UNEP GEF PIR FY 06 · Web view2021. 8. 11. · Building on this UNEP signed an MOU with MINAM ......

PIR FY 2015 GFEI

UNEP GEF PIR Fiscal Year 15(1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015)

1. PROJECT GENERAL INFORMATION

Project Title: Stabilizing Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions from Road Transport through Doubling of Global Vehicle Fuel Economy: Regional Implementation of Global Fuel Economy Initiative (GFEI)

Executing Agency: FIA Foundation

Project partners: International Energy Agency, International Transport Forum, International Council on Clean Transportation, Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Davis and United Nations Environment Programme

Geographical Scope: Global

Participating Countries:

In total 20 countries

6 countries through GEF STAR allocations:Côte d'Ivoire, Jamaica, Macedonia, Mauritius, Montenegro and Peru

14 countries without GEF funding (but part of GFEI project):Thailand, Philippines, Viet Nam, Paraguay, Sri Lanka, Algeria, Nepal, Georgia, Egypt, Russia, Benin, Uganda, Uruguay, Costa Rica

GEF project ID: 4909 IMIS number*1: GF40401404Focal Area(s): Climate Change GEF OP #: 5GEF Strategic Priority/Objective:

CC-SP5 Transport GEF approval date*: 14 November, 2013

UNEP approval date: 18 June, 2014 Date of first disbursement*:

8 July, 2014

Actual start date2: 8 July 2014 Planned duration: 48 monthsIntended completion date*:

7 July 2014 Actual or Expected completion date:

30 June, 2018

Project Type: Full Size Project GEF Allocation*: 2,261,819PPG GEF cost*: N/A PPG co-financing*: N/AExpected MSP/FSP Co-financing*:

9,203,606 Total Cost*: 11,465,425

Mid-term review/eval. (planned date):

30 June 2016 Terminal Evaluation (actual date):

30 June 2018

Mid-term review/eval.(actual date):

N/A No. of revisions*: Nil

Date of last Steering Committee meeting:

12 June, 2015 Date of last Revision*:

N/A

Disbursement as of 30 June 2015*:

507,516 Date of financial closure*:

N/A

Date of Completion3*: N/A Actual expenditures $507,516

1 Fields with an * sign (in yellow) should be filled by the Fund Management Officer2 Only if different from first disbursement date, e.g., in cases were a long time elapsed between first disbursement and recruitment of project manager.

1

PIR FY 2015 GFEI

reported as of 30 June 20154:

Total co-financing realized as of 30 June 20155:

$184,269 Actual expenditures entered in IMIS as of 30 June 2015*:

447,516

Leveraged financing:6

Project summary7 The Global Fuel Economy Initiative (GFEI - www.unep.org/transport/gfei) is a collaboration between six leading climate, environment, transportation and energy organisations: the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Energy Agency, University of California at Davis (Institute of Transportation Studies), the International Council on Clean Transportation, the International Transport Forum and the FIA Foundation. GFEI was launched in 2009 as a concrete response to the IPCC recommendation, adopted by the G8, to double the efficiency of the global vehicle fleet – going from an average of 8L/ 100km in 2005 to 4L/100 km by 2050. The GFEI is now the leading global programme supporting fuel economy policy development in developing and transitional countries:

Through the GEF-4 supported GFEI set-up project, the GFEI developed best practices, baseline data setting methodology, public-private partnerships and strategic partners at the national and regional levels.

These will be essential tools to develop a regional approach and support a larger group of 20 countries in developing fuel economy policies.

To date UNEP has signed 27 project agreements with countries to develop national fuel economy policies,

The “Stabilizing Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions from Road Transport through Doubling of Global Vehicle Fuel Economy: Regional Implementation of Global Fuel Economy Initiative (GFEI) (July 2014 – June 2018)” project is implemented by FIA Foundation, the International Energy Agency (IEA), the International Transport Forum (ITF), the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) and the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Davis (ITS-UCDavis) , and co-funded by the GEF. In October 2012, the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Davis (ITS-UCDavis) became a full implementing partner of the GFEI, bringing the number of project partners to six. The overall objective of the GFEI is to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions from the global light duty vehicles fleet through a 50 percent improvement of vehicles fuel efficiency worldwide by 2050 (moving from a global average of 8 liters/100 km, as of 2010, to 4 liters/100 km).

Project status FY 20148

N/A

3 If there was a “Completion Revision” please use the date of the revision.4 Information to be provided by Executing Agency/Project Manager5 Projects which completed mid-term reviews/evaluations or terminal evaluations during FY15 should attach the completed co-financing table as per GEF format. See Annex 16 See above note on co-financing7 As in project document8 Please add additional lines to keep prior year implementation status (if any)

2

PIR FY 2015 GFEI

Project status FY 20159

6 countries supported through GEF STAR allocations:

MauritiusTo prepare for the GEF 5 project, Mauritius was supported (with EU funds) to carry out a baseline auto fuel economy (2005) and analyze trend (2013). A national task team coordinated by the then Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development was set up. Three sub-committees were established to support the national task team - on “Vehicle Inventory”, “Fuel and Vehicle Legislation” and “Cost-Benefit Analysis of Policy Options”. The final report of these committees including policy options for Mauritius to improve auto fuel economy were presented to stakeholders in November 2014 (http://www.unep.org/Transport/new/PCFV/africa/mauritius2014.asp). Under GEF 5, UNEP signed a PCA with the Ministry of Environment, Sustainable Development, and Disaster and Beach Management in April 2015 to support the updating of average light and heavy duty vehicle fuel economy (2014 and 2015); to review current policies and develop an implementation roadmap for the additional policies to encourage importation of more fuel efficient vehicles such as CO2 taxation system, vehicle labelling, and other incentive, and to present these recommendations at a high level government officials meeting and sub-regionally. A high level task team has been constituted to implement the project. Within the coming 6-12 months, the average auto fuel economy for 2014 will be calculated and a high level meeting held to discuss policy options to improve auto fuel economy in Mauritius.

Cote d'IvoireUNEP signed a PCA with the Ministère de l'Environnement, de la Salubrité Urbaine et du Développement Durable of Cote d'Ivoire to support GEF 5 GFEI activities in Cote d’Ivoire and the sub-region. Cote d’Ivoire was already supported to start to analyze their baseline auto fuel economy (EU funds). However collection of vehicle data needed for the baseline analysis has been a challenge. Under the GEF 5, it is proposed that the Government supports the development and implementation of a vehicle data entry tool that will capture all the parameters necessary for GFEI analysis. In addition to calculating the average auto fuel economy trends in the country, the support will include preparation of policy recommendations and an implementation strategy as well as public outreach. Within the coming 6-12 months, the vehicle data entry will be developed and discussed with stakeholders, and the average auto fuel economy for various years calculated.

FYR MacedoniaThe Country Office of the Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe (REC), GFEI’s regional partner in Eastern Europe, is implementing cleaner and more efficient fuels and vehicles project in FYR Macedonia. To prepare for the Global Environment Facility (GEF) 5-supported national fuel economy project in FYR Macedonia, the REC completed a baseline auto fuel economy analysis earlier this year (EU and FIA F funds). UNEP has developed an agreement with the REC supported by the Ministry of Environment (MoEPP) for the development

9 Progress made during current reporting period (one paragraph stating key changes since previous reporting period)

3

PIR FY 2015 GFEI

and adoption of an auto fuel economy strategy that includes European fuel economy norms; the project began in April 2015. There will be a GEF-5 project launch, namely a working group launch events at the national level and announcement of work plan, in late fall. In March 2016 national partners will organize a two-day national training country on auto fuel economy policy, and in August 2016 there is a planned study tour for 4 selected representatives in Slovenia to discuss and replicate aspects of Slovenia's approximation and acquis experience.

