- Evaluation Plan:
- 2011-2019, DPR Korea
- Evaluation Type:
- Final Project
- Planned End Date:
- 03/2020
- Completion Date:
- 01/2020
- Status:
- Completed
- Management Response:
- Yes
- Evaluation Budget(US $):
- 60,000
End of Project Evaluation: Sustainable Energy Solutions for Rural Livelihoods in DPRK (SES)
See attached
Share
Document | Type | Language | Size | Status | Downloads |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
tor | English | 318.87 KB | Posted | 220 |
![]() |
report | English | 1468.67 KB | Posted | 228 |
![]() |
summary | English | 220.86 KB | Posted | 171 |
Title | End of Project Evaluation: Sustainable Energy Solutions for Rural Livelihoods in DPRK (SES) | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Atlas Project Number: | 00090996 | ||||||||
Evaluation Plan: | 2011-2019, DPR Korea | ||||||||
Evaluation Type: | Final Project | ||||||||
Status: | Completed | ||||||||
Completion Date: | 01/2020 | ||||||||
Planned End Date: | 03/2020 | ||||||||
Management Response: | Yes | ||||||||
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021) |
|
||||||||
Evaluation Budget(US $): | 60,000 | ||||||||
Source of Funding: | TRAC | ||||||||
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): | 30,000 | ||||||||
Joint Programme: | No | ||||||||
Joint Evaluation: | No | ||||||||
Evaluation Team members: |
|
||||||||
GEF Evaluation: | No | ||||||||
Key Stakeholders: | |||||||||
Countries: | DPRK -DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF KOREA | ||||||||
Comments: | The evaluation has been planned in the Project Document |
Lessons | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. | 5.1 Conclusions and Lessons LearnedConclusion #1: Significant external factors/challenges severely affected the project Significant external factors/challenges beyond the control of the UNDP DPRK CO were encountered throughout the entire SES project implementation, and severely affected the timely delivery of project outputs relating to procurement-related activities.
Table 9 below shows the timeline of how the significant external factors/challenges overlapped each other, hence the SES Project Team would not be free of any constraints at any point of time between 2015 to 2019 to effectively and efficiently implement the project outputs relating to procurement activities to fully achieve the desired project outcome.
In particular, the evaluation highlights below the 2 external factors/challenges as the main constraints.
1. 6 Rounds of UN Sanctions on DPRK (2016-2017); and 2. Extended Period of Banking Channel Disruptions/Closure
The UN Security Council imposed two UN Sanctions (UN Resolutions #2270 and #2321) in 2016 and another four UN Sanctions (UN Resolutions #2356, #2371, #2375 and #2397) in 2017 were imposed on DPRK which included (among many measures) import, financial and economic restrictions. As a result, the UNDP DPRK CO and SES Project Team were severely constrained and the SES project’s delivery negatively impacted as follow:
The SES PRODOC had appropriate risk assessments which identified a total of 15 risks (1 governance risk, 3 operational risks, 5 strategic risks, 3 financial/fiduciary risks, and 3 sustainability risks) with impact and probability ratings, and prepared corresponding counter-measures/management responses which were appropriate at that point of time and during the project implementation (2015 to 2019).
The risk assessments could be further extended by identifying the key risks and appropriate counter-measures/management response for each of project outputs within the Results and Resources Framework.
The evaluation noted that the risk analysis did not plan for scenarios of extreme UN sanction measures and the extended banking channel disruption/closure. Furthermore, the implementation of the SES PRODOC’s counter-measures/management responses did not appropriately resolve the significant change of events caused by the UN Sanction measures and the extended banking channel disruption/closure during the project implementation.
Lesson Learned:
Despite the challenging circumstances, The SES Project Team has done their best and laid strong foundations to enable sustainable energy solutions at the village community (Ri) level. The SES Project Team was able to implement the project despite encountering the significant external factors and challenges that were beyond the control of the UNDP DPRK CO throughout the entire SES Project by:
An important result demonstrated in the SES Project was how the intended project outputs addressed country priorities and also fit within the county development priorities with new strategies and initiatives being planned for sustainable living and livelihoods. This was further strengthened with strong support and commitment from National and Local Counterparts.
The high level of national and local ownership ensured sustainability and positive environmental impact, despite the SES Project encountering external challenges that severely constrained the project beneficiaries.
