PIREP

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2003-2007, Samoa
Evaluation Type:
Project
Planned End Date:
10/2006
Completion Date:
10/2006
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
13,000
3.2.1 Lessons learned on the project design of UNDP/GEF projects in general PIREP has basically been an exercise to formulate a region-wide initiative to promote RE technology development and utilization. Normally, GEF makes funding available through its PDF window for project preparation. These 'PDF' activities do not formally require an evaluation, only the (medium or full-sized) project itself. Since PIREP was formally a MSP, not a PDF, this PIREP review offers a rare opportunity to evaluate the project preparation process itself. Some lessons learned can be derived from looking at the process of implementation of PIREP and the formulation of its successor project, PIGGAREP. Here, the Evaluator takes the liberty of drawing also from his own experience in the design or evaluation of about 15 UNDP/GEF climate change projects and comes to some lessons learned:  In the design process, it is important to consult widely with a broad range of stakeholders, not only the energy ministry, office or unit involved, but also to engage in the design stage other government entities, utilities, RET suppliers, financial intermediaries and, last but not least, the end-users of the renewable energy technologies. This consultation should be more than just holding a one or two day workshop and pretend that all barriers and options have been analyzed and prioritized; it may take, depending on the coverage and complexity of the envisaged project, successive rounds of informal and formal meetings with stakeholders. Realistic planning should be ensured for the effective and timely implementation of the project, including a well-thought-out logical framework of objectives, expected outputs and activities, a plan for monitoring and evaluation of the project's outputs and impacts and budget and timeline. Unfortunately formulation of such frameworks is hampered by a number of issues: o UNDP and GEF formats in which the project implementation frameworks and o Proje

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document PIREP evaluation report FINAL.pdf report English Posted 1297
Download document Management Response - PIREP - Final 26 Feb 2008.doc summary Posted 834
Title PIREP
Atlas Project Number:
Evaluation Plan: 2003-2007, Samoa
Evaluation Type: Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 10/2006
Planned End Date: 10/2006
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Crisis Prevention & Recovery
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021)
Evaluation Budget(US $): 13,000
Source of Funding:
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Nationality
Team Leader
GEF Evaluation: Yes
Evaluation Type:
Focal Area:
Project Type:
GEF Phase: GEF-null
PIMS Number:
Key Stakeholders:
Countries: SAMOA
Comments: Project evaluation completed in 2006
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1 2. The planned follow-on project, PIGGAREP, should be planned and executed
2 Planned follow on project,PIGGAREP should be planned and executed.
1. Recommendation: 2. The planned follow-on project, PIGGAREP, should be planned and executed
Management Response: [Added: 2008/03/12]

This has already been completed.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
2.1 A clear detailed work plan needs to be formulated
[Added: 2008/03/12]
Project Management Unit/SPREP, Governments of the 11 participating Pacific Island Countries (PICs), UNDP Samoa & UNDP RCB 2008/01 Completed 11 preliminary country work plans for 2008-2011 and overall project work plan for 2008 was developed as part of the Inception Phase that was undertaken from July-Dec 2008. These work plans are included as annexes to the final Inception Report from January 2008
2.2 Set up Country Teams and Project Advisory Committee (PAC) a. Country Teams should ensure engagement of a broad range of stakeholders
[Added: 2008/03/12]
Project Management Unit/SPREP, Governments of the 11 participating Pacific Island Countries (PICs), UNDP Samoa & UNDP RCB 2008/01 Completed As part of the Inception Phase it was agreed that the term "National Project Coordination (NPC)" be the generalized name for the institutional setup for coordination of PIGGAREP activities in the country regardless of the actual names of the institutions involved, and that each NPC establish its own rules and procedures for its meetings (if and when necessary). Concerning composition of the NPC then preliminary members are specified in Annex 9 the final Inception Report from January 2008 With regard to Project Advisory Committee (PAC) as part of the Inception Phase the major stakeholder's decided this should be replaced with a dedicated Project Steering Committee (PSC). The PSC will review and endorse QPRs and quarterly FRs including quarterly work plans and requests for quarterly advances. In addition such mechanism will have the ultimate authority to suspend disbursement if project performance benchmarks (i.e. ,operational criteria) are not met. With regard to composition the PSC is made made up of representatives from UNDP, SPREP and the PICs. A first PSC meeting is tentative set to beginning of March 2008
2.3 A clear strategy for linkages with other programs in the region must be developed and defined per activity in the Work Plan
[Added: 2008/03/12]
Project Management Unit/SPREP, Governments of the 11 participating Pacific Island Countries (PICs), UNDP Samoa & UNDP RCB 2008/01 Completed A summary list of stakeholders and key roles in PIGGAREP are included in Annex 6 of the final Inception Report from January 2008. In addition GEF projects are required to have linkages with other programs due to its nature with incremental (GEF-funded) and base line (co-funded) activities.
2. Recommendation: Planned follow on project,PIGGAREP should be planned and executed.
Management Response: [Added: 2008/03/12]

Completed

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
2.4 Ensure good cooperation between regional organizations such as SPREP and SOPAC
[Added: 2008/03/12]
Project Management Unit/SPREP UNDP Samoa 2008/01 Completed A Co-operation PIEPSAP-PIGGAREP Discussion Paper from July 2007 outlines the framework for project level corporation between PIGGAREP and PIEPSAP. Close cooperation between the two projects during the overlap period until August 2008 will help to ensure sustainability of PIEPSAP supported interventions. On the other hand PIGGAREP would be in position to deliver immediate results as it would be able to build on extensive preparatory work undertaken supported by PIEPSAP. Thus there exists a win-win situation for the two projects with regard to the assistance provided to the participating countries. In line with the co-financing arrangement between PIEPSAP and PIGGAREP, PIGGAREP will follow up on a number of renewable energy and policy activities that have been initiated and implemented over PIEPSAP's lifetime. Cooperation would be voluntary; result oriented and focused on the technical level while aiming at maximizing benefits for the PIC. Formalization of cooperation would be kept at a minimum with the will to cooperate followed by concrete action being much more important than formal arrangements. The purpose of this PIEPSAP and PIGGAREP project level corporation between SPREP and SOPAC is to ensure horizontal regional integration and sustainability of PIEPSAP interventions undertaken over the last 3.5 years. Such arrangement has been facilitated by the set-up where both projects are managed by UNDP Samoa

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