted to support the work of the M&E consultant and to assist in clearly defining baseline and additionality on the one hand and to critically reviewing the information provided by the companies on the other hand. The calculations need to follow the approved GEF methodology. Implementation should start in January 2020.

The analysis of the Green Energy Point project clearly showed that co-financing provided by UNDP was much too small to argue that the UNDP funding was essential for project implementation. Additionality considerations shall also include an investigation of the additionality of co-financing provided to secure that financing provided by UNDP plays an essential role in implementation of innovation projects.

5

Focus on replicability and sustainability: Although performance of the Project Team was excellent, certain improvements are still possible. The projects selected so far both in the Open Data Challenge and the Innovation Challenge cover a wide area of various applications, which is excellent for an innovation project. However, in the second half of the project, there should be more effort to secure replicability and sustainability.
When looking through the data published by municipalities under the Open Data Challenge, there seems to be little consistency in the way data is collected and presented. The data sets in the different municipalities range from extensive historic data sets collected with a lot of effort and no continuous update to the automatic transmission of one data set because the equipment installed by the municipality allows that. Whereas it is good to investigate different routes, it would be important in the second phase to improve consistency and replicability, in order to achieve sustainability of selected approaches. Bundling municipalities in the Open Data Challenge is an excellent step in that direction.
Also in the Innovation Challenge replicability and sustainability should be a key focus. Projects such as the SCADA project in the city of Sabac have a high replication potential, as district heating is wide-spread in Serbia. Projects such as the Green Energy Point project, were supposed to deliver large contributions towards targets, but have issues with additionality in that they highly likely would have happened anyways. When selecting further projects for support, replicability should be a key focus rather than pushing large projects just because they are supposed to have a considerable contribution towards a target.

6

Setup of M & E system: A proper M&E system needs to be setup to monitor each of the indicators defined in the ProDoc. Main responsibility for that task is with the Project Team, with support from the M&E consultant in the field of GHG emission reductions. Special care has to be given to GHG emission reductions and co-financing, based on the recommendations on additionality. It is understood that an M&E consultant has been hired to contribute to that work and it is advised to carefully review the outputs of this assignment.  Another key component needs to be the monitoring of gender impacts, which has not been included in the monitoring up to now.

Setting up the M&E system has high priority. A proper functioning system is important to monitor project progress and – if necessary – implement corrective actions or adaptive management. Work on the M&E system should be a key focus in Q1 of 2020.

7

Conservative estimation of results: Reporting of the Project Team on results assumes that once innovation projects receive support, full benefits are accounted towards project targets over the life-time of 20 years. Reality shows that a more conservative approach would be helpful to fully understand progress and further support necessary to achieve the expected results. Currently it is neglected that additional steps, such as increase of capacity or sale of products are required to achieve the results. The Project Team in cooperation with the M&E consultant need to follow-up closely the progress of each of the projects to fully understand the implementation level to be achieved during the course of the Project and likely to be achieved after end of the Project.

8

Performance Based Payments: The Project uses the new approach of Performance Based Payments (PBPs) to support innovation projects in their implementation. In contrast to other supporting mechanisms such as grants, funding is only provided if pre-agreed milestones are reached. Typically, a company receives 3-4 payments under a PBP contract.

It would be helpful to summarize the lessons learnt from this new approach in a short study, which is prepared towards the end of the Project, when work with innovation projects financed through PBPs is finalized. The results and lessons learnt from the CSUD project would help the application of the PBP approach in other projects. Ideally, the Project Team should prepare the short study, as they have the best know-how on that topic.

9

Possible Project Extension: Taking into account the delay in receiving cash co-financing from the MoEP, a project extension should be considered. As explained in detail in recommendation 1, the lack of cash co-financing is endangering the achievement of the project targets. More time for implementation would help the project in achieving the various indicators. A condition for the extension would be the provision of all (or a majority) of the committed co-financing by the MoEP by Q4 2020 at the latest.

