Success message
error message
warn message
Concentrated Solar Power Technology Transfer for Electricity Generation in Namibia
Commissioning Unit: Namibia
Evaluation Plan: 2014-2018
Evaluation Type: Project
Completion Date: 08/2017
Unit Responsible for providing Management Response: Namibia
Documents Related to overall Management Response:
 
1. Recommendation:

Evaluation Recommendation or Issue 1: UNDP and GEF: corrective actions for design and formulation

When considering providing support to technology innovation and market dissemination, it might be fruitful to adopt a larger time period (in view of the long preparation time of large infrastructure projects) and to respond to the need of different beneficiaries in various segments of the RE technology’s market (small, medium, large). The project’s capacity building and other support activities have to be tailored to the needs of each phase. Not all barriers are of equal importance, play a role in the same phase of technology development and diffusion and cannot always be addressed simultaneously. Removal of one barrier may be a precondition for other barriers to be removed or lowered. Such an approach will start with lowering of the most important barriers in a particular phase. For example, the barriers of lack of data and of doubts regarding techno-economic feasibility are lowered as a pre-condition for committing more resources to financing investment and putting in place other barrier-removal activities (e.g. financial mechanism and risk-sharing facilities). Another example is that investments by private entities in grid-connected RE may need a conducive policy-regulatory framework to be established first.  Spreading projects over a larger period of time would obviously generate higher administrative cost, so a balance would need to be found. In this sense, it may be wise to start with a small Phase 1 (in the CSP case, for example, start with general awareness, capacity building and measurements and a techno-econ study), and then to have the next Phase with a larger budget (expand to full feasibility study; expansion of technology), maybe depending on the results of the first phase.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/12/12] [Last Updated: 2017/12/12]

Management Response 1 : While this is well acknowledged, unfortunately, the system (GEF project design) has incentives built in that leads to this type of an overambitious project design. Unless these incentives are changed at the systemic level (GEF policy) the practice of project design is unlikely to change. The main underlying issue is that submitting more realistically designed projects is likely to lead to non- approved projects by the GEF. Even so, UNDP and partners (countries receiving the support) should try to learn from this and be more realistic. In this particular project, the key lesson is one of adaptive management: adjust the course if the context changes-  the project has done so and that is being acknowledged-, however the practical steps to allow this to be used effectively were not done. 

 

Management Response 2: The main negative assessment regarding the initial project design and formulation is noted. Although the project adjusted to a new context in an appropriate manner, this adaptive and appropriate change was not reflected in the updated log-frame and indicator framework that made it difficult and hard to use it effectively as an M&E tool. In future, UNDP will ensure that the changes made by the project are implemented and used as part of the M&E framework. Further, this project, like many others, turn out to be overambitious in scope and scale when designed. Yet, the project has had real positive impacts and has laid the foundation for follow-up and eventually effecting market transformation in Namibia. 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
1.1 UNDP will ensure that appropriate changes made during the project implementation are reflected by updating the project logical and indicator framework
[Added: 2017/12/12]
UNDP Namibia, UNDP Regional Service Centre, UNDP New York 2017/08 Completed This action specifically related to the observation made on the CSP project; however its application will be in other existing and future projects, which is completed for ongoing/existing projects such as NAFOLA and SCORE. History
1.2 Monitor and discuss potential follow-up support to Namibia in this sector -market transformation, potentially with GCF or other sources of funding.
[Added: 2017/12/12] [Last Updated: 2018/08/03]
UNDP & Ministry of Mines and Energy 2018/12 Completed This recommendation is most relevant and applicable to inform future programming under UNDP GEF in Namibia History
1.3 Reflect and apply the lessons learned from CSP project final evaluation and inform future programming activities in climate change mitigation.
[Added: 2017/12/12] [Last Updated: 2018/08/03]
UNDP 2018/03 Completed To inform future programming under UNDP GEF in Namibia History
2. Recommendation:

Evaluation Recommendation or Issue 2: Future direction: support for setting up a grid-connected RE program for IPPs

 

Concentrating solar heat are systems, smaller than CSP, set up by local industry and here the role of Namibia Energy Institute (NEI) as a Concentrating Solar Technology Transfer Body (CSTTB) to serve local players would be more obvious than in the case of a large CSP served by global CSP players. 

