project document (gef)

Submission Date: 30 April 2009

PART I: PROJECT INFORMATION GEFSEC PROJECT ID: 3624 GEF AGENCY PROJECT ID: 4158 COUNTRY(IES): Republic of Uzbekistan PROJECT TITLE: Promoting Energy Efficiency in Public Buildings GEF AGENCY(IES): UNDP OTHER EXECUTING PARTNER(S): State Committee for Architecture and Construction of the Republic of Uzbekistan GEF FOCAL AREA(S): Climate Change GEF-4 STRATEGIC PROGRAM(S): CC-SP1 NAME OF PARENT PROGRAM/UMBRELLA PROJECT: Global Framework for Promoting Low Greenhouse Gas Emission Buildings

A. PROJECT FRAMEWORK (Expand table as necessary)

Project Objective: To reduce energy consumption and associated greenhouse gas emissions in public buildings in Uzbekistan, particularly in the healthcare and educational sectors, by improving building norms and standards, demonstrating integrated building design approaches, and developing the capacity of local specialists in design, construction, and maintenance.

Project Component

Investment, TA, or STA

Expected Outcomes

Expected Outputs

GEF Financing* Co-financing*

Total ($)

($) % ($) %

1. Revised building codes and standards incorporating principles of integrated building design apply to all new public buildings

TA New energy efficient standards and regulations are applied to approximately two million m2 of public space in the educational and healthcare sectors commissioned annually

� Five existing building codes for public buildings and other relevant norms and standards revised, implemented � New EE Building Code Department established within the State Committee on Architecture and Construction � Training for public servants involved in building code enforcement designed and delivered

348,381 64 200,000 36 548,381

2. Energy performance in public buildings improves

TA Government is aware of performance in existing healthcare and educational facilities and can prioritize investments in efficiency

� Mandatory energy audits established and carried out in public buildings � Energy performance certificate scheme introduced that supports compliance in new and reconstructed public buildings and monitors performance in existing public buildings with trained personnel overseeing the program � Energy information management system maintained and energy savings and GHG emission reductions quantified using appropriate methodologies � Energy managers in public buildings appointed and time spent on operations and

519,181 78 150,000 22 669,181

REQUEST FOR CEO ENDORSEMENT/APPROVAL PROJECT TYPE: Full-Sized Project

THE GEF TRUST FUND

Expected Calendar

Milestones Dates

Work Program (for FSP) Apr 2008

GEF Agency Approval Jul 2009

Implementation Start Sep 2009

Mid-term Review (if planned) Jan 2012

Implementation Completion

Dec 2014

CEO Endorsement Uzbekistan – Promoting Energy Efficiency in Public Buildings

2

maintenance practices to reduce energy consumption

3. The building sector in Uzbekistan is capable of providing more energy efficient solutions

TA Uzbek design and construction professionals have the capacity to design efficient buildings and manage their performance

� Practicing architects and engineers understand the code and can produce designs that comply with it � Engineering and architecture students at the post-secondary level are exposed to integrated design concepts and techniques. Bachelors and masters students have the option of specifically studying energy efficiency in buildings � Practicing architects and engineers have access to information and advice on integrated design, economical measures for reducing energy consumption, and best available technologies and materials � Planners and building sector professionals have access to current information on best available technologies, materials, and services. � Building industry and technology providers informed of potential market for their products under the new standards

185,069 55 150,000 45 335,069

4. Integrated building design approach is showcased in public buildings

TA Energy- and cost-saving potential of integrated building design is demonstrated in two new buildings and six re-constructed buildings

� Construction completed and buildings commissioned at eight sites incorporating energy efficiency measures and – for new construction -- integrated building design � Energy, financial and GHG performance in buildings quantified and recorded � Replication of results facilitated in other hospital and school buildings � Building sector and energy management professionals in Uzbekistan and abroad are aware of the application of the buildings and their performance

1,643,929 16 8,600,000 84 10,243,929

5. Energy efficient standards and best practices codified and disseminated in other state-funded and commercial buildings

TA Project findings influence construction practices and public administration practices in Uzbekistan

� Lessons learned disseminated to stakeholders across the country � Two independent evaluations conducted to assess project results � Good practices from the project incorporated into at least one component of public administration

192,325 66 100,000 34 292,325

6. Project management 25,000 2 1,270,8801 98 1,295,880

1 Co-financing for the project management budget will be covered by the following sources: a) UNDP core resources (USD 270,880) and the Government of Uzbekistan (USD 1,000,000).


3

Total Project Costs 2,913,885 22 10,470,880 78 13,384,765 * List the $ by project components. The percentage is the share of GEF and Co-financing respectively to the total amount for the component. ** TA = Technical Assistance; STA = Scientific & technical analysis.

B. SOURCES OF CONFIRMED CO-FINANCING FOR THE PROJECT

Name of co-financier (source) Classification Type Amount ($) %*

UNDP GEF Agency Cash 270,880 3% Govt. of Uzbekistan Government Cash 8,600,000 82% Govt. of Uzbekistan Government In-kind 1,600,000 15%

Total Co-financing 10,470,880 100% * Percentage of each co-financier’s contribution at CEO endorsement to total co-financing

C. FINANCING PLAN SUMMARY FOR THE PROJECT ($)

Project

Preparation

a

Project

b

Total

c = a + b Agency Fee

For comparison:

GEF and Co-financing at PIF

GEF financing 150,000 2,913,885 3,063,885 306,388 3,400,000

Co-financing 150,000 10,470,880 10,620,880 10,350,000

Total 300,000 13,384,765 13,684,765 306,388 13,750,000

D. GEF RESOURCES REQUESTED BY FOCAL AREA(S), AGENCY(IES) OR COUNTRY(IES): N/A

E. CONSULTANTS WORKING FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMPONENTS:

Component Estimated

person weeks

GEF($) Other sources

($) Project total

($)

Local consultants* 1275 312,375 350,000 662,375 International consultants* 197 591,000 591,000 Office facilities, equipment, vehicles and communications**

1,327,000 8,600,000 9,927,000

Contractual Services 415,000 415,000 Workshops 90,000 100,000 190,000 Miscellaneous 50,000 50,000 Travel*** 164,660 100,000 264,660

Total 2,900,035 9,200,000 12,100,035 * Detailed information on consultants is provided in Annex C. Person-weeks listed here apply only to GEF-funded

components.

** This item includes public facilities constructed under the auspices of the project, including materials and equipment.

***Travel includes both international travel and per diems for international consultants and in-country travel and per

diems for international and local consultants between Tashkent and Karakalpakstan and Kashkadarya. Detailed

information on travel is provided in Annex E.

F. PROJECT MANAGEMENT BUDGET/COST


4

Cost Items Total

Estimated person weeks

GEF ($)

Other sources

($)

Project total

($)

Local consultants*

572 - 819,920 819,920

International consultants - - - - Office facilities, equipment,

vehicles and communications**

25,000 350,960 375,960

Travel*** - 100,000 100,000

Total 25,000

1,270,880

1,295,880

*This item includes costs of Project Manager, Project Assistant, and Book-keeper, National Project Director, , staff at

the national offices of the participating government agencies, and staff at the regional and local offices of participating

government agencies for project-related activities, staff supporting the codes component of the project, and project

coordinators at the two demonstration sites. Person-weeks listed here apply only to UNDP-funded components **This item includes the following expenses:

- GEF: Cost of a project vehicle (50% cost-shared with UNDP)

- UNDP (USD 87,000):

o Office utilities and stationary: USD 5000 per 5 years = USD 25,000

o Computers for project office, printer, and projector: USD 12,000

o Cost of annual financial audit: USD 5,000 per 5 years = USD 25,000

o Shared cost of a project vehicle = USD 25,000

– Government (USD 263,960):

o Premises for project office, organization of Project Board meetings

*** This item includes the travel of project manager over 5 years, assuming 8 trips annually between two sites and the

project office, and travel of National Project Director and other government officials (State Committee, both Tashkent-

based and regionally-based) between two pilot regions and Tashkent over 5 years.

G. DOES THE PROJECT INCLUDE A “NON-GRANT” INSTRUMENT? yes no

H. DESCRIBE THE BUDGETED M &E PLAN:

Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) of the project will follow the UNDP Program Manual and GEF M&E procedures and will be conducted by the project team and the UNDP Country Office (UNDP-CO) with support from UNDP/GEF Regional Coordination Unit in Bratislava. The Logical Framework Matrix in Annex A provides impact and outcome indicators for project implementation along with their corresponding means of verification. These will form the basis for the project M&E System. M&E activities are spread across the project components. The overall emphasis on M&E in the context of the project is to capture valuable data on both new and reconstructed public buildings in Uzbekistan and to understand the impacts of both the buildings and the policies and programmes that relate to them. Special attention will be given to the development of a methodology that will meet these needs and will conform to internationally-recognized best practices in GHG monitoring methodologies and protocols. The M&E plan includes the following documents and activities: inception report, project implementation reviews, quarterly operational reports, a mid-term and final evaluation. M&E budget is provided in the table below and detailed draft M&E Plan is presented in Annex J. It will be finalized at the Project's Inception Meeting following a collective fine-tuning of indicators, means of verification, and the full definition of project staff M&E responsibilities. Type of M&E activity Responsible Parties Budget US$

Time frame

Inception Workshop (IW)

� Project manager � UNDP CO, UNDP GEF

3,000 Within first two months of project start up

Inception Report � Project manager None Immediately following


5

� UNDP CO IW Development of a Methodology for Measuring Building Performance and Related Emissions Reduction

� Oversight by GEF Technical Advisor

� Short-term international consultant

7,500 Immediately following IW

Measurement of Means of Verification for Project Purpose Indicators

� Project manager will oversee the hiring of specific studies and institutions, and delegate responsibilities to relevant team members, particularly the Energy and GHG Monitoring Specialist

To be finalized in Inception Phase and Workshop. Cost to be covered by targeted survey funds.

Start, mid and end of project

Measurement of Means of Verification for Project Progress and Performance (measured on an annual basis)

� Oversight by Project GEF Technical Advisor and project manager

� Measurements by regional field officers and local IAs

TBD as part of the Annual Work Plan's preparation. Cost to be covered by field survey budget.

Annually prior to APR/PIR and to the definition of annual work plans

APR and PIR � Project manager � UNDP-CO � UNDP-GEF

None Annually

TPR and TPR report � Government Counterparts � UNDP CO, project manager � UNDP-GEF Regional

Coordinating Unit (RCU)

None Every year, upon receipt of APR

Periodic status reports � Project manager None TBD by project manager and UNDP CO

Mid-term evaluation � Project manager � UNDP- CO � UNDP-GEF RCU � External Consultants

(evaluation team)

20,000 At the mid-point of project implementation.

Final External Evaluation � Project manager, � UNDP-CO, UNDP-GEF RCU � External Consultants

(evaluation team)

20,000 At the end of project implementation

Terminal Report � Project manager � UNDP-CO

None At least one month before the end of the project

Lessons learned � Project manager � UNDP-GEF RCU (formats for

documenting best practices) 12,000

Yearly

Audit � UNDP-CO � Project manager

25,000 (average 5,000 per year)

Yearly

Visits to field sites (UNDP staff travel costs to be charged to IA fees)

� UNDP Country Office � UNDP-GEF Regional

Coordinating Unit (as appropriate)

� Government representatives

16,500

Yearly

TOTAL INDICATIVE COST Excluding project staff time, UNDP staff and travel expenses.

USD 104,000

PART II: PROJECT JUSTIFICATION

A. DESCRIBE THE PROJECT RATIONALE AND THE EXPECTED MEASURABLE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL

BENEFITS:

Background


6

In Uzbekistan, buildings account for 49% of total energy consumption, or 17 million tons of oil equivalent (toe) annually.2 Most buildings were constructed during the Soviet era and are now physically worn out. Since that time, the population of Uzbekistan has grown from 14 million to 27 million people, and it will reach 30 million by 2015. More than 30% of the population are children, which places huge demands on education and health care services. At the same time, the number and quality of existing facilities are not sufficient to meet demand. In the educational sector, 40% of the existing 9,700 schools are located in non-educational facilities, 8% are in emergency conditions and almost 30% are used in excess of their capacity. In the healthcare sector, 1336 of the existing 6943 buildings used as healthcare facilities will require capital reconstruction, and 565 facilities are housed in interim space and will require new, purpose-built facilities. In addition, 66% of healthcare facilities require reconstruction of their heating and hot water systems.

To respond to these demographic and social challenges, the Government of Uzbekistan has embarked on a series of large-scale programmes for renovation and construction of public buildings, which include schools, colleges, kindergartens, hospitals, and athletic facilities. In 2008 alone, the government invested nearly USD 450 million in the schools sector alone to construct and renovate buildings. Furthermore, programmes currently underway will deliver more than 10.8 million m2 of new and reconstructed space by 2015 – a tremendous opportunity for “building in” energy efficiency through improved design and technologies. However, construction continues to proceed according to outdated building norms and practices, and energy efficiency considerations are not yet factored in to the design and construction process, leading to excessive energy consumption.

The buildings sector represents a key target for the energy-efficiency and mitigation policies of Uzbekistan. This is because it contributes 39% to the total national CO2 emissions associated with fuel combustion3 and according to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report4 the role and contribution of buildings will remain in the medium- term future. On another hand, it houses a significant potential for energy and CO2 savings. In Annex F, the average potential for CO2 emission reduction is 52% in reconstructed buildings and it is about 60% in new buildings. Legal and Institutional Framework The legal framework for energy efficiency in Uzbekistan is based upon the Law on the Rational Use of Energy, which was adopted in 1997. The law covers the following areas: 1) realizing national, sectoral, and regional target programs and projects; 2) stabilizing industrial energy consumption to support intensive development of the economy; 3) optimization of manufacturing and energy consumption, including the introduction of metering; 4) stimulating the manufacture of energy-saving equipment and efficient technologies; 5) introducing of energy efficiency indicators in regulations on power and electrical equipment and products; 6) organizing state control and monitoring of energy quality and energy efficiency of manufacturing and product energy needs; 7) organization of inspections of energy efficiency companies, institutions and organizations; 8) carrying out energy analysis of products, working and retrofitted objects, technologies and equipment; 9) creating energy-efficient demonstration zones for implementation of high energy efficiency projects; 10) promoting the development of energy-efficient and environmentally safe technologies and manufacturing processes; 11) organizing monitoring and benchmarking of manufacturing processes and their energy consumption. More recently, Article 8 of the law with its clauses on energy efficiency certification was amended to harmonize this legislation with international standards on energy efficiency.

Unfortunately, the Law on the Rational Use of Energy faces a serious obstacle in its implementation – it lacks key supporting regulations that would allow it to carry out its mandate, such as binding energy efficiency

2 International Energy Agency statistics for 2005 at www.iea.org/ 3 International Energy Agency. 2008. CO2 emissions from fuel combustion. OECD/IEA: Paris. 4 Levine, M., D. Ürge-Vorsatz, K. Blok, L. Geng, D. Harvey, S. Lang, G. Levermore, A. Mongameli Mehlwana, S. Mirasgedis, A. Novikova, J. Rilling, H. Yoshino, 2007: Residential and commercial buildings. In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.


7

standards for buildings and certification and labeling of public buildings. A National Programme on Energy and Resource Saving for 2006-2010 has been drafted but not endorsed. Furthermore, most institutions are not directly involved in the analysis of energy consumption in the buildings they own and operate.

At the broader regional level, Uzbekistan is a member of the CIS and a signatory of the Agreement on Cooperation of the CIS States in the field of energy efficiency and energy conservation, which was signed in Kishinev on October 7, 2002, with the purpose of creating an organizational structure to support energy conservation in CIS member states. This agreement focuses primarily on research and development of efficiency technologies.