The SES model has the potential to be replicated across DPRK in close partnership collaboration with National and Local Counterparts. To ensure the continuity and also strengthening of national ownership, future replication projects should also be accompanied by appropriate capacity building activities at local county and village levels. However, this replication must also be complemented with fully sustainable and well-equipped energy supply chains to benefit the end-users at the county and village community (Ri) level.
Lesson Learned:
Conclusion #4: Significant delays through the sanctions exemptions/clearance process and the extended banking channel disruption/closure hindered project implementation and severely affected UNDP’s reputation of not being able to effectively deliver
Significant delays through the sanctions exemptions/clearance process and the extended banking channel disruption/closure hindered project implementation and have severely affected UNDP’s reputation as an organization of not being able to effectively deliver.
However, many other significant achievements in the SES Project at village community (Ri) level through the use of solar PV systems in 170 public institutions and EE retrofitting measures in 67 public community buildings across 15 village communities (Ris) should be given more on-the-ground recognition for UNDP’s unique contributions.
Lesson Learned:
Stronger on-the-ground visibility on UNDP’s unique contributions would be required at current SES project sites and future SES-related interventions (such as UNDP logos, nameplates, asset/delivered item tags), and communication of project results among international and national stakeholders (through a suitable communications platform for active sharing of information and lessons learned). UNDP’s reputation as an organization to deliver results would need to be restored.
It is important to:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Findings | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1. | 3. findings3.1 Project Design3.1.1 Project Document (PRODOC) Formulation The SES PRODOC indicated that the earliest commencement of the SES Project formulation was a UNDP fact-finding mission to conduct a rural energy survey in June 2014. A detailed assessment indicated to implement local-level energy solutions in rural areas through an approach that entails:
3.1.2 Analysis of Results and Resources Framework (Project Logic/Strategy and Indicators) In reviewing the effectiveness and efficiency of the SES Project in meeting its outcome, the evaluation reviewed the SES Project’s Results and Resources Framework in relation to the UNDP DPRK CPD (2011 to 2015) and UNSF (2011 to 2016, 2017 to 2021) on the strategic priorities, outcomes, outputs and the primary applicable key environment and sustainable development key result areas (KRAs). The evaluation assessment also addressed the SES Project’s strategy, indicators, baseline, end of project target, source of verification, and risk and assumptions.
The evaluation reviewed that the SES Project’s Results and Resources Framework design has taken careful consideration of the UNDP DPRK CPD and UNSF outcomes and was aligned to the key environment and sustainable development KRAs. Furthermore, the SES Project’s Results and Resources Framework was prepared with in-depth thinking, accurately described the end of project goals, listed the sources of verification, and appropriately identified the risks and the assumptions.
The Results and Resources Framework was clearly described with the indicative activities and end of project targets. There were 15 indicators in total which reflected against outputs and activities.
The SES Project took extensive consideration to stakeholder participation in project design, decision making, planning, implementation and monitoring. For example, the National Counterparts and Local Counterparts were invited to contribute to designing of project interventions and technical discussions on the output activities. This translated to an increase in confidence and ownership of project activities in the SES Project implementation.
The SES Project’s outcome and outputs were consistent with the DRPK Government’s national priorities. A consultative approach with the National and Local Counterparts was followed in the development and design of project outputs and activities, resulting in strong project ownership and commitment.
The SES Project’s proposed outcome and outputs of the Project individually addressed specific needs identified and collectively presented a comprehensive solution to strengthen local capacity for improved nutrition and food security.
The SES Project also aligned with local county development plans and reinforced stakeholders’ engagement and supported their achievement of priorities. The SES Project design was also strategically aligned and consistent with the UN MDGs and subsequent UN SDGs.
The evaluation further noted that the SES Project’s expected results in the SES PRODOC are more output-oriented (WHAT IS BEING PRODUCED - EFFICIENCY) than outcome-oriented (WHAT IS THE VALUE/BENEFIT/ CHANGE/IMPACT - EFFECTIVENESS). While this is not an assessment of the SES Project Team’s performance, the evaluation is of a view that future PRODOC design should consider a balance of expected results with outcome-oriented targets/indicators to determine the effectiveness.
