Energy Efficiency Standards and Labeling in Jordan

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2013-2017, Jordan
Evaluation Type:
Mid Term Project
Planned End Date:
10/2013
Completion Date:
10/2013
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
10,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document EE MTE TOR - Final.docx tor English 92.53 KB Posted 332
Download document PIMS 3735 - Jordan - EE appliances - MTE - final.docx report English 623.77 KB Posted 1715
Download document PIMS 3735 - Jordan EE appliances - Management response to mid-term evaluation - October 2013.docx related-document English 38.08 KB Posted 393
Title Energy Efficiency Standards and Labeling in Jordan
Atlas Project Number: 00074459
Evaluation Plan: 2013-2017, Jordan
Evaluation Type: Mid Term Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 10/2013
Planned End Date: 10/2013
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Environment & Sustainable Development
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
  • 1. National and local governments and communities have the capacities to adapt to climate change and make inclusive and sustainable environment & energy decisions benefitting in particular under-served populations
Evaluation Budget(US $): 10,000
Source of Funding: GEF
Joint Programme: No
Mandatory Evaluation: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Dr Prakash (Sanju) Deenapanray Director, ELIA ? Ecological Living In Action Ltd sanju@ecolivinginaction.com MOROCCO
GEF Evaluation: Yes
Evaluation Type:
Focal Area: Climate Change
Project Type: MSP
GEF Phase: GEF-4
PIMS Number: 3735
Key Stakeholders: MoENV
Countries: JORDAN
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1 It is strongly recommended that the PB should meet more regularly (at least every 3-4 months) until the closure of the programme. [PMU, UNDP, MoPIC and NERC]
2 The mid-term evaluator has discussed the methodology to calculate the cumulative indirect CO2 emission reductions that will accrue from the enforcement of MEPS in Jordan using update data and new assumptions. The Grid Emission Factor for Jordan will be used in the calculations. The validity of the calculations should be revised during the Terminal Evaluation of the EESL programme. [PMU and Consultant]
3 UNDP and GoJ have to contribute their share of cash co-financing to the programme. Given the current economic and political context, GoJ should contribute at least partially its pledged cash co-financing, while UNDP should commit its full share of co-financing to cover project management costs. This is important for two reasons: (1) to ensure that there is sufficient funding for project management expenses until the end of December 2014 (assuming the 6-month project extension that is recommended by the mid-term evaluation is granted); and (2) so that GEF funding that is used to cover project management costs is kept to within 10% of total GEF funds [UNDP and GoJ]
4 The management team missed two opportunities to modify the results framework. The two opportunities were: (1) the inception workshop; and (2) late in 2011 when the results framework was reformulated at the level of outputs and validated by the Programme Board. While developing the next AWP, it would be useful for the management team to address this issue. It is also a shortcoming that should not be repeated in future project development. [UNDP and PMU]
5 The management team missed two opportunities to modify the results framework. The two opportunities were: (1) the inception workshop; and (2) late in 2011 when the results framework was reformulated at the level of outputs and validated by the Programme Board. While developing the next AWP, it would be useful for the management team to address this issue. It is also a shortcoming that should not be repeated in future project development. [UNDP and PMU]
6 The management team missed two opportunities to modify the results framework. The two opportunities were: (1) the inception workshop; and (2) late in 2011 when the results framework was reformulated at the level of outputs and validated by the Programme Board. While developing the next AWP, it would be useful for the management team to address this issue. It is also a shortcoming that should not be repeated in future project development. [UNDP and PMU]
7 The PMU should seek to collaborate with RCREEE through MEMR to enhance its delivery. [PMU]
8 It is recommended that the programme should be extended to 31 December 2014 in order for the programme to maximize its post-project impact. There need not be an increase in funding as long as promised cash co-financing is obtained. [UNDP, MoPIC]
1. Recommendation: It is strongly recommended that the PB should meet more regularly (at least every 3-4 months) until the closure of the programme. [PMU, UNDP, MoPIC and NERC]
Management Response: [Added: 2013/11/24]

The long lag time between PB meetings was to ensure that there are solid deliverables to report on for the meeting. Now that most major deliverables (research consultancies) are completed, the remaining activities are the installation of the labs and the execution of the awareness campaign. Especially for the awareness campaign, it is will indeed be important for the PB to meet ? or, if not possible, then the PAC.