As regards institutions, numerous organizations are tasked with carrying out energy efficiency policy and programmes. These include the Commission on Conservation of Heat and Energy Resources, which is chaired by the Prime Minister. The Commission is the main supervising body in the field of energy efficiency. It coordinates and monitors heat and energy use, oversees programs to disseminate energy-saving technologies, and drafts legislation and regulations to promote energy efficiency.

Finally, the construction of public buildings in the sectors covered by the project (healthcare, education, and recreation) is shaped by several national programs, which are listed below in Table 2. The design of these facilities is governed by existing building codes, which are described in Table 5. The building codes were not designed with energy efficiency in mind; for example, the sections of the code pertaining to insulation are limited to non-binding recommendations.

In summary, two significant gaps make it difficult to realize gains in energy efficiency through the government programmes and codes mentioned above. First, there is no coordination among ministries and other government bodies on energy efficiency issues, and no agency bears responsibility for coordinating and implementing energy efficiency policies and programs, leading to significant unmet potential for savings. Second, neither construction programs nor building codes provide incentives to improve energy efficiency in the large number of public buildings currently being constructed and renovated.

Project Rationale The project is designed to work as efficiently as possible by targeting areas where the government is committed to reconstructing and constructing public facilities and mainstreaming energy-efficient integrated building design into current practice. By focusing on both new construction and reconstruction, the project will reach a larger segment of the public building stock. By focusing on design techniques and codes, the project can affect education and healthcare facilities, but also other public buildings. Because most design institutes are state-owned and focused on public sector construction using the code for public buildings, the potential for the government to play a leading role in the buildings sector – and to influence sectoral energy consumption and related emissions -- is very high.

Integrated building design as it is discussed in the project documentation is understood as follows: building design that integrates climatic conditions, the capture and the conservation of the free solar and internal gains, the efficient and comprehensive reduction of all heat losses through walls and ventilation, the accurate control of all external energy introduced for providing thermal comfort, light, and hot water, and – last but not least – user awareness of a new behaviors regarding energy use and good operations and maintenance practices.

Project Objective, Outcomes and Activities

The proposed full-sized project will promote energy efficiency of on-going and future state-funded construction and renovation programmes in Uzbekistan by revising building norms and standards, building capacity of relevant government authorities and energy managers, and showcasing integrated building design approach through two demonstration projects. The project will include five outcomes targeting both new and renovated buildings as follows: Outcome 1 will strengthen norms and regulations applicable to both new and re-constructed buildings, “building in” efficiency into design; Outcome 2 will establish a highly-visible energy management system in all targeted public sector buildings; Outcome 3 will build the capacities of building sector to meet more stringent energy performance requirements for all buildings, both on the design side and the construction technologies side; Outcome 4 will demonstrate the concept of integrated building


8

design in two new and six re-constructed buildings; and Outcome 5 will integrate the results of the project into standard practice in the public sector and share results with the residential and commercial sectors.

Outcome 1: Revised building codes and standards incorporating principles of integrated building design apply to all new buildings in educational and health care sectors. Facilities that fall under this definition include primary schools, secondary schools (lyceums, professional colleges, and vocational schools), hospitals, and athletic facilities. The focus on building codes will also include the sub-codes that feed into the primary code.

1.1 Review and revise building codes for public buildings and other relevant norms and standards to incorporate mandatory provisions for integrated building design and energy performance standards

1.2 Establish an Energy Efficient Building Code Department within the State Committee on Architecture and Construction and train staff on the codes process

1.3 Design and deliver training on the new norms to public servants involved in the compliance process (approval and commissioning), such as the clerks in charge of permitting at the State Committee for Architecture and Construction and the staff of the Construction Quality Control Inspectorate responsible for checking facilities during the construction and usage of buildings.

Comments: A working group on energy efficient building codes will advise the Energy Efficient Building Code Department on how best to define several fundamental aspects of the document's applicability — to which building types, which stages of the building life cycle; and which energy-using systems. The revised codes will apply not only to new buildings, but also to buildings undergoing capital reconstruction. The initial focus of the revised codes will be on the building envelope. In addition, the group will explore the feasibility of moving towards an integrated code that would eventually include lighting and heating systems. Regional experience in the introduction of efficient building codes (from Russia and Kazakhstan) suggests that a broad, performance-based compliance path – in which the required performance target is expressed in kWh/m² per year, varying based on climate, and including space heating – is feasible for Uzbekistan. The working group will also consider offering a simpler method – a purely prescriptive path – as a second option. This option has the advantage of absolute clarity for the designer, as well as continuity with former Soviet-era codes. Finally, the working group will consider the possibility of using a "technical solutions" compliance path, in which a building design earns points for the use of approved technologies. While this approach has not been used in the region, it has been employed successfully in France, and it offers more flexibility for the designer and no modeling calculations, making it possibly the most straightforward of all the approaches to building codes to enforce.

Outcome 2: Government is aware of performance in existing healthcare and educational facilities and can prioritize investments in efficiency.

2.1 Expand current regulations on mandatory energy audits to include auditing and reporting in public buildings

2.2 Design and complete a study tour for key personnel in the Codes Office to relevant countries that are

using audits and certificate schemes to support code compliance and/or monitor consumption in existing buildings.

2.3 Develop, approve, and apply methodology to monitor building energy performance for each targeted

building type 2.4 Develop and introduce a mandatory system of energy performance certificates (“energy passports”) for

new and existing public buildings to display performance data and ensure compliance with revised norms and standards

2.5 Develop an energy information management system to systematically collect, store and analyze data on

energy consumption and the costs and benefits of energy saving measures and quantify energy savings, financial savings, and GHG emission reductions from the new, energy-efficient norms


9

2.6 Work with Ministries of Education and Health to establish a system of energy managers in medical and educational buildings, design and deliver continuing education modules for facilities managers and a unit on energy management at the secondary school level, and determine the feasibility of financial incentives for institutions that reduce energy consumption in their facilities.

Comments: Activities 2.1 – 2.4 reflect a coordinated effort to promote “energy passports,” which provide an informational summary of a building that can include building geometry and orientation, materials and their thermal resistance, calculated energy consumption, and other data. These passports, which document code compliance and certify the performance of buildings over their lifetimes, are already successfully in use in Russia. They also have the advantage of being able to rate existing buildings according to energy performance, to create incentives for achieving greater efficiency than required by code, and to identify the need for urgent renovation of highly inefficient buildings. Audits are essential to the passport concept, as they provide the necessary performance data. Activity 2.1 is designed to address the current shortcoming in regulations on energy auditing (currently, only the 150 most energy-intensive industrial facilities are required to undertake energy audits). Under Activity 2.5, the information management system will reflect a definition of energy efficiency that is analogous to definitions in the European Union. At the same time that building performance is measured, employees responsible for operations and maintenance at educational and health care facilities will require training on energy auditing, efficient maintenance practices, and the concept of the “energy manager” for a facility as a role that goes significantly beyond fuel procurement. Under Activity 2.6, the project team will work with training and continuing education institutions in Uzbekistan to review various training curricula for facilities managers in energy management5 and develop courses that will reflect current operating conditions and the unique issues related to buildings in the healthcare and education sectors, respectively. Activity 2.6 will also support a feasibility study on the “shared savings” concept, in which facilities that reduce energy consumption are allowed to keep some of the funds that would have been spent on fuel. Shared savings programmes have been used successfully in other countries in the region, such as in municipal district heating systems and in educational buildings in Russia (the latter as part of a UNDP-GEF project to increase energy efficiency in Russian schools). However, it will be critical to have a document that clearly outlines the necessary institutional and regulatory changes that would be necessary (i.e., in the system of transfer payments and in any potential legal barriers associated with current municipal finance regulations) before presenting the concept to government agencies.

Outcome 3: Uzbek design and construction professionals have the capacity to design efficient buildings and manage their performance

3.1 Work with the Tashkent Architectural-Construction Institute (TACI) to design and deliver training modules on the new building codes to familiarize architects and engineers with the codes and to provide an overview of compliance.

3.2 Work with Tashkent State Technical University (TSTU) to expand its energy management programs at the bachelors and masters level to include a specialization in energy savings in buildings and include course content on energy savings in buildings and integrated design in the model program for academic disciplines for post-secondary institutions with architecture and buildings engineering programs. Introduce sustainable buildings information in curricula for post-secondary and technical schools.

3.3 Develop and distribute information on integrated building design for practicing architects and developers through continuing education modules and master classes, publish a how-to guide on applying integrated building design to new and existing buildings in Uzbekistan.

3.4 Provide advisory services to architects and engineers on low or no-cost design measures and best available technologies and materials

5 These would include the European Energy Manager qualification and training modules used in Russia and other countries in addition to revisiting energy management curriculum used to train professionals in Uzbekistan during a 1994-1996 TACIS program and a 1998-2001 TACIS-TEMPUS exchange program.


10

3.5 Develop and maintain a database of best available technologies, materials, and services in the sustainable buildings sector.

3.6 Organize presentations on the potential for efficient building technologies at trade fairs and other key events attended by professionals in the construction materials, building technologies, and heat and power industries.

Comments: Under Activity 3.1, the project will offer seminars to introduce the new efficient codes to the design community. These courses will focus specifically on the new energy codes themselves — what they mean, how to understand and complete new forms, and which agencies and processes are a part of the plan review. These seminars do not have to discuss details of efficient building design, though they could touch on certain general strategies on how to achieve compliance. In Russia and Kazakhstan, this type of seminar has been the most popular of those offered relating to efficient buildings.

Activity 3.2 will provide support for the training of future architects and engineers in integrated building design and energy efficiency. Currently, TSTU offers bachelors and masters degree programs in energy savings that attract 30-40 and 12-20 students each year, respectively. However, these programs offer only two specializations – industrial energy savings and energy savings in agriculture – and graduates are primarily trained for jobs as energy managers in energy-intensive industries. Activity 3.2 will support the development of courses and a program of study in energy efficiency in buildings under this course of study, and it will also introduce integrated design concepts and energy management into the Model Program for Academic Disciplines covering architecture and construction engineering.6

At the same time, Activity 3.3 will support training for architects and engineers already working in design institutes, faculty in schools of architecture and construction, construction firms, and chief architects at the municipal and regional levels. These sessions will have to cover the following topics: theoretical information on the thermal behaviour of buildings and materials characteristics; practical information on materials uses and technologies, passive solar design, thermal simulation of buildings, energy-efficient design of buildings, and energy-efficient renovation of existing buildings.

Outcome 4: Showcase the energy- and cost-saving potential of integrated building design in two new public buildings and six renovated public buildings

4.1 Work with local architects and engineers to ensure that the proposed new buildings selected are designed and constructed according to the principles of integrated building design (i.e., the identification of appropriate location, materials, equipment, energy sources, optimization of energy consumption: heat supply, lighting, ventilation) and will comply with more efficient codes. In the case of buildings that will undergo retrofitting or capital reconstruction, work will include all of the above principles with the exception of building location.

4.2 Co-finance key energy efficient technology options in eight pilot buildings (see comments below)

4.3 Monitor pilot building energy performance and quantify energy savings, financial savings, GHG emission reductions, and other non-energy benefits

4.4 Based on the results of the monitoring, encourage the replication of successful design and construction approaches in other schools and hospitals covered by state-funded programmes.

4.5 Promote results of the pilot buildings and integrated building design work nationally through the professional literature and the broader media, regionally through the CARnet network (www.caresd.net), and globally through the UNDP-GEF Framework for Promoting Low Greenhouse Gas Emissions Building and through Uzbekistan's govenmental affiliations (as a member government of the CIS, a signatory of the Energy Charter, etc.).

6 The model program provides requirements for coursework that in turn comprise the model curricula in these fields. Using the model program as a point of entry is a relatively straightforward process that allows this materials to reach architecture and engineering students in nine institutions of higher education across Uzbekistan.


11

Comments:

The eight facilities for the pilot design component of this project and their characteristics are described in Table 3 of Section E. More detailed information on the proposed demonstration sites is available in Annex L. The project preparation effort has also identified additional proposed facilities that would be suitable as contingency locations. If for some reason construction priorities or scheduling were to change, the implementation of this project component would therefore not be delayed. Work on the buildings is synchronized in a deliberate way: the project will work first with existing sites. The term retrofit in this context means that reconstruction measures in energy-intensive buildings will be limited to improvements in energy efficiency. The term reconstruction in this project refers to coupling measures to improve energy efficiency with the capital reconstruction of facilities. Starting with existing sites will allow efficient materials and practices to be introduced quickly and assessed with a view to the new building designs that will follow. Work on the two new facilities will start later, both because it will be necessary to include sighting principles into the design work and because site selection for school construction funding will occur after the project is underway.

The pilot buildings covered in Component 4 will be heated autonomously (i.e., not from a district heating grid) in order to ensure that the reduction in fuel use and corresponding GHG emissions will be fully reflected in the reduction in end-use consumption.

Outcome 5: Project findings regarding efficient buildings influence construction practices and public administration practices. Best practices are disseminated across other sectors which are not directly targeted by the project; i.e., other public buildings and commercial buildings

5.1 Work with the media and directly with major building constructors and owners to raise their awareness on economic, environmental and social benefits of integrated building design and on locally available and tested technologies, materials and other EE practices in buildings

5.2 Develop, publish, and disseminate guidance to accompany the release of the new efficient building codes 5.3 Conduct two independent evaluations of the project: a mid-term evaluation and a final evaluation and

disseminate the findings through key channels (see Activity 4.5) 5.4 Develop a strategy paper outlining the approaches for incorporating good practices from the project into

public administration (i.e., codes, tendering practices, bulk procurement, policies, sectoral development programmes, municipal finance, etc.) and organize a high-level roundtable to discuss implementation

Comments:

The awareness-raising efforts covered under Activities 5.1 will focus on providing two sets of information: 1) findings from the project itself that result from day-to-day monitoring and independent evaluations; and 2) findings from other projects that may be particularly useful for decision-makers and the public. Monitoring and evaluation activities will explicitly consider energy savings, economic savings, resultant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and non-energy benefits such as user satisfaction and outcomes to the extent that they can be measured (a brief description of these non-energy benefits is provided on the following page). Activity 5.4 will be conducted early in the project in order to support the dissemination of efficient technologies and practices in the education and healthcare sector. Because of the relatively centralized nature of the public administration, policies such as life-cycle costing in tendering and bulk procurement could have a relatively large effect on standard practices. Project Benefits

Energy efficiency improvement in buildings and associated CO2 emission reductions result in numerous benefits for building occupants and building owners; furthermore, if such an improvement is significant on the national scale, benefits are observed for the local, national, and global societies. Table 1 below lists the


12

benefits of energy efficiency improvement and CO2 emission reduction in public buildings. The Table lists the typical indicators used to measure the identified benefits which might be useful for follow-up project monitoring. Some researchers (for instance, see the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report) emphasize the importance of monetization and comparison of these benefits, because the value they bring may be higher than the value of energy saved or CO2 avoided and, therefore, important from an economic, social, political, and environmental standpoint.

The key expected climate change impact of the project is the reduction of CO2 emissions by an amount ranging from 14 to 40 million tons of CO2 by 2030, depending upon the level of compliance and jurisdiction of the more-efficient building codes (see Table 4 for specific scenarios).7 Local environmental benefits will include an improvement in air quality due to reductions in SO2 and NOx resulting from a reduction in the use of coal and other fossil fuel; many rural educational and healthcare facilities in remote areas are heated with coal, and 38% of the schools and hospitals planned for construction in the period 2008-2015 will be heated with coal (source: Gosarkhitektstroy). There will also be other benefits for all of the people who use the buildings affected by the project. For example, health care professionals and patients will be in surroundings that are more conducive to comfort and effective treatment.8 Teachers and students will have schools that provide a better environment for learning.9 In the education sector alone, current government building programmes (new construction and reconstruction) will affect the learning environment of approximately two million students by 2015. Advances in the capacity to design and build efficient building have the potential to benefit other segments of the buildings sector. For example, experience with improved codes and design techniques will be very important for the residential sector, where annual construction currently totals 8 million m2.

