DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Evaluation Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final Evaluation Report FINAL EVALUATION REPORT of the UNDP/GEF Full Size Project Armenia Improving the Energy Efficiency of Municipal Heating and Hot Water Supply Atlas Project ID: 00035799 PIMS: 1273 This Final Evaluation Report was prepared for UNDP Armenia by: Jiří Zeman, International Consultant July 2012 Table of content Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................................... 5 Abbreviations and acronyms .......................................................................................................................... 6 1. Executive summary ................................................................................................................................. 7 1.1 Brief description of project ................................................................................................................ 8 1.2 Context and purpose of the evaluation .............................................................................................. 8 1.3 Main conclusions, recommendations and lessons learned ................................................................ 9 2. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 13 2.1 Purpose of the evaluation ................................................................................................................ 13 2.2 Key issues addressed ....................................................................................................................... 13 2.3 Methodology of the evaluation ........................................................................................................ 14 2.4 Structure of the evaluation ............................................................................................................... 14 3. The Project and its development context............................................................................................. 15 3.1 Problems that the project seeks to address ...................................................................................... 15 3.2 Immediate and development objectives of the project .................................................................... 16 3.3 Project start and its duration ............................................................................................................ 17 3.4 Main stakeholders ............................................................................................................................ 17 3.5 Results expected .............................................................................................................................. 18 4. Findings and conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 22 4.1 Project Formulation ......................................................................................................................... 22 4.1.1 Project Relevance and Implementation Approach .................................................................. 22 4.1.2 Analysis of Logical Framework (project logic/strategy, indicators) ....................................... 23 4.1.3 Lessons from other relevant projects incorporated into project implementation .................... 23 4.1.4 Country ownership/driveness .................................................................................................. 24 4.1.5 Stakeholder participation in the design phase ......................................................................... 24 4.1.6 Replication approach and sustainability strategy..................................................................... 24 4.1.7 Cost-effectiveness .................................................................................................................... 25 4.1.8 UNDP comparative advantage ................................................................................................ 25 4.1.9 Linkages between the project and other interventions within the sector ................................. 25 4.1.10 Management arrangements ...................................................................................................... 26 4.2 Project Implementation.................................................................................................................... 28 4.2.1 Implementation approach ........................................................................................................ 28 4.2.2 The logical framework used during implementation as a management and monitoring and evaluation tool ......................................................................................................................................... 29 4.2.3 Effective partnerships arrangements established for implementation of the project with relevant stakeholders involved in the country ......................................................................................... 29 4.2.4 Feedback from M&E activities used for adaptive management .............................................. 30 2 4.2.5 Financial planning and management ....................................................................................... 30 4.2.6 Monitoring and evaluation ....................................................................................................... 32 4.2.7 Management by the UNDP country office .............................................................................. 33 4.2.8 Co-financing and in-kind contributions ................................................................................... 34 4.3 Results ............................................................................................................................................. 36 4.3.1 Attainment of objectives .......................................................................................................... 36 4.3.2 Cost-effectiveness of Pilot Projects ......................................................................................... 41 4.3.3 Project Impact .......................................................................................................................... 42 4.3.4 Prospects of Sustainability ....................................................................................................... 43 4.3.5 Contribution to upgrading skills of the national staff .............................................................. 44 5. Recommendations .................................................................................................................................. 45 6. Lessons Learned .................................................................................................................................... 46 7. Annexes ................................................................................................................................................... 48 Annex 1: Summary of Pilot Projects………………………………………………………………………48 Annex 2: Summary of key project deliverables, reports, and studies…………………………………...51 Annex 3: Original Project Document LogFrame with revisions from the Inception Report and Project Revision .......................................................................................................................................................... 53 Annex 4: Revised LogFrame with revisions from the Inception Report and Project Implementation.57 Annex 5: Final evaluation TOR ................................................................................................................... 