Project Evaluation of the Low Emission Capacity Building (LECB) Project

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2012-2018, Philippines
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
10/2018
Completion Date:
11/2018
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
15,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document TOR_LECB PHL Project.pdf tor English 615.27 KB Posted 52
Download document Final Report - LECB PHL Project.pdf report English 1469.30 KB Posted 108
Title Project Evaluation of the Low Emission Capacity Building (LECB) Project
Atlas Project Number: 00061970
Evaluation Plan: 2012-2018, Philippines
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 11/2018
Planned End Date: 10/2018
Management Response: Yes
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
Evaluation Budget(US $): 15,000
Source of Funding: Project funds
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 15,000
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Marjorie Pajaron Evaluator mpajaron@econ.upd.edu.ph
GEF Evaluation: No
Key Stakeholders: CCC, sectoral agencies involved (agriculture, waste, industry,  transportation, forestry, energy), partner   private sector/associations.
Countries: PHILIPPINES
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1

To address the seemingly asymmetric information about the benefits of the project and their policy implications, there should be timely communication and information-sharing with the stakeholders. Alternatively, the project needs to continuously improve its communication strategies to ensure that information with regard to its achievements methodically trickles down to the stakeholders in a timely fashion.

2

Although the project improved in terms of delays in the achievement of project outcomes, one future solution would be to set more realistic and practical timeframes to preclude extensions, which have direct and indirect costs.

3

A better matching of skill set required in delivering the LECB PHL outputs and experts with appropriate skills could also avoid future delays and termination of contracts.

4

There may also be a need for the CCC to formally issue directives or pronouncements indicating when the project outputs form part of any national document or system.

5

For the benefit of the private sector, it would help to conduct effective demonstration projects to encourage and convince the private sector to invest in LEDS. In a similar vein, providing proof of return on investment, albeit a little challenging, would help the private sector decide to invest in LEDS.

1. Recommendation:

To address the seemingly asymmetric information about the benefits of the project and their policy implications, there should be timely communication and information-sharing with the stakeholders. Alternatively, the project needs to continuously improve its communication strategies to ensure that information with regard to its achievements methodically trickles down to the stakeholders in a timely fashion.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/12/20] [Last Updated: 2019/01/02]

The “timely communication and information-sharing with the stakeholders” is done through National Steering Committee meetings where relevant stakeholders are represented. Members are then expected to disseminate project information including issues, concerns and challenges, to their principals and stakeholders. Inasmuch as the project deals with national-level concerns, dissemination of information, e.g., NDC, is likewise limited to focal/sectoral national government agencies who, depending on their discretion/assessment may share the same to stakeholders from their sectors. Nevertheless, the project recognizes the need to improve its communication strategies to disseminate the benefits that can be derived from the project.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Dissemination of highlights of activities including specific recommendations/ findings
[Added: 2019/01/02]
PMU/NSC members 2020/03 Initiated
2. Recommendation:

Although the project improved in terms of delays in the achievement of project outcomes, one future solution would be to set more realistic and practical timeframes to preclude extensions, which have direct and indirect costs.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/12/20] [Last Updated: 2019/01/02]

This is noted and will be reflected in the second phase of the project.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Provide detailed SOW and timeframe, schedule of implementation in terms of no. of days/weeks. Incorporated in the TOR.
[Added: 2019/01/02]
PMU 2019/01 Completed History
Identify responsible units/offices for review of outputs/ deliverables. Included in the TOR.
[Added: 2019/01/02]
PMU 2019/01 Completed
3. Recommendation:

A better matching of skill set required in delivering the LECB PHL outputs and experts with appropriate skills could also avoid future delays and termination of contracts.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/01/02]

Matching of skills vis-à-vis scope of work and expected outputs/deliverables may be difficult to ascertain during the hiring process and early part of implementation. The apparent “mismatch” can only be seen during implementation.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Clarify scope of work and expected outputs/deliverables during the inception workshop
[Added: 2019/01/02] [Last Updated: 2019/07/28]
PMU 2019/05 Completed Revised results framework and M&E plan have been developed during the NSPP inception workshop History
Conduct regular progress reporting/meeting
[Added: 2019/01/02]
PMU 2020/03 Initiated
4. Recommendation:

There may also be a need for the CCC to formally issue directives or pronouncements indicating when the project outputs form part of any national document or system.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/01/02]

The project’s outputs were officially turned over by UNDP to CCC in a ceremony held on May 31, 2018. Among the materials or documents that were turned over were manuals and official directives (e.g., Executive Order on PGHGIMRS, Guidance Document and Reference Manual on GHG inventory, Infokits/brochures, etc) which were disseminated to relevant stakeholders for use in the performance of their mandates. Thereafter, we understand that the Implementation Oversight Division overseeing the project has officially turned over to CCC management all policies, studies, programs, etc. generated or produced by the project for official adoption/implementation..

The NDC is a collective effort among CCC, as lead agency, sectoral lead NGAs, and other development partners and institutions. We believe that CCC has always appropriately acknowledged the contribution of the LECB PHL Project (e.g. development of the long-list of mitigation actions/ measures, conduct of Multi-Criteria Analysis, and in the conduct of stakeholders’ consultation meetings, etc.) in the development of the country’s I/NDC.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Official transmittal of outputs/ deliverables to CCC management after completion of project/each output or deliverable
[Added: 2019/01/02]
PMU and IOD-CCO 2020/01 Initiated
5. Recommendation:

For the benefit of the private sector, it would help to conduct effective demonstration projects to encourage and convince the private sector to invest in LEDS. In a similar vein, providing proof of return on investment, albeit a little challenging, would help the private sector decide to invest in LEDS.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/01/02]

Establishing or building demonstration projects are not among the outputs and deliverables of the project. Demonstration projects and proofs of return of investment are usually presented in the annual business summits. These are documented by the project through records of proceedings or “Highlights” of each of the business summits. Nevertheless, these “benefits” as well as actions needed to bring investments from the “drawing board” to “implementation” may be extracted from the proceedings and disseminated to the private sector, if necessary.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Dissemination of highlights of the business summit to stakeholders at the end of every business summit (regional and national)
[Added: 2019/01/02]
PMU, PCCI and PBE 2020/01 Not Initiated

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