7 Assuming the scenario with 40% building code improvement and the High Compliance case, including 9,111 tons of CO2 directly from the application of the demonstration projects (for the details, see Annex F: Emissions Reduction Estimations and Annex A: Project Results Framework). 8 While quantitative data are not widely available, evaluations in many countries indicate that improved heating and lighting levels in healthcare facilities are associated with improved patient satisfaction (and in some cases outcome indicators such as reduced length of stay), improved employee satisfaction and retention, and a reduction in the requirements for emergency fuel stockpiling. 9 Improved building performance in terms of ventilation, temperature, and lighting has been linked with improved student health and performance in numerous studies: see Schneider, M. “Do School Facilities Affect Student Performance?” (2002) for one summary of the literature.


13

Table 1: Benefits of energy efficiency improvement and associated CO2 emission reduction in public buildings and Examples of Indicators

Category Non-energy benefits Examples of Indicators Geographical scope of the benefit

Importance for the project

Health effects

Reduced morbidity

Avoided hospital admissions, medicines

prescribed, restricted activity days,

productivity loss.

Local, national

High

Reduced physiological effects

Learning and productivity benefits due to better concentration.

Local High

Ecological effects

Reduction of outdoor air pollution

Similar to reduced morbidity but this category is broader including, for instance, avoided damage to building constructions.

Local, national, global

Low

Construction and demolition waste benefits

Waste rate reduced. Local, national Low

Economic effects

Lower energy bills Decrease in fuel and energy expenditures. National Low

Employment creation and new business opportunities

Sales of efficient construction materials and design services.

Local, national Medium

Rate subsidies avoided

Decrease in the number of subsidized units of energy sold

National High

Increase in revenue from energy exports

Fuel available for export increases, corresponding revenues from energy exports increase

National High

Avoided costs to support human health, working environment, and building facilities

Avoided costs of mortality, hospital admissions, medicines prescribed, restricted activity days, insurance costs, productivity loss, building maintenance.

Local, national High

Social effects

Increased comfort Normalizing of humidity and temperature indicators; air purity.

Local High

Increased awareness (Conscious) reductions in energy consumption; higher demand for energy efficiency measures.

Local, national High

B. DESCRIBE THE CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH NATIONAL PRIORITIES/PLANS:

In the Law on Rational Energy Use, the Government of Uzbekistan outlines key priorities and instruments of national energy efficiency policy, including the development of energy efficiency norms and standards and mandatory energy audit. The Government is in the process of drafting several sector-specific energy efficiency programmes, and it is placing a high priority on the public sector because of the direct cost-savings impacts that reduced fuel and power consumption will have on the national budget. The proposed project was initiated by a key governmental agency, the Ministry of Economy of Uzbekistan, and it is strongly supported by the First Vice-Prime Minister of Uzbekistan. National priorities and plans regarding the construction of public buildings in the educational, healthcare, and recreational sectors are summarized in Section II D.


14

C. DESCRIBE THE CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GEF STRATEGIES AND STRATEGIC PROGRAMS:

The project is in line with Strategic objective CC – 1 “To promote energy-efficient technologies and practices in the appliances and buildings” through improved energy performance in public buildings. The project falls under the UNDP-led GEF Global Framework for Promoting Low Carbon Buildings with a primary focus on two thematic approaches promoted by the Framework: a) Promotion and increased uptake of High Quality Building Codes and Standards – by introducting and enforcing mandatory energy efficient building codes; and b) Developing and Promoting Energy Efficient Building Technologies, Building Materials and Construction Practices – by piloting integrated building design. The coordination platform offered by the global framework will help Uzbekistan learn from experiences and best practices from countries with similar on-going energy-efficient building projects, including relevant GEF projects in the region (Kyrgyzstan and Turkey) and good practice building codes and standards work done in other CIS countries.

D. JUSTIFY THE TYPE OF FINANCING SUPPORT PROVIDED WITH THE GEF RESOURCES:

The nature of the project is policy development, technical and institutional capacity building. The project objective will be attained by providing technical assistance and facilitating govenmental investment in new more energy efficient buildings. No loan or revolving-fund mechanisms are considered appropriate, and therefore grant-type funding is considered most adequate to enable successful delivery of the project outcomes.

E. OUTLINE THE COORDINATION WITH OTHER RELATED INITIATIVES:

The Project Executing Agency, the State Committee for Architecture and Construction, is the governmental body in charge of implementation of all state-funded construction programmes in public sector (Table 2) and will ensure their close coordination with project activities. As the result of discussions held under the project preparation process, the proposers have selected six initial facilities -- two hospitals and four schools -- for capital reconstruction and retrofitting under the programmes to demonstrate efficient building materials and technologies; in addition, two new schools to be selected concurrently with the government’s selection procedure for new schools, will be designed and constructed using the integrated building design approach. Details of these facilities are provided in Table 3 and in Annex L.

Table 2: Overview of Expenditures for the Construction and Renovation of Selected Public Buildings by Programme

Programme Status Annual budget (USD)

Number of buildings to be commissioned

Total space (m2)

National Programme of Professional Training10

On-going from 2003

378 million approximately 1900 academic and pre-professional secondary schools

1.8 million

Development of general education, Stage I11

On-going from 2004

203 million 325 new general education schools 2313 remodeled primary schools

9 million

Construction of children’s recreational facilities (extra-budgetary fund)12

On-going 24 million 180 indoor recreational facilities annually

40,500 (annually)

Development of general education, 2010-2015 200 million 500 general education schools 2 million

10 In 2008, expenditures under this programme totaled USD 277 million for the construction of 20 academic secondary schools and 156 pre-professional secondary schools; annual construction rates average approximately 180-200 schools per year with an annual average area of one million m2, which will meet the needs of 1.2 million students. 11 In 2008, expenditures under the programme totaled USD 172 million for the construction of 70 new primary schools and the reconstruction of 585 primary schools. Under this programme, 115,000 students benefit from new schools, and 780,000 benefit from the reconstruction of existing schools. 12 In 2008, the fund was used to construct 13 new facilities and expand 166 existing facilities at a cost of USD 20 million. In 2009, the fund will be used to construct 6 music schools at a cost of USD 3.4 million.


15

Stage II Construction of high school and universities

2010-2015 n/a Programme is currently under preparation

Construction and renovation of district and regional-level hospitals

2009 -2015 n/a Programme is currently under preparation (it will involve 4-5 hospitals annually)

40,000-50,000

(projected)

The project will build on the results of a number of earlier and on-going UNDP-supported initiatives on sustainable energy, including the UNDP/Danish Government pilot project promoting the use of solar water heating devices in public and residential buildings, a UNDP project on solar PV use for sustainable energy supply in remote rural communities in Uzbekistan, and a UNDP-funded feasibility study on heat and power supply options to remote healthcare facilities. The project will also benefit from expertise built under a previous EU TACIS programme, which supported methodology and capacity development for energy management in buildings and established the Energy Center of Uzbekistan. In addition, it will coordinate its efforts with a planned regional TACIS initiative “Energy Saving Initiative in the Building Sector Eastern Europe and Central Asia (ESIB),” for which the scoping process is underway. In the healthcare sector, the project will coordinate with the Health-2 programme (2005-2009) and its anticipated successor, Health-3 (2010-2014).13 While the two projects focus primarily on the improvement of primary care provision and management reform, Health-2 is funding equipment upgrades in a total of 2,200 hospitals and rural clinics, including the provision of lighting and medical equipment, which can be energy-intensive. Sustainable heat and power supply are critical issues, particularly in rural areas. F. DISCUSS THE VALUE-ADDED OF GEF INVOLVEMENT IN THE PROJECT DEMONSTRATED THROUGH

INCREMENTAL REASONING:

Business-as-Usual Scenario

The business-as-usual baseline describes what would happen without the GEF project and it relies on the national trends expected. The key assumptions of the business-as-usual baseline are:

1. The speed and the significance of improvement in the national energy-efficiency building codes. The current construction norms and standards for public sector buildings are mandated by five building codes (see Table 5) that were drafted during the Soviet era. According to the Law on Rational Energy Use, construction norms should be updated every five years based on the latest know-how and best building practices. In reality, however, revisions are made based on the historical level of energy consumption reported for various types of buildings. Due to energy security (reliability) issues and growing energy prices, it is likely that the level of concern in the country will be strong enough in the short-term period, likely within 3-5 years, to initiate the demand-side measures including the improvement of building codes. It takes 2-3 years to conduct the research on building codes; therefore it is likely that in the business-as-usual case the building codes will be updated within 5-8 years, i.e. by 2015. The question is however how much they would be strengthened. Based on the EU experience, the update usually takes place each 5-10 years and energy-efficiency requirement improvement is 10-20%/decade. Based on this experience, it is assumed that after 2015, building codes in Uzbekistan will be updated every 5 years with the rate of improvement of at least 10% every 5 years (since there is a significant efficiency potential, the maximum from other countries’ experience was assumed).

2. The compliance rate for building codes. Relatively low compliance of buildings with building codes is a worldwide problem encountered not only in developing and transition economies but also in developed ones. For the purpose of calculations, it was assumed that at least 20% buildings in Uzbekistan comply with building codes in the business-as-usual case. In case of non-compliance, it

13 Health-2 is financed through the International Development Association (IDA).


16

was assumed that building constructors followed market trends, and the efficiency of new buildings grew at a rate of autonomous efficiency improvement of approximately 1%/year (the world average rate according to the IPCC 2001).

Table 3: Building Codes That Apply Specifically to Public Buildings in Uzbekistan14

Code Title of Building Code Latest revision КМК 2.08.02-96 Administrative buildings and facilities 1996 ШНК 2.08.04-04 Office buildings 2004 КМК 2.08.05-97 Hospitals and health-care facilities 1997 ИКН 01-04 Primary schools and orphanages 2004 ИКН 01-05 Secondary schools, lyceums and colleges 2005

The following assumptions describe the business-as-usual baseline, which reflects current practice:

1. First Cost Decision-making Practices: Construction is usually done on a first-cost basis. This means that investment costs are minimized to allow an as quick investment recovery as possible. Investments in improved energy efficiency and GHG emission reduction may only add a few percent (normally about 5% in most countries) to construction costs and save money over the life cycle of the building, but currently even such low investments are avoided. Current tendering practices do not take building operating costs into account when comparing the costs of various building designs.

2. Low awareness of and experience with modern building practices, such as integrated building design: building codes also do not incorporate the provisions for integrated building design, such as the choice of location, requirements for thermal insulation in the roof, wall and floor of the building, the use of more energy efficient building materials, design and technologies for heat and water supply and lighting systems, as well as the use of renewable energy sources. Local experts estimate that only adequate internal and external insulation could save up to 30% of energy, while incorporating all available options in building design could provide for up to 50-60% of energy savings – estimates that reflect findings from a previous EU TACIS project.

3. Weak energy management: Modern energy management practices are lacking in both public and residential buildings in Uzbekistan and the level of energy performance is extremely poor. Even when modern equipment is installed, local technicians and engineers often lack skills to ensure its optimal operation and maintenance. Although the Law on Rational Energy Use mandates regular energy audit in buildings, corresponding by-laws and regulations are absent, as are the methodological, technical and institutional base for systematic energy performance monitoring. There is only one specialized company, the Energy Center of Uzbekistan, possessing a license and capacities to undertake energy audit.

4. Low institutional capacity: The State Committee on Architecture and Construction is the main governmental body responsible for development and implementation of national policies, norms and standards in building sector. The Committee exercises control for implementation of all state-funded construction and renovation programmes and their compliance with established norms and standards. It has limited technical experience in the field: there is no dedicated staff dealing with energy efficiency, little to no awareness about the principles of integrated building design and no system in place for the systematic collection and analysis of information on energy saving measures and their costs and benefits that would allow them to be incorporated into building sector regulations.

5. Immature market for energy efficiency services and products in building sector: The building sector is also handicapped by a lack of understanding of energy efficiency issues for buildings. Awareness of integrated building design is extremely low among technical experts, architects, engineers and

14 In addition, there are four general norms that apply to all construction that apply to these buildings: 1) ШНК 1.03.01-03 (general guidance on the development and approvals process for construction); 2) ШНК 2.01.02-04 (fire safety norms); 3) ШНК 2.01.03-96 (seismic norms for earthquake regions); and 4) ШНК 3.01.04-04 (guidance on the commissioning process for completed buildings).


17

builders and there are no pilot projects or education curricula to learn from. Another technical barrier is the limited availability of building components and construction supplies that would meet higher energy efficiency requirements. For example, there are possibilities and even small-scale production of high energy efficient isolation material (mineral wool), but due to the lack of demand (which stems primarily from the absence of correspondent requirements and norms), production is limited and material does not meet international quality standards. The State Corporation for Construction Materials, UzStrojMaterialy, has expressed its commitment to cooperating with the project to boost production of more energy-efficient construction materials in Uzbekistan.

GEF Project Scenarios

As opposed to the business-as-usual baseline, eight alternative scenarios, which take place in case of the GEF project implementation, were developed. The GEF Scenarios assume activities listed in the Section A of the Project Justification. The important assumptions of the GEF scenarios are:

1. The speed and the significance of national energy-efficiency building codes improvement. Whereas the demonstration projects illustrate that an average thermal efficiency improvement of existing and new buildings could be as high as 50%, this is possible only in case if the efficiency technologies and the necessary expertise are available throughout the country. Based on this consideration, two groups of scenarios are assumed - GEF25% and GEF40% which will consider 25% and 40% efficiency improvement of the code in 2010 as compared to the 2000 code respectively; in the next 20 years after 2010 this code will be updated with the business-as-usual speed and magnitude, i.e., 10%/every 5 years.

2. High compliance rate in the GEF25%/40% Optimistic Scenarios. Another principal difference of the GEF project from the business-as-usual case is that it suggests a set of measures aimed to result in a high rate of compliance to the building codes if the project is successfully implemented. A review of worldwide experience attests that compliance rates could be as high as 80 % (ex., cities of China). Based on this experience, the GEF Optimistic Scenario relies on the 80% compliance rate. In case of non-compliance, energy consumption of new buildings is the same as in the business-as-usual case, i.e. it improves by 1%/yr.

3. Low compliance rate in the GEF25%/40% Pessimistic Scenario. The GEF Pessimistic Scenario describes a case if the building codes will be developed in the frame of the present project in 2010 and further on as discussed above but the enforcement and monitoring programs will not bring the effect expected. In this Scenario, the compliance rate to the building codes is assumed as it is in the business-as-usual baseline.

4. The ambition to include energy-efficiency requirement to building renovation in the GEF25%/40% Ambitious Optimistic/Pessimistic Scenarios. During the project preparation phase, it was concluded that the largest absolute potential is in the stock of existing buildings rather than in those which are being constructed (due to long building lifetime). Since the building lifetime, i.e. the time before its reconstruction when energy-efficiency requirements will be valid for a building, is 50-100 years, the largest effect may be achieved if the energy-efficiency requirement will be included into the capital renovation process (капитальный ремонт). According to construction guidelines, a building should undergo the capital renovation every 10 years. The ambition to include energy-efficiency requirements into the capital renovation is illustrated in the GEF 25%/40% both Optimistic and Pessimistic Scenarios.

Additionally, the GEF-Demo Scenario was developed to illustrate the case if the demonstration phase of the project will be successfully implemented but the building code developed by the GEF project will not be approved. In this case, anyway some efficiency improvement will take place – some buildings similar to the demo-sites buildings especially commissioned by the same constructors as those which implemented the


18

demo-sites will be replicated. Assuming that approximately a quarter of public buildings planned for construction and capital reconstruction during 2010 – 2030 in the regions of demonstration sites will directly replicate the project methodology, gives approximately 25% of the total new floor area of such highly efficient buildings.