59 Annex 6: Itinerary ......................................................................................................................................... 84 Annex 7: List of persons interviewed ........................................................................................................... 88 Annex 8: List of documents reviewed .......................................................................................................... 90 Annex 9: Comments by stakeholders (only in case of discrepancies with evaluation findings and conclusions) .................................................................................................................................................... 92 3 Profile of the consultant: This final term evaluation was performed by Mr. Jiří Zeman, who has 20+ years of professional experience in energy efficiency, renewables, climate change and energy utilities primarily in Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia. He has served as a Deputy Director of a leading energy efficiency consulting organization SEVEn, The Energy Efficiency Center in Prague, the Czech Republic, as a Solution Architect at a Utility Competence Center of Hewlett Packard for Central and Eastern Europe, Middle East and Africa, and since 2009 he serves as a freelance consultant. Mr. Zeman has developed, implemented and evaluated a series of UNDP/GEF energy efficiency projects in the region of Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Contact details: Mr. Jiří Zeman Murmanská 5 100 00 Praha 10 Czech Republic Email: [email protected] Tel: +420-776818363 4 Acknowledgements The author of the final evaluation would like to express his gratitude to all project stakeholders whom he has met and interviewed during the project final evaluation missions in Armenia in July 2012 and who generously provided their views and opinions on project
Load more

Recommended publications
  • UNITED NATIONS COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE 59 Session 7 November to 7 December 2016 PARTNERSHIP for OPEN SOCIETY INITIATIVE's J
    UNITED NATIONS COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE 59th Session 7 November to 7 December 2016 PARTNERSHIP FOR OPEN SOCIETY INITIATIVE’S JOINT SUBMISSION TO THE COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE ON THE FOURTH PERIODIC REPORT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OF PUNISHMENT October 17, 2016, Yerevan, Armenia Hereby, the Partnership for Open Society Initiative,1 representing more than 60 civil society organizations, presents a joint submission prepared by the following civil society organizations, public monitoring groups, human rights lawyers and attorneys: 1. Coalition to Stop Violence Against Women; 2. Center for Rights Development NGO; 3. Committee to Protect Freedom of Expression; 4. Foundation Against the Violation of Law NGO; 5. Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly–Vanadzor; 6. Helsinki Committee of Armenia Human Rights Defender NGO; 7. Journalists' Club Asparez; 8. Open Society Foundations – Armenia; 9. Protection of Rights without Borders NGO; 10. Rule of Law Human Rights NGO; 11. Group of Public Monitors Implementing Supervision over the Criminal-Executive Institutions and Bodies of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Armenia; 12. Public Monitoring Group at the Detention Facilities of the Police of the Republic of Armenia; 13. Davit Khachaturyan, Justice Group, Open Society-Foundations-Armenia, Expert, Ph.D; 14. Inessa Petrosyan, Attorney; 15. Tigran Hayrapetyan, Attorney; 16. Tigran Safaryan, Attorney; 17. Vahe Grigoryan, Attorney, Legal Consultant at EHRAC (Middlesex University). Contacts Persons David Amiryan Karine Ghazaryan Open Society Foundations-Armenia Open Society Foundations-Armenia Deputy Director for Programs Civil Society Program Coordinator E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] 1 http://www.partnership.am/en/index 1 Contents INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Mission in Armenia 29 March to 3 April 2008
    Mission in Armenia 29 March to 3 April 2008 June 2008 - N°499/2 Mission in Armenia, 29 March to 3 April 2008 FOREWORD Alerted by both the "Democracy in Armenia" group and the Civil Society Institute (an FIDH affiliate) to the violent repression that followed the presidential elections in this country in February 2008, the undersigned lawyers and jurist were mandated by the President of the Paris Bar Association (M. le Bâtonnier de l’Ordre des Avocats de Paris) and the International Union of Lawyers (l’Union Internationale des Avocats) on one hand and, on the other hand, the FIDH (International Federation of Human Rights). The mission visited Yerevan from 29 March to 3 April to report on the situation of the right to defend oneself and the right to freedoms in the Republic of ARMENIA following the events that took place in February and March 2008. INTRODUCTION Before considering the legal and juridical context of the mission's work, it is appropriate to recall some chronological milestones to put into perspective the current situation in Armenia and its evolution, seventeen years after the independence of the Republic of Armenia was proclaimed in the Southern Caucasus. - 21 September, 1991: the Republic of Armenia becomes independent following a referendum. - October 1991: Election by universal suffrage of Mr. Levon TER-PETROSIAN, who becomes the first President of the Republic of Armenia. - 1992-1994: Fighting in the autonomous region of Nagorno-Karabakh between the opposing Armenian self- defence forces and the Azerbaijan armed forces. A cease-fire comes into force on 14 May 1994.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report on the Activities of the Human Rights Defender in 2006
    ANNUAL REPORT ON ACTIVITIES OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA'S HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDER AND VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS IN ARMENIA 2006 The present "Annual Report for 2006 on Activities of the Republic of Armenia's Human Rights Defender" has been translated and published with the financial support of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) ISBN 978-99941-0-213-6 ANNUAL REPORT ON ACTIVITIES OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA'S HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDER AND VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS IN ARMENIA 2006 Yerevan, 2007 Yerevan 2007 RA Human Rights Defender A. Harutyunyan In the result of constitutional amendments, Human Rights Defender's Office was mandated as a constitutional institution. On February 17, 2005, National Assembly of RA by the votes of more than 3/5 of the total num- ber of deputies elected Doctor of Law, Professor Armen Harutyunyan as a first parliamentary Human Rights Defender of RA. Human Rights Defender is an independent official, whose main mission is to prevent and restore human rights and fundamental freedoms violated by the state and local self-governing bodies or their officials. The letters of complaint, addressed to the Defender, are various and concern almost all spheres of functioning of state and local self-governing bodies. The actuality of the report is determined also by the circumstance that for the first time are sep- arated the analysis of the statutory- legal act that leads to the human rights violations and the analysis of detached provisions, as well as the shortcoming in law enforcement practices. This report aims to raise a list of questions that are peculiar to the post soviet countries and exist in our country.
