Undp Ukraine Outcome Evaluation Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UNDP UKRAINE OUTCOME EVALUATION OF THE ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME Elinor Bajraktari and Olena Maslyukivska-Samberg July 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 5 CHAPTER 1: EVALUATION PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY ....................................................... 18 1.1. OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE ............................................................................................................. 18 1.2. METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................... 19 1.3. EVALUATION PROCESS ............................................................................................................. 20 1.4. LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 21 CHAPTER 2: SITUATION ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 22 CHAPTER 3: PROGRAMME OVERVIEW ............................................................................................. 25 3.1. OVERVIEW OF ACTIVITIES ....................................................................................................... 26 3.2. FINANCIAL OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................. 27 3.3. POSITIONING OF THE PROJECTS ............................................................................................. 32 CHAPTER 4: MAIN FINDINGS ............................................................................................................... 36 4.1. RELEVANCE .................................................................................................................................. 36 4.1.1. Relevance with Country Needs and Priorities .......................................................................... 36 4.1.2. Relevance with International Commitments and Agreements .................................................. 44 4.1.3. Relevance with UN’s and UNDP’s Mandate and Strategy ....................................................... 46 4.2. EFFECTIVENESS ........................................................................................................................... 48 4.2.1. Achievement of Country Programme Outcomes ...................................................................... 48 4.2.2. Use of “Results-Based Management” practices by the Country Office .................................... 50 4.2.3. Summary of Key Achievements ............................................................................................... 54 4.3. EFFICIENCY .................................................................................................................................. 59 4.3.1. Operational Efficiencies ............................................................................................................ 59 4.3.2. Quality of the Human Resource ................................................................................................ 64 4.3.3. Programme Synergies and Linkages ......................................................................................... 68 4.3.4. Coordination with Development Partners ................................................................................. 77 4.4. SUSTAINABILITY ......................................................................................................................... 81 4.4.1. Government Engagement .......................................................................................................... 82 4.4.2. Policy Implementation .............................................................................................................. 89 4.4.3. Pilots, Replication and Demonstration Effects ......................................................................... 93 2 4.4.4. Co-financing by the Government and the Private Sector .......................................................... 95 4.4.5. Risk Management ..................................................................................................................... 98 CHAPTER 5: STRATEGIC POSITIONING ........................................................................................... 100 5.1. UNDP’S COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE ................................................................................. 100 5.2. POSITIONING .............................................................................................................................. 101 5.3. PARTNERSHIPS AND RESOURCE MOBILIZATION ............................................................. 105 CHAPTER 6: RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................... 110 RECOMMENDATIONS’ CHECKLIST .................................................................................................. 119 CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................................................................... 127 ANNEX I: LIST OF PEOPLE MET FOR THE EVALUATION ............................................................ 129 ANNEX II: BRIEF DECSRIPTION OF THE CLUSTER PROJECTS ................................................... 134 ANNEX III: ASSESSMENT OF COUNTRY PROGRAMME OUTPUTS ............................................ 138 ANNEX IV: TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE ASSIGNMENT ........................................................ 140 3 ABBREVIATIONS CBA – Community-based Approach to Local Development CMM – Change Management Mission CMU – Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine CO – Country Office CPAP – Country Programme Action Plan CPD – Country Programme Document CTA – Chief Technical Adviser E&E – Energy and Environment EBRD – European Bank for Reconstruction and Development EE – Energy Efficiency EIB – European Investment Bank EU – European Union FSM – Financial Support Mechanism GCF – Green Climate Fund GEF – Global Environment Facility GHG – Greenhouse gases GoU – Government of Ukraine IFC – International Financial Corporation INDC – Intended Nationally-Determined Contribution MSU – Management Support Unit MAPF – Ministry of Agrarian Policy and Food MEDT – Ministry of Economic Development and Trade MENR – Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources MRDCHCS – Ministry for Regional Development, Construction, Housing and Communal Services NRC – National Reform Council NSDS – National Sustainable Development Strategy PD – Project Document PMU – Programme Management Unit PSC – Project Steering Committee RBM – Results-Based Management RES – Renewable Energy Resources RRF – Results and Resources Framework RTA – Regional Technical Advisor SAU – Strategic Advisory Unit SDG – Sustainable Development Goal SGP – Small Grants Programme SIDA – Swedish International Development Agency UN – United Nations UNDAF – United Nations Development Assistance Framework UNDP – United Nations Development Programme USAID – United States Agency for International Development WB – World Bank 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is an independent evaluation of the results and role of the activities of UNDP Ukraine in the energy and environment area and their contribution to the country’s development results in the 2012-2016 period. This document provides an objective assessment of the achievements, constraints, performance, results, impact, relevance and sustainability of UNDP’s work and the organization’s strategic positioning in the country relative to other UN agencies and development partners based on its strengths and comparative advantage. It also generates lessons which may be used by the Country Office to improve its programming, partnership arrangements, resource mobilization strategies, working methods and management structures in the new programme cycle. The focus of this evaluation is on the nine energy efficiency and environmental projects which UNDP has implemented during the period in question with funding from the Global Environment Facility, the EU, Germany and the Slovak Republic (amounting to about US$ 26 m) and matching funds from UNDP’s own core resources (amounting to about US$ 2 m). Although they address issues which on the surface might appear quite distinct from each other, the nine projects have a multi-dimensional (cross-sectoral) nature which makes some of their activities synergetic and interdependent. Some of the major thematic areas these projects cover are climate change, energy efficiency, water management, biodiversity, chemicals and community development. One of the projects (Rio) has an overarching policy nature that encompasses all dimensions by mainstreaming sustainable development into all policy areas. It is also important to note that these nine projects engage with the full spectrum of the levels of government, starting from the grassroots level which involves work with the communities and all the way up to the top where the interaction has a national character. While the amount of information generated by this evaluation was enormous, the findings presented in this report cover only the most essential aspects of the programme and are particularly focused on those issues that require improvement and the attention of the country office management. Therefore, if in these findings the reader perceives a sense of imbalance between what has worked and what has not worked in favour of the latter, it is not