Success message
error message
warn message
Pacific Islands Greenhouse Gas Abatement through Renewable Energy Project (PIGGAREP)
Commissioning Unit: Samoa
Evaluation Plan: 2008-2012
Evaluation Type: Project
Completion Date: 06/2010
Unit Responsible for providing Management Response: Samoa
Documents Related to overall Management Response:
1. Recommendation: The main driver of promoting renewable energy was suppose to be the private sector, all renewable projects were suppose to be commercial.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/06/28] [Last Updated: 2011/06/28]

i) PIGGAREP has indeed undertaken work in this area directly or indirectly. ii) the potential for private sector involvement and commercial nature of supported transactions vary significantly between each of the 11 participating Pacific Islands. However, in general, there currently is little rural energy based entrepreneurship in PICs and the enabling environment that can increase the number and coverage of entrepreneurs in PICs and the enabling environment that can increase the number and coverage of entrepreneurs does not yet exist. Overall we do agree that increasing private sector involvement is an area that should be considered in the project. As part of the follow up process to this MTE we plan to recommend to the project partners that PIGGAREP consider to initiate more comprehensive and systematic work in this area. iii) While PIGGAREP was funded as part of GEF 3 and as such are to adhere to policies and strategies as part of GEF 3 it is worth noting that the strategic objective 'Off grid Renewable Energy' was discontinued in GEF 4. In the GEF policy paper Focal Area Strategies and Strategic Programming for GEF 4 from October 2007 on p 23 the following is mentioned: "With respoect to the strategic objective entitled "Off grid Renewable Energy", the GEF has since its inception, supported projects in this area, but evaluations of these projects have indicated that these projects have resulted in neither a significant take off of these markets nor a meaningful reduction in GHG emissions. Past GEF support has stimulated a small but growing market for no appreciable GHG emission reductions. Therefore, the market for rural renewable energy is more appropriately addressed as part of the energy access agenda of official development assistance, not as part of the climate change mitigation agenda. Traditional development assistance is posed to build upon the earlier GEF experience and the lessons learned to begin providing modern energy services to those without. For GEF 4 this strategic objective will not be considered a priority given the level of support available and the renewed importance being placed on reducing overall GHG emissions.

Key Actions:

2. Recommendation: The purpose of supporting renewable energy had become to foster productive uses of renewable energy (PURE) and the GEF SP 4 PURE concept seems to primarly apply to income generating uses of RE, alongside community public services but importantly not to electricity genergation from renewable sources that is used for household applications such as home lighting or entertainment. Thus electricity grid extensions or solar home systems to primarily supply social electrification needs are not considered to be PURE applications and as such are not one of the objectives of PIGGAREP to remove the barriers.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/06/28]

It is correct that for PIGGAREP the GEF strategic priority in question as part GEF 3 was SP 4: Productive uses of RE. However please note that i) when reviewing PIGGAREP on this aspect the choice of definition becomes critical.

Key Actions:

3. Recommendation: Learning from the past: lessons are still not learned from the many previous (often unsuccesful) RE demonstrations and projects undertaken to date in PICs and indeed some of the projects that PIGGAREP is proposing to support involve the re-engineering of less than completely successful past projects.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/06/28]

The following should be noted: i) the notion of what consitutes a successful project is a complicated issue and it is not clear what is meant by such in the report ii) there can be made a clear case of the global environmental benefits associated with GEF support provided to make currently problematic renewable energy systems working better. iii) the sweeping generalization that PIGGAREP deliberately is disregarding past lessons learned needs to be substantiated as it is now in our view an unsubstantiated claim.

Key Actions:

4. Recommendation: Support to Barrier Removal Activities: a key issue for this PIGGAREP mid term evaluation is whether PIGGAREP is on track to deal with the known barriers to RE in PICs.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/06/28]

We disagree wit hthe statement that proactive strategic barrier removal approach does not yet seem to be the consistent focus of PIGGAREP project supprt to date. In our view, there is ample evidence that barrier removal activities have been supported including not only local/site specific level barrier removal, but generic barrier removal as well. Unfortunately detailed information on such actual support provided by PIGGAREP is not provided in the draft report. Examples of generic barrier removal activities include the support provided to wind resources monitoring and assessment which currently is underway in Nauru, Tuvalu and Samoa and planned for Vanuatu. With such PIGGAREP support the generic barriers associated with lack of knowledge about existence of viable wind resources in selected countries will be removed. Another example in the area of RE resource barrier removal is the support to the hydro resource monitoring underway in Samoa. Other barriers are institutional in nature and an example here is the study undertaken in 2008 concerning the establishment of a RE and Energy Efficiency Unit at the Tuvalu Electricity Cooproation that subsequently was established based on the findings and recommendations from this interventions supported by PIGGAREP. While the current draft MTE report in a few places refers to specific activities supported by PIGGAREP the report does not include a comprehensive review and overview of all the relevant barrier removal activities that already have been undertaken, are underway or are planned. SUch an overview could be in the form of a simple table that in bullet form summarises relevant interventions for individual countries as well as regional level interventions. The information to prepare such overview table is readily including in quarterly progress reports and the indivudal project activity summary.

Key Actions:

5. Recommendation: Comments by STAP: reviewing the post STAP PIGGAREP project design, it does not appear that the project design was fully adjusted to address the key STAP reviewer issues raised.
Management Response: [Added: 2011/06/28]

Please note that i) in APril 2005 a very comprehensive 23 pages note was provided as a direct response to the general and specific comments raised by sTAP on the submitted PIGGAREP Project Brief. Including in these detailed comments is reference to places (eg. sections, paragraphs) in the revised Project Brief where changes will be made to address agreed to comments by STAP; ii) STAP comments are for consideration ie as the title says STAP is a technical advisory body. Eg. a project proposer does not automatically have to incorporate all recommendations by STAP. The main aspect is that all commetns are considered and explicityly responded to - and where agreed to (if appropriate, relevant, etc) incorporated in a revised project design documentation (in case a revised GEF Brief); and iii) GEF endorsed the responses that were provided to the STAP review (including recommendations that were agreed and/or not agreed to). Otherwise the Brief would not have been approved by GEF. This is important to keep in mind. We will send the detailed 23 pages response note for your information separately.

Key Actions:

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

1 UN Plaza
DC1-20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel. +1 646 781 4200
Fax. +1 646 781 4213