    [Show full text]
  • The Use of Administrative Detention in the 2003 Armenian Presidential Election
    AN IMITATION OF LAW: The Use of Administrative Detention in the 2003 Armenian Presidential Election Human Rights Watch Briefing Paper May 23, 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Administrative Arrest and Detention in Theory and Practice................................................................. 3 The legal and procedural framework............................................................................................... 3 Departures from the framework in practice...................................................................................... 4 Growing political use of administrative detention since the mid-1990s .............................................. 5 The 2003 presidential election ........................................................................................................ 6 Abuse of Administrative Arrest in the 2003 Presidential Election ......................................................... 7 The opposition demonstrations of February to April 2003 ................................................................ 7 Rendering opposition rallies illegal................................................................................................. 7 A “threat to state order”........................................................................................................... 7 “Unauthorized” rallies and marches..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Risk Assessment Chapter 6
    Chapter 6 Risk Assessment Chapter 6 Risk Assessment 6.1 Damage of Buildings The building damage functions for multi-story residential buildings, for low-rise individual houses and for schools and hospitals are made mainly based on the damage by Spitak earthquake in 1988. Therefore, the seismic resistance of the buildings in 1988 is considered tacitly in creating the damage function; however, already over 20 years has passed from 1988. Most building in Yerevan has been constructed before 1991 and the aging effect to the seismic resistance of the buildings is a matter of concern. Also the maintenance of the residential buildings after 1991 is said to became poor than before. The effects of these issues are necessary to be included for realistic risk assessment. The quantitative effects are evaluated by expert judgment in discussing with Armenian researchers and concluded that the damage ratio is increased 10% for aging effect and 10% for poor maintenance issue. As a result, the damage functions in Figures 5.3-17, 5.3-19 and 5.3-20 are multiplied by 1.2 to calculate the damage of buildings. 6.1.1 Multi-story residential buildings Number of heavily damaged multi-story residential buildings per grid of 250m x 250m against two scenario earthquakes is shown in Figure 6.1-1. 6.1.2 Individual house Number of heavily damaged individual houses per grid of 250m x 250m is shown in Figure 6.1-2. 6.1.3 Summary of damage of buildings 1) Damages of multi-story buildings and individual houses at each district are summarized in Table 6.1-1.