Key Actions:

2. Recommendation: The mid-term evaluator has discussed the methodology to calculate the cumulative indirect CO2 emission reductions that will accrue from the enforcement of MEPS in Jordan using update data and new assumptions. The Grid Emission Factor for Jordan will be used in the calculations. The validity of the calculations should be revised during the Terminal Evaluation of the EESL programme. [PMU and Consultant]
Management Response: [Added: 2013/11/24]

The methodology will be modified to incorporate additional levels of detail and advice from the evaluator on how to calculate cumulative emissions.

Key Actions:

3. Recommendation: UNDP and GoJ have to contribute their share of cash co-financing to the programme. Given the current economic and political context, GoJ should contribute at least partially its pledged cash co-financing, while UNDP should commit its full share of co-financing to cover project management costs. This is important for two reasons: (1) to ensure that there is sufficient funding for project management expenses until the end of December 2014 (assuming the 6-month project extension that is recommended by the mid-term evaluation is granted); and (2) so that GEF funding that is used to cover project management costs is kept to within 10% of total GEF funds [UNDP and GoJ]
Management Response: [Added: 2013/11/24]

UNDP remains committed to its share of the co-financing agreement and will disburse all remaining funds during the 2014 implementation phase. The GoJ has so far committed to its co-financing share and so far part of the money has been transferred to the project.

Key Actions:

4. Recommendation: The management team missed two opportunities to modify the results framework. The two opportunities were: (1) the inception workshop; and (2) late in 2011 when the results framework was reformulated at the level of outputs and validated by the Programme Board. While developing the next AWP, it would be useful for the management team to address this issue. It is also a shortcoming that should not be repeated in future project development. [UNDP and PMU]
Management Response: [Added: 2013/11/24]

During the inception workshop no issues were flagged which necessitated the modification of the results framework and as such they were not changed. By late 2011, when the project had only been active for less than 4 months: at that point and beyond, the necessity of modifying the results framework had become clear and, consequently, a revision was conducted and approved by the PB and RTA.

Key Actions:

5. Recommendation: The management team missed two opportunities to modify the results framework. The two opportunities were: (1) the inception workshop; and (2) late in 2011 when the results framework was reformulated at the level of outputs and validated by the Programme Board. While developing the next AWP, it would be useful for the management team to address this issue. It is also a shortcoming that should not be repeated in future project development. [UNDP and PMU]
Management Response: [Added: 2013/11/24]

During the inception workshop no issues were flagged which necessitated the modification of the results framework and as such they were not changed. By late 2011, when the project had only been active for less than 4 months: at that point and beyond, the necessity of modifying the results framework had become clear and, consequently, a revision was conducted and approved by the PB and RTA.

Key Actions:

6. Recommendation: The management team missed two opportunities to modify the results framework. The two opportunities were: (1) the inception workshop; and (2) late in 2011 when the results framework was reformulated at the level of outputs and validated by the Programme Board. While developing the next AWP, it would be useful for the management team to address this issue. It is also a shortcoming that should not be repeated in future project development. [UNDP and PMU]
Management Response: [Added: 2013/11/24]

During the inception workshop no issues were flagged which necessitated the modification of the results framework and as such they were not changed. By late 2011, when the project had only been active for less than 4 months: at that point and beyond, the necessity of modifying the results framework had become clear and, consequently, a revision was conducted and approved by the PB and RTA.

Key Actions:

7. Recommendation: The PMU should seek to collaborate with RCREEE through MEMR to enhance its delivery. [PMU]
Management Response: [Added: 2013/11/24]

This was discussed with the evaluator based on the project?s intent to disseminate the results of the consultancies (notably Technical Market Assessment and the Policy Option) to other countries in the region. RCREEE was suggested as a good option since it has relations with many Arab states through their representatives from the respective Ministry of Energy in each country.

Key Actions:

8. Recommendation: It is recommended that the programme should be extended to 31 December 2014 in order for the programme to maximize its post-project impact. There need not be an increase in funding as long as promised cash co-financing is obtained. [UNDP, MoPIC]
Management Response: [Added: 2013/11/24]

It is agreed that, to ensure the successful delivery of the washing machine labs, the current end date of June 2014 is very tight. An additional 6 month no-cost extension will give enough time to ensure said delivery. The extension will also allow additional time to carry out the awareness campaign to ensure reaching a larger number of consumers.

Key Actions:

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

220 East 42nd Street
20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel. +1 646 781 4200
Fax. +1 646 781 4213
erc.support@undp.org