MontenegroUNEP has developed an MOU with the Ministry of Sustainable Development and Tourism and a project agreement with the REC for the development and adoption of an auto fuel economy strategy that includes European fuel economy norms, with Global Environment Facility (GEF) 5 support. Work is now concentrated on updating the national fuel economy baseline and trends with new data from the Ministry of Interior. There will be GEF-5 project launch in the fall of 2015, followed by a cost-benefit analysis of selected fuel economy policy instruments in early/mid 2016.

JamaicaUNEP signed an agreement with the University of Technology (UTech) in April 2015 to implement the first phase of GEF5 fuel economy activities at the national level for Jamaica. UNEP also signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Ministry of Water, Land Environment and Climate Change (MWLECC) to collaborate on transport issues and champion the project. UTech was chosen by MWLECC to support on the implementation of activities. As part of the initial activities, there will be two national working groups set up, one on cleaner fuels and vehicles and another specifically on fuel economy. These will support several activities including a review of current policies and standards on cleaner and more efficient fuels and vehicles and to develop an action plan with recommendations and timelines to move forward. Other activities will include a national baseline evaluation, to gather national fleet data and compose a vehicle efficiency baseline from the fleet, and a national public awareness and outreach campaign.

PeruThe Centro Mario Molina Centre Chile (CMMCh) was selected by the Peru Ministry of Environment (MINAM) and UNEP as it has the technical capability to implement the activities of this agreement. UNEP has worked with CMMCh since 2009 on cleaner and more efficient fuels and vehicles in Latin America and the Caribbean. Specific to Peru, since 2011, UNEP has supported CMMCh (through other donors) to assist Peru establish their national auto fuel economy baseline. Building on this UNEP signed an MOU with MINAM - to collaborate on the development of a national fuel economy policy – and a project agreement with CMMCh for the initial phase of activities for the GEF5 project. Activities will include: (i) project the energy demand and emissions for road transport in Peru, aggregated to established national baseline, (ii) propose Maximum Allowable Limits (LMP) and an Energy Efficiency Standard for the promotion of cleaner fuels and more efficient vehicles in Peru, (iii) recommend a system of vehicle approval and fuel economy labelling for light and heavy duty vehicles in Peru, and (iv) conduct national public awareness and outreach campaign to inform and promote on cleaner and more efficient fuels in Peru.

4

PIR FY 2015 GFEI

14 countries without GEF funding (but part of GFEI project):

Viet NamUNEP together with their regional implementation partner, Clean Air Asia, has been supporting the Vietnam Register under the Ministry of Transport to develop fuel economy standards for Vietnam. National Fuel Consumption Limits for Motorcycles, Mopeds, and Light-Duty Vehicles were developed and subsequently adopted as voluntary standards. In November 2014, at the Integrated Better Air Quality/ Environmentally Sustainable Transport Conference in Sri Lanka, Vietnam Register announced that the country is implementing vehicle labelling for locally assembled and imported light-duty vehicles with up to 7 seats by 1 January 2015. Car manufacturers or importers must publish fuel economy data for car models tested in Vietnam or in reputable foreign laboratories. As of end of February 2015, a total of 205 car models have published fuel economy ratings and 46 models have been locally verified. The tested value should not exceed the declared value of manufacturer or importer by more than 4%. According to Vietnam Register, which overseas this initiative, the emission and fuel consumption test can be integrated in one test. The label includes: (a) name, address, telephone, fax of manufacturer or importer (b) trade name, mark, model, origin, technical specifications and (c) certified fuel consumption includes urban, extra urban and combined cases in L/100 km.

Thailand and PhilippinesUNEP signed an agreement with their regional partner, Clean Air Asia, to support development of harmonized fuel economy policies in the ASEAN particularly for Thailand and Philippines. Thailand fuel economy standards are pending approval in government, through this project, Clean Air Asia and UNEP are engaging stakeholders to assist this process. The Philippines are in the process of finalizing its baseline analysis for light-duty vehicles, and developing a fuel economy labelling scheme. Thereafter, UNEP will support the development of fuel economy standard.

Sri LankaAn agreement between UNEP and Clean Air Sri Lanka was developed to facilitate the country has started working on developing their fuel economy baseline for light-duty vehicles as a first phase to develop a national fuel economy policy. Clean Air Sri Lanka and the University of Moratuwa have conducted an analysis of their fuel economy baseline for light-duty vehicles and the final report will be available by end of August 2015. Plans are underway to build off this work and work on fuel economy setting in Sri Lanka.

AlgeriaIn November 2014, UNEP signed an agreement with the National Agency for the Promotion and Rationalization of Energy Use (APRUE) of under the Ministry of Energy, Algeria. APRUE is the national agency responsible for the promotion and implementation of the Algerian energy policy. Its principal role is the coordination and the monitoring of the energy conservation policy (including in the Transport Sector). The objective of the agreement is to assist Algeria to prepare a vehicle

5

PIR FY 2015 GFEI

inventory that will establish the country’s national average fuel economy (baseline setting) and trends for specific years (for comparison purposes). This information will be used to prepare policy recommendations to support import of cleaner more efficient vehicles. GFEI was launched in Algeria in December 2014 with a two-day workshop in Algiers.

NepalUNEP signed an agreement with Clean Energy Nepal (CEN) in July 2014 to analyse their vehicle fleet and develop the fuel economy baseline for light-duty vehicles. Clean Energy Nepal has also started coordinating with relevant government offices regarding the prospects for developing fuel economy policies. As part of this work, and specifically to promote nationally appropriate automotive fuel economy policies in Nepal, CEN and Clean Air Network Nepal (CANN) with support from UNEP organized a stakeholder meeting on Automotive Fuel Economy Initiative in Kathmandu on 6th March 2015 with around 20 participants from different governmental agencies, non-governmental, agencies, academia, and private sectors.

GeorgiaUNEP and the Caucasus Environmental NGO Network (CENN) entered an agreement that consisted of three work packages. Package 1 focused on conducting institutional policy review and fleet fuel economy baseline determination. Package 2 was focused on setting targets for auto fuel efficiency plan towards policy development, while work Package 3 is designed to engage the Caucasus Sub Region stakeholders to facilitate scale-up/replication of the project to the likes of Armenia and Azerbaijan.

RussiaUNEP and the GFEI co-hosted a two-day, high-level auto fuel economy policy discussion in partnership with UNDP Russia and the Ministry of Transport of the Russian Federation on 17-18 June 2014 in Moscow. In 2014 Russia was the world’s seventh largest auto market, projected to become Europe’s largest and the world’s fifth top market by 2020. The country is among the three remaining major economies without an official fuel economy target (including India and Australia). The purpose of this first international conference was to catalyse the joint development of the first steps towards improving the energy efficiency of road transport in Russia through federal policy, incentive systems, and the use of advanced technology and to determine priorities for further action to improve auto fuel economy in Russia. A draft resolution drafted by participants and organizers prioritized the “importance of the participation of the Russian Federation in the efforts of the Global Fuel Economy Initiative (GFEI) on reduction of CO2 emissions and fuel consumption rate to a half by 2050 globally (the international campaign “50x50”)” and asked the Ministry of Transport of Russia, the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia, the Ministry of Energy of Russia and the Ministry of Industry of Russia “to consolidate efforts on improving automotive fuel economy in Russia and develop a common roadmap for practical targets and their implementation, which would define the measures on enhancement of energetic issues and environmental problems control efficiency.” UNEP is following up to the implementation of these recommendations.

