- Evaluation Plan:
- 2017-2020, Lebanon
- Evaluation Type:
- Final Project
- Planned End Date:
- 11/2018
- Completion Date:
- 11/2018
- Status:
- Completed
- Management Response:
- Yes
- Evaluation Budget(US $):
- 20,000
Small Decentralised Renewable Energy Project (DREG) Project, Lebanon
| Document | Type | Language | Size | Status | Downloads |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 4695_UNDP-GEF-Terminal-Evaluation-Terms-of-Reference-DREG 09.05.2018.docx |
tor | English | 67.33 KB | Posted | 72 |
 TE_Report_DREG_14_Nov_2018.pdf |
report | English | 2716.75 KB | Posted | 72 |
| Title | Small Decentralised Renewable Energy Project (DREG) Project, Lebanon | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atlas Project Number: | 73116 | ||||||||||||||
| Evaluation Plan: | 2017-2020, Lebanon | ||||||||||||||
| Evaluation Type: | Final Project | ||||||||||||||
| Status: | Completed | ||||||||||||||
| Completion Date: | 11/2018 | ||||||||||||||
| Planned End Date: | 11/2018 | ||||||||||||||
| Management Response: | Yes | ||||||||||||||
| Focus Area: |
|
||||||||||||||
| Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017) |
|
||||||||||||||
| Evaluation Budget(US $): | 20,000 | ||||||||||||||
| Source of Funding: | Project | ||||||||||||||
| Evaluation Expenditure(US $): | 11,570 | ||||||||||||||
| Joint Programme: | No | ||||||||||||||
| Joint Evaluation: | No | ||||||||||||||
| Evaluation Team members: |
|
||||||||||||||
| GEF Evaluation: | Yes
|
||||||||||||||
| Key Stakeholders: | Ministry of Energy and Water | ||||||||||||||
| Countries: | LEBANON |
| Lessons | |
|---|---|
| Findings |
| Recommendations | |
|---|---|
| 1 | Recommendation 1: The project design as presented in the ‘Project Document’ did specify the expected set of Outputs for each of the Outcome of the project. However, the expected outputs did not find their required place in the log-frame of the project. Indicators were provided at the outcome level, whereas the work planning of the project was done at the Output level. The monitoring (PIRs) of the progress of the project was done as per the results framework of the project. As all the activities / Outputs did not got covered in the results framework, some of the important activities (as provided in the Outputs) gets missed out in the monitoring / PIRs. It is recommended that for the future project design, the Indicators in the results frame-work be fixed at both the Outcome level and the Output level Recommendation 2: The three indicators for the project objective (GHG emission reduction, Capacity of RE, and RE generation) were very closely interrelated. Thus, the additional indicators did not serve any purpose. Considering that the objective of the project on the one hand was “Reducing greenhouse gas emissions” while on the other it was, “removal of barriers to widespread application of decentralized renewable energy based power generation”, an indicator which indicates the removal of barriers or widespread application of DREG would have been more appropriate (instead of capacity of RE). Having said that, it is appreciated that having an appropriate indicator to indicate removal of barrier or wide spreading of DREG in itself is a big challenge. It is recommended that to the extent possible, the indicators of the ‘Project Objective’ should be independent of each other. |
| 2 | Recommendation 3: The project has not been able to support other DREG technologies (other than solar PV). As a result, it is a missed opportunity to showcase/promote different RE technologies. It is recommended that in case of involvement of multiple technologies/sectors, the project design should specify different technologies/sectors to be demonstrated (by pilots), and should have provisions for a different set of efforts which would be required to promote/demonstrate such technologies. Different types and levels of technical support are required for promotions/demonstration of different type of RE technologies. Any future project design for the promotion/demonstration of DREG should either be technology specific or should clearly state the technologies to be used for different pilot projects. Recommendation 4: The project design had provisions like technical support, grants and soft loans for supporting the implementation of the DREG pilot projects. The kind and extent of support was uniform all across the RE technologies. It is recommended that the project design should also have technology-specific provisions for supporting the kind of RE technology to be demonstrated by way of pilots. For example, for the technologies which are not presently demonstrated in the country, there can be a provision to have a study tour of the prospective beneficiaries to the countries where such technologies are already in use. In addition, for the pilot projects based on RE technologies where sufficient technical expertise may not be available within the country, it would help to take on board ‘International Technical Experts’. Recommendation 7: Whenever, an opportunity for a new RE project in Lebanon arises, the project design may support formulation of regulations and establishment of the electricity regulatory authority. This will not only help decentralised renewable energy generation, but will also help the establishment of Independent Power Producers (including those for RE). |
| 3 | Recommendation 5: There are some very good case studies from the DREG project to demonstrate financial feasibility of solar PV technology (particularly considering the reduction in the capital cost of solar PV). This may be used to achieve replication of the solar PV on a larger scale. |
| 4 | Recommendation 6: The project has prepared quality standards for a number of solar PV equipment which are already with the government for approval by way of a decree. Efforts may be continued to achieve this. |
| 5 | Evaluation Recommendation 8: Soft loans from the central bank are a very effective fiscal instrument for the promotion of RE technologies. However, it takes a considerable amount of time for approval of the soft loans, thereby delaying the projects. There is a need to optimise the process at the level of the central bank so that the overall time taken is reduced. The government counterpart may explore the possibilities to optimise the process at the level of the central bank |