Figure 1 and Table 6 present the impact of the GEF Scenarios modeled as compared to the business-as-usual baseline (for the detailed methodology and assumptions behind the calculation of emission reductions see Annex F). The results illustrate that the impact of the GEF projects depends on the level of its ambitions. Thus, in case of high compliance of new and reconstructed buildings to the building codes, space heating requirement of -25% and -40% as compared to the current building code will reduce CO2 emissions of the whole sector of education and health buildings in 2030 by 7% and 11% respectively. The best result can be expected from the extension of the building codes to the buildings undergoing capital renovation. Since the stock of existing buildings is large, even in case of low compliance (i.e. pessimistic scenario) and 25% efficiency improvement of the new building code as compared to the current level will result in 22% of CO2 emission reduction in 2030 assuming that a building is renovated every 10 years. In case of high compliance, 40% efficiency improvement in 2010 of the current building codes will reduce CO2 emissions in 2030 by half.

The main difference between the bottom-up and top-down scenarios is that the bottom-up estimates take into account only the replication of demonstration sites whereas the top-down scenarios describes the impacts of building codes depending on their efficiency improvement levels and compliance rates of buildings to them (the only one top-down scenario which corresponds to the bottom-up one is a so-called GEF Demo-Scenario, the only difference though is that the bottom-up replication is counted for buildings constructed during 10 years immediately following the completion of the project demonstration sights whereas the top-down replication is applied to 2010 – 2030 period).

Figure 1: CO2 emissions associated with the Scenarios developed for existing and new education and health buildings, 2009 – 2030

3,250

3,750

4,250

4,750

5,250

5,750

6,250

6,750

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Thousand tCO2

BAU Baseline

GEF Demo

GEF 25%: High Compliance (Optimistic)

GEF 25% Including Capital Renovation: High Compliance (Optimistic)

GEF 25%: Low Compliance (Pessimistic )

GEF 25% Including Capital Renovation: Low Compliance (Pessimistic)



GEF 40%: Low Compliance (Pessimistic)



19

Table 4: Summary of the CO2 mitigation potential associated with the GEF Scenarios, 2010 - 2030

Scenario

Absolute potential of annual CO2 emission reductions, thousand tCO2/yr.

Potential for CO2 emission reductions as the share of baseline emissions

Absolute potential of lifetime CO2 emission reductions, thousand tCO2.

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

GEF Demo 0 66 126 180 228 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 2.8% 3.5% 0 1,325 2,522 3,597 4,555 GEF 25%: High Compliance (optimistic) 22 127 239 356 477 0.4% 2.0% 3.7% 5.5% 7.3% 441 2,540 4,775 7,118 9,546 GEF 25% Including Capital Renovation: High Compliance (Optimistic) 170 1,053 1,942 2,276 2,567 2.7% 16.5% 30.1% 34.9% 39.1% 1,786 11,041 21,095 28,446 34,871 GEF 25%: Low Compliance (Pessimistic ) 6 34 59 82 102 0.1% 0.5% 0.9% 1.3% 1.6% 114 671 1,176 1,632 2,045 GEF 25% Including Capital Renovation: Low Compliance (Pessimistic) 26 473 1,041 1,261 1,446 0.4% 7.4% 16.1% 19.3% 22.0% 922 6,126 12,178 17,204 21,559 GEF 40%: High Compliance (Optimistic) 36 208 380 552 723 0.6% 3.3% 5.9% 8.5% 11.0% 713 4,151 7,597 11,035 14,455 GEF 40% Including Capital Renovation: High Compliance (Optimistic) 242 1,477 2,618 2,903 3,149 3.9% 23.2% 40.5% 44.5% 47.9% 2,506 15,279 27,745 34,117 39,638 GEF 40%: Low Compliance (Pessimistic) 9 54 94 131 164 0.1% 0.8% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 182 1,074 1,881 2,611 3,272 GEF 40% Including Capital Renovation: Low Compliance (Pessimistic) 26 563 1,213 1,420 1,594 0.4% 8.8% 18.8% 21.8% 24.3% 1,102 7,186 13,841 18,621 22,751


20

G. INDICATE RISKS, INCLUDING CLIMATE CHANGE RISKS, THAT MIGHT PREVENT THE PROJECT

OBJECTIVE(S) FROM BEING ACHIEVED AND OUTLINE RISK MANAGEMENT MEASURES:

Risk Assess

ment Mitigation

Lack of governmental commitment to revise and introduce more stringent energy efficient building norms and standards

Low The Government of Uzbekistan recognizes the need for energy efficiency improvements in buildings. As per Article 3 of the Urban Building Codex, the Committee for Architecture and Construction developed and approved a schedule for regular revisions of building norms and standards up until 2010. The Government has requested GEF support to help ensure that the next scheduled revisions are in line with international best practices on building energy efficiency.

Lack of motivation among public facilities managers (Ministry of Health and Education) to deal with energy efficiency

Low The project will introduce new regulations making energy audits and a system of energy managers mandatory for all targeted public buildings.

Subsidized prices for energy on the domestic market will reduce the willingness of project stakeholders to save energy.

Low The government has increased prices for both heat and power consistently over the past 5 years, and there is no evidence to indicate that this trend will change. In addition, the export price of natural gas (which will directly provide heat to 50% of all new school and hospital construction through 2015) is very high, leading to an incentive to free up natural gas resources for export.

Low level of knowledge and skills among local professionals to integrate energy efficiency in building design and operations

Med Provision of technical assistance to build capacities of various local stakeholders involved in building design, construction and operation will constitute the major part of the project. This technical assistance will be provided through a “learning-by-doing” approach whereby local specialist will work together with international consultants to design and operate pilot EE projects in public buildings.

H. EXPLAIN HOW COST-EFFECTIVENESS IS REFLECTED IN THE PROJECT DESIGN:

The most cost-effective measures suggested by Working Group III of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report in their review of climate change mitigation potential in residential and commercial (including public) buildings15 for transition countries, such as Uzbekistan, are fully consistent with proposed measures and include:

• Efficient lighting and its controls • Water and space heating control systems • Retrofit and replacement of building components

It should also be noted that the choice of the buildings sector itself reflects a cost-effective approach to emission reductions in Uzbekistan. In its First National Communication to UNFCCC, Uzbekistan ranked measures to improve energy efficiency in the building sector as the most cost-effective option to reduce GHG emissions in Uzbekistan, and the Second National Communication confirmed the overall technical potential for mitigation.

The project will participate in construction and reconstruction of eight public buildings in different climate zones. These are:

1. Reconstruction of two school buildings in existing sites: P1 School #38 in Nukus, Karakalpakstan: construction of one new building for 315 students (1312 m²) in the existing school initially operated for 735 students

15 Residential and commercial buildings. In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.


21

P4 School #31 near Karchi, Kashkadarya: construction of one new building for 180 students (634 m²) in the existing school initially operated for 180 students

2. Reconstruction of two existing hospitals: P5 Hospital in Tashkent Oblast: retrofitting of the existing building for 100 patients (838 m²) P6 Psychiatric Clinic for Children in Tashkent Oblast: retrofitting and extension of the existing building of 734 m² to 1364 m².

3. Reconstruction two school buildings that confirm to current prototype designs: P2 School #57 in Hodjeyli, Karakalpakstan: retrofitting a school for 315 students (2228 m²) P3 School #131 near Guzar, Kashkadarya: retrofitting a school for 315 students (2228 m²)

4. Construction of two new school buildings (to be selected when the government has identified sites for funding that coincide with planned construction in Year 3 of the project):

P7&P8 Schools #X1&X2: construction of two new typical schools for 315 students/each (for needs that are similar to those met by schools P2 & P3)

Options of building thermal retrofit were selected by the International Consultant/Architect using the Net Present Value method and relying on the indicator of payback period of efficiency investments. The potential for energy conservation associated with these options is further analyzed using the method of supply curve of energy conserved. The supply curve of energy conserved characterizes the potential for energy savings from a sequence of energy-efficiency technological options as a function of marginal costs per unit of energy conserved. The supply curves of conserved energy which help to analyze the demonstration sites of the GEF project are presented in Figure 2. The main assumptions of the curves are a) a project lifetime of 20 years; and b) the discount rate of 10%. Figure 2: Supply curves of conserved energy for the demonstration sites P1 P2

0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

0.035

0.040

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Energy savings/CO2 emissions avoided as base share

USD/kWh

Domestic natural gas price'2008

Pipe insulation

Wall insulation

Thermostatic valves

Timer

Roof insulation

Automatic control, boiler




0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

0.035

0.040

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%


USD/kWh

Pipe insulation

Wall insulation

Thermostatic valves

Timer

Roof insulation






P3 P4

0.000

0.010

0.020

0.030

0.040

0.050

0.060

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%


USD/kWh

Pipe insulation

Wall insulationThermostatic valves

Timer

Roof insulation

New boiler with automatic control





0.000

0.010

0.020

0.030

0.040

0.050

0.060

0.070

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%


USD/kWh

Pipe insulation

Wall insulation

Thermostatic valves

Timer

Roof insulation


Window change





P5 P6


22

0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

0.035

0.040

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%


USD/kWh

Pipe insulation

Wall insulation

Thermostatic valves

Window change

Roof insulation






0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

0.035

0.040

0.045

0.050

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%


USD/kWh

Pipe insulation

Wall insulation

Thermostatic valves

Boiler exchange

Roof insulation


Window change





P7 P8

0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

0.035

0.040

0.045

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%


USD/kWh

Pipe insulation

Wall insulation

Thermostatic valves

Timer

Roof insulation


Shape & Orientation





0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

0.035

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%


USD/kWh

Pipe insulation

Wall insulation

Thermostatic valves

Timer

Roof insulation


Shape & Orientation





The curves rank the options in the order of their cost-effectiveness (from the bottom to the top) and provide the information of cumulative energy savings if they are applied in the order of cost-effectiveness. The graphs contain the lines illustrating the level of the domestic price of natural gas at the end of 2008, its forecast to 2012 assuming an 25%-increase/yr. in accordance with the forecast of the State Statistical Committee of the Republic of Uzbekistan, and its forecasts to 2015 and 2020 assuming a further 10%-increase/yr.16 (for all demonstration sites, natural gas is used as a space heating fuel); they divide the measures on the supply curve between those below, which provide conservation at a positive net present value over the project lifetime period and those above, which do not. When comparing the costs of efficiency options to the natural gas prices, even taking into account the short-term forecast (2012 – 2015) – i.e. the one by the end of the present project, the majority of options are cost-effective and provide a net benefit over the project lifetime. Another factor that results in higher incremental costs of energy efficiency measures is the relatively high discount rate; if the rate were equivalent to rates in higher-income countries (3-4%), the incremental costs would be approximately twice as low. Furthermore, the costs of energy conserved through almost all efficiency options considered are significantly lower than the natural gas export price (estimated 0.036 USD/kWh in 2010 based on the long-term agreement with Gazprom17) that means that the delay of implementation of these options represents a financial loss for the country because these potential natural gas savings could be exported. In conclusion, up to 6.5% and 17.5% of final energy for space heating can be saved cost-effectively over the project lifetime in reconstructed buildings if the domestic current and forecasted to 2012 energy prices

16 This will allow meeting the 2020 domestic natural gas price with the 2008 international natural gas price but it will be still lower at least by 15% than the 2020 international natural gas price forecasted according to the Annual Energy Outlook of the US Department of Energy. 17 Uzreport “Gazprom to buy 30bn cm of gas from Uzbekistan in 2010”, February 2, 2009.


23

(natural gas) are considered respectively. For new buildings, the cost-effective final energy may reach 24% and 33% over the project lifetime if the respective energy prices are considered. Costs additional to the baseline costs of capital reconstruction at the demonstration sites vary between 6% and 15% for the individual cases; cumulatively, they equal less than 10% of the overall baseline costs (Table 7).


24

Table 5: Pilot Building Data and Project Reductions in Energy Consumption and CO2 Emissions

Sites Size Costs

Final energy consumption, space heating

Final energy savings CO2 emission reductions

Baseline Alternative Incremental Baseline Alternative Annual Lifetime Annual Lifetime

Units m2 1000 US$ 1000 US$ %Baseline kWh/m2-yr. kWh/m2-yr. MWh/yr. MWh tCO2/yr. tCO2

School #38 in Nukus, Karakalpakstan

1,072 636 674 5.9% 367 206 Gas: 173

Power: 5

3,470

55

35

3

701

33

School #57 in Hodjeyli, Karakalpakstan

2,228 636 699 9.8% 305 155 Gas: 333

Power: 9

6,661

106

67

5

1,345

62

School #131 near Guzar, Kashkadarya

2,228 636 697 9.6% 198 94 Gas: 231

Power: 9

4,626

106

47

5

934

62

School #31 near Karchi, Kashkadarya

634 364 390 7.2% 253 100 Gas: 97

Power: 3

1,944

41

20

2

393

24

Hospital in Tashkent Oblast

838 285 326 14.5% 469 225 204 4,087 41 825

Psychiatric Clinic for Children in Tashkent Oblast

1,364 468 532 14.6% 426 179 336 6,717 68 1,357

School #X1, climate conditions of Nukus, Karakalpakstan

2,228 636 699 9.8% 305 158 Gas: 327

Power: 9

6,538

106

66

5

1,321

62


2,228 636 697 9.6% 398 184 Gas: 478

Power: 9

9,555

106

96

5 1,93062

Total 12,819 4,293 4,713 9.8% Gas:2,180

Power: 43

43,600

519

440

25

8,805

36


25

PART III: INSTITUTIONAL COORDINATION AND SUPPORT

A. INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENT The national implementing agency for the project will be the State Committee for Architecture and

Construction, further referred to as Gosarkhitektstroy. Gosarkhitektstroy is the lead government agency in Uzbekistan in the area of public buildings: its departments oversee areas such as building norms, design regulations and innovation, certification of building materials, tendering, and monitoring. The Energy Efficient Building Code Office at the Gosarkhitektstroy will be responsible for the overall coordination within the agency and with other stakeholders. Gosarkhitektstroy will allocate dedicated research and administrative facilities and technical staff to support project implementation on a full and part-time basis. It will also assign a National Project Director to provide for overall project guidance and coordination with the ongoing work of Gosarkhitektstroy. Several divisions within Gosarkhitektstroy will be particularly important for project implementation, such as those focusing on oversight of design organizations, the implementation of new technologies, and urban planning. The following tasks to be performed by the implementing agency were agreed upon during the project preparatory phase: Table 5: Objectives and Roles for the Government Implementing Agency (Gosarkhitektstroy)

Objective Tasks to be performed

Over-all project coordination - Co-ordination of activities within the State Committee, and between the national stakeholders (municipalities and other governmental agencies)

- Liaison with the Executive Agency (UNDP) and national and international consultants

Legislation: Introduction of new building codes

- Co-ordination of the Office and the Working Group in charge of the preparation and submission of the new code

- Draft building code (SNiP) with support from national and international experts

- Approval of final version of the code Enforcement of legislation: Ensuring that the new code requirements are met

- Elaboration of national calculation methodology to determine the energy consumption based on standardized use and fixing the minimal requirements for thermal insulation, heating and air-conditioning installations, application of renewable energy sources and design of the building

- Development of the procedures for the creation of an energy certification system for buildings, including the issuing building efficient energy passports

- Strengthening of national capacity for certification of building materials and components for the building sector

- Training for building inspectors on energy performance assessment procedures and calculation methodologies: capacity building of staff responsible at the State Committee and the local Inspectorate Departments in main cities

Pilot projects: Disseminating the results of the pilot projects and multiplying the impacts related to the adoption of the new code

- Participation in the development and implementation of an operational plan to extend the integrated building design demonstrated in the pilot project(s) to other municipalities and to the state-owned building stock

- Cooperation with municipalities, regional governments, and the Ministries of Health and Education

Dissemination: Enable the building sector to respond to more stringent building code requirements and encourage the construction of more energy efficient buildings

- Organization of a workshop on energy performance for building and construction professionals

- Training in the field of building energy performance solar architecture and applications for renewable energy sources in buildings: selection of staff and participation in training courses

- Organisation of an information campaign for the general public promoting benefits of the new building code


26

B. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENT:

UNDP will act as the GEF Implementing Agency for this Project and it will be executed under NEX execution modality. The project builds on UNDP’s strong experience in Uzbekistan and in Central Asia with promoting sustainable energy and environmental protection while strengthening the capacity of government institutions. Current and prior projects in Uzbekistan include support for strengthening the capacity of the parliament, training for civil servants, and projects related to resource use including protected areas and water supply. The UNDP Country Office in Uzbekistan will be responsible for ensuring transparency, appropriate conduct and professional auditing. Staff and Consultants will be contracted according to the established Rules and Regulations of the United Nations and all financial transactions and agreements will similarly follow the same Rules and Regulations. The Project Implementation Unit will consist of a Project Manager and a Project Assistant to be hired for the duration of the project. The project manager will be responsible for day-to-day management of all project activities, staff, consultants, disbursements, etc and for ensuring that M&E requirements are met in a timely fashion. Project Assistant will be responsible for secretarial and administrative tasks. Consultants, will be hired as required (based on pre-agreed ToRs and selection processes) by a selection committee which will include UNDP and Gosarkhitektstroj. Selection will be by unanimous agreement. The primary stakeholders in this project at the national level to be invited to participate in the Project Board are Gosarkhitektstroy, the Ministry of Economy, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education, the Energy Institute of the Academy of Sciences, Tashkent Technical University, the Tashkent Architecture-Construction Institute, the Department for the Fuel and Energy Complex under the Council of Ministers, professional building and construction organizations/associations, and other organizations working on energy efficiency, such as the Energy Centre and the Energy Institute of the Academy of Sciences. The relations between the different project stakeholders are described in Figure 1 below.