6

PIR FY 2015 GFEI

UgandaIn 2014, a road map to improve automotive fuel efficiency was proposed by various stakeholders with timelines for improved fuel efficiency. A national task force was created to follow up on this. In November 2014, UNEP signed two agreements with Uganda to implement the automotive fuel economy project. An agreement was signed with the Makerere University College of Business Management Sciences to (i) prepare a vehicle inventory and vehicle import trend that will establish the country’s national average automotive fuel economy (baseline setting) and trends for specific years, and (ii) propose appropriate fuel economy policies. The other agreement was signed with the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development to oversee the project, through the formation of a national task team, and support national sensitisation of the fuel economy policies, including their adoption by the Government. About 60 participants from various government agencies, the private sector, United Nations, the Parliament, and the academia attended a one-day workshop on 14 May, 2015 in Kampala, Uganda to discuss the key findings of a baseline survey on vehicle fuel efficiency in Uganda. The survey was carried out by Makerere University while the workshop was organized by the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development. he baseline survey showed that the average vehicle fuel efficiency in Uganda was getting worse with time, mainly from the fact that the country was importing older vehicle over time. For example, the average age of diesel vehicles imported into Uganda in 2005 was 10 years and in 2014 this was 18 years. This meant that Uganda was not taking advantage of on-going global improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency. Participants recommended the wide sharing of the finalized Fuel Efficiency Baseline Survey Report with stakeholders, and as the next steps supported the preparation of an implementation plan on improving vehicle fuel efficiency in Uganda. Participants also recommended continued public awareness on the benefits of improving vehicle fuel efficiency for the country.

Paraguay and UruguayIn January 2015, UNEP signed an MOU with the National Commission for Defence of Natural Resources of Paraguay (CONADERNA) to collaborate on, amongst other activities, improving auto fuel economy in Paraguay by supporting the development of a national auto fuel economy policy based on multi-year auto fleet data analysis per GFEI methodology. This was similar to a previous MOU signed with the Ministry of Environment of Uruguay (DINAMA), and for both these MOU’s activities are being implemented by regional partner CMMCh. In December 2014, CMMCh finalized the national fuel economy baseline setting for Uruguay. This data in conjunction with similar baseline data from Chile, Peru and Costa Rica was analysed as part of a GFEI study conducted by UC Davis to determine optimal policy alternatives for primarily car importing/small market countries focussing on tax systems and vehicle import restrictions across both fuel economy and vehicle age. The assessment also estimated how consumers/markets may respond and what effect different policy formulations could have on fuel economy.

Costa RicaUNEP signed an MOU with the Ministry of Environment and Energy of Costa Rica (MINAE) in December 2014 to collaborate on Cleaner Fuels and Vehicles and More Efficient Road Transport in Costa Rica. As part

7

PIR FY 2015 GFEI

of this MOU, the Costa Rican NGO – CEGESTI – was tasked with implementation of the national activities. A separate agreement was signed with CEGESTI to work on improving auto fuel economy in Costa Rica by supporting the development of a national auto fuel economy policy based on multi-year auto fleet data analysis per GFEI methodology. CEGESTI. As part of this project, UNEP, FIA Foundation, and CEGESTI hosted the Cleaner Fuels and More Efficient Vehicles Conference for Central America on 3-4 November 2014 in San Jose, Costa Rica. The main objective of this event was to strengthen fuel quality and vehicle emission standards and promote auto fuel economy to support better air quality and energy security through a cleaner, more fuel-efficient auto fleet in Central America. Participating countries included Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, as well as experts from Chile and Peru. The meeting concluded with a recommendation plan for next steps for the sub-region. GFEI partners are following up with countries on the recommendations. In January 2015, CEGESTI finalized the 2005 national light duty vehicle fuel economy baseline for Costa Rica which will subsequently be instrumental helping to develop fuel economy policies for the country.

GlobalThe GEF-4 funded project helped set up the GFEI in many ways. As a result of this project, the secretariat was formed and the first four country pilots were implemented, helping define the methodologies through which GFEI supports countries to develop fuel economy policies. Building off of this launching pad, GFEI continues to lead the way in raising awareness of fuel economy both at the regional and global level:

In November 2014, GFEI - through regional implementation partner CEGESTI – supported the meeting of public and private organizations, including representatives of 8 Countries (Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama) in Costa Rica to discuss cleaner fuels, cleaner and more efficient vehicles. The meeting concluded with an agreement around priority actions. CEGESTI and UNEP, together with the support of partners of the PCFV and GFEI shall continue to work with the governments both at sub-regional and national level to move forward on all priorities identified. Future activities include a proposal for a vehicle emission standard, data collection and analysis of the vehicle fleet, followed by policy recommendations for fuel economy.

At the Better Air Quality (BAQ)/ Environmentally Sustainable Transport (EST) Conference in Sri Lanka in November 2014, GFEI organized a training course on developing fuel economy policies and an Experts’ Group Meeting on Accelerating Fuel Economy Policies in the ASEAN Region. Representatives from UNEP and UC Davis conducted the training course which was attended by participants from Indonesia, Malaysia, Nepal, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam. The training course provided an overview of fuel economy issues, information and experience in developing baseline fuel economy data for light-duty vehicles, and related policies and measures, such as fuel economy standards, fee-bate systems, labelling schemes, and taxation based policies. Also at the BAQ, the Experts’ Group Meeting on Accelerating Fuel Economy Policies in the ASEAN discussed ways and strategies to incorporate fuel economy into relevant ASEAN working

8

PIR FY 2015 GFEI

groups to develop and harmonize fuel economy policies and measures in the region. This includes a roadmap for developing fuel economy policies in the ASEAN to provide a comprehensive guide for policymakers.

More than 50 participants from around the world joined the Global Fuel Economy Initiative (GFEI) Global Training Event in Paris on 11th – 12th June 2015. The event, held in conjunction with the International Energy Agency (IEA) transport energy efficiency training week, drew together policy makers and technical experts for two days of practical information-sharing and networking on fuel economy. GFEI and its national partners reviewed the state of the world fuel economy and engaged in fuel economy policy-setting training across a wide range of issues including fiscal fuel economy measures, labelling and other non-fiscal measures, assessed impacts of fuel economy measures using a GFEI modelling tool ‘FEPIT’ as well as assessed the wider context of fuel economy policies.

2015 is a key year for Fuel Economy as governments look to agree ambitious action on climate and development, including the UN Sustainable Development Goals, the Turkish G20 and COP21 in Paris. GFEI is working to ensure that fuel economy improvements are reflected in all of these vital processes. As a SE4All accelerator initiative for transport, GFEI has therefore developed the ‘100 countries for 50by50’ campaign in order to influence these agendas. The aim is to secure the engagement of 100 countries in a commitment to the GFEI target of 50by50. In joining the GFEI in this work, countries will be committing not only to work on fuel economy towards the 50 per cent reduction in average fuel use, but to seek to do their part towards achieving this target by 2050 – hence 50by50. The campaign was a major theme of GFEI’s Global Training Week, held 6 months before the COP21 Climate Change conference in December 2015. Countries committed to this initiative upon hearing from a range of experts in the field of fuel economy, as well as many representatives of other countries which are already engaging on this issue. This included Chile, which recently introduced a fuel economy vehicle labelling scheme, China which has introduced fuel consumption standards and Singapore which has a labelling scheme linked to the tax level to incentivise low carbon vehicles.