    [Show full text]
  • 2. METHODOLOGY of the SAMPLE to Conduct the Survey, a Multi-Level
    2. METHODOLOGY OF THE SAMPLE To conduct the survey, a multi-level proportional probability sample has been designed. Based on the 11 regional (marz) administrative and territorial division of RA, the sample design algorithm forms the preliminary sampling units (PSU) from the general population through the stratification method. The preliminary sampling units in marzes have been chosen by the following way: • PSU comprised 12 for Yerevan city, based on the number of district communities, • for those towns, which have more than 20000 population, separate preliminary sampling units were chosen in each marz, • small towns in each marz were grouped in one preliminary sampling unit, which was called “urban area”, • all villages in each marz were grouped in one preliminary sampling unit, which was called “rural area”. Thus, the total number of preliminary sampling units comprised 48. At the first stage of sampling the total volume of the sampling was divided into preliminary units by the proportion of the square root of the number of those households, which were involved in the given preliminary sampling units. 2001 Armenian population census results were used to calculate the mentioned proportions. Method of the proportion by using the square root was selected, as it, unlike the traditional PPS algorithm, enables to derive unbiased estimates of statistical indicators bringing to insignificant increase in variances within the preliminary sampling units on one hand, and on the other hand this approach increases the probability to select the settlements
    [Show full text]
  • Financing Plan (In Us$)
    PROJECT IDENTIFICATION FORM (PIF) 1 PROJECT TYPE: Full-sized Project TYPE OF TRUST FUND:GEF Trust Fund PART I: PROJECT IDENTIFICATION Project Title: Green Urban Lighting Country(ies): Armenia GEF Project ID:2 4742 GEF Agency(ies): UNDP GEF Agency Project ID: 4669 Other Executing Partner(s): Municipalities of Yerevan and other Submission Date: 30 November 2011 main cities, Ministry of Nature Resubmission Date: 22 December 2011 Protection GEF Focal Area (s): Climate Change Project Duration (Months) 48 Name of parent program (if N/a Agency Fee ($): 160,000 applicable): For SFM/REDD+ 3 A. FOCAL AREA STRATEGY FRAMEWORK : Trust Indicative Indicative Focal Area Expected FA Outcomes Expected FA Outputs Fund Grant Amount Co-financing Objectives ($) ($) CCM-2 (select) Outcome 2.1 Appropriate Countries adopting EE policies GEFTF 500,000 600,000 policy, legal and and initiatives regulatory frameworks adopted and enforced CCM-2 (select) Outcome 2.2 Sustainable Investment mobilized for GEFTF 1,000,000 7,500,000 financing and energy efficiency delivery mechanisms established and operational Sub-Total 1,500,000 8,100,000 Project Management Cost4 GEFTF 100,000 500,000 Total Project Cost 1,600,000 8,600,000 B. PROJECT FRAMEWORK Project Objective: Removal of barriers to energy efficient (green) lighting in Armenian cities Grant Trust Indicative Indicative Project Type Expected Outcomes Expected Outputs Fund Grant Cofinancing Component Amount ($) ($) Knowledge and TA Municipal authorities 1.1. Approved and GEFTF 250,000 350,000 capacities for green in Yerevan and other enforced system to collect urban lighting cities have reliable and analyze data on urban information about lighting energy use urban lighting energy developed and piloted in use and costs, are Yerevan.
    [Show full text]
  • Armenia Page 1 of 44
    2009 Human Rights Report: Armenia Page 1 of 44 Home » Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs » Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor » Releases » Human Rights Reports » 2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices » Europe and Eurasia » Armenia 2009 Human Rights Report: Armenia BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND LABOR 2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices March 11, 2010 Armenia is a constitutional republic with a population of approximately 3.2 million. The constitution provides for an elected president and a unicameral legislature (the National Assembly). The country has a multiparty political system. The significantly flawed February 2008 presidential election and violent break-up of ensuing protests that resulted in 10 deaths continued to fuel a political crisis that remained largely unresolved during the year and resulted in numerous human rights abuses. In April 2008 Serzh Sargsian of the Republican Party of Armenia (RPA) was sworn in as president, replacing Robert Kocharian. In the National Assembly, the RPA continued to dominate the ruling coalition, which decreased from four parties to three on April 27, when the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutiun) resigned from the coalition citing differences over the conduct of foreign policy. Civilian authorities generally maintained effective control of the security forces, although some members of the security forces continued to commit human rights abuses with impunity while under the direction of civilian leadership. Authorities restricted the right of citizens to freely change their government in mayoral elections in Yerevan. During the year authorities subjected citizens, particularly those considered by the government to be political opponents, to arbitrary arrest, detention, and imprisonment for their political activities; lengthy pretrial detention also continued to be a problem.