27

Figure 1: Stakeholder Involvement in Project Implementation

Component 1: Revised Building Codes

and Standards Short-term local and

international consultants

Component 2: Mandatory Audits and Energy Management Short-term local and


Component 3: Training and

Education Short-term local and


Gosarkhitektstroy

PIU: Project Manager and Assistant (full-time)

Reporting lines Cooperation with stakeholders

UNDP Uzbekistan

Project Board

Component 4: Demonstration Buildings

Short-term local and international consultants

Component 5: Outreach and Info

Dissemination Short-term local and


• Gosarkhitektstroy

• Working Group on Energy Efficient Building Codes

• Municipal and regional governments

• TACI

• Leading design institutes

• Gosarkhitektstroy

• Non-governmental organizations

• State Committee for Nature Protection

• Uzhydromet

• Building companies

• Design institutes

• Municipal and Regional Officials

• Gosarkhitektstroy and its Inspectorates

• Maintenance personnel at schools and hospitals

• Ministries of Health, Schools, & Higher Ed.


28

PART IV: EXPLAIN THE ALIGNMENT OF PROJECT DESIGN WITH THE ORIGINAL PIF:

There are no major changes in project design in comparison with the original PIF. The modifications are as follows: • The scope of project now places an expanded emphasis on retrofitting and capital reconstruction of existing

building stock because of the size of that segment in overall public sector construction projects. • The number of pilot buildings has been increased from two to eight following an assessment of costs and a decision

to include four facilities that will be retrofitted and two that will undergo capital reconstruction (Activity 4.2). • Additional stakeholders identified through outreach to other donors and the work of local consultants during the

project preparation phase are in included in Section III.A. • An activity supporting the development of a methodology for monitoring building performance has been added to

strengthen the M&E activities of the project. • Methodology for calculating the emissions from the buildings sector and the potential impact of the project

activities has been developed (see Sections II.E-II.G and Annex F) supported by energy audits. • Project Implementation Arrangements have been confirmed (see Section III.A.) • Demonstration sites for six of the eight sites in Component 4 have been selected (see Sections IIA, E, and Annex L) • The chapter concerning risks and their mitigation has been enhanced to include the discussion of energy pricing in

Uzbekistan (Part II, Section F), and the two-tiered system of natural gas pricing and trends in tariff increases have been incorporated into cost-benefit analysis (Part II, Section E).

• Council Comments on the PIF are addressed in Annex B. PART V: AGENCY(IES) CERTIFICATION

3

Agency Coordinator, Agency name

Signature

Date (Month, day,

year)

Project Contact Person

Telephone

Email Address

Yannick Glemarec

UNDP-GEF Executive

Coordinator

4/30/2009 Marina Olshanskaya UNDP-GEF Regional Technical Specialist for Climate Change, Europe and CIS

+421 2 59 337 285

[email protected]


29

LIST OF ANNEXES Annex A Project Results Framework Annex B Responses to Project Reviews Annex C Consultants to be hired for the project Annex D Status of implementation of project preparation activities and the use of funds Annex E Total Budget and Work Plan Annex F Emissions Savings Calculation Annex G List of Abbreviations Annex H Letters of co-financiers Annex I Monitoring and Evaluation Plan


30

ANNEX A: PROJECT RESULTS FRAMEWORK

Project strategy Objectively Verifiable Indicators

Goal Reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Uzbekistan by improving energy efficiency in the buildings sector Indicators Baseline Target Means of

Verification Important assumptions

Project objective: Reduce energy consumption and associated GHG emissions new and existing buildings in the education and healthcare sectors

Average thermal energy and power consumption in new/renovated public buildings

Thermal energy demand of new and existing building on average: 185 and 200 kWh/m2 respectively

Thermal energy demand reduced to an average of 140 and 150 kWh/m² (by 25%) for new and retrofitted buildings respectively

National statistics augmented by data from the energy and GHG monitoring system to be established by the project

Government continues to construct and retrofit facilities at the planned rates Monitoring established by the project is accurate and indicative

CO2 emissions of new and reconstructed education and healthcare buildings in 2014 (cca 840 new and reconstructed buildings using different space heating systems over 2010-2014, replication calculated in a similar way as in the bottom-up indirect method)

141,000 tons CO2 in 2014 (lifecycle emissions are 2.8 million tons CO2) and 352,500 tons CO2 in 2020 (lifecycle emissions are 7.05 million tons CO2)

By the end of the project (2014): 106,000 tons CO2, (lifecycle emissions = 2.1 million tons CO2), or 35,000 tons CO2 less than the baseline (lifecycle savings = 700,000 tons CO2) By the end of 10-year project influence period: 265,000 tons CO2, in 2020 (lifecycle emissions = 2.2 million tons CO2), or 87,500 tons CO2 less than the baseline

Outcome 1. New energy efficient standards and regulations are applied to more than 2 million m2 of public space in the educational and healthcare sectors commissioned annually.

Approval of updated versions of the five building codes relevant to energy consumption in public buildings

Codes for public buildings are outdated and allow energy consumption that is significantly higher than international standards

Updated codes for public buildings reduce allowable consumption by at least 25%. By the end of Year 3, all healthcare and educational facilities will be constructed or reconstructed (approx. 2 million m2) using designs that ensure a minimum 25% reduction in energy consumption from the baseline year assuming constant conditions.

Published regulations. Comparison with other codes in the region and international best practice (through international databases).

Government will approve the revised codes.

Capacity of Gosarkhitektstroy to implement energy efficiency codes

No government organization works specifically on improving energy efficiency in buildings codes; staff lack training in efficient codes

Department for Energy Efficient Codes established by the end of Year 1. Approximately 20 staff trained in efficient codes and able to oversee implementation and provide guidance to design organizations by the end of Year 2.

Annual report of Gosarkhitektstroy. Institutional analysis. Structured interviews with staff and clients.

Government will create the Department and dedicate staff to training. Trained staff will remain with the agency.

Outcome 2. Implementation of Energy audits are 80 audits are carried out annually Project Government provides and


31

Government is aware of performance in existing healthcare and educational facilities and can prioritize investments in efficiency

mandatory energy audits not carried out in the public buildings sector

(40 in schools and 40 in hospitals) by the end of the project

documentation, legislative record, interviews and documentation from implementing agency

enacts necessary regulations to mandate the audits Auditing equipment for public buildings is available and accessible to auditors

Capacity to monitor performance of existing buildings

No certification of energy performance in existing buildings, no consolidated energy information system to allow for benchmarking

Energy performance certificate scheme introduced in at least two pilot regions by the end of the project. Data collected during certification process is available through the information system.

Project documentation; data from certification system. Review of information system and cross-check with certificates issued.

Governments in two pilot regions support the certification process Implementing agency staff are tasked with system administration

Functioning system of energy managers in at least one region for two ministries: Ministry of Health and Ministry of Public Education

Building maintenance personnel do not take energy savings into account in operations and maintenance work

By Year 3, Job duties of building maintenance personnel in pilot regions include energy management tasks.

Project documentation on training courses. Record of certificates issued. Interviews with energy managers and ministry personnel.

Ministries will enroll pilot facilities. School and hospital directors will designate energy managers and allocate time for training and EE-focused tasks.

Outcome 3. Uzbek design and construction professionals have the capacity to design efficient buildings and manage their performance

Ability of practicing architects to 1) comply with more efficient codes; and 2) integrate more efficient design into their buildings

Designs do not emphasize energy efficiency and are above international standards for energy consumption

Submitted designs meet and exceed the requirements of more efficient codes by the end of the project. At least 300 architects trained by the end of the project.

Review of prototype efficient designs. Survey of first-time acceptance rate for plans and statistics on building commissioning. Independent review of energy performance of a sample of designs submitted. Structured interviews. Documentation on use of advisory services.

Architects and engineers will be interested in participating in training. Design institutes will be willing to allocate staff for training.


32

Ability of students in engineering and architecture to understand energy management in buildings and use efficient techniques and technologies in their work

No option for studying energy management in buildings; architecture students not exposed to efficient design concepts

Bachelors and masters program in energy management expanded to cover a specialization in buildings. Integrated building design introduced as a subject for architecture students.

Review of model curriculum; structured interviews

Proposed curricula will be approved by the Ministry of Higher Education.

Awareness of building sector professionals of the efficient construction materials and technologies market and awareness of suppliers about potential sales.

Low awareness of available materials that can save energy. Efficient materials market is almost non-existent.

Increased sales for materials that promote energy efficiency in buildings by Year 4 of the project.

Sales records, number of companies and products on the market and company performance, number of new products certified, trade show documentation structured survey of builders assessing awareness.

Overall market conditions will be favorable to manufacturers and distributors.

Outcome 4. Energy- and cost-saving potential of integrated building design demonstrated in two new buildings and three re-constructed buildings

Construction and commissioning completed for buildings that used the concept of Integrated Building Design

Buildings not currently designed to emphasize efficient use of energy.

Six buildings retrofitted or reconstructed by the end of Year 2 of the project. Two buildings using integrated design principles constructed by the end of Year 3 of the project. Energy performance documented by the end of the project.

Public records, analysis of designs, audit records (including baseline audits for reconstructed facilities and audits for current prototype schools and hospitals; i.e., a control group).

Government will construct and reconstruct public buildings as planned.

Project facilitates the replication of results

Design institutes currently lack prototype plans on efficient buildings.

Plans and prototype information circulated to 36 leading design institutes and other design organizations by the end of Year 2 of the project.

Project documentation. Review of designs submitted under construction tenders for public buildings. Selected review of buildings funded by budgetary and

Efficient designs will be replicable and incorporated by architects.


33

extra-budgetary construction funds for schools, hospitals and athletic facilities.

Awareness of the findings and application among key stakeholders in Uzbekistan and abroad

Results from a limited number of pilot projects in EE/RE in public buildings (10 identified over the past 2 decades) are not widely available.

Designs and performance information for pilot buildings will be available nationally and internationally by end of Year 4.

Project documentation; media review; records from international meetings, databases.

Pilot buildings will be operational and provide performance data according to schedule.

Outcome 5. Project findings influence construction practices and public administration practices in Uzbekistan

Good practice related to Energy Efficient Buildings integrated into at least one component of public administration.

Tendering, construction programs, procurement regulations, and budgetary allocations do not provide incentives for using energy more efficiently. Buildings codes for the residential sector are also relatively inefficient.

By the end of the project, there is a change in practice in at least one of the areas described in the “Baseline” column.

Review of project documentation and structured interviews. Review of government regulations as appropriate.

Ministries will be motivated to reduce the operating costs of their facilities.


35

ANNEX B: RESPONSES TO PROJECT REVIEWS (from GEF Secretariat and GEF Agencies, and Responses to Comments from Council at work program inclusion and the Convention Secretariat and STAP at PIF) Promoting Energy Efficiency Buildings in Uzbekistan Questions/Comments Response Location of response


36

EF Secretariat Comments on PIF: Question 8

For the dissemination component, it is not clear exactly what to disseminate and how to replicate. It seems that quantification of energy savings and GHG emissions reduction should be done under the relevant components (e.g., 2 and 4) rather than separately. Similarly, preparing how-to guides seems to fall under component 3, etc. For component 4 (demonstration), is the indicated financing of $10.1m ($1.5m GEF) related to the total cost of the construction of the two buildings? What is the "incremental cost" of an EE building with integrated building design over a regular one (per m2), and what is the expected pay-back period from energy savings, etc.?

The component will target sectors which are not directly targeted by the project, i.e. residential, commercial and other public buildings, and will focus on disseminating project results, such as with application of integrated building design, impact of new EE building norms and regulation on building energy performance, state of market for EE services and materials. Activities will range from an outreach programme through media and web-page, rolling-out education curricula for energy managers, analysis of lessons learnt through regular monitoring and two independent evaluations. Replication will also be achieved by helping the Government to draft the National programme for energy efficiency in buildings. Project framework has been revised. The indicated financing of $10.1mln represents the total funding requirements for two demonstration projects, including new building design, cost of construction, and monitoring of building energy performance and GHG emission reductions. Total construction cost of new building will total 9.3 mln$ with GEF-covered increment up to 0.7 mln$ or 75$/m2 for a hospital and 22$/m2 for a school building. The costs of building construction are expected to change only marginally, if at all. This is based on the assumptions that a) main share of energy savings is to come from optimizing building design by creating an effective thermal envelop, avoiding cold bridges, building location, designing compact buildings, effective use of solar gains, etc.; and b) EE construction products and materials, such as thermal insulation are already available in Uzbekistan. Pay-back estimates vary depending on particular EE solution; the most cost-effective are the introduction of thermal regulation and improved insulation (up to 1-2 years). Cost-effectiveness of integrated building design approach will be analyzed at PPG stage.

Page 2, Project Framework; Page 4, Outcome 5 of PIF Page 2 (Project Framework); Page 4, Outcomes 2, 3 and 4 of PIF Page 7, table 3 of PIF

GEF Secretariat Comments on PIF: Question 17: GEF: $300k or 9.2% Co-financing: $1m or 9.8% This looks Ok, but is it realistic to expect $1m from co-financing for

Co-financing for project management will be come from: a) UNDP’s core resources ($300K) to cover operational budget of Project Management Team, including project manager’s costs, support staff, domestic travel, office equipment, etc;: b)

Page 2 of PIF, footnote


37

project management?

Governmental agencies, namely State Committee for Construction and Architecture (200K), Ministry of Economy (100K), Ministry of Health (50K) and Ministry of Education (50K); each of them will assign dedicated staff to serve on Project Management Board and provide other inputs to ensure adequate substantive and political support to the project at national level; and c) two state-funded construction programmes in health and educational sector to cover the budget of local project coordinators at demonstration sites (300K).

GEF Secretariat Comments on PIF: Question 19: Total co-financing is $10.2m, of which $8.6m will go to the demonstration component. Please see questions above related to the cost of the two buildings.