Management Response Documents
1. Recommendation:

Increase efforts to secure cash co-financing from MoEP: The cash contribution from the MoEP will be key for achieving the project targets. Immediate action needs to be taken to secure cash co-financing by the MoEP, with the majority of the missing funds to be provided in the coming budget year. The Project is operational for another 2 years, if majority of funds committed but not provided yet (USD 4.5 million) are provided in 2020, additional projects can be co-financed and there will be sufficient time to provide the necessary support during preparation and implementation. A contribution in 2021 will have a much smaller impact, as there might not be sufficient time to implement additional pilots. All available channels (Resident Representative, Project Team) should be used to secure the co-financing, the EU Delegation has expressed its willingness to support UNDP in these efforts.

Project Team and UNDP should put immediate efforts at finalizing discussions with the Embassy of Sweden on financing an additional challenge. If funds are secured in early 2020, this leaves sufficient time for preparation and implementation of the challenge. The EU Delegation hasn’t provided co-financing up to now, but is open for discussions. These discussions should be held by the Project Team in early 2020.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/04/29]

All available channels in UNDP Serbia and the Project Team and the staff of the MoEP are aware of this need and shall embark on efforts to satisfy this recommendation – through a joint effort. While confirming the gap in co-financing on the side of the Government and recognizing the importance of further follow-up on the issue, it is also important to reflect and acknowledge significant resources that the project team has managed to mobilize from the private sector. This is one of the first projects that is establishing direct cooperation with the private sector and is mobilizing private capital for the innovative ways of GHG emission reduction. The having gaps in Government co-financing notwithstanding, the project has successfully succeeded to mobilize additional funding of the private sector. Thus far, a GEF seed funding in the amount of $ 0.5 million has been complemented and upscaled with the private sector funding of $ 10 million. This would, to certain extent compensate the gap in public funds expenditures towards the project. Also, the project team has successfully mobilized additional funding from the Swedish International Development Agency/Swedish Embassy in Belgrade, for launching a new climate smart challenge on BioWaste Management (the related Project Document has been signed in December 2019). The discussions with the EU Delegation to Serbia on possible collaboration in the domain of climate change mitigation and climate smart innovative solutions are underway.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Advocating with the MoEP highlighting the importance of the issue
[Added: 2020/04/29]
Project Team, UNDP CO 2020/12 Initiated
Continuing the follow-up and co-operation with SIDA
[Added: 2020/04/29]
Project Team 2021/01 Initiated
Continuing engagement with the EU Delegation, especially in the framework of the new EU Green Deal
[Added: 2020/04/29]
Project Team 2021/12 Initiated
2. Recommendation:

Improve definition of term “direct beneficiary”: There is a need for further definition of the term “direct beneficiary” used in Indicators 2 and 9, as it is not clear how the term is being used in the project. The definition should be prepared by the Project Team in cooperation with the MRV consultant (support should be sought from the Regional Hub in Istanbul on guidance available from GEF) and should be the basis for the further monitoring of these two indicators. Definition should be finalized in Q1 of 2020 to allow proper monitoring. Due to the various events and activities carried out under the Project, a clear definition of the term “direct beneficiary” is not easy. For workshops, info days and events, where the Project is the organizer or has a main role in organizing and financing the event, all participants should be counted as direct beneficiaries. If the CSUD Team participated – as one of many participants – in a bigger public event, the number of participants should not be accounted towards the target. For the pilot projects financed, there should be a direct connection between the funding and beneficiaries. Examples are the Green Energy Point project, where the project led to contracting 200 small suppliers of wood or the activities of Esotron, where 25 new clients were contracted. These examples should help as guidelines in defining the term “direct beneficiary”.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/04/29]

The recommendation is accepted.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Preparing clear definition of direct beneficiaries
[Added: 2020/04/29] [Last Updated: 2020/08/03]
Project Team, MRV consultant 2020/10 Initiated History
3. Recommendation:

Revise focus on open data work: Experience from the initial work with the municipalities on the Data Challenge has shown that a lot of effort needs to be put into collecting, editing and publishing data. There is a risk that this is only done if there is support through projects such as CSUD, but there is no follow up and as a consequence data collected is not being updated. Focus should be given on automatic collection of data, such as in the example of the swimming pool in Zvezdara, as this reduces the effort of collection to a minimum and also provides real-time data. Regarding data sets, focus should be given on such data, which lead to immediate benefits in the municipalities, such as fuel consumptions in public buildings. This should encourage and further develop the use of data collected and published.  Work on this recommendation will have to be led by the Project Team and should be implemented from January 2020 onwards.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/04/29]