Planned contribution to strategic priorities/targets10

The GFEI project is within the scope of the strategic objectives of GEF: SP5 “Promoting Sustainable Innovative Systems for urban transport”.

2. PROJECT OBJECTIVE

State the global environmental objective(s) of the project11

To support the development of national fuel economy policies in 20 countries, 6 countries through GEF-5 STAR Allocations and 14 without GEF funding, using existing tools developed with GEF-4

10 For Full Size Projects this information is found in the front page of the project Executive Summary; for Medium-Sized Projects the information appears in the MSP brief cover page.11 Or immediate project objective

9

PIR FY 2015 GFEI

support (examples are the fuel economy baseline calculation methodology and online GFEI toolkit). In addition, to support coordination of the 20 country projects at the regional level to ensure that results are disseminated to other countries within the region. This will result in reduced vehicle fleet CO2 emissions in these 20 countries inline with the Global Fuel Economy Initiative's target of a 50% improvement of the overall global fleet fuel economy by 2050.

10

PIR FY 2015 GFEI

Please provide a narrative of progress made towards meeting the project objective(s). Describe any significant environmental or other changes (results) attributable to project implementation. Also, please discuss any major challenges to meet the objectives or specific project outcomes (not more than 300 words)

The following progress report addresses accomplishments and highlights in line with the Project Document’s stated expected accomplishments:

1. A conducive institutional framework to develop and adopt automotive fuel economy policies is established in 20 countries.GFEI is at an advantage in the implementation of the project due to the experiences obtained in implementation of the GEF-4 project (4 national pilots project). Institutional framework and capacity has been established in most if not all 20 countries with either national fuel economy steering groups formed or project agreements signed with the relevant policymakers to work on developing fuel economy policies. Although there were delays in signing GEF specific project agreements in the 6 countries funded through GEF-5 STAR allocations, 4 out of the 6 countries had ongoing (albeit preliminary) GFEI projects through other donors. As such, setting up of the relevant institutional frameworks was not adversely affected.

2. Twenty countries acquire advanced technical knowledge on fuel economy and the impact of various policy options.Again, because of the momentum harnessed from the GEF-4 project, GFEI has been able to hit the ground running in the GEF-5 project. GFEI was already working at a preliminary level in 4 out of the 6 countries funded through GEF-5 STAR allocations as a result the national fuel economy baselines had already been calculated. The GEF-5 project will assist in quantifying the trend in national fuel economy averages to date (post baseline) which will be invaluable in the policy setting process.

3. Twenty countries supported to develop and adopt national automotive fuel economy policies.GFEI has had early success with Viet Nam and Thailand (not funded through GEF resources) have either adopted fuel economy policies or are deliberating on the adoption of policies. The bulk of the work is still lies squarely ahead and therefore the early successes are by no means a cause for celebration yet. Policy development and adoption is a slow and involving process that requires constant engagement and cooperation every step of the way.

4. South-south cooperation on fuel economy established within the regions, resulting in regional fuel economy policy ripple effectsThe bulk of the regional replication as designed in the project document for this project is anticipated to occur more in the second half and towards the end of the project when most countries have developed and/or adopted policies thus have concrete steps to showcase. That said ongoing GFEI fora such as the annual GFEI global partners meeting are invaluable in fostering replication and south-south cooperation.

5. Improved awareness and understanding of automotive fuel economy issues as well as the status of policy adoption at the national, regional and global levels.As mentioned earlier, GFEI leads the global debate and discussion on fuel economy with significant visibility and responsibility given to fuel economy at development processes such as RIO+20, COP20, United Nations Climate Summit 2014 and recognition as a SE4All accelerator initiative for transport. Awareness-raising continues in high gear with the ‘100 countries for 50by50’ campaign on track for COP21 in Paris. The annual GFEI global partners meetings and the regional fora showcasing in country fuel economy work serve to address awareness-raising at regional and sub regional levels.

11

PIR FY 2015 GFEI

Please provide a narrative of progress towards the stated GEF Strategic Priorities and Targets if identified in project document 12(not more than 200 words)

The overall goal of the GEF in climate change mitigation is to support developing countries and economies in transition towards a low-carbon development path and thus achieve large GHG reductions. Specifically, Focal Area Objective 4 seeks to “promote energy efficient, low carbon transport and urban systems”. The GFEI fits perfectly into this as it will lead to the implementation of policies and regulatory frameworks that will improve vehicle fuel efficiency resulting in major CO2 reductions and contributing to the overall move to low carbon transport systems. Automotive fuel efficiency policies will also stimulate the development of, and investment in, cleaner vehicles production in developing and transitional countries.

12 Projects that did not include these in original design are encouraged to the extent possible to retrofit specific targets.

12

PIR FY 2015 GFEI

3. RATING PROJECT PERFORMANCE AND RISK

Based on inputs by the Project Manager, the UNEP Task Manager13 will make an overall assessment and provide ratings of:(i) Progress towards achieving the project objective(s)- see section 3.1(ii) Implementation progress – see section 3.2

Section 3.3 on Risk should be first completed by the Project Manager. The UNEP Task Manager will subsequently enter his/her own ratings in the appropriate column.

13 For joint projects and where applicable ratings should also be discussed with the Task Manager of co-implementing agency.

13

PIR FY 2015 GFEI

3.1 Progress towards achieving the project objective (s)

Project objective and Outcomes

Description of indicator14

Baseline level15 Mid-term target16 End-of-project target

Level at 30 June 2015

Progress rating 17

Objective18

To support the development of national fuel economy policies in 20 countries, 6 countries through GEF-5 STAR allocations and 14 without GEF financing, using existing tools developed with GEF-4 support, resulting in reduced vehicle fleet CO2 emissions.‡ In addition, to support coordination of the 20 country projects at the regional level to ensure that results are disseminated to other countries within the region.

By the end of the project, 20 countries have formulated fuel economy strategies that involve a combination of regulatory policies, economic incentive instruments, consumer awareness and complemented with a host of flanking measures to reduce fuel consumption by the road transport sector.

At least 10 additional countries begin working on fuel economy policies as a result of the regional replication

The 20 project countries do not have national fuel economy policies, however, 14 of them will be supported without GEF funding

Limited framework exists for regional cooperation on fuel economy

8 countries have formulated comprehensive fuel economy policies

At least 4 additional countries begin working on fuel economy policies as a result of the regional south-south cooperation


At least 10 additional countries begin working on fuel economy policies as a result of the regional south-south cooperation

2 countries (Viet Nam and Thailand – not funded through GEF-5 STAR allocations) have formulated and/or adopted fuel economy polices

6 Countries have expressed interest in beginning to work on fuel economy policy setting (Ukraine, Guatemala, St. Lucia, Mali, Nigeria and Togo)

S

14 Add rows if your project has more that 3 key indicators per objective or outcome.15 Depending on selected indicator, quantitative or qualitative baseline levels and targets could be used (see Glossary included as Annex 1).16 Many projects did not identify Mid-term targets at the design stage therefore this column should only be filled if relevant.17 Use GEF Secretariat required six-point scale system: Highly Satisfactory (HS), Satisfactory (S), Marginally Satisfactory (MS), Marginally Unsatisfactory (MU), Unsatisfactory (U), and Highly Unsatisfactory (HU). See Annex 2 which contains GEF definitions.18 Add rows if your project has more than 4 objective-level indicators. Same applies for the number of outcome-level indicators.