The SES PRODOC had appropriate risk assessments with impact and probability ratings, and prepared corresponding counter-measures/management responses which were appropriate at that point of time and for the project duration (2015 to 2019). The SES Project identified a total of 15 risks:
3.1.4 Lessons from Other Relevant Projects Incorporated into Project Design The evaluation observed that the SES Project Team took opportunity to align the SES Project with the CBDRM Project to maximize the synergy effects (more details found in Section 3.3.8).
The SES Project was also built from the experience and lessons learned from two previous UNDP DPRK projects:
3.1.5 Planned Stakeholder Participation The SES Project generated strong stakeholder interest, especially at the DPRK national/central government ministries and Local Counterparts such as CPCs and NTDCs in Kaechon City and Hoechang, Singye, Unsan, Yonsan, and Yangdok Counties.
In terms of project design, the proxy indicators would be the number of stakeholders involved in planning and attendance during the project formulation/planning meetings. The evaluation interviews with National and Local Counterparts indicated sufficient evidence of direct involvement based on detailed accounts of the project outputs.
The minutes of the PSC meetings recorded perfect attendance and representations from the National Counterparts. The proxy indicators from M&E Field Monitoring Visits for participation at the project implementation stage indicated high project output ownership, perfect attendance at project field site meetings, capacity development/knowledge dissemination activities, and the visible evidence of construction/installation taking place. During the evaluation interviews, there were high levels of project output-ownership as the Local Counterparts and beneficiaries were able to provide extensive technical details of their project outputs.
Replication and up-scaling are fundamental to the SES Project as it provides the opportunity to build on best practices and lessons learned, and expand the reach and impact of its project outputs. As such, UNDP, government agencies, international agencies/organizations and the private sector would utilize these given opportunities to support the replication and up-scaling of the most successful projects and practices through their networks and contacts.
The SES Project has the potential for replication in other provinces/counties in DPRK through:
Execution Modality: In accordance with the SES PRODOC, the SES Project modality was Direct Implementation Modality (DIM) which meant the project execution and implementation would be undertaken directly by UNDP DPRK in accordance with UNDP Programme and Operations Policies and Procedures (POPP). The overall decision, including financial accountability would rest with UNDP DPRK and the SES Project was to be executed in coordination with relevant partners, including at the local county level, with a view to ensuring that effective assistance flowed directly to targeted beneficiaries.
Project Steering Committee (PSC): The PSC was established to provide high-level oversight and to steer the SES Project. The PSC is responsible for high-level management decisions and policy guidance required for implementation of the project, including recommendations and approval of project plans, budget and revision. The PSC membership comprised the following key stakeholders:
The SES Project Team travelled to the respective county locations to hold regular and quarterly meetings with the project partners to review the project progress and initiate early corrective actions.
The SES Project FMV reports indicated effective discussions to resolve project management and coordination issues, and also contained details of reviews and actions taken. The Programme FMV, led by the M&E Specialist and CO Management, validated the results achieved. All recommended actions were consistently followed up and presented by the M&E Specialist at PSC meetings and captured in the quarterly programme and oversight FMV reports. These reports were subsequently sent to the UNDP Regional HQ Bureau as required by the UNDP DPRK ICF. The evaluation reviewed that there was a focus on results and activity scheduling across activities and outputs. Progress was reviewed against the objectives and targets set in the SES PRODOC’s Results and Resources Framework. The Project and Programme FMV reports were written to reflect the progress achieved against targets.
Project Management Unit (PMU): Being a DIM agency, the UNDP formed a PMU comprising one International Project Manager, one National Technical Coordinator and one National Administrative Assistant.
The PMU would be fully responsible for the coordination of National/Local Counterparts for project execution in a timely manner and within budget. The PMU facilitated effective project planning, that included preparation of annual work plans and project monitoring and reporting. The PMU was charged with coordinating and facilitating the procurements. As a curator, the evaluation reviewed that the PMU had effectively and efficiently held all the records, publications and minutes of meetings pertaining to the SES Project.
3.2 Project Implementation
The SES Project was formally signed off on 26 August 2015. However, there were prolonged delays at the start of the project due to the:
Due to the early UN Sanctions on DPRK (UN Resolutions #2087 and #2094), the UNDP DPRK CO had to implement prolonged periods of organizational cash conservation mode due to the lack of funds being transferred into DPRK. Hence, there were minimal funds to implement any project activities and eventually slow progress in delivering project results.