The recommendation is partially accepted. Sustainability of the collection of data is envisaged and done through the process of development of the Climate Smart Information System and linking the System more closely to the current EMIS system managed by the other UNDP GEF EMIS project. This is foreseen to mutually benefit both projects by advancing sustainability of the data collection, opening of the data and data management throughout the project implementation timeframe and beyond. Local self-governments selected through Innovation challenge will implement proposed projects by which they will improve their data collection, management and data opening, of relevance to climate smart development. Moreover, by implementing these projects, the Information System will be tested and improved. Considering the official letter of the Ministry of Environmental Protection by which it has confirmed that it will take over the maintenance and future management of the Climate Smart Information System upon the project completion, the  sustainability of the information system and its replication throughout Serbian municipalities is highly probable. In addition, the Information System will contribute to the implementation of the new Law on Climate Change that is to be adopted by mid-2020, in the domain of local self-governments reporting on planned and undertaken CCM measures. In order to practically demonstrate how data collected through IS can be used for climate-sensitive planning on the local level, Low Carbon Development Strategies will be developed for at least 5 local-self-governments.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Clarify the co-operation opportunities with the EMIS project as it concerns, in particular, the fuel and other energy consumption of public buildings
[Added: 2020/04/29]
Project Team 2020/12 Initiated
By building on the EMIS data and other possible data sources, find solutions for complete and regularly published local GHG inventories to strengthen the core of the Climate Smart Information System
[Added: 2020/04/29]
Project Team 2021/12 Initiated
Strengthening media presentation of best practices and innovative open data projects
[Added: 2020/04/29]
Project Team 2021/12 Initiated
Preparing a “handover” protocol, including description of the support that project will provide to the MoEP until the end of the project implementation
[Added: 2020/04/29]
Project Team, UNDP CO 2021/12 Initiated
4. Recommendation:

Revise additionality considerations and GHG calculations using the approved GEF methodology: Analysis has shown that there are issues with the additionality of some of the selected innovation projects. The figures provided by the innovation projects during the application process need to be critically reviewed, as these are not prepared by experts and applicants are biased. Expected GHG emission reductions have to be re-calculated based on a review of additionality of each of the projects. Ramp-up periods need to be considered when calculating results over a 20-years lifetime and the likelihood of required capacity extensions taking place needs to be critically reviewed if projects are currently not operating at the expected output. It is advised that external capacity (consultant) is contracted to support the work of the M&E consultant and to assist in clearly defining baseline and additionality on the one hand and to critically reviewing the information provided by the companies on the other hand. The calculations need to follow the approved GEF methodology. Implementation should start in January 2020.

The analysis of the Green Energy Point project clearly showed that co-financing provided by UNDP was much too small to argue that the UNDP funding was essential for project implementation. Additionality considerations shall also include an investigation of the additionality of co-financing provided to secure that financing provided by UNDP plays an essential role in implementation of innovation projects.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/04/29]

The recommendation is partially accepted. The process of recalculating the incremental GHG emission reductions resulting from the supported projects was already underway during the MTR process.  This analysis will be finalized during the first quarter of 2020 by the project’s local GHG monitoring team supported by project’s international technical advisor. The analysis will also take into account the additionality concerns expressed by the MTR.  Although at this point in time, it is not possible to have the very final figures yet, as all 5 projects under implementation still have 1.5 years before the completion, the analysis will be updated towards the end of the project.

