Terminal Evaluation: Transforming the global aviation sector: Emissions Reductions from International Aviation (PIMS 5254)

Report Cover Image

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document Evaluation Consultant ICAO_UNDP_GEF.pdf tor English 328.42 KB Posted 26
Download document ICAO UNDP Global Aviation Sector TE Final Versionv2.docx report English 6583.94 KB Posted 9
Title Terminal Evaluation: Transforming the global aviation sector: Emissions Reductions from International Aviation (PIMS 5254)
Atlas Project Number:
Evaluation Plan: 2018-2021, Bureau for Policy and Programme Support
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 11/2018
Planned End Date: 07/2018
Management Response: Yes
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021)
  • 1. Output 2.5.1 Solutions developed, financed and applied at scale for energy efficiency and transformation to clean energy and zero-carbon development, for poverty eradication and structural transformation
Evaluation Budget(US $): 29,000
Source of Funding: GEF
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 29,000
Joint Programme: No
Mandatory Evaluation: No
Joint Evaluation: Yes
  • Joint with UN Agencies
  • Joint with ICAO
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Jesse Uzzell
GEF Evaluation: Yes
GEF Project Title: Transforming the global aviation sector: Emissions Reductions from International Aviation
Evaluation Type: Terminal Evaluation
Focal Area: Biodiversity
Project Type: MSP
GEF Phase: GEF-5
GEF Project ID: 5450
PIMS Number: 5254
Key Stakeholders:
Countries: GLOBAL
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1

Always include an active UNDP RTA on UNDP/GEF projects as a mentor and coach for the project throughout its lifetime, in particular for multi-agency projects such as this one, and have them thoroughly review the PRF at inception. They should also provide detailed guidance on monitoring and reporting standards with specific examples for the project.

2

Always perform some type of independent mid-Term Review for short-term projects, even if it is only focused on monitoring and reporting issues as this is the source of the most common pitfalls in GEF projects.

3

Always have a full-time project manager throughout the lifetime of the GEF project. It is a risky strategy to outsource so much of the project effort without a full-time management of the outcomes.

4

A risk management seminar demonstrating available tools and methods for the project staff should become standard practice at the project inception, with the result that the main project risks are identified during the seminar and better monitored during project implementation.

5

There should be a central UNDP standard and standard software package for “online knowledge bases” and online “technical support platforms” as these are called for in almost every UNDP/GEF project.

6

It is recommended to develop future guidance to assist solar-to-gate project developers and proponents on how to best account for CO2 savings resulting from both domestic and international flights operating from electrified gates. Such guidance should account for the future policy frameworks which may impact the GHG accounting.

7

All UNDP-supported GEF-financed projects should always try to highlight the business case for environmental improvement measures, not just the environmental or policy case, as that will provide a better foundation for future replication of the innovation/measure.

1. Recommendation:

Always include an active UNDP RTA on UNDP/GEF projects as a mentor and coach for the project throughout its lifetime, in particular for multi-agency projects such as this one, and have them thoroughly review the PRF at inception. They should also provide detailed guidance on monitoring and reporting standards with specific examples for the project.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/11/12] [Last Updated: 2018/11/29]

Indeed, it’s the role of the RTA to provide mentorship and guidance during development and implementation project cycle. In this particular case, we had a RTA based in Panama supporting the project, and was in charge of it from development to inception. However, he left UNDP and the project responsibility was taken over by HQ staff in NY.  