The extended period of banking channel disruption/closure created uncertainties for the UNDP DPRK CO and possibly resulted in the late recruitment of the SES Project Team. The Project Manager, National Technical Coordinator and Project Administrative Assistant were eventually on board in the 1st quarter of 2016.
Despite the early and recurring setbacks, the evaluation reviewed that the SES Project Team displayed good project management abilities and effectively utilised appropriate project management tools to implement the SES Project to the best of their abilities.
The project implementation was delayed by 7 months from August 2015 until March 2016, with the first PSC Meeting involving the SES Project Team on board held on 21 April 2016. The SES Project Team effectively applied adaptive management in planning by having to reschedule the timelines for activities in order to accomplish the project outputs, with activities starting in 2016.
The UN Security Council imposed two UN Sanctions (UN Resolutions #2270 and #2321) in 2016 and another four UN Sanctions (UN Resolutions #2356, #2371, #2375 and #2397) in 2017 were imposed on DPRK which included (among many measures) import, financial and economic restrictions.
Table 1 below showed the implementation status of each SES Project output as assessed by the evaluation. The evaluation noted that the SES Project would have produced a significantly different implementation status if there were no UN Sanctions imposed on DPRK and there was no banking channel disruption/closure issue to deal with.
Table 1: SES Project Implementation Status
Note:
3.2.2 Partnership Arrangements The SES Project generated strong stakeholder interest and participation from National/Local Counterparts in DPRK. The stakeholders at the National/Central level were:
There was evidence of strong interest and commitment at the local county level through stakeholder contributions (both financial and in-kind), roles and responsibilities to implement the SES Project activities.
Despite the external factors/challenges that were beyond the control of the UNDP DPRK CO, the partnership arrangement between SES Project Team and the National and Local Counterparts endured the challenging 4.5-year project period, and demonstrated great patience, understanding and resilience to overcome the difficulties faced. The fruits of this partnership agreement in challenging circumstances were the successful completion of many SES Project interventions as follow:
The SES Project had a duration of about 4.5 years (August 2015 – December 2019) with an approved funding of US$6,117,572. The details of the planned financing allocation based on the SES PRODOC are as follow:
Table 2: SES Project – Original Planned Budget as per SES PRODOC
While the SES PRODOC did not include any co-financing from National/Local Counterparts, the evaluation reviewed that the Local Counterparts provided in-kind contributions (labor and construction materials) to assist the timely completion of SES Project activities.
The budget and actual expenditure of the SES Project is provided below in Table 3.
Table 3: Summary of Budget and Actual Expenditure (SES Project)
Note:
3.2.4 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Activities Used for Adaptive Management The M&E framework consisted of local monitoring and reporting as well as international independent evaluations. Both the SES Project Manager and the UNDP DPRK Programme M&E Specialist were responsible for the preparation and submission of the M&E reports and evaluations at project and programme levels respectively, as stated in the SES PRODOC. Table 4 below summarizes the achievement of monitoring actions as required by the SES PRODOC.
Table 4: M&E Plan and Completion Status
The UNDP DPRK CO and the SES Project Team proactively responded with specific adaptive management measures to recommendations from MTR as shown below in Table 5:
Table 5: Management Response to SES Project MTR Recommendations
The evaluation reviewed that the M&E process at the project and programme level was very comprehensive. The UNDP DPRK Programme M&E Team showed high competency in:
The SES Project adopted the direct implementation modality (DIM) which meant that UNDP DPRK would be the Implementing Agency with a dedicated project team based in the UNDP DPRK CO. An International Project Manager would be recruited and be responsible for the daily management of the project with assistance from recruited national project staff (comprising one National Technical Coordinator and one National Administrative Assistant). The SES Project Team would further engage International and/or National Consultants as required based on the SES Project’s technical requirements.
The SES Project also formed a Project Steering Committee (PSC) to guide the project direction and address any challenges. The PSC was co-chaired by the UNDP Deputy Resident Representative (DRR) and the National Coordinator from the DPRK National Coordinating Committee (NCC) for UNDP, with participation of representatives from the MEPI, CBS, SCoST, SAOS and other institutions as needed at the central level.