As it concerns the additionality of the “Green Energy Point” project, the project, which they currently run differs from how their Project would look like – without the CSUD project support. For example, CSUD helped an innovative business model which  includes a new supply line of woody biomass from waste wood from the Hydropower system “Djerdap” (wood on the river waste, captured by the hydropower plant).  The CSUD project coached and inspired the company to change, therefore, the overall project concept, and increase the GHG reduction capacity of their Project. This new business model also includes the GHG emissions reduction from transporting the wood from one place to another, which led to an idea of a fully carbon neutral plant using electric trucks, solar energy etc. Furthermore, it is to be noted that the project is among the very first ones globally to test the UNDP PBP (Performance Based Payment) implementation modality in mobilizing private sector capital for climate & innovation related development goals, which can have a far reaching impact in attracting increasing private sector capital and co-financing for future UNDP and GEF supported projects. Therefore,  although recognizing that we may not claim the Green Energy Point project to have been completely dependent on the GEF support, we believe the MTR should have recognized a fair percentage of the value which CSUD brought to the achievement of the overall CSUD project goal and its targets and of being additional to the current baseline.

Finally, there is a question about the use of consistent methodologies across different GEF projects.  The Green Energy Point project is clearly the first project of its kind in Serbia with an installed capacity of 1,94 MWh for combined production of heat and electricity. Although the GEF grants can and should not play any major role in co-financing the actual investments for these kind of larger investment projects (thereby taking into account also the prospects for replication without the support of a GEF grant after the project), the GEF support can still play a major role in guiding the project towards a more holistic and sustainable direction from the GHG reduction point of view and for preparing ground for replicating similar projects elsewhere.  How in such cases the question of additionality and the claim for direct GHG reduction impact should be addressed is up to the available GEF guidance and precedents provided by other projects. One such precedent is the already completed GEF funded biomass project in Serbia, where for the biggest single investment project, the GEF grant contribution was approximately representing a similar share as for the Green Point project.  Still, the project was foreseen to be fully additional  in terms of justifying the project’s direct GHG reduction impact. 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Clarifying and strengthening the definition of additionality
[Added: 2020/04/29]
Project Team 2020/12 Initiated To be done in consultation with UNDP/GEF IRH/HQ M&E Units
Developing a report on environmental and socio-economic impacts of innovative projects supported by the CSUD project
[Added: 2020/04/29]
Project team 2021/09 Initiated Expert support shall be contracted
Development of methodology and project specific guidance for monitoring and evaluation of each supported project in line with GEF guidelines and specific characteristics of each sector/sub-sector
[Added: 2020/04/29] [Last Updated: 2020/08/03]
Project Team 2020/08 Completed completed, as informed by Portfolio Manager History
5. Recommendation:

Focus on replicability and sustainability: Although performance of the Project Team was excellent, certain improvements are still possible. The projects selected so far both in the Open Data Challenge and the Innovation Challenge cover a wide area of various applications, which is excellent for an innovation project. However, in the second half of the project, there should be more effort to secure replicability and sustainability.
When looking through the data published by municipalities under the Open Data Challenge, there seems to be little consistency in the way data is collected and presented. The data sets in the different municipalities range from extensive historic data sets collected with a lot of effort and no continuous update to the automatic transmission of one data set because the equipment installed by the municipality allows that. Whereas it is good to investigate different routes, it would be important in the second phase to improve consistency and replicability, in order to achieve sustainability of selected approaches. Bundling municipalities in the Open Data Challenge is an excellent step in that direction.
Also in the Innovation Challenge replicability and sustainability should be a key focus. Projects such as the SCADA project in the city of Sabac have a high replication potential, as district heating is wide-spread in Serbia. Projects such as the Green Energy Point project, were supposed to deliver large contributions towards targets, but have issues with additionality in that they highly likely would have happened anyways. When selecting further projects for support, replicability should be a key focus rather than pushing large projects just because they are supposed to have a considerable contribution towards a target.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/04/29]

The recommendation is accepted

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Strengthening replicability criteria for selection of the second round of innovative projects whose implementation will be supported through co-financing
[Added: 2020/04/29] [Last Updated: 2020/08/03]
Project Manager 2020/08 Initiated completed, as informed by Portfolio Manager History
Updating the project outreach strategy including activities which can make supported projects more attractive and applicable to different stakeholders
[Added: 2020/04/29]
Project Manager 2021/12 Not Initiated Expert support shall be contracted
6. Recommendation:

Setup of M & E system: A proper M&E system needs to be setup to monitor each of the indicators defined in the ProDoc. Main responsibility for that task is with the Project Team, with support from the M&E consultant in the field of GHG emission reductions. Special care has to be given to GHG emission reductions and co-financing, based on the recommendations on additionality. It is understood that an M&E consultant has been hired to contribute to that work and it is advised to carefully review the outputs of this assignment.  Another key component needs to be the monitoring of gender impacts, which has not been included in the monitoring up to now.