14

PIR FY 2015 GFEI


Description of indicator

Baseline level Mid-term target End-of-project target


Progress rating

Outcome 1:1.1 A conducive institutional framework to develop and adopt automotive fuel economy policies is established in 20 countries.

20 countries commit to working on development of fuel economy policies under a defined stakeholder and implementation framework

20 countries lack the institutional framework to develop and adopt automotive fuel economy policies, however, 14 of these will be supported to develop this capacity without GEF funding

20 countries supported to create a conducive institutional framework to develop and adopt automotive fuel economy policies

20 countries supported to create a conducive institutional framework to develop and adopt automotive fuel economy policies

At least 15 countries supported to create a conducive institutional framework to develop and adopt automotive fuel economy policies

HS

1.2 Twenty countries acquire advanced technical knowledge on fuel economy and the impact of various policy options.

1.2 Twenty countries acquire advanced technical knowledge on fuel economy and the impact of various policy options.

20 countries lack technical knowledge on the climate change impact of their vehicle fleets and the projected impact of various fuel economy interventions. Through other donor funds, this capacity will be built in 14 of these countries

12 countries have their fuel economy vis-à-vis climate change knowledge capacities built

20 countries have their fuel economy vis-à-vis climate change knowledge capacities built

Baselines calculated in 12 countries:GEF FundedCôte d'Ivoire, Mauritius, Montenegro, PeruNot GEF FundedThailand, Philippines, Viet Nam, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Uganda, Uruguay, Costa Rica

S

1.3 Twenty countries supported to develop and adopt national automotive fuel economy policies.

20 countries have formulated fuel economy strategies that involve a combination of regulatory policies, economic incentive instruments, consumer awareness and complemented with a host of flanking measures to reduce fuel consumption by the road transport sector.

The 20 project countries do not have national fuel economy policies, however, 14 of them will be supported without GEF funding



2 countries (Viet Nam and Thailand – not funded through GEF-5 STAR allocations) have formulated and/or adopted fuel economy polices

S

15

PIR FY 2015 GFEI





Progress rating

Outcome 2:South-south cooperation on fuel economy established within the regions, resulting in regional fuel economy policy ripple effects.

Increase in number of countries (at least 10) interested in working on developing fuel economy policies in addition to project countries

No regional replication workshops organized in Latin America, Western Africa, the Caribbean or Central and Eastern Europe.GFEI supports regional replication workshops in South East Asia as well as Middle East and West Asia without GEF funding

At least 1 regional workshop organized in one of the four regions with a national fuel economy project funded through GEF-5

4 Regional workshops organized (one each in the four regions with a national fuel economy project funded through GEF-5)

No regional workshop organized in any of the four regions with a national fuel economy project funded through GEF-5, however, the West Africa regional workshop is on track to happen before the mid term mark

S

16

PIR FY 2015 GFEI





Progress rating

Outcome 3:Improved awareness and understanding of automotive fuel economy issues as well as the status of policy adoption at the national, regional and global levels.

Continued and increased visibility/awareness of GFEI and automotive fuel economy project work at regional, sub regional and national levels.

Positioning of GFEI fuel economy work for global roll out to see through 50% improvements in fuel economy by 2050

Growth in GFEI associated organizations at the national, regional and global level (partnership growth)

Without GEF-5 funding, GFEI will continue in-country communications and outreach work for existing projects supported through without funds

a) At least 2 technical publications detailing global fuel economy prospects and progress; b) Correspondence from at least 5 expressing intent to partner with GFEI on developing fuel economy standards;c) At least 4 GFEI presentations at key global fora;

a) At least 4 technical publications detailing global fuel economy prospects and progress; b) Correspondence from at least 10 expressing intent to partner with GFEI on developing fuel economy standards;c) At least 8 GFEI presentations at key global fora;

a ‘GFEI Annual Report 2014’ and ‘International comparison of light-duty vehicle fueleconomy: Evolution over 8 years from 2005 to 2013’) http://www.fiafoundation.org/our-work/global-fuel-economy-initiative/data-and-research ;b) 6 Countries have expressed interest in beginning to work on fuel economy policy setting (Ukraine, Guatemala, St. Lucia, Mali, Nigeria and Togo);c) GFEI Accelerator Symposium - Paris - September 2014,

- UN Climate Summit - NYC - September 2014,

- Africa Sustainable Transport Forum – Nairobi – October 2014,

- Better Air Quality (BAQ)/ Environmentally Sustainable Transport (EST) Conference in Sri Lanka in November

HS

17

http://www.fiafoundation.org/our-work/global-fuel-economy-initiative/data-and-research



PIR FY 2015 GFEI

Overall rating of project progress towards meeting project objective(s) (To be provided by UNEP GEF Task Manager. Please add columns to reflect all prior year ratings)

FY2014 rating FY2015 rating Comments/narrative justifying the current FY rating and explaining reasons for change (positive or negative) since previous reporting periods

N/A (first PIR) S The project is progressing as planned. No need for corrective action.

Action plan to address MS, MU, U and HU rating (To be completed by UNEP GEF Task Manager in consultation with Project Manager)

Action(s) to be taken By whom? By when? N/A

This section should be completed if project progress towards meeting objectives was rated MS, MU, U or HU during the previous Project Implementation Review (PIR) or by the Mid-term Review/Evaluation (To be completed by Project Manager).

Problem(s) identified in previous PIR

Action(s) taken By whom When

N/A (first PIR) N/A (first PIR) N/A (first PIR) N/A (first PIR)

18

PIR FY 2015 GFEI

3.2 Project implementation progress

Outputs 19 Expected completion date 20

Implement-ation status as of 30 June 2014 (%)


Comments if variance21. Describe any problems in delivering outputs

Progress rating22

Output 1: National ActivitiesActivity 1: Formal project agreements signed with partner institutions in 20 countries to work on development of fuel economy policies.

30 Dec 2014

N/A 100% Project agreements signed in all 6 GEF-5 funded countries. For non-GEF funded countries, some preliminary projects (baseline setting) are winding down and need to sign projects for next stage

S

Activity 2: National stakeholder groups set-up with inception meetings/workshops held to define pathways for developing and adopting fuel economy policies.

30 Dec 2016

N/A 66% Inception workshops in Jamaica and Macedonia pending.

S

Activity 3: Data collected to characterize the national vehicle fleet based on number of vehicles produced and/or imported, vehicle composition (passenger cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles), vehicle age, vehicle model and vehicle technology

30 Dec 2016

N/A 66% Data for Jamaica and Macedonia pending collection for 2005 baseline setting. Updating fuel economy average every two years since 2008 ongoing.

S

Activity 4: Annual average automotive fuel economy calculated using methodologies developed in GEF-4 funded GFEI project for new vehicles (produced and/or imported) in 2005 (baseline year) and every two years from 2008, in at least 20 countries.

30 Dec 2017

N/A 60% Baselines calculated in 12 out of 20 countries. Updating fuel economy average every two years since 2008 ongoing.

S

Activity 5: Where necessary, cost-benefit analyses (CBA) of the impact of fuel economy policies conducted to guide policymakers as was done in the GEF-4 funded GFEI pilot project.

30 Dec 2016

N/A 0% Difficult activity to rate as not every country needs a CBA to develop fuel economy policies. As country projects progress, CBA’s conducted will be evaluated to determine rating of this activity

S

19 Outputs and activities as described in the project logframe or in any updated project revision.20 As per latest workplan (latest project revision)21 Variance refers to the difference between the expected and actual progress at the time of reporting.22 To be provided by the UNEP Task Manager

19

PIR FY 2015 GFEI

Outputs Expected completion date



Comments if variance. Describe any problems in delivering outputs

Progress rating

Activity 6: National stakeholder workshops organized to foster policy dialogue with guidance from leading international fuel economy experts.

30 Dec 2017

N/A 50% At least 10 national stakeholder workshops organized

S

Activity 7: National public awareness raising campaigns conducted to leverage public support for fuel economy policies.

30 June 2018

N/A 0% Most of this activity occurs towards the end of the national projects to get the word out on draft policies so schedule-wise this activity is still on track

S

Activity 8: Technical training sessions held for key policymakers on mechanisms for developing fuel economy standards.

30 Dec 2017

N/A 25% At least one (big) training held at the GFEI Global Partners Meeting in June 2015. Similar trainings have been held outside the scope of this particular project though

S

Activity 9: Twenty countries submit draft automotive fuel economy policies to their national decision-making bodies.

30 June 2018

N/A 10% Drafting of policies is not linear so one should not expect 5 countries per year. That said, it would be nicer to see more early adopters

S

Output 2: Regional ReplicationActivity 10: Regional workshops organized in each of the four regions fostering at least 10 new country fuel economy projects.

30 June 2018

N/A 0% This is not alarming as countries need to develop policies first before showcasing them. Regional replication should pick up towards the end of the project

S

Activity 11: Regional fuel economy knowledgebases developed to enable regional tech-transfer.

30 June 2018

N/A 0%

Activity 12: Where feasible, regional policy harmonization initiatives established to assist in global rollout of fuel economy standards.

30 June 2018

N/A 0%

Output 3: GFEI CommunicationsActivity 13: Expanded GFEI website and toolkit with case studies and lessons learned included for the 20 country projects as well as additional countries established through regional replication

Ongoing N/A Ongoing Similar to regional replication this will tend to pick up towards the end of the project as country projects conclude

S

Activity 14: GFEI talks and symposia at key global/regional fora.

Ongoing N/A Ongoing GFEI continues to lead on this globally

S

20

PIR FY 2015 GFEI

Outputs Expected completion date



Comments if variance. Describe any problems in delivering outputs

Progress rating

Activity 15: Ongoing production and dissemination of outreach materials (e.g. films, technical publications, newsletters, leaflets etc.) to convey GFEI project message to national, regional and global stakeholders

Ongoing N/A Ongoing GFEI continues to lead on this globally

S

Overall project implementation progress 23 (To be completed by UNEP GEF Task Manager. Please add columns to reflect prior years’ ratings):

FY14 rating FY15 rating Comments/narrative justifying the rating for this FY and any changes (positive or negative) in the rating since the previous reporting period

N/A (first PIR) S The project is progressing as planned. There is no need for corrective action.

Action plan to address MS, MU, U and HU rating. (To be completed by UNEP Task Manager in consultation with Project Manager24)

Action(s) to be taken By whom? By when? N/A

This section should be completed if project progress was rated MS, MU, U or HU during the previous Project Implementation Review (PIR) or by the Mid-term Review/Evaluation (To be completed by Project Manager).

Problem(s) identified in previous PIR

Action(s) taken By whom When

N/A (first PIR) N/A (first PIR) N/A (first PIR) N/A (first PIR)

23 Use GEF Secretariat required six-point scale system: Highly Satisfactory (HS), Satisfactory (S), Marginally Satisfactory (MS), Marginally Unsatisfactory (MU), Unsatisfactory (U), and Highly Unsatisfactory (HU)24 UNEP Fund Management Officer should also be consulted as appropriate.

21

PIR FY 2015 GFEI

3.3. RiskThere are two tables to assess and address risk: the first “risk factor table” to describe and rate risk factors; the second “top risk mitigation plan” should indicate what measures/action will be taken with respect to risks rated Substantial or High and who is responsible to for it.

RISK FACTOR TABLEProject Managers will use this table to summarize risks identified in the Project Document and reflect also any new risks identified in the course of project implementation. The Notes column should be used to provide additional details concerning manifestation of the risk in your specific project, as relevant. The “Notes” column has one section for the Project Manager (PM) and one for the UNEP Task Manager (TM). If the generic risk factors and indicators in the table are not relevant to the project rows should be added. The UNEP Task Manager should provide ratings in the right hand column reflecting his/her own assessment of project risks.

Project Manager Rating

Notes Task Manager Rating

Risk Factor Indicator of Low Risk

Indicator of Medium Risk

Indicator of High Risk

Low

Med

ium

Sub

stan

tial

Hig

h

Not

App

licab

le

To b

e de

term

ined

Low

Med

ium

Sub

stan

tial

Hig

h

Not

App

licab

le

To b

e de

term

ined

INTERNAL RISKProject management

Management structure

Stable with roles and responsibilities clearly defined and understood

Individuals understand their own role but are unsure of responsibilities of others

Unclear responsibilities or overlapping functions which lead to management problems

X PM : X

TM:

Governance structure

Steering Committee and/or other project bodies meet periodically and provide effective direction/inputs

Body(ies) meets periodically but guidance/input provided to project is inadequate. TOR unclear

Members lack commitment Committee/body does not fulfil its TOR

X PM : X

TM:

22

PIR FY 2015 GFEI






Low

Med

ium

Sub

stan

tial

Hig

h

Not

App

licab

le

To b

e de

term

ined

Low

Med

ium

Sub

stan

tial

Hig

h

Not

App

licab

le

To b

e de

term

ined


Internal com-munications

Fluid and cordial Communication process deficient although relationships between team members are good

Lack of adequate communication between team members leading to deterioration of relationships and resentment

X PM:

TM: Task Management will be handed off to the Paris Based TM, where annual steering committees will take place.

Work flow Project progressing according to work plan

Some changes in project work plan but without major effect on overall timetable

Major delays or changes in work plan or method of implementation

X PM: X

TM:

Co-financing Co-financing is secured and payments are received on time

Is secured but payments are slow and bureaucratic

A substantial part of pledged co-financing may not materialize

X PM: X

TM:

Budget Activities are progressing within planned budget

Minor budget reallocation needed

Reallocation between budget lines exceeding 30% of original budget

X PM: X

TM:

Financial management

Funds are correctly

Financial reporting slow or

Serious financial reporting

X PM: X

23

PIR FY 2015 GFEI






Low

Med

ium

Sub

stan

tial

Hig

h

Not

App

licab

le

To b

e de

term

ined

Low

Med

ium

Sub

stan

tial

Hig

h

Not

App

licab

le

To b

e de

term

ined


managed and transparently accounted for

deficient problems or indication of mismanagement of funds

TM:

Reporting Substantive reports are presented in a timely manner and are complete and accurate with a good analysis of project progress and implementation issues

Reports are complete and accurate but often delayed or lack critical analysis of progress and implementation issues

Serious concerns about quality and timeliness of project reporting

X PM: X

TM:

Stakeholder involvement

Stakeholder analysis done and positive feedback from critical stakeholders and partners

Consultation and participation process seems strong but misses some groups or relevant partners

Symptoms of conflict with critical stakeholders or evidence of apathy and lack of interest from partners or other stakeholders

X PM: X

TM:

24

PIR FY 2015 GFEI






Low

Med

ium

Sub

stan

tial

Hig

h

Not

App

licab

le

To b

e de

term

ined

Low

Med

ium

Sub

stan

tial

Hig

h

Not

App

licab

le

To b

e de

term

ined


External com-munications

Evidence that stakeholders, practitioners and/or the general public understand project and are regularly updated on progress

Communications efforts are taking place but not yet evidence that message is successfully transmitted

Project existence is not known beyond implementation partners or misunderstand-ings concerning objectives and activities evident

X PM: X

TM:

Short term/long term balance

Project is addressing short term needs and achieving results with a long term perspective, particularly sustainability and replicability

Project is interested in the short term with little understanding of or interest in the long term

Longer term issues are deliberately ignored or neglected

X PM: X

TM:

Science and technological issues

Project based on sound science and well established technologies

Project testing approaches, methods or technologies but based on sound analysis of options and risks

Many scientific and /or technological uncertainties

X PM: X

TM:

Political influences

Project decisions and choices are not particularly

Signs that some project decisions are politically

Project is subject to a variety of political

X PM: X

25

PIR FY 2015 GFEI






Low

Med

ium

Sub

stan

tial

Hig

h

Not

App

licab

le

To b

e de

term

ined

Low

Med

ium

Sub

stan

tial

Hig

h

Not

App

licab

le

To b

e de

term

ined


politically driven motivated influences that may jeopardize project objectives

TM:

Other, please specify. Add rows as necessary

PM:

TM:

26

PIR FY 2015 GFEI






Low

Med

ium

Sub

stan

tial

Hig

h

Not

App

licab

le

To b

e de

term

ined

Low

Med

ium

Sub

stan

tial

Hig

h

Not

App

licab

le

To b

e de

term

ined

EXTERNAL RISKProject context

Political stability

Political context is stable and safe

Political context is unstable but predictable and not a threat to project implementation

Very disruptive and volatile

X PM: X

TM: Some countries are post conflict.

Environmental conditions

Project area is not affected by severe weather events or major environmental stress factors

Project area is subject to more or less predictable disasters or changes

Project area has very harsh environmental conditions

X PM: X

TM:

Social, cultural and economic factors

There are no evident social, cultural and/or economic issues that may affect project performance and results

Social or economic issues or changes pose challenges to project implementation but mitigation strategies have been developed

Project is highly sensitive to economic fluctuations, to social issues or cultural barriers

X PM: Fiscal fuel economy policies can have a significant impact on a country’s revenue generation. If adverse, this can reduce the government support for the policy. Our experience has taught us how to avoid pitfalls by always including ministries of finance/treasury in the policy stakeholder process as well as ensuring that fiscal incentives for fuel economy are designed to be sensitive to the government’s revenue goals

X

27

PIR FY 2015 GFEI






Low

Med

ium

Sub

stan

tial

Hig

h

Not

App

licab

le

To b

e de

term

ined

Low

Med

ium

Sub

stan

tial

Hig

h

Not

App

licab

le

To b

e de

term

ined

EXTERNAL RISKProject context

TM:

Capacity issues

Sound technical and managerial capacity of institutions and other project partners

Weaknesses exist but have been identified and actions is taken to build the necessary capacity

Capacity is very low at all levels and partners require constant support and technical assistance

X PM: X

TM:

Others, please specify

If there is a significant (over 50% of risk factors) discrepancy between Project Manager and Task Manager rating, an explanation by the Task Manager should be provided below

28

PIR FY 2015 GFEI

TOP RISK MITIGATION PLANRank – importance of riskRisk Statement – potential problem (condition and consequence)Action to take – action planned/taken to handle the riskWho – person(s) responsible for the actionDate – date by which action needs to be or was completed

Rank Risk Statement25 Action to Take Who DateCondition Consequence

Project overall risk rating (Low, Medium, Substantial or High) (Please include PIR risk ratings for all prior periods, add columns as necessary):

FY14 rating FY15 rating Comments/narrative justifying the current FY rating and any changes (positive or negative) in the rating since the previous reporting period

N/A (first PIR) S LIf a risk mitigation plan had been presented for a previous period or as a result of the Mid-Term Review/Evaluation please report on progress or results of its implementation

25 Only for Substantial to High risk.

29

PIR FY 2015 GFEI

4. RATING MONITORING AND EVALUATION

Based on the answers provided to the questions in 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 below, the UNEP Task Manager will provide ratings for the following aspects of project monitoring and evaluation:

(i) Overall quality of the Monitoring & Evaluation plan(ii) Performance in the implementation of the M&E plan

4.1. Does the project M&E plan contain the following: Baseline information for each outcome-level indicator Yes X No □ SMART indicators to track project outcomes Yes X No □ A clear distribution of responsibilities for monitoring project progress. Yes X No □

4.2. Has the project budgeted for the following M&E activities: Mid-term review/evaluation Yes X No □ Terminal evaluation Yes X No □ Any costs associated with collecting and analysing indicators’

related information Yes X No □

Please rate the quality of the project M&E plan (use HS, S, MS, MU, U, HU): S

4.3 Has the project: Utilized the indicators identified in the M&E plan to track progress

in meeting the project objectives; Yes X No □ Fulfilled the specified reporting requirements (financial, including

on co-financing and auditing, and substantive reports) Yes X No □ Completed any scheduled MTR or MTE before or at project

implementation mid-point; Yes □ No X N/A yet Applied adaptive management in response to M&E activities Yes X No □ Implemented any existing risk mitigation plan (see previous section) Yes □ No X N/A yet

Please rate the performance in implementing the M&E plan (use HS, S, MS, MU, U, HU): MS

4.4. Please describe activities for monitoring and evaluation carried out during the reporting period26

GFEI GEF Project Steering Committee – 12 June 2015

26 Do not include routine project reporting. Examples of M&E activities include stakeholder surveys, field surveys, steering committee meetings to assess project progress, peer review of documentation to ensure quality, etc.

30

PIR FY 2015 GFEI

Introduction:The GEF Project Steering Committee was integrated into the program of the GFEI-IEA Energy Efficiency Training Week on 11-12 June 2015, held in the UNESCO Office in Paris, France. The GFEI partners and other members of the steering committee were represented, including the FIA Foundation, UNEP Transport Unit, International Energy Agency, International Council for Clean Transportation, and Centro Mario Molina Chile. All the GEF-5 supported countries were represented in the meeting. Costa Rica, Sri Lanka, and Ukraine participated in the meeting as well, as observers.Meeting Summary:Sheila Watson of FIA Foundation and Elisa Dumitrescu of UNEP provided an overview of the GEF supported activities of the GFEI and discussed the requirements and plans in implementing the activities supported by GEF-5 (the presentation is attached). The discussions focused on activities under national implementation, i.e. baseline and projection, coalition-building and consultation, policy options evaluation and design, proposed policies/ measures and communication, and implementation support. The meeting provided an opportunity for the GEF-5 supported country representatives to raise their concerns and discuss with GFEI partners on the various technical and practical issues arising from ongoing activities as well as preempt any potential issues from proposed activities. The Agenda and Participants list are attached.

Highlights of the meeting:

• It was agreed that there should be some standard communication materials (e.g. slide decks) regarding fuel economy and GFEI in general that can be used by the countries and partners both at the national and regional level.

• The GFEI partners encouraged matching of funds from country projects and GFEI partners to maximize resources. To strengthen the replication component of the project, it was agreed that where possible resources should be used to facilitate the exchange of experience from various countries/regions, e.g. Chile participating in meetings in Macedonia.

• Substantial discussions were held on developing the baseline of fuel economy and trends as well as collecting data. GFEI partners stated that a combined database with FE ratings for vehicles is not feasible at this time. It was also confirmed that data on heavy duty vehicles (HDVs) and motorcycles was not required as part of this GEF-5 activities, however, if information is available, partners were encouraged to collect the data as well for future reference.