Management Response: [Added: 2017/12/12]

Management Response: Given the relatively small size of the Namibia’s economy, the question arises if NEI would not better expand this scope (CSTTB) to Renewable Energy Technology Transfer Body (RETTB), serving engineering, construction and service companies that want to be involved in IPP projects for all RE technologies.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
2.1 Explore if the NEI would not better expand from CSTTB to Renewable Energy Technology Transfer Body (RETTB), serving engineering, construction and service companies that want to be involved in IPP projects for all RE technologies.
[Added: 2017/12/12] [Last Updated: 2018/08/03]
MME NEI 2018/06 Completed History
3. Recommendation:

Evaluation Recommendation or Issue 3: Future direction: support for setting up a grid-connected RE program for IPPs: With respect to the solar radiation measurements, these have now covered three sites in the southern and central part of the country. Adding measurements in two more sites, covering the northern part, would give a, more complete, solar map, based on the investment-grade measurements at five sites. 

Management Response: [Added: 2017/12/12]

Management Response: NEI can serve as a depository of the solar data and assessments of the three sites to help the formulation of concentrating solar, but solar PV, solar water heating, solar pumping and wind energy activities.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
3.1 Assess the feasibility and resources requirements to add solar measurements at two more sites, covering the northern part, to give a more complete solar map, based on the investment-grade measurements at five sites.
[Added: 2017/12/12] [Last Updated: 2018/08/03]
NEI MME UNDP 2018/12 Completed To be linked to potential future project interventions under the UNPAF 2.0 and next CPD History
4. Recommendation:

Evaluation Recommendation or Issue 4: Institutionalisation of Renewable Energy (IRE)
For example, South Africa set up the Renewable Energy Independent Power Producer Procurement Programme (REIPPPP) in 2011. It has created a platform for the private sector to develop projects and enter into Power Purchasing Agreements (PPAs) with ESKOM (as the power off-taker). Using a competitive bidding process in four tender rounds, the programme aimed to stimulate investments in SA’s renewable energy industry, attracting about 79 projects with a combined capacity of 5230 MW. The programme is supported by an IPPPP Office that provides professional advisory services, procurement management services, as well as monitoring, evaluation, and contract management services. A similar setup could be used in Namibia to attract medium-sized renewable Independent Power Producer (IPP) projects defined as 5-100 MW in the National IPP Policy (2016), in addition to the small-scale IPPs that currently benefit from the existing Renewable Energy Feed-in Tariff (REFIT) scheme.

 

Management Response: [Added: 2017/12/12]

Management Response: Noted, such type (capacity and institutional strengthening) of initiatives/interventions/projects, as demonstrated from neighbouring countries (e.g. SA), could be supported by a future GEF-supported project (to be financed in the upcoming GEF-7 budget cycle for market transformation and IRE), alongside specific investment support to demonstration IPP projects by development banks with GCF support. A similar setup as in SA (adjusted and adapted to the national environment but for private sector role players) could be used in Namibia to attract medium-sized renewable IPP projects defined as 5-100 MW in the National IPP Policy (2016), in addition to the small-scale IPPs that currently benefit from the existing Renewable Energy Feed-in Tariff (REFIT) scheme.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
4.1 Initiate a discussion around market transformation with increased role of the private sector, to be led by ECB or NEI with support of UNDP and GEF or GCF. As soon as the GEF 7 CCM strategies are approved
[Added: 2017/12/12] [Last Updated: 2018/08/03]
UNDP CO and UNDP RSC 2018/08 Completed To be initiated As soon as the GEF 7 CCM strategies are approved History

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