Please see clarifications above.

GEF Secretariat Comments on PPG: Question 3: There is a co-financing amount of $115k (out of $150k) for local consultants. It is not clear what this is for, since the GEF budget seems to have covered the activities and costs for local consultants.

PPG is expected to be highly labour-intensive exercise due to the volume of data and information to be collected in the capital and project sites in the situation when data on energy consumption/saving potential are very fragmented and dispersed among many public entities. More than 20 experts from the Ministry of Economy, Finance, State Corporation for Construction Materials, Ministries of Education, Sport and Health will be engaged and provide input to project design, while GEF-funded team (national and international) will compile and analyze baseline information and define the scope and strategy of the project. Also, UNDP will contribute 50K from its core resources to support coordination and stakeholder engagement throughout PPG by covering the costs of domestic travel, stakeholder meetings, translation and other administrative expenses.

PPG Request Section C, page 3

Council Member (USA): Question regarding whether lower-than-market prices for energy in Uzbekistan will hinder the effectiveness of the proposed approach.

1) Tariffs for gas and electricity have increased significantly over the past 5 years and reached long-run marginal costs of USD 0.043/kWh in 2008. Tariffs for natural gas for schools and hospitals increased 400% from August 2000 to June 2005. Electricity tariffs for schools and hospitals increased more than 160% from April 2005 to April 2008. There is no evidence to suggest anything other than a continuation of these trends. 2) The price of natural gas internally is USD 22/1000m3, but the export price for the Russian Federation, Uzbeskistan’s primary customer, now exceeds USD 300/1000m3. Therefore, the government makes a substantial profit on natural gas that is saved and essentially “freed up” for export. 3) The project places an emphasis on design measures and building

Part II, Section E Part II, Section F Part II, Section A


38

codes precisely because schools and hospitals with “built-in” energy saving features will consume significantly less energy over their operating lifetimes even with current operations and maintenance practices. Even in the absence of extensive local incentives for reducing consumption, the buildings constructed using project expertise will reduce energy consumption substantially.

STAP Reviewer: i. Clarity and explanation on what constitutes “Integrated Building Design” approach in the context of public buildings could be provided. How will the technology package be developed? What steps would be adopted? How will the energy performance standards be revised and the basis for estimating energy efficiency be developed? ii. Baseline scenario could be more clearly explained, in addition to description of current status. iii. Since two energy efficient model public buildings are to be built, a few buildings could be selected as “Control” buildings for comparing energy efficiency and GHG emissions reduction achieved. iv. What methods and institutional arrangements will be adopted of monitoring energy conserved and GHG emission reduction achieved?

i. A definition of integrated building design as it pertains to the project is now provided. Following a market assessment and economic analysis, technology cost curves have been calculated for the mix of technologies that could be considered for the project. The discussion of Components 1 and 2 specifically addresses the revision of performance standards and estimates of energy efficiency. ii. The baseline scenario has now been thoroughly developed and assumptions are explicitly stated. iii. Control buildings will be selected in each pilot region to allow for comparison the retrofitting, capital reconstruction, and new construction. The use of similar prototype designs in different climatic regions will also provide a further basis for comparing building performance. iv. The project will use best-practice methods to ascertain economic, energy, climate, and other benefits. The project will employ an International Consultant at the inception of the project to design a cutting-edge monitoring, verification, and evaluation protocol, and a National Consultant will be employed on an ongoing basis to conduct routine project monitoring. In addition, the project will include an independent mid-term and final review.

Part II, Section A Sections II.E-II.G and Annex F Part II, Section A (Component 4); Part II, Sections E-G; Part I, M&E plan; Annex J iv. Annex C; Part I, M&E Plan; Part II, Section A (Component 5 and project management activities)

GEF Secretariat: [To be inserted following review the by GEF Secretariat] [To be inserted following the review by the GEF Secretariat]


39

ANNEX C: CONSULTANTS TO BE HIRED FOR THE PROJECT USING GEF RESOURCES

Position Titles

$/ person week

Estimated person weeks

Tasks to be performed

For Project Management Justification for Purchase of Project Vehicle: The project vehicle will be necessary to effectively monitor the progress of the demonstration building in the Tashkent Region and enable travel to the project site, which is outside the City of Tashkent, in addition to enabling project management to travel to meetings in Tashkent and the surrounding region. For Technical Assistance Local Building code expert 245 260 Provide technical expertise and advise for development of

new building codes, calculation methodology for assessment of thermal energy performance and other relevant norms and standards to incorporate mandatory provisions for integrated building design in new building codes such as climatic design, use of energy efficient materials and equipment

Institutional capacity development expert

245 208 Support the State Committee for Architecture and Construction in preparation of new enforcement procedures for building codes, building and materials certification programme and design TOR for training programme and other capacity building activities for building inspectors

Architect/Designer 245 260 Provide recommendations on application of Integrated Building Design (in close collaboration with international consultants), prepare tender documentation for building construction work, ensure technical oversight over the process of construction of two new energy efficient schools as pilot projects; and contribute to the development of educational curricula for university and act as trainer during training workshops for architects and engineers on IBD

Engineer 245 26 Consult on application of Integrated Building Design for two new energy efficient school buildings and act as trainer during training workshops for architects and engineers on IBD

Electro-mechanical engineer 245 26 Consult on application of Integrated Building Design for two new energy efficient school buildings and act as trainer during training workshops for architects and engineers on IBD

PR specialist 245 71 Design and undertake promotional campaign to disseminate results of IBD pilots among municipalities, building industry professionals, other decision-makers and building occupants

EE training curricula development specialist

245 208 Contribute to the design of new educational curricula and teachers’ guide on EE building design and participate as a trainer in roll-out of the programme in first stage (along with relevant international experts).

Construction materials and insulation specialist

245 84 Make analysis on construction materials used in building construction sector, collect information on local producers of construction materials; propose locally available energy efficient materials that can be used for building construction; development of a data-base and catalogue on best available materials and construction materials

Energy and GHG monitoring specialist

245 132 Review and analyze existing information sources; effectiveness of collection, assessment, and use of data on energy consumption in buildings and develop recommendations on institutional and technical aspects for establishment of a unified energy consumption and GHG monitoring system in buildings

International Architect/Designer 3,000 76 Provide advice on development of improved energy


40

performance codes (IBD) (30%) Technical oversight over Integrated Building Design pilot projects construction and monitoring, including consultant coordination and site inspections for 2 new energy efficient schools (60%). Act as trainer for training workshops for architects and engineers on IBD, as well as for EE building educational curricula in universities (10%)

Civil Engineer 3,000 18 Provide advice on development of improved energy performance codes (civil engineering) (30%) Advice on civil engineering planning following Integrated Building Design methodologies for 2 new energy efficient school buildings (60%). Act as trainer for training workshops for architects and engineers on IBD, as well as for EE building educational curricula in universities (10%)

Electro-mechanical Engineer 3,000 12 Provide advice on development of improved energy performance codes (appliances) (30%) Advice on power consumption optimization following Integrated Building Design methodologies for the two demonstration sites (60%). Act as trainer for training workshops for architects and engineers on IBD, as well as for EE building educational curricula in universities (10%)

Building Physics Engineer 3,000 12 Provide advice on development of improved energy performance codes (building physics) (30%) Consultant for building physics following Integrated Building Design methodologies for 2 new energy efficient schools as pilot projects (60%). Act as trainer for training workshops for architects and engineers on IBD, as well as for EE building educational curricula in universities (10%)

EE Building Code Expert 3,000 36 Support to the State Committee on Architecture and Construction in drafting the new energy performance-related codes and incorporation of international best practices

Energy/Certification Expert 3,000 35 Expert consultant in developing improved building energy performance standards and codes including calculation methodologies. Support developing standardized building material and building energy certification and labels. Assistance to develop strategies for the uptake and handling of the new standards, codes, certification procedures and labels. Consultant for training workshops for architects and engineers. Expert consultant for developing training courses for building auditors, architects and engineers.

Energy /GHG monitoring specialist for buildings

3,000 8 Develop recommendations and support establishment of energy/GHG monitoring system in building sector


41

ANNEX D: STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF PROJECT PREPARATION ACTIVITIES AND THE USE OF FUNDS

A. EXPLAIN IF THE PPG OBJECTIVE HAS BEEN ACHIEVED THROUGH THE PPG ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN. The PPG objective was achieved. The proposed activities were undertaken successfully, and they allowed for sufficient data collection and outreach to key stakeholders. As a result, the project design has been refined and enhanced to ensure that it both reflects the most complete possible current information on energy consumption, costs, and emissions in the public buildings sector in Uzbekistan, and that it best meets the needs of the project beneficiaries and reflects the input of all relevant experts and officials. B. DESCRIBE FINDINGS THAT MIGHT AFFECT THE PROJECT DESIGN OR ANY CONCERNS ON PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION, IF ANY: No concerns about project implementation arose as the result of the PPG activities. The PPG support for more detailed research into construction costs, government priorities for new and reconstructed facilities, and low-cost energy efficiency measures that were readily available will allow the proposed project design to address a larger number of buildings than originally anticipated. C. PROVIDE DETAILED FUNDING AMOUNT OF THE PPG ACTIVITIES AND THEIR IMPLEMENTATION STATUS IN THE TABLE BELOW:

Project Preparation Activities Approved

Sub-activities/actions

Implementation Status (Completed or Yet to complete)

GEF Amount ($)

Co-financing (UNDP)

($)

Amount Approved**

Amount Spent Todate

Amount Committed

Uncommitted Amount*

Activity 1. Baseline data collection and

information gap analysis

1. Collecting data on social and economic development context in Uzbekistan focusing on sectoral analysis of energy, building construction, public education and health. Assessment of technical, financial and economic aspects of public buildings energy performance. Defining socio-economic barriers to effective promotion of EE in public buildings and integrated building design approach including capacity barriers.

Analysis of the

baseline is prepared

29,000.00 USD

26,470.75 USD (2008);

4,412.86 USD

(01.04.2009). Total:

30,883.61 USD

N/A N/A 30,000.00

USD 2. Collecting data on energy consumption levels in the existing public buildings; inventory of the relevant existing information sources. 2.1 Analysis of effectiveness of collection, assessment, and use of data on EE in public buildings at the local and national levels 3. Collecting data on capacities of the construction sector: manufacturers, type of construction materials used, production


42

capacities and concordance with existing norms and standards. 4. Detailed analysis of the building codes applied to design and construction of public buildings as well as other norms and standards related to promotion of integrated building design approach: inventory of existing hot spots. 4.1 Analysis and prioritization of codes, norms and standards to be revised and/or incorporated. 4.2 Analysis of current energy efficiency impact assessment, monitoring and enforcement mechanisms 4.3 Analysis of current energy efficiency impact assessment, monitoring and enforcement mechanisms 4.4 Analysis of current energy efficiency impact assessment, monitoring and enforcement mechanisms 4.5 Analysis of current energy efficiency impact assessment, monitoring and enforcement mechanisms 5. Assessment of other existing barriers to the promotion of EE in building activities: public education and health sectoral analysis 5.1 Collecting data on RE solutions 5.2 Identification and prioritization of major barriers to be addressed at FSP 6. Assessment of the existing energy consumption auditing and energy efficiency certification practices at the local, provincial, and national levels. 6.1 Assessment of the scope, feasibility and capacities for implementing integrated building design approaches at the national context

Activity 2. Institutional capacity assessment for

promotion of energy efficiency in public

buildings

1. Collecting and analyzing information on existing policies, legal and regulatory framework for energy management in public buildings in Uzbekistan. Defining deficiencies in the policy and legal framework.

Institutional capacity

assessment is prepared

15,200.00 USD

1,268.42 USD (2008);

3,648.15 USD

(01.04.2009) Total:

4,916.57 USD

8,399.82 USD

N/A 15,000.00

USD 2. Assessment of existing institutional framework on energy efficiency in public buildings including, institutional and legal


43

arrangements and institutional capacity gaps at all levels will be assessed. 3. Identifying capacity needs for effective construction of EE public buildings and development of corresponding recommendation for the full project. 4. Analysis of successful institutional models and best practices from past and on-going EE buildings projects in GEF portfolio. 5. Proposing institutional arrangements for effective promotion and incorporation of EE building codes, standards, norms, and energy management mechanisms and the relevant replication strategy.

Activity 3. Stakeholder Engagement and

Ownership/Endorsement

1. Stakeholder analysis including national and provincial government agencies, industrial and private sector, civil society and academic institutions. Stakeholders’ economic interests and current and potential roles in public buildings’ energy efficiency and energy management activities will be identified.

Stakeholder analysis is prepared

7,200.00 USD

4,312.53 USD (2008);

2,887.47 USD

N/A 5,000.00

USD

2. Development of stakeholder involvement strategy and plan. 3. Assessment of stakeholder capacities for implementing energy consumption reduction in public buildings and proposing capacity building and awareness raising measures 4. Assessment of opportunities for public-private partnerships. Series of stakeholder consultations organized to ensure local and national ownership of the proposed project. A focus will be made on the monitoring of energy consumption levels in public buildings. 5. Organizing a PPG inception workshop

Activity 4. Demonstration projects and replication strategy

1. Scoping of demonstration projects

Demonstration sites are chosen

55,600.00 USD

49,564.21 USD (2008)

6,035.79 USD

1.1 Consultations on the type and scope of demonstration projects and selection of demonstration sites 1.2 Baseline information on the demonstration sites will be collected to establish a measurable monitoring and evaluation framework for the project 1.3 Estimated GHG reductions 2. Lessons learning and replication strategy


44

2.1 Developing the full project replication strategy and plan, including identification of potential lessons and knowledge products and stocktaking of existing major building constructors and owners networks and partnerships 2.2 Institutional systems and means for replication and up-scaling of demonstrated models, as well as the strategy to integrate project results and lessons learnt in the future national policies on energy efficiency in all building sectors

Activity 5. Project Scoping and Definition

1. Preparing a list of priority barriers to promoting energy efficiency in public buildings

Full-sized project

document is prepared

43,000.00 USD

12,792.25 USD (2008);

29,592.10 USD

(01.04.2009). Total:

42,384.35 USD

615.65 USD

N/A

2. Cost effectiveness analysis to identify the most effective project alternative. 3. Proposing a set of viable outcomes, outputs and activities that constitute the most effective response to the identified barriers to promoting energy efficiency in public buildings 4. Confirmation of project sites and types of demonstration projects based on the priority issues and hot spots identified in the preliminary assessment of promoting energy efficiency in public buildings and integrated building design approach can be applied to, prepared during the PPG stage 5. Scope for promoting energy efficiency in public buildings activities 6. Local, national and global environmental benefits sought, including estimation of project GHG emission reduction (direct and indirect) 7. Social, economic and financial sustainability of proposed project activities 8. Cost of expected project outcomes and outputs, co-financing sources and co-financing commitments in compliance with the GEF instrumentality principle 9. Set of CC indicators (tons CO2eq avoided, adoption of standards and codes, kWh or TOE of energy saved in new construction and renovation per sq. meter) to track the project’s


45

progress and effectiveness, baseline and target values on indicators 9.1 Revisions 10. Project M&E plan with baseline 11. Learning and replication strategy

Total 150,000.00 USD

132,061.27 USD

17,938.73 USD

N/A 50,000.00 USD


46

Annex E Total Budget and Work Plan

SECTION III: TOTAL BUDGET AND WORKPLAN

Award ID: To be added

Award Title: PIMS 4158 CC FSP: Uzbekistan Public Buildings EE FP

Project ID: To be added

Project Title: PIMS 4158 CC FSP: Uzbekistan Public Buildings EE FP

Executing Agency: UNDP GEF

Outcome/Atlas Activity

Responsible Party

(Implement-ing Agent)