The SES Project would also work closely with Local Counterparts such as CPCs and NTDCs from:
The evaluation established that there were strong working relationships between the UNDP DPRK CO, the SES Project Team and National/Local Counterparts and project beneficiaries at the county/village community (Ri) level. These working relationships were frequently tested by the slow progress of the SES Project. Key representatives of the National/Local Counterparts expressed disappointments at the prolonged delays and unsuccessful implementation of the SES Project procurement-related activities.
Many of these expressed disappointments were understandably justified as, in their views, tangible results were not delivered, especially the procurement activities for RE/EE equipment during the 2nd half of the 4.5-year project duration. Despite these procurement setbacks, the National/Local Counterparts expressed deep gratitude and appreciation on the limited but successful implementation of the SES Project interventions that has a great potential for scale up and replication.
The National/Local Counterparts expressed deep gratitude and appreciation for the SES Project Team who had done their very best, in the midst of many external factors/challenges faced, to implement the project with some significant success.
The National/Local Counterparts, while fully understanding that the external factors/challenges such as the UN Sanctions and the geo-political situation had severely affected the SES Project, highlighted their disappointment in the UNDP as an organization for not being able to deliver the results.
3.3 Achievement of Project ResultsThe evaluation rated the SES Project’s project results according to the evaluation ratings table listed below in Table 6.
Table 6: Evaluation Overall Results/Impact Rating
The evaluation rated the SES Project’s overall results/impact with reference to its 4 project outputs as per stated in the SES PRODOC. The overall results/impact are presented below in Table 7.
Table 7: Overall Results/Impact – SES Project
The evaluation further noted that the SES Project Team had done its best to deliver and achieve the desired project results despite encountering significant external factors/challenges, mainly due to the 6 UN Sanctions in 2016 and 2017 and the recurring banking channel disruption/closure that prevented funds transfer into DPRK during the SES Project implementation.
Relevance with national priorities
Achievement Rating: 5/6 (Satisfactory - Minor Shortcomings)
The SES Project was highly relevant and aligned with the DPRK national strategies and priorities. The SES Project was designed with humanitarian-oriented outputs and activities which were aimed to address the humanitarian needs of intended beneficiaries.
The SES Project’s relevance was further strengthened with National and Local Counterparts being involved and consulted during the project design and also during project implementation. The SES Project Team, particularly the Project Manager, also had suitable technical skillsets and competencies to deliver most of the project outputs which are technically complex and required specialised expertise and knowledge in RE and EE.
The SES Project’s relevance could be further improved if challenges in procurement due to UN Sanctions and banking channel disruption/closure severely disrupted the ability to procure internationally and in-country were appropriately resolved (which is beyond the control of the UNDP DPRK Project Team and CO) in response to the geo-political environment. Hence the SES Project’s relevance was affected as it could not fully deliver the required procurement-related activities to strengthen the energy supply chains (RE/EE tools/equipment/materials, civil works and construction).
Relevance with UNSF Outcomes and SDGs
Achievement Rating: 3/6 (Moderately Unsatisfactory - Significant Shortcomings)
The SES Project aligns closely with UNSF Outcomes 2.2, 3.2 and 4.3, MDGs 3, 4 and 7. The SES Project also contributes to the SDGs (SDG 7 on affordable and clean energy, and SDG 13 on climate action).
The UNSF (2017-2021) emphasized coherent and coordinated implementation in support of a common objective in order to achieve potential synergies among UN agencies and possibly with international organizations.
The evaluation assessed that the SES Project needed to improve its weak synergies with other UN agencies and international organizations with similar project/programme outputs and results. In particular, information sharing, communication of project results and valuable lessons learned should be further disseminated and strengthened on application, uses and impacts of RE/EE with other UN agencies and international organizations towards collectively achieving the UNSF Outcomes and also the SDGs.
Achievement Rating: 5/6 (Satisfactory – Minor Shortcomings)
External factors/environment such as the extended banking channel disruption/closure and significant delays through the sanctions exemptions/clearance process hindered the SES Project’s implementation and severely affected UNDP’s reputation as an organization of not being able to effectively deliver (beyond the control of the UNDP project team and CO). This in-turn affected the desired Output 3 and 4 results to be fully achieved, particularly the procurement of RE/EE equipment and materials to strengthen energy supply chains.