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
To be taken into account for future programming
[Added: 2018/11/29]
UNDP 2018/12 Completed
2. Recommendation:

Always perform some type of independent mid-Term Review for short-term projects, even if it is only focused on monitoring and reporting issues as this is the source of the most common pitfalls in GEF projects.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/11/12] [Last Updated: 2018/11/29]

Agree. Although MTR is not mandatory for medium size projects, we are taking from this experience the importance to engage in some type of mid-term review, especially when dealing with multi-agency global projects. This exercise should be budgeted from the beginning and included in the total budget work plan.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
To be taken into account for future programming.
[Added: 2018/11/29]
UNDP 2018/12 Completed
3. Recommendation:

Always have a full-time project manager throughout the lifetime of the GEF project. It is a risky strategy to outsource so much of the project effort without a full-time management of the outcomes.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/11/12] [Last Updated: 2018/11/29]

Partially agree. During the planning phase of the ICAO-UNDP-GEF project, the work required by the project manager was discussed with UNDP and two days of project management effort was deemed necessary. Based on the project experience that followed, it is our view that the two days given to the Project Manager was adequate for the majority of the project (the first two years) and particularly during the development of the deliverables associated with guidance material, tools and documents.   As the project progressed into the delivery of the solar-at-gate deliverable, some flexibility was given (in the final year) to allow the project manager to spend three days per week on project activities.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
To give due consideration to the amount of project management time required, considering the deliverables expected, in any potential future project.
[Added: 2018/11/29]
UNDP 2018/12 Completed
4. Recommendation:

A risk management seminar demonstrating available tools and methods for the project staff should become standard practice at the project inception, with the result that the main project risks are identified during the seminar and better monitored during project implementation.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/11/12] [Last Updated: 2018/11/29]

Agree. UNDP has been conducting internal training to project staff on the assessment of potential environmental and social risks on regular basis and during project inception.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
To be taken into account for future programming.
[Added: 2018/11/29]
UNDP 2018/12 Completed
5. Recommendation:

There should be a central UNDP standard and standard software package for “online knowledge bases” and online “technical support platforms” as these are called for in almost every UNDP/GEF project.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/11/12] [Last Updated: 2018/11/29]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
This will be explored in future programming.
[Added: 2018/11/29]
UNDP 2018/12 Completed
6. Recommendation:

It is recommended to develop future guidance to assist solar-to-gate project developers and proponents on how to best account for CO2 savings resulting from both domestic and international flights operating from electrified gates. Such guidance should account for the future policy frameworks which may impact the GHG accounting.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/11/12] [Last Updated: 2018/11/29]

ICAO disagrees with the comment. The comment requests work to be carried out on accounting of domestic aviation emissions, which is outside the mandate of ICAO. Accounting for domestic emissions is specific to individual states and corresponds to national regulatory frameworks.

Having said this, it is important to note that in terms of calculating the CO2 emissions for aviation activities, ICAO has developed a methodology for calculating the time spent at the gate by an aircraft, and the associated CO2 emissions. This can be used for calculating the CO2 emissions at the gate for international flights and this globally accepted ICAO methodology was the one applied to the ICAO-UNDP-GEF project. Please note that the ICAO methodology has also been approved as a UNFCCC Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) small scale methodology for the calculation of solar power for domestic aircraft at-gate operations.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
This will be considered in future programming, where appropriate/relevant.
[Added: 2018/11/29]
UNDP 2018/12 Completed
7. Recommendation:

All UNDP-supported GEF-financed projects should always try to highlight the business case for environmental improvement measures, not just the environmental or policy case, as that will provide a better foundation for future replication of the innovation/measure.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/11/12] [Last Updated: 2018/11/29]

Agree. UNDP-supported GEF-financed projects take into account the cost-effectiveness and financial sustainability when proposing measures. A distinction has to be made between mandatory measures, like minimum energy performance standards, that will have to be complied with (and introducing these in the most cost-effective measures) and promoting the use of renewable energy options to replace a fossil-fuel based baseline. In the latter case, it is particularly important to highlight the business case, as companies will only adopt renewable energy options if they are sustainable and financially more attractive over the lifetime of the investment.

In the case of the PV demonstration at the airport in Kingston, while subsidized by the project, is financially competitive, given current cost of conventionally produced electricity. This is demonstrated by a follow-on investment of a similar solution being considered by the company that runs the Montego Bay airport, which will go ahead without this project subsidy.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
To be taken into account for future programming.
[Added: 2018/11/29]
UNDP 2018/12 Completed

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