Source of Funds

Atlas Budgetary Account

Code

ERP/ATLAS Budget

Description/Input

Amount (USD) Year 1

Amount (USD) Year 2

Amount (USD) Year 3

Amount (USD) Year 4

Amount (USD) Year 5

Total (USD)

Budget notes

OUTCOME 1: [Atlas activity]

UNDP 6200 GEF

71300 Local consultants 18728 18728 18728 18728 14269 89181

71200 International consultants

89100 53460 19440 - - 162000

72100 Contractual services – companies

1500 4470 15060 12000 2970 36000

1

72800 Equipment - - - - - -

74500 Miscellaneous - - - - - -

71600 Travel 27342 17442 11232 2592 2592 61200

sub-total 136670 94100 64460 33320 19831 348381


UNDP 6200 GEF



15000 18000 18000 15000 15000 81000


40000 104000 20000 10000 - 174000

2

72800 Equipment

120000 - - 50000 - 170000 3

74500 Miscellaneous

- 18000 - - - 18000 4

71600 Travel 3252 3252 4302 4302 3252 18360

sub-total 189238 154238 58492 95492 21721 519181

UTCOME 3: [Atlas activity]

UNDP 6200 GEF

71300 Local consultants 23594 17302 5767 5767 - 52430


- - 78000 - - 78000


47


12500 1250 1250 1250 3750 20000

5

72800 Equipment - - - - - -

74200 Audio, Video, and Print Production

Costs

- 12000 15000 3000 - 30000 6

71600 Travel 2088 1531 510 510 - 4639

sub-total 38182 32083 100527 10527 3750 185069


UNDP 6200 GEF



112320 93600 28080 - - 234000


- 60000 60000 500 500 121000

7

72800 Equipment

- 578500 578500 - - 1157000 8

74500 Miscellaneous - - - - - -

71600 Travel 25574 21614 7236 1296 259 55979

sub-total 159160 774980 689006 16986 3797 1643929


UNDP 6200 GEF



- - - 21000 21000 42000


- - 20000 35000 45000 100000

9

72800 Equipment - - - - - -

74500 Miscellaneous

- - - 3000 3000 6000 10

71600 Travel 1037 1037 1814 10814 9778 24480

sub-total 4212 4212 27371 75371 81159 192325

Project Management [Atlas activity]

UNDP 0012 UNDP



- - - - - -


5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 25000

11

72200 Vehicle

25000 25000 12

72800 Equipment

12000 - - - - 12000 13


48

74500 Miscellaneous

5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 25000 14

71600 Travel 2872 2872 2872 2872 2872 14360

sub-total UNDP PM

83776 46776 46776 46776 46776 270880

6200 GEF 72200 Vehicle

25000 25000 12

sub-total All PM 108776 46776 46776 46776 46776 295880

TOTAL GEF 552462 1059613 939856 231696 130258 2913885

TOTAL 636238 1106389 986632 278472 177034 3184765

Budget notes

1 These expenses include a workshop for member of the EE buildings codes working group, three trainings for the Department of Energy Efficient Codes at the Gosarkhitektstroj, and 8 trainings for regional officials of Gosarkhitektstroj on implementing and enforcement of the new codes.

2 These include: conduct of audits and training on auditing (contract to cover the development of the technical specifications for audits, travel, workshops organized, and training provided); the development and implementation of a study tour to address auditing and performance certification programs; services to develop a draft scheme for energy performance certificates; preparation of technical specifications and tendering documentation for an energy management system; software and user training for the energy management system; and training for facilities managers in the three demonstration regions (Tashkent Region, Kashkadarya, and Karakalpakstan).

3 Equipment includes auditing equipment; computer hardware for the energy management system; auditing equipment (combustion analyzers, electronic thermometers, and temperature data loggers) for regional offices of ministries.

4 Editing, layout, and publication costs of the “energy manager” curriculum (development costs covered under the LC Curriculum Specialist). 5 Two training sessions for key architects and engineers on code compliance; eight “master classes” for largest design institutes in the field of

public sector construction on integrated building design; participation in Buildings Exposition, including stand 6 Publication of a CD-ROM that contains the database of best available technologies and materials (development of database covered by LC

Construction Materials). Editing, layout, and publication of a “reader” (guide and anthology of relevant regional regional articles) on energy efficiency measures, Integrated Building Design, and technologies and materials (coordinated by LC Architect).

7 For preparation of technical documentation and tender specification in support of the buildings materials, technologies, and services to be provided in the reconstruction of six public buildings and the construction of two new public buildings (assess needs in terms of relevant materials, technologies, and services, collect and verify specifications, prepare tendering documentation, and support the evaluation of proposed offers in the form of technical evaluations of proposals and guidance to the extent required by the project team and the government counterparts.: Project CD-ROM in English, Russian and Uzbek including site descriptions, materials and techniques used, blueprints, results and summary presentations including photo documentation.

8 Construction equipment includes construction materials and technologies required for the energy efficiency-related reconstruction of six buildings and construction of two new buildings. Auditing equipment to measure energy performance of the eight buildings consists of gas meters, heat meters, water meters, temperature sensors with data loggers for indoor and outdoor monitoring, and computer and software for data collection from eight sites.

9 Mid-term evaluation and final evaluation; report on opportunities to mainstream energy efficiency into public administration practices in Uzbekistan; Publications of prototype designs for public buildings for technical audience; editing layout, and publication of project results in the form of a brochure, a summary for policy-makers, and a booklet.

10 Two round-table meetings for policy-makers on mainstreaming energy efficiency into the practice of public administration. 11 Annual financial audit for project 12 Cost-shared project vehicle for travel related to project management 13 Computer hardware and software for project unit, printer, projector 14 Sundries (office supplies and telecommunications)


49

Summary of Funds:

Amount Year 1 (USD)

Amount Year 2 (USD)

Amount Year 3 (USD)

Amount Year 4 (USD)

Amount Year 5 (USD)

Total

GEF 552,462 1,059,613 939,856 231,696 130,258 2,913,885 UNDP 83,776 46,776 46,776 46,776 46,776 270,880

Government

(cash and in-kind) 370,000 370,000 1,770,000 3,820,000 3,870,000 10,200,000

TOTAL 1,006,238 1,476,389 2,756,632 4,098,472 4,047,034 13,384,765


50

ANNEX F: CO2 EMISSIONS SAVING CALCULATIONS This Annex calculates the CO2 emission reduction18 associated with the implementation of the present GEF project. The Annex includes the calculation methodology, description of the direct emission reductions of the project as well as the emission reductions achievable through the country-wide replication effect. A. Overall methodology for calculation of GHG emission reductions The methodology for calculation of CO2 emission reductions relies on the GEF Manual for Calculating GHG Benefits of GEF Projects: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Projects. The main steps of the procedure are presented in Figure F-1 below.

18 The only greenhouse gas associated with energy services covered by the GEF project is carbon dioxide.


51

Figure A-1 Four steps to calculate GHG impacts

B. Definition note Based on the national building practice, the present annex separates the next terms:

1. Capital reconstruction (рус. капитальная реконструкция) – a set of measures aimed to restore and to improve a building, often due to its physical deterioration, but also, for instance, to enlarge it or to use for other purposes; these measures may change technical characteristics of a building.

2. Capital renovation (рус. капитальный ремонт) – a set of measures aimed to cure the physical deterioration; these measures typically do not change of the main technical characteristics of a building.

C. Project direct emission reductions The project will participate in construction and reconstruction of eight public buildings in different climate zones. These are:

5. Reconstruction of two school buildings at existing sites: P1 School #38 in Nukus, Karakalpakstan: one building for 315 students (1312 m²) P4 School #31 near Karchi, Kashkadarya: one building for 180 students (634 m²)

6. Reconstruction of two existing hospitals: P5 Hospital in Tashkent Oblast: reconstruction of the existing building for 100 patients (838 m²) P6 Psychiatric Clinic for Children in Tashkent Oblast: reconstruction and expansion of the existing building from 734 m² to 1364 m².

7. Reconstruction of two school buildings (the schools have a similar design, which will allow for the comparison of building performance in different climatic conditions):

P2 School #57 in Hodjeyli, Karakalpakstan: reconstruction a school for 315 students (2228 m²) P3 School #131 near Guzar, Kashkadarya: reconstruction a school for 315 students (2228 m²)

8. Construction of two new school buildings (to be selected during project implementation when information on the sites selected for government funding will become available):

P7&P8 Schools #X1&X2: construction of two new typical schools for 315 students/each (similar to P2&P3 prototypes but assuming an additional 20% reduction of space heating requirement due to an improved shape and building orientation; the associated investment costs are negligible, because these options are realized during the planning phase by an architect).

Options of building thermal retrofit were selected by the International Consultant/Architect using the Net Present Value method and relying on the indicator of payback period of efficiency investments. The potential for energy conservation associated with these options is further analyzed in the present Annex using the method of supply curve of energy conserved. The supply curve of energy conserved19 characterizes the potential for energy savings from a sequence of energy-efficiency technological options as a function of marginal costs per unit of energy conserved. The main advantage of the supply curve analysis is that it provides comprehensive, easy-to-read information on suggested efficiency technologies, their incremental costs, their potential energy saving and the best schedule for their implementation. Probably one of the most useful advantages of the supply curves is that estimates of the potential for energy conservation is already adjusted for the effects of overlapping options that are targeted at the same energy end-uses (this means that the potential for energy savings associated with implementation of different options illustrated on the curve is addable). The supply curves of conserved energy often contain the horizontal line representing the price of energy; it divides the measures on the supply curve between those below, which provide conservation at a positive net present value over the project lifetime period and those above, which do not. The supply curves of conserved energy which help to analyze the demonstration sites of the GEF project are presented in Figure C1. The main assumptions of the curves are: a) a project lifetime of 20 years; and b) the discount rate of

19 In the last fifteen years, the supply curve framework has also been replicated for the analysis of the potential for GHG emission mitigation, in this case definitions and the analysis are analogical.


52

10%.20 The curves rank the options in the order of their cost-effectiveness (from the bottom to the top) and provide the information of cumulative energy savings if they are applied in the order of cost-effectiveness. The graphs contain the lines illustrating the level of the domestic price of natural gas at the end of 2008, its forecast to 2012 assuming an 25%-increase/yr. in accordance with the forecast of the State Statistical Committee of the Republic of Uzbekistan, and its forecasts to 2015 and 2020 assuming a further 10%-increase/yr.21 (for all demonstration sites, natural gas is used as a space heating fuel). Comparing the costs of efficiency options to the natural gas price, even taking into account the short-term forecast (2012 – 2015) – i.e. the one by the end of the present project, the conclusion is that the majority of options are cost-effective over the project lifetime. Furthermore, the costs of energy conserved through almost all efficiency options considered are significantly lower than the natural gas export price (estimated 0.036 USD/kWh in 2010 based on the long-term agreement with Gazprom22) that means that the delay of implementation of these options represents a financial loss for the country because these potential natural gas savings could be exported. Another factor which results in higher incremental costs of energy conservation is the relatively high discount rate; if it would be on the level of developed economies (3-4%), the incremental costs would be approximately twice lower. Figure C-1 Supply curves of conserved energy for the demonstration sites P1 P2

0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

0.035

0.040

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%


USD/kWh


Pipe insulation

Wall insulation

Thermostatic valves

Timer

Roof insulation





0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

0.035

0.040

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%


USD/kWh

Pipe insulation

Wall insulation

Thermostatic valves

Timer

Roof insulation






P3 P4

0.000

0.010

0.020

0.030

0.040

0.050

0.060

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%


USD/kWh

Pipe insulation

Wall insulationThermostatic valves

Timer

Roof insulation






0.000

0.010

0.020

0.030

0.040

0.050

0.060

0.070

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%


USD/kWh

Pipe insulation

Wall insulation

Thermostatic valves

Timer

Roof insulation


Window change





20 This is a very high discount rate which makes some options not cost-effective if the domestic energy prices are taken into account (discussed further). The discount rate used in the stable developed economies is typically 3-6% and usually the rate in the interval is taken for calculations. Nevertheless, the analysis of the Uzbekistan economic system shows that the current discount rate for the public sector is even higher than the one taken, about 20% (an indicator of unstable, weak economy); therefore the 10% discount rate is already a optimistic case for the country and this is why this discount rate was used even though high for an outsider. 21 This will allow meeting the 2020 domestic natural gas price with the 2008 international natural gas price but it will be still lower at least by 15% than the 2020 international natural gas price forecasted according to the Annual Energy Outlook of the US Department of Energy. 22 Uzreport “Gazprom to buy 30bn cm of gas from Uzbekistan in 2010”, February 2, 2009.


53

P5 P6

0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

0.035

0.040

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%


USD/kWh

Pipe insulation

Wall insulation

Thermostatic valves

Window change

Roof insulation






0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

0.035

0.040

0.045

0.050

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%


USD/kWh

Pipe insulation

Wall insulation

Thermostatic valves

Boiler exchange

Roof insulation


Window change





P7 P8

0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

0.035

0.040

0.045

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%


USD/kWh

Pipe insulation

Wall insulation

Thermostatic valves

Timer

Roof insulation


Shape & Orientation





0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

0.035

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%


USD/kWh

Pipe insulation

Wall insulation

Thermostatic valves

Timer

Roof insulation


Shape & Orientation





The additional to the baseline costs of capital reconstruction of demonstration sites vary in the interval 6 – 15% for the individual cases but cumulatively are less than 10% of the overall baseline costs (Table C-1). Table C-1 Incremental (re)construction costs of demo-projects

N Demonstration sites Baseline GEF scenario Difference Difference

US$ US$ US$ % Baseline

P1 School #38 in Nukus, Karakalpakstan 636,161 673,733 37,572 5.9%

P2 School #57 in Hodjeyli, Karakalpakstan 636,161 698,809 62,648 9.8%

P3 School #131 near Guzar, Kashkadarya 636,161 697,033 60,871 9.6%

P4 School #31 near Karchi, Kashkadarya 363,521 389,567 26,046 7.2%

P5 Hospital in Tashkent Oblast 284,798 326,113 41,315 14.5%

P6 Psychiatric Clinic for Children in Tashkent Oblast 463,726 531,574 67,848 14.6%

P7 School #X1 in Nukus, Karakalpakstan (sim. to P2) 636,161 698,809 62,648 9.8%

P8 School #X2 in Nukus, Karakalpakstan (sim. to P3) 636,161 697,033 60,871 9.6%

Total 4,292,849 4,712,669 419,820 9.8%

The Figure C-1 above attests that taking into account the international energy prices, almost all energy-efficiency options are cost-effective for demo-sites over the project lifetime and therefore, the full potential associated with all these options was taken into account detailing further the direct emission reductions according to the GEF Manual. Direct emission reductions of the project are estimated based on the following formula (the GEF Manual):


54

CO2 direct = E * L * C, where E – annual energy savings C – CO2 emission factor L – an average useful lifetime of buildings (the lifetime of a building is longer than that of the project, this is why the period of 20 years recommended by the GEF manual is used) The results of calculations of CO2 emission reductions of the demonstration buildings over their 20 year lifetime are presented in Table C-2 below. According to the Table, the direct project CO2 emission reductions from improving the thermal performance of buildings and lighting systems are 8,805 and 306 tCO2 over 20 years respectively.