1. Recommendation:
Recommendation 1: The project design as presented in the ‘Project Document’ did specify the expected set of Outputs for each of the Outcome of the project. However, the expected outputs did not find their required place in the log-frame of the project. Indicators were provided at the outcome level, whereas the work planning of the project was done at the Output level. The monitoring (PIRs) of the progress of the project was done as per the results framework of the project. As all the activities / Outputs did not got covered in the results framework, some of the important activities (as provided in the Outputs) gets missed out in the monitoring / PIRs. It is recommended that for the future project design, the Indicators in the results frame-work be fixed at both the Outcome level and the Output level
Recommendation 2: The three indicators for the project objective (GHG emission reduction, Capacity of RE, and RE generation) were very closely interrelated. Thus, the additional indicators did not serve any purpose. Considering that the objective of the project on the one hand was “Reducing greenhouse gas emissions” while on the other it was, “removal of barriers to widespread application of decentralized renewable energy based power generation”, an indicator which indicates the removal of barriers or widespread application of DREG would have been more appropriate (instead of capacity of RE). Having said that, it is appreciated that having an appropriate indicator to indicate removal of barrier or wide spreading of DREG in itself is a big challenge. It is recommended that to the extent possible, the indicators of the ‘Project Objective’ should be independent of each other.
Management Response: [Added: 2018/11/19] [Last Updated: 2018/11/19]
Both recommendations relate to the design of the logical framework and related indicators. This will be taken into consideration for all new GEF projects in their design phase.
Key Actions:
2. Recommendation:
Recommendation 3: The project has not been able to support other DREG technologies (other than solar PV). As a result, it is a missed opportunity to showcase/promote different RE technologies. It is recommended that in case of involvement of multiple technologies/sectors, the project design should specify different technologies/sectors to be demonstrated (by pilots), and should have provisions for a different set of efforts which would be required to promote/demonstrate such technologies. Different types and levels of technical support are required for promotions/demonstration of different type of RE technologies. Any future project design for the promotion/demonstration of DREG should either be technology specific or should clearly state the technologies to be used for different pilot projects.
Recommendation 4: The project design had provisions like technical support, grants and soft loans for supporting the implementation of the DREG pilot projects. The kind and extent of support was uniform all across the RE technologies. It is recommended that the project design should also have technology-specific provisions for supporting the kind of RE technology to be demonstrated by way of pilots. For example, for the technologies which are not presently demonstrated in the country, there can be a provision to have a study tour of the prospective beneficiaries to the countries where such technologies are already in use. In addition, for the pilot projects based on RE technologies where sufficient technical expertise may not be available within the country, it would help to take on board ‘International Technical Experts’.
Recommendation 7: Whenever, an opportunity for a new RE project in Lebanon arises, the project design may support formulation of regulations and establishment of the electricity regulatory authority. This will not only help decentralised renewable energy generation, but will also help the establishment of Independent Power Producers (including those for RE).
Management Response: [Added: 2018/11/19]
All recommendations will be taken into consideration for all new GEF projects in their design phase
Key Actions:
3. Recommendation:
Recommendation 5: There are some very good case studies from the DREG project to demonstrate financial feasibility of solar PV technology (particularly considering the reduction in the capital cost of solar PV). This may be used to achieve replication of the solar PV on a larger scale.
Management Response: [Added: 2018/11/19] [Last Updated: 2018/11/19]
Replication of solar PV on a large scale will be promoted with the Government of Lebanon
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Promote the replication of solar PV on a large scale.
[Added: 2018/11/19] |
Ministry of Energy and Water | 2019/12 | Not Initiated | Recommendation for the Ministry of Energy to adopt and upscale |
4. Recommendation:
Recommendation 6: The project has prepared quality standards for a number of solar PV equipment which are already with the government for approval by way of a decree. Efforts may be continued to achieve this.
Management Response: [Added: 2018/11/19]
The PV standards need to be adopted through a decree by the Council of Ministers
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UNDP wil continue to follow up with the Council of Ministers for the adoption of the PVE standards that were prepared.
[Added: 2018/11/19] |
Ministry of Energy and Water, UNDP CO | 2019/12 | Initiated |
5. Recommendation:
Evaluation Recommendation 8: Soft loans from the central bank are a very effective fiscal instrument for the promotion of RE technologies. However, it takes a considerable amount of time for approval of the soft loans, thereby delaying the projects. There is a need to optimise the process at the level of the central bank so that the overall time taken is reduced. The government counterpart may explore the possibilities to optimise the process at the level of the central bank
Management Response: [Added: 2018/11/19]
Although it is well noted that the process for approval of the soft loans needs to be improved within the central bank, this recommendation goes beyond the scope and jurisdiction of the UNDP Lebanon Country Office and the Ministry of Energy and Water.
Key Actions: