Basic Data / Basic Project & Finance Data
Basic Project Information
PIMS ID
4043
Energy Efficiency Improvements in Commercial Buildings
Project Title
Project Contact Information
Role
Project Manager/Coordinator
UNDP Country Office Programme
Officer
GEF Operational Focal Point (OFP)
Project Implementing Partner
Name
Mr. Bhaskar J. Sarma/
Mr. Sanjay Seth/
Mr. Karan Mangotra
Mr. Sunil Arora
Email Address
Js.bhaskar@gmail.com/
sseth@beenet.in/
karan.mangotra@undp.org
Sunil.arora@undp.org
Mr. Shashi Shekhar
Dr Ajay Mathur, Bureau of Energy
Efficiency
shashi.shekhar@nic.in
dg-bee@nic.in
Other Partners
Finance
[Will be automatically uploaded to each PIR by end June. No input required. Data to be uploaded: GEF Grant Amount;
PPG Amount; Total GEF Grant; Co-financing; Total GEF Grant Disbursement as of 30 June]
Project Milestones and Timeframe
Revised planned closing date 31st March, 2015
Project Supervision
Dates of Project Steering
Committee/Board meetings
during reporting period (30
June 2013 to 1 July 2014)
Terminal PIR
Is this the terminal PIR that
will serve as the final project
report?
5th August, 2013 – 2nd PSC
27th August, 2013 – 3rd PSC
19th February, 2014 – 4th PSC
No
General Comments on Basic Data
Please insert any comments to the finance data here.
NA
UNDP-GEF 2014 AMR FAQs
Page 1
Development Objective Progress / Progress Toward Development Objectives
Objective /
Outcome:
Description of
Objective /
Outcome
Description of
Indicator
Project Objective:
Direct energy
savings in the
Operationalization of project by EOP,
the Energy
GWh/y
Conservation Building
Code (ECBC) for (new)
commercial buildings.
Target Level
Baseline Level at end of
Level at 30 June 2014
project
0
221.19
0.
Feasibility reports providing the building owner with 3 energy efficient design options for 7 Pilot projects
have been submitted. The design options have been chosen by the building owner for 5 pilot projects.
Currently the 11 pilot projects that have been initiated, 10 of them are from the public sector and 1 from the
private sector.
Due to the overall delay to the start of the project together with delays in implementation of the project
beyond the control of the Implementing Partner, the delivery of the direct and indirect emission reduction
targets as envisaged under the project are likely to be impacted. Due to this, the timelines of the activities
becomes a critical aspect to address. In terms of the M&V, a decision was taken in the PSC meeting on 5 th
August, 2013 that the M&V be de-linked from the existing scope of work and be taken up separately by the
IP after the completion of the project activities. Also there was an important decision in terms of involving
private sector partners in the project. However, it is to be noted that the pilot projects that have been
initiated will not be completed within the existing timeline and most efforts will go in vain.
New building space 5
compliant with ECBC
by Year 2014, million
m2
At least
116.77
7 Pilot projects have been initiated. All the projects are 30,000 – 50,000 m2 or above area. Also, the LEED
and GRIHA compliant buildings take ECBC as the minimum energy performance standards. With 7 pilot
projects and the ECBC being the baseline for LEED and GRIHA, it is anticipated that new commercial building
space compliant with ECBC by EOP will be close to the target. The current figure stands at 8 million m2.
Average energy
210
consumption in new
buildings compared
to baseline by Year
2014, kWh/m2/y
180
The data-collection activity for benchmarking has been initiated and data for 631 buildings among all the 5
categories of commercial buildings in the various climatic zones has been collected. In addition to the datacollection and the establishment of the benchmarks, the resource consultant is also expected to prepare a
software-based buildings registry.
Based on the Building category:
(a) Office buildings: 173
(b) Hospitals: 116
(c) Hotel: 172
(d) BPOs: 56
(e) Shopping malls: 56
(f) Institute & IT: 58
UNDP-GEF 2014 AMR FAQs
Page 2
Outcome 1:
Number of states
Strengthened
that carry out the
institutional capacities mandatory
at various levels on
implementation of
the strengthened to ECBC through a
enactment and
clearly defined and
enforcement of ECBC effective
for commercial
institutional
buildings
structure by Year
2014
0
20
Base on Climate zone:
(a) Warm & Humid: 206
(b) Composite: 266
(c) Cold: 43
(d) Moderate: 60
(e) Hot & Dry: 56
Of the 16 states that have moved ahead with the implementation of ECBC, 9 states/UTs have notified ECBC
within their building bye-laws. The project interventions have assisted the notification in the states of
Andhra Pradesh and Punjab.
The target for BEE is to make ECBC mandatory by 2017. Under the project, ECBC cells are being proposed for
12 states to facilitate the process of notification. The states are, Uttar Pradesh, Kerala, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat,
Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh and Delhi. The
notifications issued in these state pertaining to ECBC will be a direct impact from this project.
Number of buildings 0
covered in
commercial
buildings database
by Year 2014
1000
The data-collection activity for benchmarking has been initiated and data for 631 buildings among all the 5
categories of commercial buildings in the various climatic zones has been collected. In addition to the datacollection and the establishment of the benchmarks, the resource consultant is also expected to prepare a
software-based buildings registry.
Number of
NA
accredited local
authorities (at
municipality level) to
validate and verify
mandatory
commercial
buildings compliance
with the ECBC by
EOP
50-100
19
A master training scheme has been developed under the project to create a pool of master trainers. The first
batch of 19 master trainers has been certified by the Director General, Bureau of Energy Efficiency and also
the NPD of the project. By March, 2015 this pool will be enhanced to 40.
Number of satisfied 0
users on the
information system
250
UNDP-GEF 2014 AMR FAQs
Support is being provided to the states of Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra to institutionalize training and
capacity building activities within the state to create state specific cadre of professionals.
The project website is now in place (http://eecbindia.com/) but will officially be launched in September,
2014. The showcasing product under the website is the ECBC Mobile Application that makes ECBC much
more readable and user-friendly while making it easy to carry and to refer. Information can also be found
under http://www.beeindia.in/schemes/schemes.php?id=3
Page 3
each year, starting in
2011
Outcome 2:
Enhanced technical
capacity and expertise
of local building
practitioners and
service providers
Number of
accredited building
energy auditors,
energy audit firms
and energy service
companies by EOP
NA
1000
520
The following trainings/awareness programs were conducted under the project.
1 day awareness:
Tripura – 25th August, 2013
Bihar – 18th September, 2013
Puducherry – 11th February, 2014
Uttar Pradesh – 26th May, 2014
2-day intensive Trainings:
Raipur - 13th & 14th September, 2013
Thiruvananthapuram – 23rd and 24th October, 2013
Chennai – 7th and 8th November, 2013
Patna – 25th and 26th November, 2013
Chandigarh – 21st and 22nd December, 2013
Thiruvananthapuram – 19 and 20th December, 2013
Andhra Pradesh – 3th and 4th February, 2014
Maharashtra – 4th and 5th February, 2014
Uttarakhand – 21 & 22 April, 2014
Haryana – 30th April & 1st May, 2014
Uttar Pradesh – 27th & 28th May, 2014
Bihar – 23th & 24th June, 2014
Training of Trainers:
Ahemdabad (CEPT University) – 24th, 25th & 26th September 2013
Hyderabad (IIIT Hyderabad) – 30th & 31st October, 2013.
Number of building NA
projects that were
designed based on
handbook,
guidelines and
software package by
EOP
UNDP-GEF 2014 AMR FAQs
2500
NA
Page 4
Proportion of
NA
building material
manufacturers that
made use of the
product testing
results in improving
their building
material products by
EOP, %
Outcome 3:
Number of
NA
Increased number of successfully
new commercial
implemented demo
projects that have
UNDP-GEF 2014 AMR FAQs
75
8
The study that has been initiated is looking at 17 building materials and doing a market assessment for
them. The 17 materials are:
Objective of this activity was to develop Key Performance Indicators for building materials for the
assessment of building materials market in India under following category:a)
Wall Material
b)
Insulation
c)
Fenestration
d)
HVAC
e)
Lighting
f)
Solar Heater
The draft reports for the building materials such as the AAC blocks have been submitted and the reports for
other materials are being prepared on the same lines. The activity will be completed by October, 2014.
7 Pilot projects have been initiated. Feasibility reports providing the building owner with 3 energy efficient
design options for 7 Pilot projects have been submitted. The design options have been chosen by the
building owner for 5 pilot projects. Currently 11 projects have been initiated and there is only one private
sector building.
Page 5
buildings that are
ECBC compliant
achieved anticipated
economic
performance by EOP
The projects are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Outcome 4:
Enforced fiscal
incentives &
Regulatory
frameworks
incentives for
investors and
developers of EE
buildings
Academic Block in SMS Medical College, Jaipur
K.K. Guest House, Bangalore
Divisional HQ and laboratory facilities for Food and Drug Administration at Moshi, Pune
Dhanvantri OPD block, SMS Hospital, Jaipur
Medical college building, Gulbarga, Bangalore
Number of approved NA
fiscal and regulatory
incentives for EE
building initiatives
that were approved
and enforced by EOP
3
0
A study to analyse the current regulatory and fiscal incentives framework has been initiated in 16 states
(States that had moved ahead with ECBC implementation in the 11th Plan Period). The draft report for all
the 16 states has been prepared and stakeholder consultations have been conducted in 11 states. Also, the
state of Maharashtra has devised a green building incentives scheme.
Number of
NA
dedicated EE
building financing
schemes active and
effective by EOP
25
Currently there are none to report in this period
Volume of
NA
investments in EE
buildings in
commercial
buildings sector, and
total value of
financial resources
made available/used
through them by
EOP (million USD)
298
Currently there are none to report in this period
Number of new EE NA
building projects
that are based on
the design of green
25
Currently there are none to report in this period
UNDP-GEF 2014 AMR FAQs
Page 6
building awardees
by EOP
Outcome 5:
Readily available and
easily
accessible/shared
information and
knowledge products
on best practices
regarding EE building
technologies and
measures
Number of
NA
knowledge sharing
products developed
by year 2014
15
The project website is now in place http://eecbindia.com/. But will be officially launched in September,
2014.
It is planned to officially launch in September, 2014. The showcasing product under the website will be the
ECBC Mobile Application that makes ECBC much more readable and user-friendly while making it easy to
carry and to refer.
There are also the 7 feasibility reports under the demonstration projects and 16 draft state-specific ECBC
roadmaps that were prepared.
% of key
stakeholders that
use knowledge
sharing products
each year starting
Year 2012
UNDP-GEF 2014 AMR FAQs
0
50
Currently there are none to report in this period
Page 7
Development Objectives Rating
Project Manager
/ Coordinator is
the person managing
the day to day
operations of the
project.
MANDATORY RATING MUST BE PROVIDED for projects under implementation in one country or regional projects where
appropriate.
Please review the cumulative progress toward end-of-project targets as noted in the DO tab of this PIR and provide a
rating on this progress. Please consider the following questions before selecting a DO rating:
1. What is the likelihood that the project will achieve its stated objective?
2. What is the likelihood that the project will achieve all stated outcomes by the planned project closure date?
Please justify your rating and address the following points in your comments. Please keep word count between 500
words minimum and 1200 words maximum.
1. Explain why you gave a specific rating.
2. Note trends, both positive and negative, in achievement of outcomes as per the updated indicators provided in the
DO sheet.
3. Fully explain the critical risks that have affected progress.
4. Outline action plan to address projects with DO rating of HU, U or MU.
Satisfactory
Despite the post of the Project Manager being vacant, many critical activities were initiated under
the project. These activities are:



Formulation of the state-wise roadmaps in 16 states
Master training scheme and institutionalizing Training & Capacity Building activities
Demonstration Projects
16 states have been chosen under the project in which state-wise roadmaps for ECBC
implementation would be developed. This roadmap would include the prospective financial
incentives that could be provided in that particular state. This is an important activity as the output
of this help design the future course of action under the project.
A master training scheme has been developed under the project with the intent of creating statewise cadre of ECBC professionals. 3 master training institutes were identified namely CEPTAhmedabad, IIIT-Hyderabad & MNIT-Jaipur. Through these institutes, the first batch comprising of
19 master trainers were given certificates by DG-BEE on 31st January, 2014. Due to an overwhelming
response towards the training scheme, it was proposed to the states that a state-wise training
partner be identified to take forward the training & capacity building activities specific to the state.
The first such example was set forth by the state of Andhra Pradesh - identifying the Administrative
Staff College of India (ASCI) as its training partner. ASCI prepared a calendar of training activities in
various commercial hubs of the state for all key stakeholders for a year. This activity is also being
supported under the project. Due to the success of this model, many states are now in the process
of identifying state-specific training institutes.
Out of the 8 demo buildings that were to be taken up in the 5 building categories, proposals
received from various States based on the eligibility criterion that was prepared. 11 project
proposals were received as per the criteria developed. Out of these 11 projects, feasibility reports
for the following projects have been accepted and approved by the building owners:
UNDP-GEF 2014 AMR FAQs
Page 8

Roads and Bridges Development Corporation, Kochi

Academic Block in SMS Medical College, Jaipur

Divisional HQ and laboratory facilities for Food and Drugs Administration at Moshi, Pune

Dhanvantri OPD block, SMS Hospital, Jaipur
Also, the proposal for creating ECBC technical cells in the State Designated Agencies of 9 states has
been approved by the competent authority. Since the ultimate implementation of ECBC lies with
the states, this activity will prove to be a critical one in the coming reporting period.
The website of the project is now functional, with all the relevant project related data being
accessible easily by all the stakeholders. The showcasing product is the ECBC Mobile Application, a
ready-reckoner for ECBC.
During the latter half of the reporting year, 1 Assistant Project Manager resigned from the post.
The APM was handling the training component, UNDP expedited the recruitment process to fill the
post within 2 months and the activities are on track.
This has been an extremely challenging and rewarding year for the project with most of the critical
activities being expedited and being on-track.
UNDP Country
Office
Programme
Officer is the UNDP
programme officer in
the UNDP country
office who provides
oversight and
supervision support
to the project.
MANDATORY RATING MUST BE PROVIDED for projects under implementation in one country. Not necessary for
regional or global projects.
Please review the cumulative progress toward end-of-project targets as noted in the DO tab of this PIR and provide a
rating on this progress. Please consider the following questions before selecting a DO rating:
1. What is the likelihood that the project will achieve its stated objective?
2. What is the likelihood that the project will achieve all stated outcomes by the planned project closure date?
Please justify your rating and address the following points in your comments. Please keep word count between 500
words minimum and 1200 words maximum.
1. Explain why you gave a specific rating, for example, if your rating differs from the rating provided by the project
manager please explain why.
2. Note trends, both positive and negative, in achievement of outcomes as per the updated indicators provided in the
DO sheet.
3. Fully explain the critical risks that have affected progress.
4. Outline action plan to address projects with DO rating of HU, U or MU.
Satisfactory
The project began on a very slow pace with the project document being signed in April 2011 and
the PMU being fully staffed only by August, 2012. The shortage of resources in terms of manpower led to a slow progress in the first year of its implementation. However, the project picked
up pace in the next reporting period but the lack on an NPD made the decision-making at the
implementing partner level slow. The UNDP assisted the project in procurement of consultancy
services for 2 critical activities in this reporting period. This has opened the option of UNDP
procurement process as well the IPs procurement process for services under the project.
UNDP-GEF 2014 AMR FAQs
Page 9
This reporting period been a challenging for the project and the project is on track as per the
Annual Work Plan for 2014. The achievements under the projects have been as follows:
1. Institutional setup with states for training on implementing ECBC
2. Setup and implementing capacity building program for ECBC implementation that
includes:
a. Training for Master Trainers
b. 1-day awareness raising for state level personnel on ECBC implementation
c. 2-day intensive course on ECBC implementation
3. 19 Master Trainers have been certified
4. Initiation of process to create ECBC technical cells in the SDAs for 12 states
5. Ongoing baseline data collection for EE building benchmarking
6. Ongoing market assessment of EE building materials
7. Feasibility reports for 7 demo projects
8. Project website for information sharing to be on-line by September 2014
Out of the budget of $ 1.1 million for AWP 2014, the project has spent 500,000 USD and the
project is on track for this reporting period.
This project has also been good on the front of adaptive management as they were always
working as per the plans of the Govt. of India’s buildings programme to achieve the desired
results in the most impactful way. The project activities were assisting the BEE’s plans while the
BEE budget was not sanctioned. This has helped the project gain a lot of praise from various
stakeholders. The activities that are initiated under the project and also the planned activities will
help the project achieve most of the outcomes.
Also, the activities that are being initiated towards putting in place robust regulatory frameworks
will help the project achieve most of its objectives and will also continue to exist after the lifetime
of the project which is essential for maximizing the impacts. The identification of training partners
for the states for training and capacity building activities within their states is a critical step
towards make these activities sustainable in the future and beyond the lifetime of the project.
The project has already done this in 2 states (Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra). These are also
critical as ‘buildings’ is a state-subject in India and while BEE can do all the facilitation for ECBC
implementation, the actual implementation lies with the states and most of the interventions are
required at the state-level to have the maximum impact and effective implementation.
There has been an improved progress and strong commitments in 2014 but with the current end
date of the project being only 7 months away will prove to be a dampener in terms of the impacts
of the positive outcomes that the project is generating. The issue of timelines extension is critical
towards maximizing the outcomes of the project. This is also important as the project is assisting
the implementing partner achieve its goals for the 12th plan period which is in 2017. However, the
project is on track to achieve the Annual Work Plan – 2014.
GEF Operational
Focal point is the
UNDP-GEF 2014 AMR FAQs
HIGHLY RECOMMENDED but NOT mandatory for projects under implementation in one country. Not necessary for
regional or global projects.
Page 10
government
representative in the
country designed as
the GEF operation
focal point.
Please review the cumulative progress toward end-of-project targets as noted in the DO tab of this PIR and provide a
rating on this progress. Please consider the following questions before selecting a DO rating:
1. What is the likelihood that the project will achieve its stated objective?
2. What is the likelihood that the project will achieve all stated outcomes by the planned project closure date?
Please justify your rating and address the following points in your comments. Please keep word count between 200
words minimum and 500 words maximum.
1. Explain why you gave a specific rating.
2. Note trends, both positive and negative, in achievement of outcomes as per the updated indicators provided in the
DO sheet.
3. Provide recommendations for next steps.
[DO rating in 2014]
[comments]
Project
Implementing
Partner is the
representative of the
executing agency (in
GEF terminology).
This would be
Government (for
NEX/NIM execution)
or NGO (for CSO
Execution) or an
official from the
Executing Agency (for
example UNOPS).
RECOMMENDED but NOT MANDATORY for projects under implementation in one country and regional projects.
Please review the cumulative progress toward end-of-project targets as noted in the DO tab of this PIR and provide a
rating on this progress. Please consider the following questions before selecting a DO rating:
1. What is the likelihood that the project will achieve its stated objective?
2. What is the likelihood that the project will achieve all stated outcomes by the planned project closure date?
Please justify your rating and address the following points in your comments. Please keep word count between 200
words minimum and 500 words maximum.
1. Explain why you gave a specific rating.
2. Note trends, both positive and negative, in achievement of outcomes as per the updated indicators provided in the
DO sheet.
3. Provide recommendations for next steps.
Satisfactory
The 12th plan period is a challenging one for the buildings program as they look to move towards
a mandatory ECBC regime. This project has supported the Govt. of India’s programme very well
by developing the training scheme, enhancing regulatory frameworks and designing
demonstration projects. As is known, “buildings” in India is a state-subject and hence most of the
project interventions have been in the states. We are very glad to note that the projected assisted
2 states in their government notifications for ECBC and assisted 2 states in identifying statespecific institutional partners for trainings. With the all the plans of project implementation in the
future, I am sure that project would meet most of its objectives if the timelines of the project are
re-visited and are extended to end of the 12th plan period which is also the target date for the
Govt. of India’s buildings programme. This would have the desired impact and assist the GOI is
meeting its 12th plan targets.
Other Partners:
RECOMMENDED but NOT MANDATORY for jointly implemented projects.
For jointly
implemented
projects, a
representative of the
Please review the cumulative progress toward end-of-project targets as noted in the DO tab of this PIR and provide a
rating on this progress. Please consider the following questions before selecting a DO rating:
UNDP-GEF 2014 AMR FAQs
1. What is the likelihood that the project will achieve its stated objective?
Page 11
other Agency
working with UNDP
on project
implementation (for
example UNEP or the
World Bank).
2. What is the likelihood that the project will achieve all stated outcomes by the planned project closure date?
Please justify your rating and address the following points in your comments. Please keep word count between 200
words minimum and 500 words maximum.
1. Explain why you gave a specific rating.
2. Note trends, both positive and negative, in achievement of outcomes as per the updated indicators provided in the
DO sheet.
3. Provide recommendations for next steps.
[DO rating in 2014]
[comments]
UNDP Technical
Adviser is the
UNDP-GEF Technical
Adviser.
MANDATORY RATING MUST BE PROVIDED for all projects.
Please review the cumulative progress toward end-of-project targets as noted in the DO tab of this PIR and provide a
rating on this progress. Please consider the following questions before selecting a DO rating:
1. What is the likelihood that the project will achieve its stated objective?
2. What is the likelihood that the project will achieve all stated outcomes by the planned project closure date?
Please justify your rating and address the following points in your comments. Please keep word count between 500
words minimum and 1200 words maximum.
1. Explain why you gave a specific rating (do not repeat the project objective).
2. Note trends, both positive and negative, in achievement of outcomes as per the updated indicators provided in the
DO sheet.
3. Fully explain the critical risks that have affected progress.
4. Outline action plan to address projects with DO rating of HU, U or MU.
[DO rating in 2014] Moderately Satisfactory (MS)
Energy Efficiency Improvements in Commercial Buildings project recently conducted midterm
review. The overall DO rating of the project can be rated Moderately Satisfactory (MS) as the
project is expected to achieve most of its major relevant objectives but with significant
shortcomings if not acted on a timely manner to involve private sector participation. Although
there was a decision in one of the PSC meetings that private sector will be involved, so far only
one developer has come forward with expression of interest.
The project experienced delays in its startup in April 2011 until mid-2013. This has seriously
influenced both physical and financial delivery of the project. It may likely that the project closure
date need to be extended, but this change must be recommended by the midterm reviewers
considering project progress as on date.
As part of Outcome 1, 16 states that have moved ahead with the implementation of ECBC, 9
states/UTs have notified ECBC within their building bye-laws. ECBC cells are being proposed for 12
states to facilitate the process of notification. The project directly supported the states of Andhra
Pradesh and Punjab in this specific case. The data-collection activity for benchmarking has been
initiated and data for 631 buildings among all the 5 categories of commercial buildings in various
climatic zones is being collected. A master training scheme has been developed under the project
to create a pool of master trainers. The first batch of 19 master trainers have been certified and
the project is planning to enhance this to 40 by March 2015. As part of Outcome 2, a study has
been initiated to assess product testing and market assessment for 17 building materials. Until the
completion of this important report, activities for improving EE material testing labs can’t be
commenced. The design software that is planned as part of the project shall build on the
UNDP-GEF 2014 AMR FAQs
Page 12
developments of Energy Conservation and Commercialization (ECO-III) project of USAID. This is an
important point to keep in mind.
There are 11 ongoing EE building demos underway as part of Outcome 3, but these are at various
stages of implementation, none of which have advanced to the construction stage. Only one
demonstration of this is from private sector. The project shall involve more private sector
participation.
Outcome 4 is an important component that is aimed to provide fiscal and regulatory incentives for
investors. Since the project initially targeted public sector buildings, this might not have been
foreseen as an important activity. If the private sector involvement is increased, the project shall
come up with innovative financing schemes for private sector, which is an important activity so as
to push the market to comply with ECBC regulations. To provide a continual improvement of
building EE performance, BEE is planning to use their star system to boost the EE performance of
all buildings to a higher level towards the EPI levels of LEED and GRIHA certification. This is a notable
progress of BEE’s baseline project activities. Outcome 5 focuses of knowledge sharing, whereas the
budget for this need to be sourced from “Programmatic Framework Document” of the World Bank.
About US$ 1 million has been allocated to publish the knowledge products generated from the five
energy efficiency projects that were developed under this programmatic framework.
The Project is unable to secure required co-finance from private sector, which is considered as a
major risk. The two demonstration buildings in Rajasthan and Karnataka states will bring cofinancing of state governments (public finance) for the construction of ECBC compliant public
building demonstrations. The project shall take every action to ensure committed co-finance will
be realized soon from private sector as well.
General comments on Development Objective Rating
NA
Highly Satisfactory (HS)
Satisfactory (S)
Moderately Satisfactory
(MS)
Moderately Unsatisfactory
(MU)
Unsatisfactory (U)
Highly Unsatisfactory (HU)
UNDP-GEF 2014 AMR FAQs
DO Progress: Rating Definitions
Project is expected to achieve or exceed all its major global environmental
objectives and yield substantial global environmental benefits without major
shortcomings. The project can be presented as “good practice”.
Project is expected to achieve most of its major global environmental
objectives and yield satisfactory global environmental benefits with only
minor shortcomings.
Project is expected to achieve most of its major relevant objectives but with
either significant shortcomings or modest overall relevance. Project is
expected not to achieve some of its major global environmental objectives
or yield some of the expected global environment benefits.
Project is expected to achieve its major global environmental objectives with
major shortcomings or is expected to achieve only some of its major global
environmental objectives.
Project is expected not to achieve most of its major global environment
objectives or to yield any satisfactory global environmental benefits.
The project has failed to achieve, and is not expected to achieve, any of its
major global environment objectives with no worthwhile benefits.
Page 13
Implementation Progress
For each project Outcome briefly describe up to four (4) major outputs delivered this reporting period only (i.e. annual progress not cumulative
progress). Do not repeat outputs reported in previous PIRs. If you have any general comments about the information in this section of the PIR,
please note them at the bottom of this page.
Outcome
Outcome 1
Outputs reported as of 30 June 2014
Strengthened institutional capacities at various levels on the strengthened to enactment and enforcement of
ECBC for commercial buildings
1. Initiation of the State-wise roadmaps for ECBC implementation in 16 states
2. Proposal for ECBC Cells in 12 states has been approved by the competent authority
Outcome 2
Enhanced technical capacity and expertise of local building practitioners and service providers
1. Developed the Master training scheme for creating a pool of master trainers. The first batch of
19 master trainers have been felicitated by DG, BEE and NPD on 31st January, 2014
2. Institutionalized training and capacity building activities in the state of Andhra Pradesh and
Maharashtra
Outcome 3
Increased number of new commercial buildings that are ECBC compliant
1. Work has been initiated on 7 pilot projects and feasibility reports have been submitted
2. 5 building owners have chosen one of the three options provided to start next phase
Outcome 4
Enforced fiscal incentives & Regulatory frameworks incentives for investors and developers of EE buildings
1. The current analysis of fiscal incentives in 16 states has been assessed
2. A proposal of support a part of incremental costs for ECBC compliant buildings has been
approved by the competent authority
Outcome 5
Readily available and easily accessible/shared information and knowledge products on best practices
regarding EE building technologies and measures
1. The website of the project has been developed and which will be launched in September 2014.
2. An ECBC Mobile Application as a ready-reckoner for ECBC User Guide has been developed
3. Support IIT-Mumbai for the communications & awareness component for project H-Naught –
an energy efficient house.
General comments on Implementation Progress
NA
UNDP-GEF 2014 AMR FAQs
Page 14
Implementation Progress Rating
Project Manager
/ Coordinator is
MANDATORY RATING MUST BE PROVIDED for projects under implementation in one country or regional projects where
appropriate.
the person managing
the day to day
operations of the
project.
1. Please rate the progress in delivery of outputs. For example, do the annual outputs represent sufficient progress
in order to achieve the project outcomes (see DO page of this PIR)? [HS / S / MS / MU / U / HU / n.a]
2. Please rate the efficiency in delivery of outputs. For example, in this reporting period are budget resources being
spent as planned? (i.e. is project delivery on target?) [HS / S / MS / MU / U / HU / n.a]
3. Please rate the quality of risk management. For example, in this reporting period were project risks managed
effectively? [HS / S / MS / MU / U / HU / n.a]
4. Please rate the quality of adaptive management. For example, in this reporting period were actions taken to
address implementation issue identified in the PIR last year? [HS / S / MS / MU / U / HU / n.a]
5. Please rate the quality of monitoring and evaluation. For example, in this reporting period were sufficient financial
resources allocated to project monitoring and evaluation. [HS / S / MS / MU / U / HU / n.a]
Please justify your rating and address the following points in your comments. Please keep word count between 500
words minimum and 1200 words maximum.
1. Explain why you gave a specific rating.
2. Summarize annual progress and address timelines of project output/activity completion in relation to annual
workplans.
3. Outline the general status of project expenditures in relation to annual budgets, the effectiveness of project
management units in guiding project implementation, and the responsiveness of the project board in overseeing
project implementation.
Satisfactory
Many critical activities were initiated under the project in this reporting period. The key activities
are:



Formulation of the state-wise roadmaps in 16 states
Master training scheme and institutionalizing Training & Capacity Building activities
Demonstration Projects and viability gap-funding.
16 states have been chosen under the project in which state-wise roadmaps for ECBC
implementation would be developed. This roadmap would include the prospective financial
incentives that could be provided in that particular state. This is an important activity as the output
of this help design the future course of action under the project.
A master training scheme has been developed under the project with the intent of creating statewise cadre of ECBC professionals. 3 master training institutes were identified namely CEPTAhmedabad, IIIT-Hyderabad & MNIT-Jaipur. Through these institutes, the first batch comprising of
19 master trainers were given certificates by DG-BEE on 31st January, 2014. Due to an overwhelming
response towards the training scheme, it was proposed to the states that a state-wise training
partner be identified to take forward the training & capacity building activities specific to the state.
The first such example was set forth by the state of Andhra Pradesh - identifying the Administrative
Staff College of India (ASCI) as its training partner. ASCI prepared a calendar of training activities in
various commercial hubs of the state for all key stakeholders for a year. This activity is also being
supported under the project. Due to the success of this model, many states are now in the process
of identifying state-specific training institutes.
UNDP-GEF 2014 AMR FAQs
Page 15
Out of the 8 demo buildings that were to be taken up in the 5 building categories, proposals
received from various States based on the eligibility criterion that was prepared. 11 project
proposals were received as per the criteria developed. Out of these 11 projects, feasibility reports
for the following projects have been accepted and approved by the building owners:

Roads and Bridges Development Corporation, Kochi

Academic Block in SMS Medical College, Jaipur

Divisional HQ and laboratory facilities for Food and Drugs Administration at Moshi, Pune

Dhanvantri OPD block, SMS Hospital, Jaipur
Also, the proposal for creating ECBC technical cells in the State Designated Agencies of 9 states has
been approved by the competent authority. Since the ultimate implementation of ECBC lies with
the states, this activity will prove to be a critical one in the coming reporting period.
The website of the project is now functional, with all the relevant project related data being
accessible easily by all the stakeholders. The showcasing product is the ECBC Mobile Application, a
ready-reckoner for ECBC.
During the latter half of the reporting year, 1 Assistant Project Manager resigned from the post.
The APM was handling the training component, UNDP expedited the recruitment process to fill the
post within 2 months and the activities are on track. The project has spent 500,000 USD till June,
2014 which is on track as per the AWP of 2014. The project is slated to achieve the AWP – 2014.
This has been an extremely challenging and rewarding year for the project with most of the critical
activities being expedited and being on-track. The total expenditure till date has improved
considerably keeping in mind the critical activities that have been initiated this year. In terms of
board oversight 2 PAC meetings have been convened in this reporting period. Since many critical
activities were initiated in this reporting period, 3 PSC meetings were also convened in this period.
UNDP Country
Office
Programme
Officer is the UNDP
programme officer in
the UNDP country
office who provides
oversight and
supervision support
to the project.
MANDATORY RATING MUST BE PROVIDED for projects under implementation in one country. Not necessary for
regional or global projects.
1. Please rate the progress in delivery of outputs. For example, do the annual outputs represent sufficient progress
in order to achieve the project outcomes (see DO page of this PIR)? [HS / S / MS / MU / U / HU / n.a]
2. Please rate the efficiency in delivery of outputs. For example, in this reporting period are budget resources being
spent as planned? (i.e. is project delivery on target?) [HS / S / MS / MU / U / HU / n.a]
3. Please rate the quality of risk management. For example, in this reporting period were project risks managed
effectively? [HS / S / MS / MU / U / HU / n.a]
4. Please rate the quality of adaptive management. For example, in this reporting period were actions taken to
address implementation issue identified in the PIR last year? [HS / S / MS / MU / U / HU / n.a]
5. Please rate the quality of monitoring and evaluation. For example, in this reporting period were sufficient financial
resources allocated to project monitoring and evaluation. [HS / S / MS / MU / U / HU / n.a]
Please justify your rating and address the following points in your comments. The QORs and delivery data in the ERBM
portfolio project monitoring report should inform your rating. Please keep word count between 500 words minimum
and 1200 words maximum.
UNDP-GEF 2014 AMR FAQs
Page 16
1. Explain why you gave a specific rating. If your rating differs from the rating provided by the project manager please
explain why.
2. Summarize annual progress and address timeliness of project output/activity completion in relation to annual
workplans.
3. Outline the general status of project expenditures in relation to annual budgets, the effectiveness of project
management units in guiding project implementation, and the responsiveness of the project board in overseeing
project implementation.
Satisfactory
This has been a challenging year for the project and the project is on track as per the Annual Work
Plan for 2014. The achievements under the projects have been as follows:
1. Institutional setup with states for training on implementing ECBC
2. Setup and implementing capacity building program for ECBC implementation that
includes:
a. Training for Master Trainers
b. 1-day awareness raising for state level personnel on ECBC implementation
c. 2-day intensive course on ECBC implementation
3. 19 Master Trainers have been certified
4. Initiation of process to create ECBC technical cells in the SDAs for 12 states
5. Ongoing baseline data collection for EE building benchmarking
6. Ongoing market assessment of EE building materials
7. Feasibility reports for 7 demo projects
8. Project website for information sharing to be on-line by September 2014
The activity of benchmarking energy consumption is crucial for the success of the project and that
has been going as per the plan and has also been reported above. Once these benchmarks are in
places for various categories of buildings in different climatic zones, it would help the Govt. of
India achieve the desired outputs in terms of ECBC implementation.
This project has also been good on the front of adaptive management as they were always
working as per the plans of the Govt. of India’s buildings programme to achieve the desired
results in the most impactful way. The project activities were assisting in the execution of BEE’s
plans while the BEE budget was not sanctioned for the 12th Plan period. This has helped the
project gain a lot of praise from various stakeholders. The activities that are initiated under the
project and also the planned activities will help the project achieve most of the outcomes.
One Assistant Project Manager, handling the training activities resigned from the post. The UNDP
expedited the procurement process to hire the appropriate personnel for the post within 2
months. The training activities are now back on track and moving the
Also, the activities that are being initiated towards putting in place robust regulatory frameworks
will help the project achieve most of its objectives and will also continue to exist after the lifetime
of the project which is essential for maximizing the impacts. The identification of training partners
for the states for training and capacity building activities within their states is a critical step
towards make these activities sustainable in the future and beyond the lifetime of the project.
The project has already done this in 2 states (Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra). These are also
UNDP-GEF 2014 AMR FAQs
Page 17
critical as ‘buildings’ is a state-subject in India and while BEE can do all the facilitation for ECBC
implementation, the actual implementation lies with the states and most of the interventions are
required at the state-level to have the maximum impact and effective implementation.
The project goals are very relevant and in-line with the Government of India’s goal of ECBC
implementation and activities initiated under the project are in-line with achieving the objectives
of the project and also the goal of BEE i.e. to make ECBC mandatory in 2017.
However, the issue of timelines extension is critical towards maximizing the outcomes of the
project. The project is also on track to achieve the Annual Work Plan – 2014. There has been an
improved progress with strong commitments in this reporting period and at this pace the project
is expected to achieve most of its objectives.
GEF Operational
Focal point is the
government
representative in the
country designed as
the GEF operation
focal point.
HIGHLY RECOMMENDED but NOT mandatory for projects under implementation in one country. Not necessary for
regional or global projects.
1. Please rate the progress in delivery of outputs. For example, do the annual outputs represent sufficient progress
in order to achieve the project outcomes (see DO page of this PIR)? [HS / S / MS / MU / U / HU / n.a]
2. Please rate the efficiency in delivery of outputs. For example, in this reporting period are budget resources being
spent as planned? (i.e. is project delivery on target?) [HS / S / MS / MU / U / HU / n.a]
3. Please rate the quality of risk management. For example, in this reporting period were project risks managed
effectively? [HS / S / MS / MU / U / HU / n.a]
4. Please rate the quality of adaptive management. For example, in this reporting period were actions taken to
address implementation issue identified in the PIR last year? [HS / S / MS / MU / U / HU / n.a]
5. Please rate the quality of monitoring and evaluation. For example, in this reporting period were sufficient financial
resources allocated to project monitoring and evaluation. [HS / S / MS / MU / U / HU / n.a]
Please justify your rating and address the following points in your comments. Please keep word count between 200
words minimum and 500 words maximum.
1. Explain why you gave a specific rating.
2. Note trends, both positive and negative.
3. Provide recommendations for next steps.
[IP rating in 2014]
[comments]
Project
Implementing
Partner is the
representative of the
executing agency (in
GEF terminology).
This would be
Government (for
NEX/NIM execution)
or NGO (for CSO
UNDP-GEF 2014 AMR FAQs
RECOMMENDED but NOT mandatory for projects under implementation in one country or regional projects.
1. Please rate the progress in delivery of outputs. For example, do the annual outputs represent sufficient progress
in order to achieve the project outcomes (see DO page of this PIR)? [HS / S / MS / MU / U / HU / n.a]
2. Please rate the efficiency in delivery of outputs. For example, in this reporting period are budget resources being
spent as planned? (i.e. is project delivery on target?) [HS / S / MS / MU / U / HU / n.a]
3. Please rate the quality of risk management. For example, in this reporting period were project risks managed
effectively? [HS / S / MS / MU / U / HU / n.a]
4. Please rate the quality of adaptive management. For example, in this reporting period were actions taken to
address implementation issue identified in the PIR last year? [HS / S / MS / MU / U / HU / n.a]
5. Please rate the quality of monitoring and evaluation. For example, in this reporting period were sufficient financial
resources allocated to project monitoring and evaluation. [HS / S / MS / MU / U / HU / n.a]
Page 18
Execution) or an
official from the
Executing Agency (for
example UNOPS).
Please justify your rating and address the following points in your comments. Please keep word count between 200
words minimum and 500 words maximum.
1. Explain why you gave a specific rating.
2. Note trends, both positive and negative.
3. Provide recommendations for next steps.
Satisfactory
The 12th plan period is a challenging one for the buildings program as they look to move towards
a mandatory ECBC regime. This project has supported the Govt. of India’s programme very well
by developing the training scheme, enhancing regulatory frameworks and designing
demonstration projects. As is known, “buildings” in India is a state-subject and hence most of the
project interventions have been in the states. We are very glad to note that the projected assisted
2 states in their government notifications for ECBC and assisted 2 states in identifying statespecific institutional partners for trainings. With the all the plans of project implementation in the
future, I am sure that project would meet most of its objectives if the timelines of the project are
re-visited and are extended to end of the 12th plan period which is also the target date for the
Govt. of India’s buildings programme. This would have the desired impact and assist the GOI is
meeting its 12th plan targets.
Other Partners:
For jointly
implemented
projects, a
representative of the
other Agency
working with UNDP
on project
implementation (for
example UNEP or the
World Bank).
RECOMMENDED but NOT mandatory for jointly implemented projects.
1. Please rate the progress in delivery of outputs. For example, do the annual outputs represent sufficient progress
in order to achieve the project outcomes (see DO page of this PIR)? [HS / S / MS / MU / U / HU / n.a]
2. Please rate the efficiency in delivery of outputs. For example, in this reporting period are budget resources being
spent as planned? (i.e. is project delivery on target?) [HS / S / MS / MU / U / HU / n.a]
3. Please rate the quality of risk management. For example, in this reporting period were project risks managed
effectively? [HS / S / MS / MU / U / HU / n.a]
4. Please rate the quality of adaptive management. For example, in this reporting period were actions taken to
address implementation issue identified in the PIR last year? [HS / S / MS / MU / U / HU / n.a]
5. Please rate the quality of monitoring and evaluation. For example, in this reporting period were sufficient financial
resources allocated to project monitoring and evaluation. [HS / S / MS / MU / U / HU / n.a]
Please justify your rating and address the following points in your comments. Please keep word count between 200
words minimum and 500 words maximum.
1. Explain why you gave a specific rating.
2. Note trends, both positive and negative.
3. Provide recommendations for next steps.
[IP rating in 2014]
[comments]
UNDP Technical
Adviser is the
UNDP-GEF Technical
Adviser.
UNDP-GEF 2014 AMR FAQs
MANDATORY RATING MUST BE PROVIDED for ALL projects.
1. Please rate the progress in delivery of outputs. For example, do the annual outputs represent sufficient progress
in order to achieve the project outcomes (see DO page of this PIR)? [HS / S / MS / MU / U / HU / n.a]
2. Please rate the efficiency in delivery of outputs. For example, in this reporting period are budget resources being
spent as planned? (i.e. is project delivery on target?) [HS / S / MS / MU / U / HU / n.a]
3. Please rate the quality of risk management. For example, in this reporting period were project risks managed
effectively? [HS / S / MS / MU / U / HU / n.a]
4. Please rate the quality of adaptive management. For example, in this reporting period were actions taken to
address implementation issue identified in the PIR last year? [HS / S / MS / MU / U / HU / n.a]
Page 19
5. Please rate the quality of monitoring and evaluation. For example, in this reporting period were sufficient financial
resources allocated to project monitoring and evaluation. [HS / S / MS / MU / U / HU / n.a]
Please justify your rating and address the following points in your comments. The QORs and delivery data in the ERBM
portfolio project monitoring report should inform your rating. Please keep word count between 500 words minimum
and 1200 words maximum.
1. Explain why you gave a specific rating. If your rating differs from the rating provided by the UNDP Country Office
Programme Officer and/or the Project Manager please explain why.
2. Summarize annual progress and address timelines of project output/activity completion in relation to annual
workplans.
3. Outline the general status of project expenditures in relation to annual budgets, the effectiveness of project
management units in guiding project implementation, and the responsiveness of the project board in overseeing
project implementation.
[IP rating in 2014] Moderately Satisfactory (MS)
The financial delivery of the project is Moderately Satisfactory as it could be able to deliver only
US$ 986,293 of the total grant of US$ 5.2 million. That means even after three years of
implementation, the project could be able to deliver only 19% of the total grant. The project is
likely to meet this year’s targeted budget.
During this reporting period, the project has initiated state-wise roadmaps development for ECBC
implementation in 16 states. Proposal for ECBC Cells in 12 states has been approved by the
competent authority at the state level. A first batch of 19 master trainers have been felicitated
and institutionalized training and capacity building activities in the state of Andhra Pradesh and
Maharashtra. Implementation of the demonstrations is a much awaited output and 7 pilot
demonstrations are at various stages of development. Analysis of fiscal incentives in 16 states is
being conducted and also identify incremental costs for ECBC compliant buildings. This analysis
will also suggest appropriate financing options needed for private sector participation. Reports
are being finalized for benchmarking EE in commercial buildings for 5 climatic zones based on the
data collected from more than 630 buildings. During this reporting period, the project has
initiated market assessment of over 17 EE building materials which is expected to be completed
by November 2014.
It appears that the project is managing risks well and the risk log in ATLAS is being updated
regularly. The institutional framework and governance risks to ECBC sustainability are rated as
moderately sustainable. This is due to the possibility that the absorptive capacity of some states
for ECBC compliance may not result in new commercial buildings being ECBC compliant. This
could be caused by local capacity not being sufficiently strong to regulate the quality of
construction or installation of EE building materials. There are no identified environmental risks to
ECBC sustainability since ECBC is designed to reduce energy consumption of new commercial
buildings, an objective consistent with the GoI’s policy direction to consume resources in a
sustainable manner.
As per the midterm reviewers, the Project Team has performed certain adaptive management: (a)
the collection of baseline data through a consultant as opposed to setting up “energy audits” for
existing buildings. Building owners are currently providing energy data on voluntary basis, the
moment energy audit is brought into discussion, they see it as a threat and would not divulge any
information; and (b) setup of a consolidated training programme that first raises awareness
followed by intensive training for professionals, and training of master trainers to be able to train
others on ECBC compliance. It is too early to comment on the implementation of MTR
recommendations as the report is currently under finalization.
UNDP-GEF 2014 AMR FAQs
Page 20
During this reporting period, the project has conducted three project board meetings. It appears
that sufficient financial resources have been allocated to project monitoring and evaluation as
needed. Overall project monitoring and supervision is satisfactory. Based on the criteria for IP
rating, the project implementation progress can be rated Moderately Satisfactory (MS).
General comments on Implementation Progress Rating
NA
Highly Satisfactory (HS)
Satisfactory (S)
Moderately Satisfactory
(MS)
Moderately Unsatisfactory
(MU)
Unsatisfactory (U)
Highly Unsatisfactory (HU)
UNDP-GEF 2014 AMR FAQs
Implementation Progress: Ratings Definitions
Implementation of all components is in substantial compliance with the
original/formally revised implementation plan for the project. The project can be
presented as “good practice”.
Implementation of most components is in substantial compliance with the
original/formally revised plan except for only few that are subject to remedial
action.
Implementation of some components is in substantial compliance with the
original/formally revised plan with some components requiring remedial action.
Implementation of some components is not in substantial compliance with the
original/formally revised plan with most components requiring remedial action.
Implementation of most components is not in substantial compliance with the
original/formally revised plan.
Implementation of none of the components is in substantial compliance with the
original/formally revised plan.
Page 21
Adjustments
Project Planning
If delays have occurred in reaching key projects milestones - the inception workshop, the Mid-term Review and/or the Terminal Evaluation - then
note below the current status of that milestone, the original planned and actual/expected dates, and comments to explain the reasons for the
delays and their implications.
Key Project
Milestone
Status
(pick one option
below)
Original
Planned Date
Actual/Expected
Date
Inception
Workshop
On Schedule
April/2011
July/2011
Mid-term
Review
Delayed
October/2013
August/2014
Terminal
Evaluation
Delayed
April 2015
May 2016
Comments including reasons for delays and their
implications
The Project Document was signed on the
28th of April, 2011 and the inception
workshop took place on the 11th of July,
2011. However, the Project Management
Unit (PMU) has not been established
completely yet. Until April 2012 only 2
Assistant Project Managers (APM) and 1
Finance Assistant comprised of the PMU.
The third APM joined in June 2012. The
Project Manager joined in August, 2012. The
lack of manpower resources impacted the
delivery and many of the planned activities
were not initiated in this reporting period.
However, action for implementing the
activities have been initiated and this would
be reported accordingly in the next cycle.
Due to the lack of manpower resources and
the delay in initiating activities, there were
no critical activities that were to be reviewed
for their physical as well as financial progress
by October, 2013. A decision was taken to
conduct the MTR in August, 2014 to assess
the impact of the ongoing activities and give
recommendations for the way ahead.
Due to the delays in the project
implementation, it is likely to be postponed
by a year. Since MTR is under progress, exact
date will be as per recommendations of the
MTR.
Critical Risk Management
Select from below the critical risks only that appear in the ATLAS project risk log and briefly describe actions undertaken this reporting period to
address each critical risk. Please ensure that any 'social' risks identified during the environmental and social screening of the project are reflected in
the ATLAS risk log under type/description 'other'. Note that the total number of critical risks is used to calculate the overall risk rating of the
project. The methodology to determine the overall risk rating is explained further on this page.
UNDP-GEF 2014 AMR FAQs
Page 22
Current/Active
Critical Risks
Critical Risk Management Measures Undertaken in 2014
(pick one option below;
add rows as necessary)
Delay in the
implementation of
demonstration
projects
(Operational)
Timeline of the
project
(Operational)
There will be a delay in the implementation of demonstration projects and the M&V for these
projects would happen after the timelines of the project. It is imperative that the IP takes over
the task of M&V after project so as to meet the targets. This has been brought to the notice of
the IP and they have agreed.
Since the activities like the pilot projects and the proposed ECBC cells in the states would take
time to showcase the savings and direct impacts, it would be catastrophic to close the project
as per the planned date i.e. March, 2015. This has been brought to the notice of the IP and the
GEF OFP. A review of the timelines would be done after the MTR.
General comments on Adjustments
NA
UNDP-GEF 2014 AMR FAQs
Page 23
Evaluations
Mid-term Review (MTR)
Has a Mid-term Review report for this project been completed since the last PIR was submitted?
Will this project undertake a mid-term review?
Will the mid-term report be completed and translated into English by December of this year?
Actual Co-financing at Mid-term (Answer these questions only if the MTR was completed this reporting period)
No
Yes
Yes
Co-financing for GEF-financed projects, excluding LDCF and SCCF projects, is defined as resources that are additional to the GEF grant and that
are provided by the GEF Partner Agency itself and/or by other non-GEF sources that support the implementation of the GEF-financed project
and the achievement of its objectives.
How much of the total planned co-financing as committed in the Project Document has actually
been realized?
Add any comments on co-financing
NA
including other types and amounts of
co-financing such as in-kind, private
sector, grants, credits and loans.
NA
(word limit = 200 words)
For projects that completed an MTR
since the last PIR was submitted,
please respond to the following (500
words or less):
NA
 Briefly outline the key findings and
recommendations of the MTR report and
the management response.
 Discuss any problems/issues with the
final MTR report or the MTR process.
 Discuss any problems/issues with the
related GEF Focal Area Tracking Tool.
Terminal Evaluation (TE)
Has a Terminal Evaluation report for this project been completed since the last PIR was submitted?
If the TE report has been completed, has it been uploaded to the UNDP Evaluation Resource
Centre?
Actual Co-financing at Project End (Answer these questions only if the TE was completed this reporting period)
No
No
Co-financing for GEF-financed projects, excluding LDCF and SCCF projects, is defined as resources that are additional to the GEF grant and that
are provided by the GEF Partner Agency itself and/or by other non-GEF sources that support the implementation of the GEF-financed project
and the achievement of its objectives.
How much of the total planned co-financing as committed in the Project Document has actually
been realized?
Add any comments on co-financing
NA
including other types and amounts of
co-financing such as in-kind, private
sector, grants, credits and loans.
NA
(word limit = 200 words)
UNDP-GEF 2014 AMR FAQs
Page 24
For projects that completed a TE
since the last PIR was submitted,
please respond to the following (500
words or less):
NA
 Briefly outline the key findings and
recommendations of the TE report and
the management response.
 Discuss any problems/issues with the
final TE report or the TE process.
 Discuss any problems/issues with the
related GEF Focal Area Tracking Tool.
UNDP-GEF 2014 AMR FAQs
Page 25
Communications & KM
Tell us the story of your project, focusing on the impacts and results achieved during this reporting period.
Please use 500 words or less.
Avoid UN jargon, acronyms, and technical terms. Use plain language.
Include quotes from beneficiaries, if possible, and be sure to provide their names
The following questions can be used as guidance for your story:
What is this project about – the issue, interventions, and impacts?
Who are the beneficiaries of this project?
How have project interventions improved people's livelihoods?
What was the most notable achievement during this reporting period?
This text will be used for UNDP corporate communications, the UNDP-GEF website, and/or other internal and external knowledge and learning
efforts.