    [Show full text]
  • AUA Factbook 2014-2015
    American University of Armenia Factbook 2014-2015 Academic Year Published October 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS Overview .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Description of Data .......................................................................................................................................... 4 Facts About AUA – A Chronology ..................................................................................................................... 6 Table 1. Enrollment by Time Status ............................................................................................................... 12 For Fall 2014 – Undergraduate .................................................................................................................. 12 For Fall 2014 – Graduate ........................................................................................................................... 13 Table 2. Enrollment by Gender and Citizenship ............................................................................................. 14 For Fall 2014 – Undergraduate .................................................................................................................. 14 For Fall 2014 – Graduate ........................................................................................................................... 15 Table 2.3 Enrollment - Summary of Demographic Data ..............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 17Th Plenary Session
    The Congress of Local and Regional Authorities Chamber of Local Authorities 17 th PLENARY SESSION CPL(17)5 21 September 2009 First elections of the Mayor of Yerevan, Armenia (31 May 2009) Bureau of the Congress Rapporteur: Nigel MERMAGEN, United Kingdom (L, ILDG)1 A. Draft Recommendation ....................................................................................................................... 2 B. Explanatory Memorandum .................................................................................................................. 4 Summary Following the official invitation from the Armenian authorities to observe the first election of the mayor of Yerevan on Sunday 31 May 2009, the Congress appointed an observer delegation, headed by Nigel Mermagen, Councillor in South Somerset District Council and Rapporteur to the Congress. The delegation was composed of nine members of the Congress and four members of the European Union’s Committee of the Regions, assisted by the Congress Secretariat. The delegation concluded that the organisational framework of the elections had been broadly in compliance with European standards. However, the delegation made clear that democracy does not only depend on a proper organisational framework but on highly-developed electoral conduct and democratic culture. Also, the delegation regretted those malpractices which tempered the normal conduct of the vote. It found that the political actors in Armenia should strive for a higher standard of ethics, attitudes and behaviour and that citizens should be better aware of democratic rights and duties. 1 L: Chamber of Local Authorities / R: Chamber of Regions ILDG: Independent and Liberal Democrat Group of the Congress EPP/CD: European People’s Party – Christian Democrats of the Congress SOC: Socialist Group of the Congress NR: Members not belonging to a Political Group of the Congress CPL(17)5 A.
    [Show full text]
  • Republic of Armenia of 11 September 2014
    Annex to the Protocol Decision No 38 of the sitting of the Government of the Republic of Armenia of 11 September 2014 CONTENTS Introduction HABITAT III NATIONAL REPORT I. Demographic issues of settlements 1.1 Managing over-urbanisation 1.2 Managing rural-urban linkages 1.3 Addressing the needs of the youth 1.4 Responding to the needs of the elderly 1.5 Women's involvement in urban management 1.6 Challenges experienced and lessons learnt in this area 1.7 Future challenges (issues that could be addressed through a New Urban Agenda) II. Land management and urban planning 2.8 Ensuring sustainable urban planning and design 2.9 Ensuring spatial planning and addressing urban sprawl 2.10 Enhancing urban and rural food production 2.11 Addressing urban mobility 2.12 Improving technical capacity to plan and manage cities 2.13 Challenges experienced and lessons learnt in this area 2.14 Challenges and issues in these areas that could be addressed by a New Urban Agenda III. Environment and urbanisation 3.15 Addressing climate change 3.16 Disaster risk reduction 3.17 Reduction of traffic congestion 3.18 Air pollution 3.19 Challenges experienced and lessons learnt in this area 3.20 Challenges and issues in these areas that could be addressed by a New Urban Agenda IV. Urban management and legislation 4.21 Improving urban legislation 4.22 Decentralisation and strengthening of local authorities 4.23 Improving participation and human rights protection in urban development 4.24 Decentralisation and strengthening of local authorities 4.25 Improving social inclusion and equity 4.26 Challenges experienced and lessons learnt in this area 4.27.
    [Show full text]
  • Improving Energy Efficiency of Municipal Heating and Hot Water Supply
    Lessons Learned Report LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE UNDP-GEF PROJECT IN ARMENIA Improving Energy Efficiency of Municipal Heating and Hot Water Supply 1 Yerevan 2012 “Armenia – Improving Energy Efficiency of Municipal Heating and Hot Water Supply” UNDP-GEF/00035799 project UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME ARMENIA COUNTRY OFFICE LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE UNDP-GEF PROJECT IN ARMENIA: Improving Energy Efficiency of Municipal Heating and Hot Water Supply Yerevan, June 2012 Lessons Learned from the UNDP-GEF Project in Armenia: “Improving Energy Efficiency of Municipal Heating and Hot Water Supply” Executing Agency: Ministry of Nature Protection of the Republic of Armenia Implementing Agency: UN Development Programme Authors: Robert Kharazyan, PhD (Lead Author) Diana Harutyunyan, PhD (Project Coordinator) Eduard Keryan Marina Sargsyan, PhD Mikhail Vermishev, PhD Svetlana Galoyan Editor: Tara Bray The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the United Nations Development Programme. © UNDP Armenia, 2012 This publication is prepared as a part of the project “Armenia - Improving Energy Efficiency of Municipal Heating and Hot Water Supply” UNDP-GEF/00035799, funded by the Global Environment Facility. The project objective was to investigate and promote solutions for an energy efficient municipal heating and hot water supply for Armenian cities paying special attention to the GHG emissions reduction aspect and the application of new high energy efficiency technologies. Lessons Learned Report
    [Show full text]