Green Technology Application for Low Carbon Cities

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2016-2020, Malaysia
Evaluation Type:
Mid Term Project
Planned End Date:
09/2019
Completion Date:
01/2020
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
No
Evaluation Budget(US $):
21,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document Detailed TOR- Mid Term Review Consultant.pdf tor English 470.05 KB Posted 112
Download document GTALCC MTR Team PPt v2.pptx summary English 1143.85 KB Posted 44
Download document Malaysia GTALCC MTR Report Final.pdf report English 3244.51 KB Posted 78
Title Green Technology Application for Low Carbon Cities
Atlas Project Number: 00085914
Evaluation Plan: 2016-2020, Malaysia
Evaluation Type: Mid Term Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 01/2020
Planned End Date: 09/2019
Management Response: Yes
UNDP Signature Solution:
  • 1. Poverty
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
SDG Goal
  • Goal 9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation
SDG Target
  • 9.4 By 2030, upgrade infrastructure and retrofit industries to make them sustainable, with increased resource-use efficiency and greater adoption of clean and environmentally sound technologies and industrial processes, with all countries taking action in accordance with their respective capabilities
Evaluation Budget(US $): 21,000
Source of Funding: UNDP XB
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 21,694
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Ghazali Taib
GEF Evaluation: No
Key Stakeholders:
Countries: MALAYSIA
Lessons
1.

Low-carbon planning
The project team realized that there are several agencies which have similar and overlapping mandates. In realizing this, a conscious effort has been made to increase partnership and collaboration with these agencies with overlapping mandates and to synergize the project interventions. Second, there is a strong need for a national level low-carbon planning and institutional framework guided by a national strategy or master plan that is endorsed by an inter-sectoral range of cooperating ministries and agencies. Although not formulated as such in the ProDoc, the Project Team (with SEDA support) has rightly identified this as a fundamental gap that should be addressed and has focussed efforts on having a low carbon planning and an appropriate institutional framework in place (to promote horizontal and vertical integration on carbon-relevant decision-making).
Project formulation
Often UNDP/GEF projects face a long period from first project concept, PIF submission, PIF approval, project documentation formulation, CEO endorsement, project signatures, project inception to setting up the project management team. GTALCC confirms this and the whole period lasted some five years, and only by mid-2017 a fully functional project team was set up. Such a period is too long and brings the inherent danger that the project documentation is outdated already when the project activities really start. This has happened in the case of GTALCC was well, especially in Component 3 where investment opportunities have shifted or associated investments delayed.
A number of the project indicators measure the progress of the external partners that are outside the control and influence of the project. In the Project, a few indicators measure big investments by external partners and is counted this as part of co-financing and/or the UNDP/GEF project’s direct greenhouse gas emission reduction. If the large investment has not occurred yet at the GEF project’s end, then how can we report the co-financing (and associated GHG emission reduction? Does this mean that the UNDP/GEF project was not successful? Not really, the indicator measures the investment partner's progress basically, not the UNDP/GEF contribution. Second, if such an indicator makes sense in the logframe, it should be broken down in phases, e.g. with a sub-indicator for ‘feasibility and business plan finalised’, ‘tendering and design completed’, ‘construction started and completed’, so that the progress can make measured.
UNDP
With one of the MTR team consultants also involved in many UNDP/GEF project activities and the observation based on the GTALCC experience, we have a question: “why each time when a project is being formulated, the wheel of ‘formulating the logframe set of indicators’ needs to be reinvented?” Since most UNDP/GEF climate change mitigation usually have the same components, e.g. policy and institutional frameworks, capacity and institutional strengthening, financial mechanisms and a pilot/demonstration component, would it not be possible to formulate some ‘guidance document’ on how to formulate good indicators that are not only SMART, but are able to give an indication of the project’s influence on outcome realization? Such a document could give generic examples of sets of indicators per component that can then be catered and finetuned by the project document designers based on the project’s needs and circumstances.


Findings

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