• Discussions were held on the cost-benefit analysis (CBA) with detailed experiences from other countries and its differences with the Fuel Economy Projection Tool (FEPiT) and additional information required, e.g. vehicle fleet information that includes all vehicle types and characteristics are needed in CBA to estimate impact of policies

• Participants discussed the role of electrification in auto fuel economy improvements, and the GFEI Secretariat will issue guidance and additional information on the role of EV’s.

• GFEI may integrate EV’s in ongoing national projects.

ACTION LIST GFEI Lead Deadline/ Follow-up Action

1 A slide deck (PowerPoint) will be prepared including some available information on progress in various

FIA Foundation and UNEP

3 July

31

PIR FY 2015 GFEI

countries2 Send GFEI posters electronically to print for national

and regional events to the partnersFIA Foundation 3 July

3 Revise baseline criteria (including guidance on segmentation) and send to country representatives

IEA and UNEP 3 July

4 Disseminate the European Environment Agency (EEA) database of FE ratings for European cars (and other sources from GFEI report) to partners

IEA 26 June

5 Develop a flowchart to visualize the relationship of the baseline with the FEPiT, Feebate tool and CBA, if needed

UNEP and IEA 3 July

6 ICCT will check whether they can provide guidance on CBA for auto fuel economy policy

ICCT Done – GFEI partners to discuss how to move forward on CBA

7 Check Mauritius example of CBA, and update Mauritius case study on the GFEI Toolkit

UNEP 3 July

8 Add CBA guidance to the GFEI Tool Instruments section

GFEI partners to discuss how to move forward on CBA

9 Lew Fulton/UC Davis to host webinar on EV’s UC Davis TBD10 Review sheet on air quality vs. auto fuel economy

regulations would be helpful for countriesUNEP TBD

11 Guidance on conversion of test cycles is readily available, but will be circulated to partners again

ICCT 3 July

12 The issue of used vehicle imports, implications for standards, import restrictions and labeling needs further guidance from the GFEI as developing countries deal with this issue

UC Davis TBD

13 Labeling options for alternative vehicle technology needs clarification

IEA TBD

4.5. Provide information on the quality of baseline information and any effects (positive or negative) on the selection of indicators and the design of other project monitoring activitiesData is collected for calculation of national light duty vehicle (LDV) fleet fuel economy baseline, per the GFEI baseline development methodology (http://www.unep.org/transport/gfei/autotool/nextsteps/developing_a_baseline.asp), for 2005, and subsequent national average fuel economy

32

PIR FY 2015 GFEI

every two years from 2008 onwards. The data collected typically includes, where possible: number of vehicles produced and/or imported in 2005, 2008 and every two years thereafter (used and new) vehicle composition (passenger cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles) and fuel type (diesel, gasoline, LPG, EV etc.) vehicle age or year of manufacture vehicle make, model and technology available vehicle fuel efficiency rating

This has been refined over the years given GFEI’s experience in the topic matter

4.6. Provide comments on the usefulness and relevance of selected indicators and experiences in the application of the same.From previous experience, all the data collected and analyses conducted will be extremely useful in guiding policymakers on the need for intervention as well as the type of intervention needed

4.7. Describe any challenges in obtaining data relevant to the selected indicators; has the project experienced problems to cover costs associated with the tracking of indicators?There have not been many major challenges other than that it often takes much longer than anticipated to collect and synthesize the relevant data needed to calculate national average fuel economy. However, GFEI is increasingly getting adept at recognizing the trend of what agencies across different countries tend to have the relevant transport data required and making sure they are involved from the start. In addition, because of GFEI’s experience working on baseline setting, we are able to be very cost effective by conducting a lot of the analyses in house amongst the very capable GFEI partners and by recognizing that academia tend to be very cost effective project partners when it comes to data collection and analyses

4.8. Describe any changes in the indicators or in the project intervention logic, including an explanation of whether key assumptions27 are still validNone.

4.9. Describe how potential social or environmental negative effects are monitoredThe project has no direct social or environmental negative effects as it mainly involves the process of formulating policy interventions.

4.10. Please provide any other experiences or lessons relevant to the design and implementation of project monitoring and evaluation plans.On-going, will be complied at project closeout

5. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION EXPERIENCES AND LESSONS

27 Assumptions refer to elements of the “theory of change” or “intervention logic” (i.e, the problem is a result of A, therefore, if we change B, this will lead to C) and not to pre-conditions for project implementation. It is a common mistake to include statements such as “political will” as an assumption. This is rather a necessary condition to implement the project.

33

PIR FY 2015 GFEI

5.1. Please summarize any experiences and/or lessons related to project design. Please select relevant areas from the list below: Conditions necessary to achieve global environmental benefits such as (i) institutional, social and financial sustainability; (ii) country

ownership; and (iii) stakeholder involvement, including gender issues. Institutional arrangements, including project governance; Engagement of the private sector; Capacity building; Scientific and technological issues; Interpretation and application of GEF guidelines; Factors that improve likelihood of outcome sustainability; Factors that encourage replication, including outreach and communications strategies; Financial management and co-financing.

Fuel economy is really not a hard sell to most stakeholders, even vehicle manufactures. Because it is as close to a ‘win-win’ situation as any can climate change agenda can be, it is really more a case of awareness raising and capacity building

Local ownership of the project is key. Hence in most countries a multi-stakeholder group led by local stakeholders as opposed to GFEI or international fuel economy experts is important in the development of vehicle fuel efficiency policies and standards.

Early involvement of all the relevant stakeholders is vital to project success. Exclusion of stakeholders can cripple the initiative. Further, involvement of key private sector players e.g. auto manufacturer associations and fuel companies early in the process is critical to also developing complementary fuel and vehicle policies, furthering chances of success.

Identifying the key government agencies need to be involved in the design process early, such as the ministries of finance and energy, to support implementation of the proposed policies.

The role of south-south cooperation cannot be overemphasized, both in terms of its impact in getting more countries committed to working on fuel economy policy setting and also in guiding other countries through the process

5.2. Please highlight a few major achievements resulting so far from the project implementation, including but not limited to:

Concrete results, both on-the-ground and normative Gender and indigenous peoples issues Private Sector Sustainability Innovation Upscaling

In just 5 short years, GFEI has managed to significantly increase the visibility and importance of fuel economy on the global stage. This will ensure that a global shift to more efficient vehicles is prioritized by all countries:

The GFEI was highlighted as an ‘Action Announcement’ on sustainable energy in a key session held in the UN General Assembly at the United Nations Climate Summit in September 2014.

34

PIR FY 2015 GFEI

In November 2014, world leaders at the G20 Summit agreed an Action Plan for on Energy Efficiency, highlighted vehicle fuel efficiency as a key priority. The GFEI is now an implementing partner in developing further engagement on this issue amongst G20 countries ahead of the Turkey Summit in November 2015

‘100for50by50’ GFEI campaign has gained momentum looks like it will be able to secure the engagement of 100 countries in a commitment by COP21 (in December 2015) to the GFEI target of a 50 per cent reduction in average fuel use by 2050.

35

UNEP GEF PIR FY 06 · Web view2021. 8. 11. · Building on this UNEP signed an MOU with MINAM ......

Documents

Transcript of UNEP GEF PIR FY 06 · Web view2021. 8. 11. · Building on this UNEP signed an MOU with MINAM ......