UNDP-GEF-BEE intervention aims to address the Awareness Barrier, Capacity and Technical Barriers, Financial Barriers
and the Institutional Barriers and assist the Government to implement and operationalize the ECBC through a
comprehensive and integrated approach. Training and capacity building is a critical activity under this project and
since “buildings” is a state-subject in India, it is crucial that there is a state-specific cadre of professionals for ECBC
implementation. The project team realized this much earlier and assisted the states of Andhra Pradesh and
Maharashtra to identify a local institute that could conduct training programs and also devise a year-long calendar of
training events at all the major commercial hubs within the state.
Andhra Pradesh has partnered with Administrative Staff College of India (ASCI)
Maharashtra has partnered with Rachna Sansad Institute of Architecture
This has provided the project with great results and having a local institute to conduct trainings has also had an
impact in terms of the wider reach to various stakeholders from the state public works departments, the urban local
bodies, the local self-governments, town and country planning departments, architects, building practitioners, design
professionals . The project now intends to replicate this model in other target states.
Adaptive management this reporting period.
Describe a problem that was encountered and how the project team overcame that problem. Give multiple examples if possible.
This text will be used for internal knowledge management in the respective technical team and region.
During the first PSC meeting, a decision was taken to remove the private sector from the purview of the project. This
affected the project in meeting many of its targets. However, much later during the 3rd PSC meeting the decision was
revoked and the private sector was again included in the scope of the project. A request for proposal for
demonstration projects was then issued for the private sector developers but only one proposal was received which
has been included under the demonstration components. However, keeping in mind the timelines of the project no
more proposals are being accepted. The private sector is keenly involved in the training and capacity building
activities under the project and it is important to note that 18 out of the 19 Master trainers that were certified by NPD
are private sector professionals.
Lessons learned
Describe lessons learned in the course of the project's implementation relating to any aspect of the project - technical, social, political,
administrative, etc.
UNDP-GEF 2014 AMR FAQs
Page 26
This text will be used for internal knowledge management in the respective technical team and region.
NA
Project links & social media
Please list below the website addresses (URLs)
that exist for this project, including any links to
social media sites. Please include: Project
website, Project page on the UNDP website,
Adaptation Learning Mechanism (UNDP-ALM)
platform, Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, YouTube,
Google +
Please share hyperlinks to any media coverage
of the project, for example, stories written by an
outside, external source.
Please upload any supporting files, including
photos, videos, stories, and other documents.
http://www.beeindia.in/schemes/schemes.php?id=3
http://eecbindia.com/
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tptamilnadu/master-plan-soon-to-make-puducherry-a-solarcity/article6110130.ece
NA
General comments on Communications & KM
NA
UNDP-GEF 2014 AMR FAQs
Page 27
Partnerships
This information is used to get a better understanding of the work GEF-funded projects are doing with key partners, including the GEF Small Grants
Programme, indigenous peoples, the private sector, and other partners. The data may be used for reporting to GEF Sec, the UNDP-GEF Annual
Performance Report, UNDP Corporate Communications, posted on the UNDP-GEF website, and for other internal and external knowledge and
learning efforts. The RTA should view and edit/elaborate on the information entered here. All projects must complete this section. Please enter
"N/A" in cells that are not applicable to your project.
Describe innovative aspects of the project in working with
Partners
(limit = 2000 characters for each section)
Civil Society
NA
Organisations/NGOs
Indigenous Peoples
NA
Private Sector
During the first PSC meeting, a decision was taken to remove the private sector from the
purview of the project. This affected the project in meeting many of its targets. However,
much later during the 3rd PSC meeting the decision was revoked and the private sector was
again included in the scope of the project. A request for proposal for demonstration projects
was then issued for the private sector developers but only one proposal was received which
has been included under the demonstration components. However, keeping in mind the
timelines of the project no more proposals are being accepted. The private sector is keenly
involved in the training and capacity building activities under the project and it is important to
note that 18 out of the 19 Master trainers that were certified by NPD are private sector
professionals.
GEF Small Grants
Programme
NA
Other Partners
The project has partnered with 3 institutes for the training of trainers program. These are:



CEPT, Ahemdabad
IIIT, Hyderabad
MNIT, Jaipur
Apart from that, the project has identified institutional training partners for the states of
Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra, they are:


Andhra Pradesh – Administrative Staff College of India
Maharashtra – Rachna Sansad Institute of Architecture
General comments on Partnerships
NA
UNDP-GEF 2014 AMR FAQs
Page 28
UNDP-GEF 2014 AMR FAQs
Page 29
Gender
This information is used in the UNDP-GEF Annual Performance Report, UNDP-GEF Annual Gender Report, reporting to the UNDP Gender Steering
and Implementation Committee and for other internal and external communications and learning.
Has a gender or social assessment been
carried out this reporting period?
[Yes / No / Was previously carried out / Will be carried out in the
future] NO
If a gender or social assessment has been
carried out what where the findings?
No
Does this project specifically target woman
or girls as key stakeholders?
No
Have there been any changes in specifically
targeting women or girls as key
stakeholders this reporting period?
No
If yes, please explain
NA
Please discuss any of the points above
further or provide any other information
NA
on the project’s work on gender equality
undertaken this reporting period.
Some points to consider: impact of project on daily
workload of women, # of jobs created for women,
impact of project on time spent by women in
household activities, impact of project on primary
school enrolment for girls/boys, increase in women's
income etc. Be as specific as possible and provide real
numbers (e.g. 100 women farmers participating in
sustainable livelihoods programme).
Please upload the gender or social needs
assessment and any other documents
related to the project's gender-related
results.
NA
General comments on Gender
NA
UNDP-GEF 2014 AMR FAQs
Page 30
Environmental or Social Grievance
This section must be completed by the UNDP Country Office if a grievance related to the environmental or social impacts of this project was
addressed this reporting period.
It is very important that the questions are answered fully and in detail.
If no environmental or social grievance was addressed this reporting period then please do not answer the following questions.
If more than one grievance was addressed, please answer the following questions for the most significant grievance only and explain the other
grievance(s) in the comment box below.
What environmental or social issue was the
grievance related to?
[Environmental/Financial/Organisational/Political/
Operational/Regulatory/Strategic/Other]
What is the current status of the grievance?
[Resolved / On-going / Both]
How would you rate the significance of the
grievance?
[Minor / Significant / Serious]
Please describe the on-going or resolved
grievance noting who was involved, what
action was taken to resolve the grievance,
how much time it took, and what you
learned from managing the grievance
process (maximum 500 words). If more than
one grievance was addressed this reporting
period, please explain the other grievance (s)
here.
NA
Rating
Minor
Description
The grievance had/has a low impact on the day-to-day
implementation of the project.
Significant The grievance had/is having a significant impact on the day-to-day
implementation of the project, but the project is still expected to
achieve its objective.
Serious
UNDP-GEF 2014 AMR FAQs
The grievance had/is having a serious impact on the day-to-day
implementation of the project, and there is a risk (50% or higher)
that the project may not be able to achieve its objective.
Page 31
Approve and Submit Page
UNDP-GEF Region-based Technical Adviser (RTA)
RTA Revised Overall Ratings (optional)
Revised overall DO rating
Moderately Satisfactory (MS)
Revised overall IP rating
Moderately Satisfactory (MS)
Explanation for change to
Overall DO Rating or
Overall IP Rating (required
only if the Overall DO or IP Rating
have been revised by the RTA).
Please upload any
supporting files, including
photos, videos, stories,
and other documents
[uploading only possible in PIR system; list here the files that you plan on uploading]
associated with this project that
have not been uploaded
elsewhere in the PIR (i.e. via the
Adjustments, Communications
KM or Gender tabs). The files will
be saved in the UNDP-GEF PIMS
database and used for internal
and external learning and
communications.
UNDP-GEF 2014 AMR FAQs
Page 32