There were significant results for the village community (Ri) beneficiaries which potentially contributed to the SDGs such as:
Achievement Rating: 4/6 (Moderately Satisfactory – Moderate Shortcomings)
The project achieved the intended outcome. Out of the 4 outputs:
Achievement Rating: 5/6 (Satisfactory – Minor Shortcomings)
While the SES PRODOC did not include any DPRK counterparts to lead in implementing any project outputs, strong national ownership was achieved at the National/Central level through perfect attendance by DPRK counterpart representatives (NCC-UNDP, MEPI, CBS, SAOS and SCoST) of all PSC meetings.
The evaluation also found high national ownership through strong commitment and interest at the local county level with sustained results of initiation, knowledge/operational transfer and innovative creativity from the SES Project, as follow:
Sustainability Rating: 3/4 (Moderately Likely - Moderate Risks)
Risk assessments and mitigation strategies/action plans were identified and implemented during project design. However, it did not account for new external environments such as the UN sanctions and the extended banking channel disruption/closure. This resulted in unanticipated sustainability issues (incomplete procurement-related interventions for strengthening energy supply chains) emerging during project implementation and the outcome could not be fully realized/implemented.
The evaluation observed that National Consultants received extensive capacity building and knowledge in RE/EE technology and solutions. This is a commendable effort which should be continued long-term by the relevant DPRK national counterparts to conduct knowledge/operational transfer to have an extended pool of national resources for roll-out of future SES model roll-out.
The SES Project appropriately developed an exit strategy and took into account the following:
3.3.7 Basic Human Needs / Gender Equality
Achievement Rating: 5/6 (Satisfactory – Minor Shortcomings)
The SES PRODOC did not include specific gender mainstreaming/social inclusion strategy. However the SES Project has factored these into its activities. Basic human needs and gender equality were potentially achieved based on anecdotal/proxy indicator evidence through concrete examples of:
Achievement Rating: 4/6 (Moderately Satisfactory – Moderate Shortcomings)
The evaluation assessed that there were strong synergy effects between the SES Project and CBDRM Project as follow:
|
Recommendations | |
---|---|
1 | Strengthen financial reporting process |
2 | Extensive review and update of country office policies and procedures with long-term scenario planning |
3 | Consistently monitor and report of assets/delivered items |
4 | Manage UNDP CO’s reputational risks and stakeholders’ expectation |
5 | Rollout/replication of the SES Project in DPRK at county/village community (Ri) level |
6 | Communication of project results |
7 | Implementation of safety measures and procedures on RE/EE equipment |
Key Action Update History
Strengthen financial reporting process
Management Response: [Added: 2020/05/22]
Accepted
Key Actions:
Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1.1 For improved financial accountability and transparency purposes, UNDP DPRK project financial reporting processes and templates should track and report progress of consistent financial figures i.e. budget and actual expenditure for consistent comparisons between budget and actual expenditure, as per project outputs, based on project CDRs, for submissions of all relevant project reports (including annual project progress reports), to demonstrate the efficient use of funding on project output-based activities.
[Added: 2020/05/22] |
Project team | 2020/01 | No Longer Applicable |
[Justification: Project closed] |
Extensive review and update of country office policies and procedures with long-term scenario planning
Management Response: [Added: 2020/05/22]
Accepted
Key Actions:
Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.1 UNDP DPRK CO should work with UNDP BRH to extensively review and update all operational, procurement and financial policies and procedures to account for all that happened within the 2015-2019 period and appropriately mitigate any future constraints.
[Added: 2020/05/22] |
CO, BRH | 2020/12 | Overdue-Not Initiated | New program/project yet to be formulated | |
2.2 UNDP DPRK CO should incorporate extensive long-term scenario planning processes with appropriate and specific risk assessments and counter-measures.
[Added: 2020/05/22] |
CO | 2020/12 | Overdue-Not Initiated | New program/project yet to be formulated |
Consistently monitor and report of assets/delivered items
Management Response: [Added: 2020/05/22]
Agreed
Key Actions:
Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
3.1 UNDP DPRK CO should ensure that procurement of any equipment/materials strictly complies to relevant UNDP Policies and Procedures, with the monitoring process/procedure stringently following UNDP DPRK Guidelines for Field Monitoring Visits.
[Added: 2020/05/22] |
CO, Project team | 2020/01 | No Longer Applicable |
[Justification: Project closed] |
|
3.2 The project team should register any assets/items in the asset/delivered items list and physically monitor them, regardless of how they are procured given the DPRK special context working environment.