Setting up the M&E system has high priority. A proper functioning system is important to monitor project progress and – if necessary – implement corrective actions or adaptive management. Work on the M&E system should be a key focus in Q1 of 2020.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/04/29]

The recommendation is accepted.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Monitoring and evaluation of supported projects in line with GEF guidelines, including both GHG emission reduction and socio-economic aspects
[Added: 2020/04/29]
Project Manager 2020/12 Initiated
Monitoring gender aspects in supported projects and the development of Gender Action Plan which will include lessons learned and recommendation for similar projects
[Added: 2020/04/29]
Project Manager 2021/12 Initiated
7. Recommendation:

Conservative estimation of results: Reporting of the Project Team on results assumes that once innovation projects receive support, full benefits are accounted towards project targets over the life-time of 20 years. Reality shows that a more conservative approach would be helpful to fully understand progress and further support necessary to achieve the expected results. Currently it is neglected that additional steps, such as increase of capacity or sale of products are required to achieve the results. The Project Team in cooperation with the M&E consultant need to follow-up closely the progress of each of the projects to fully understand the implementation level to be achieved during the course of the Project and likely to be achieved after end of the Project.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/04/29]

The recommendation is accepted.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Development of template to follow-up the progress of implementation for each of the projects
[Added: 2020/04/30]
Project team 2021/12 Initiated
8. Recommendation:

Performance Based Payments: The Project uses the new approach of Performance Based Payments (PBPs) to support innovation projects in their implementation. In contrast to other supporting mechanisms such as grants, funding is only provided if pre-agreed milestones are reached. Typically, a company receives 3-4 payments under a PBP contract.

It would be helpful to summarize the lessons learnt from this new approach in a short study, which is prepared towards the end of the Project, when work with innovation projects financed through PBPs is finalized. The results and lessons learnt from the CSUD project would help the application of the PBP approach in other projects. Ideally, the Project Team should prepare the short study, as they have the best know-how on that topic.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/04/29] [Last Updated: 2020/04/30]

The recommendation is partially accepted. The PBPs are corporative policy of UNDP which are now widely used and shall be used extensively by the end of the CSUD project. Therefore, while the advantages of PBPs are evident to the CSUD project, their availability to the wider audience shall anyway be available through the CSUD project reports. These project reports shall be made available to UNDP to analyse PBPs more thoroughly through a multitude of examples, which can provide a much more credible study, than the one which could be derived from the results of one project with a particular focus on GHG emission reduction in urban areas. Instead, the Project Team will summarize lessons learned for the CSUD project results and make it available to UNDP IRH.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Summary of the lessons learned of PBPs from CSUD project
[Added: 2020/04/29]
Project Team 2021/12 Initiated
9. Recommendation:

Possible Project Extension: Taking into account the delay in receiving cash co-financing from the MoEP, a project extension should be considered. As explained in detail in recommendation 1, the lack of cash co-financing is endangering the achievement of the project targets. More time for implementation would help the project in achieving the various indicators. A condition for the extension would be the provision of all (or a majority) of the committed co-financing by the MoEP by Q4 2020 at the latest.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/04/29]

The recommendation is accepted. A no-cost extension for 12 months will allow monitoring implementation of pilot projects, project’s direct and indirect impact, including GHG emission reduction and implementation of the additional projects if MoEP provides the committed co-financing by Q4 2020 at the latest.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Finalization of a request for a no-cost extension
[Added: 2020/04/29]
Project Team, UNDP CO 2021/06 Initiated

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

1 UN Plaza
DC1-20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel. +1 646 781 4200
Fax. +1 646 781 4213
erc.support@undp.org