[Added: 2020/05/22] |
CO, Project team | 2020/01 | No Longer Applicable |
[Justification: Project closed] |
|
3.3 The project team continuation of monitoring and reporting on the use of the assets/delivered items after handover to project beneficiaries, at minimum during project implementation, should be adhered to.
[Added: 2020/05/22] |
CO< project team | 2020/01 | No Longer Applicable |
[Justification: Project closed] |
Manage UNDP CO’s reputational risks and stakeholders’ expectation
Management Response: [Added: 2020/05/22]
Agreed
Key Actions:
Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
4.2 UNDP DPRK CO should strengthen its relationship management processes with project beneficiaries such as continued field visits, as practical and as relevant as required during the project implementation period, to better manage stakeholder expectations. By doing so, the CO would avoid/minimize potential economic and productivity losses to counties/village communities (Ris).
[Added: 2020/05/22] |
CO, Program and project team | 2020/01 | No Longer Applicable |
[Justification: Project closed] |
|
4.3 UNDP DPRK CO minimizes and/or avoid unequal distribution of delivered assets/items to avoid unhealthy comparisons between project beneficiaries and across any projects that have synergies.
[Added: 2020/05/22] |
CO, Program and project team | 2020/01 | No Longer Applicable |
[Justification: Project closed] |
|
4.1 UNDP DPRK CO should set conditions and mechanisms to implement “Force Majeure” or early termination of projects if need to.
[Added: 2020/05/22] |
CO, Program and project team | 2020/12 | Overdue-Not Initiated | New program/project yet to be formulated |
Rollout/replication of the SES Project in DPRK at county/village community (Ri) level
Management Response: [Added: 2020/05/22]
Agreed
Key Actions:
Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
5.1 Facilitate knowledge/operational transfer of the SES Project’s procedural, operational and hands-on training manuals, guidelines, SOPs, CEMPs and other related SES equipment/materials
[Added: 2020/05/22] |
Project team | 2020/01 | No Longer Applicable |
[Justification: Project closed] |
|
5.2 Organize study tours, in other countries of similar context and/or culture to DPRK, for increased exposure to acquiring knowledge/application of best practices in RE/EE
[Added: 2020/05/22] |
Project team | 2020/01 | No Longer Applicable |
[Justification: Project closed] |
|
5.3 Conduct a base-line study to establish the starting indicators of current energy consumption and socio-economic development in local village communities (Ris)
[Added: 2020/05/22] |
Project team | 2020/01 | No Longer Applicable |
[Justification: Project closed] |
|
5.4 Conduct an independent impact evaluation study, as a future project output/activity component, to measure the impact effectiveness, final end-line indicators and actual benefits gained
[Added: 2020/05/22] |
Project team | 2020/01 | No Longer Applicable |
[Justification: Project closed] |
Communication of project results
Management Response: [Added: 2020/05/22]
Agreed
Key Actions:
Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
6.1 Future SES-related projects should strengthen its communication/sharing platforms to engage in closer collaboration/synergies with international organizations/agencies on SES-related activities
[Added: 2020/05/22] |
Project team | 2020/01 | No Longer Applicable |
[Justification: Project closed] |
|
6.2 Current SES project sites and future SES-related interventions should display stronger on-the-ground visibility of UNDP’s unique contributions at the county/village community (Ri) level through the consistent placing of UNDP logos, nameplates and/or asset/delivered item tags
[Added: 2020/05/22] |
Project team | 2020/01 | No Longer Applicable |
[Justification: Project closed] |
Implementation of safety measures and procedures on RE/EE equipment
Management Response: [Added: 2020/05/22]
Agreed
Key Actions:
Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
7.1 Installing protective covering over live equipment for insulation from any electrical shocks
[Added: 2020/05/22] |
Project team | 2020/01 | No Longer Applicable |
[Justification: Project closed] |
|
7.2. Creating risk-free and secured access to any sites housing the RE/EE equipment to minimize/prevent any potential workplace accidents
[Added: 2020/05/22] |
Project team | 2020/01 | No Longer Applicable |
[Justification: Project closed] |
|
7.3. Developing safety procedures/manuals when operating, cleaning and/or maintaining any RE/EE equipment.
[Added: 2020/05/22] |
Project team | 2020/01 | No Longer Applicable |
[Justification: Project closed] |