55

Table C-2 Direct project CO2 emission savings

N Sites Energy service

Heated floor area

Final energy consumption for space heating CO2 emissions Lifetime energy savings and CO2 emission reductions

Baseline Alternative scenario

Difference Annual energy saving

CO2 emission factor

Annual direct emission reductions

Lifetime of the building

Total lifetime energy savings

Total lifetime emission reductions

Units m2 kWh/m2-yr. kWh/m2-yr. kWh/m2-yr. MWh/yr. gCO2/kWh tCO2/yr. Years MWh tCO2

Formula A B C D = B - C E = A x D F G = E x F H I = E x H J = G x H

P1 School #38 in Nukus, Karakalpakstan

Space heating

1,072 367 206 162 173 202 35 20 3470 701

Lighting Different methodology was used for lighting 5 589 3 12 55 33

P2 School #57 in Hodjeyli, Karakalpakstan

Space heating

2,228 305 155 149 333 202 67 20 6661 1,345


P3 School #131 near Guzar, Kashkadarya

Space heating

2,228 198 94 104 231 202 47 20 4626 934


P4 School #31 near Karchi, Kashkadarya

Space heating

634 253 100 153 97 202 20 20 1944 393


P5 Hospital in Tashkent Oblast

Space heating

838 469 225 244 204 202 41 20 4087 825

P6 Psychiatric Clinic for Children in Tashkent Oblast

Space heating

1,364 426 179 246 336 202 68 20 6717 1,357

P7


Space heating

2,228 305 158 147 327 202 66 20 6538 1,321


P8


Space heating

2,228 398 184 214 478 202 96 20 9555 1,930


P1-P8 Total Space heating

12,819

2,180 440 43,600 8,805

P1-P8 Total Lighting

43 25 519 306


56

D. Replication and indirect impact according to the Bottom-Up Approach As recommended by the GEF Manual, the bottom-up approach was used to calculate the GHG emission reductions. The GEF bottom-up approach implies the replication of the project methodology and investments to other buildings in Uzbekistan based on the following formula: CO2 indirect BU = CO2 direct * RF, where CO2 direct = estimate for total direct emission reductions RF = replication factor The direct CO2 emission reductions were estimated in the previous section; the replication factor, however, requires careful consideration - there is no straightforward approach to assume it. The replication factor was calculated based on the assumption that a quarter of schools and hospitals/clinics planned for construction and capital reconstruction in the regions of demonstration sites can directly replicate the project methodology, and therefore results, for the 10 years immediately following the completion of the project demonstration sights. This gives a replication factor of approximately 300 for new schools, 1400 for reconstructed schools, and 400 for reconstructed hospitals/clinics. The results of calculations of the replication effect are provided in Table D-1 below. According to the table, the indirect lifetime project CO2 emission reductions from improving the thermal performance of buildings and lighting systems are 2,103,000 and 136,000 tCO2 over 10 years, respectively. A time period of 10 years is used for the influence period in these estimates as per GEF recommendations. Table D-1 Indirect project CO2 emission savings (replicated according to the BU approach)

Sites Energy services

Heated floor area of show-cases

Lifetime energy savings and CO2 emission reductions

Replication factor Bottom-up lifetime results of the project replication

Energy savings

Emission reductions

Years: 2011-2020

Units/ region /yr.

Regions covered

Replication factor

Energy savings

Emission reductions

Units m2 MWh tCO2 GWh 1000 tCO2

Average new school

Space heating

2,228 8,047 1,625 10 15 2 300 2414 488

Lighting 176 104 10 15 2 300 53 31

Average reconstructed school

Space heating

1,540 4,161 840 10 70 2 1400 5825 1176

Lighting 128 75 10 70 2 1400 179 105

Average hospital / clinic

Space heating

1,101 5,432 1,097 10 40 1 400 2173 439

E. Replication and indirect impact according to the Top-Down Approach As recommended by the GEF Manual, the indirect impact of the project was also estimated using the Top-Down Approach. The present Section E of the Annex which describes these estimates is split into four parts. First, it forecasts the stock of public buildings (Section E1) and the CO2 emission factors (Section E2). Then, it defines the business-as-usual baseline and a set of GEF scenarios (Section E3). Finally, it estimates energy consumption of public buildings and associated CO2 emissions for scenarios defined (Section E4).

E1. Forecast of the floor area of public buildings The forecast of the floor (heated) area of education and health buildings was constructed based on: estimates of the number of buildings of each type, average floor area of buildings of each type, population forecast, information about the national programmes and plans on building construction and capital renovation, past trends of building construction


57

and renovation, and assumptions regarding the future capacity and technical characteristics of public buildings. Due to the large number of these data, the Annex reports only the key assumptions, intermediary and final results of this forecast. Table E1-1 presents the results of the floor area calculation for education and health buildings in 2008; they were based on the estimate of the average floor area of these buildings and data from a set of the recent national statistical publications. Table E1-1 Estimate of the floor area in public buildings of Uzbekistan, 2008 Types of institutions Thousand m2

Educational institutions

Universities and institutes 620

Secondary specialized and professional institutions 6,033

Institutions of extracurricular education 102

Boarding schools, orphan homes, children homes, residential schools, etc. 890

Pre-schools and nurseries 3,408

Schools 38,504

Health institutions

Hospitals 4,206

Clinics (incl. rural health clinics) 3,316 The key assumptions, which determined the demand for new construction, are listed below and their indicators are summarized in Table E1-2:

1. The constant share of university students and students of secondary specialized and professional institutions in the total population. The absolute number of these students will increase, but the relative share is unlikely to grow: this if first because the present share of these students in the national population is able to address the need in tertiary education of each person of Uzbekistan, and second in its education policy Uzbekistan orients to such developed regions as the European Union and the EU share of the tertiary students in the total population is already lower than that of Uzbekistan

2. The increasing share of children and youth attending the dedicated institutions providing extracurricular education (the optimistic case)

3. The constant share of children attending/living in all types of boarding schools, orphan homes, children homes, residential schools, etc. (the optimistic case). This share has been increasing recently in Uzbekistan, but it is assumed that due to the economic recovery of the country this share will stabilize

4. The increasing share of 0-6 year-old children attending kindergartens and the increasing occupancy of kindergartens (optimistic case). During the last two decades, the number of children attending kindergartens dropped dramatically due to high unemployment rates of parents. It is assumed that the economic situation will improve by 2030, creating new jobs – and, consequently, more children attending kindergartens.

5. The constant capacity of hospital beds and visits to clinics. These indicators have been declining significantly lately due to the health sector reforms aimed to improve its efficiency; currently the capacity indicators (number of beds and capacity to accept visits to clinics per shift per 10 000 people) are close to the European level, which was the orientation of the Uzbek health policy

Table E1-2 Assumptions for forecast of the stock of public buildings, 2007 - 2030 Assumptions 2007 2030

Education buildings Share of university students in the total population 1.1% 1.1%

Share of students of secondary specialized and professional institutions in the total population 4.4% 4.4%

Share of children (0-17 yr.) visiting the institutions of extracurricular education (located in dedicated buildings) 0.3% 0.5%

Share of children in all types of boarding schools, orphan homes, children homes, residential schools, etc. 1.2% 1.2%

Share of children (0-6 yr.) visiting kindergartens 13.1% 20.0%


58

Health buildings

Hospital beds per 10 000 people 51 51

Visits to clinics per shift per 10 000 people 153 153 The building stock dynamics and the floor area forecasted were calculated applying assumptions listed above to the population forecast (Figure E1-1). The population forecast suggests that the country population will grow by ca 35% during the nearest two decades as compared to 2009. This is mainly due to the past high birth rates and growing share of the medium-age and elderly people; the share of children has been stabilized and it will decline after 2020. Figure E1-1 Population forecast, 1980 - 2030

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

2022

2024

2026

2028

2030

Million people

Population aged 60 or over

Population aged 25-59



Population aged 0-4

Source: constructed based on the medium scenario of the Population Division of the Department of Economic and

Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat, 2006.

Available information about the following programs was taken into account:

1. Ongoing National Programme of Professional Training 2. Ongoing National Programme of General Education Development 3. Ongoing National Programme of Construction and Capital Reconstruction of Children’s Recreational Facilities 4. Planned Programme of Construction and Capital Reconstruction of High Schools and Universities 5. Planned Programme of Construction and Capital Reconstruction of Hospitals

The forecast of the floor area of education and health buildings to 2030 constructed based on the above assumptions and data is presented in Figure E1-2 below.


59

Figure E1-2 Forecast of the floor area of public buildings, 2009 - 2030

Universities and institutes

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

thousand m2

Constructed after 2009 (new, replaced and added during capital renovation) area

Constructed before 2008

Secondary specialized and professional schools

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

thousand m2



Secondary comprehensive schools

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

thousand m2

Constructed after 2009 (new, replaced and added during capital renovation) area Constructed before 2008

Pre-schools

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

thousand m2


Boarding schools, orphan homes, residential schools, etc.

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

thousand m2



Institutions for extracurricular education of children

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

thousand m2



Hospitals

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

thousand m2



Clinics

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

thousand m2


E2. Forecast of CO2 emission factors


60

Emission factors of primary fuels CO2 emission factors of primary fuels in Uzbekistan have been estimated by the Ministry of Economy of Uzbekistan in Guidelines for Development of CDM projects (2006) and they are presented in Table E2-1. CO2 emission factors of primary fuel combustion do not change significantly over time and therefore they are assumed to be constant over the projection period until 2030. Table E2-1 CO2 emission factors of primary fuels

Fuels Emission factor, gCO2/kWh Natural gas 202 Hard coal 341 Fuel oil (mazut) 279 Gas of underground gasification 346 Source: Ministry of Economy of Uzbekistan (2006). Guidelines for development of CDM projects of Uzbekistan.

Emission factor of electricity CO2 emissions of electricity generated by domestic23 thermal power plants and cogeneration plants are estimated based on the recent energy balance of these facilities (see summary in Table E2-2). Based on this balance, the weighted average CO2 emission factor of electricity in 2007 is 600 gCO2/kWh. Table E2-2 Energy balance of the power sector and estimate of the CO2 emission factor of electricity, 2007

Power stations Generation Fuel used Efficiency CO2 emissions CO2 emission factor

GWh/yr. GWh/yr. % ktCO2 gCO2/kWh

Thermal power plants

Syrdarja TPP 13,502 39,769 38% 8,207 608

Tashkent TPP 6,356 19,503 35% 4,125 649

New-Angren TPP 5,703 17,550 36% 4,351 763

Navoi TPP 6,711 16,478 36% 3,328 496

Talimardzhan TPP 5,648 14,342 46% 2,896 513

Takhiatash TPP 2,650 8,840 33% 1,785 674

Angren TPP 569 1,320 34% 436 766

Cogeneration plants Mubarek Cogeneration Plant 434 480 95% 97 223

Tashkent Cogeneration Plant 192 214 94% 43 226

Fergan Cogeneration Plant 594 753 78% 166 279

Total 42,360 119,249 25,434 600

Note: TPP – thermal power plant The electricity CO2 emission factor in 2030 is estimated to decrease to 580 gCO2/kWh based on the assumptions listed below. The emission factor of electricity in the years between 2007 and 2030 is linearly interpolated. The key assumptions of the forecast are:

1. Construction of new thermal power plants and cogeneration plants is unlikely;

23 The estimate of the CO2 emission factor of electricity in this document is different from that calculated in the Review of the Power Sector (2007) prepared by the UNDP-Uzbekistan. The difference is because the Review mentioned takes into account the import of power assuming it as carbon-free whereas the present document tries to avoid the carbon leakages between countries excluding the import to Uzbekistan.


61

2. In line with the Order N 4058 of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan as of 28 November 2008, it is assumed that the combined cycle gas turbines with efficiency of min 50% will be installed at Taskkent, Navoi, and Talimardzhan thermal power plants;

3. The role of coal will increase: according to the long-term plans of Uzbekenergo, New-Angren thermal power plant will be switched to coal; Angren thermal power plant will increase is capacity and will combust ca 2 million tons of coal annually;

4. The role of fuel oil will not change and its share will stay approximately the same not depending on the oil prices due to low reliability of the gas supply network;

5. It is possible that capacity of other existing facilities will increase, but this will not impact the national emission factor significantly because the structure of the fuels used at these facilities will not change.

Emission factor of heat supplied by the centralized (district heat) network to public buildings According to the Review of the Heat Sector prepared by the Asian Development Bank (2004), 75% of heat supplied to the district network is produced by heating plants; the rest 25% is generated by big thermal power plants and cogeneration plants. The CO2 emissions of heating plants are calculated based on their balance in 2005 compiled by International Energy Agency (Table E2-3). Based on this balance, the country-wide weighted average emission factor of heat produced at heating plants (distribution is not included) is 271 gCO2/kWh. This emission factor is not expected to change significantly over the projection period till 2030:

1. This is, first, because fuel switch at heating plants is unlikely: the largest share of installations is already on natural gas and the rest of the fuel mix is contributed by fuel oil and coal, very often used in remote areas, where building gas network is economically not feasible or in a case of natural gas supply disruptions.

2. Second, because the efficiency of heating plants will not likely to change significantly. Almost all large district heat installations, which supply the largest share of district heat, located in central regions have been recently renovated and have efficiency of up to 93% if fully loaded. The potential to improve efficiency exists at small and medium installations with a typical efficiency of 65%-80%; but they supply a smaller share of the heat and this is why this option may give not a very significant effect on overall heat-associated emissions.

Table E2-3 Estimates of CO2 emission factor of heating plants, 2005

Indicators Unit Fuels used

Heat Produced Coal Petroleum Gas Total

Fuel used/ heat produced GWh/yr. 12 2,768 15,898 18,678 14,689

Emissions ktCO2 4 771 3,211 3,986

CO2 emission factor gCO2/kWh 271

Source: calculated based on International Energy Agency (online).

CO2 emissions of heat produced at thermal power plants and cogeneration plants are estimated based on the estimated balance of these plants (Table E2-4); only a share of heat injected to the district heat network (est.) is taken into account when calculating the emission factor of heat used in the buildings sector. This emission factor in 2007 is estimated at 243 gCO2/kWh (distribution is not included). The measures described for the thermal power plants and cogeneration plants focus mainly on capacity and efficiency of power supply; the volume and efficiency of heat production and, therefore its emission factor, are not likely to change significantly over the projection period till 2030.


62

Table E2-4 Estimates of CO2 emission factor of heat produced at thermal power plants and cogeneration plants and supplied to the district heat network, 2007

Power station Heat production

Supplied to buildings (est.)

Fuel used (est.)

Efficiency

CO2 emissions of all heat produced,

CO2 emission factor, heat (all)

CO2 emission factor, heat for buildings

GWh/yr. % GWh/yr. % ktCO2 gCO2/kWh gCO2/kWh

Thermal power plants

Syrdarja TPP 384 5% 431 89% 89 231 231

Tashkent TPP 244 5% 293 83% 62 254 254

New-Angren TPP 96 5% 112 86% 28 290 290

Navoi TPP 3,328 5% 4,422 75% 893 268 268

Talimardzhan TPP 32 5% 37 85% 8 238 238

Takhiatash TPP 4 5% 5 77% 1 263 263

Angren TPP 480 5% 638 75% 211 439 439

Cogeneration plants Mubarek Cogeneration Plant 2,250 5% 2,528 89% 511 227 227

Tashkent Cogeneration Plant 2,100 90% 2,427 87% 490 233 233

Fergan Cogeneration Plant 2,449 10% 3,169 77% 696 284 284

Total 11,367 14,063 2,999 264 243

Based on the structure of the heat supplied to the district heat network and associated CO2 emissions, the country-wide CO2 emission factor of heat supplied to the district heat network is calculated 264 gCO2/kWh in 2007 and it is unlikely to change significantly over the 20 years due to the reasons described above. The CO2 emission factor of district heat delivered to the entrance of buildings (final heat) is calculated correcting the emission factor of heat produced with the efficiency of heat distribution. The last has been largely criticized in many reports – longevity and depreciation of heat distribution system lead to significant heat losses. These problems result in the current 28% heat loss on the way of heat distribution (estimate of the Review of the Heat Sector prepared by the Asian Development Bank, 2004). There is a significant potential to eliminate these heat losses and the national programmes are likely to tackle this problem as it is widely recognized and discussed. Taking into account losses on the way of district heat, the CO2 emission factor of final heat is estimated 367 gCO2/kWh in 2007 and, assuming that the heat distribution losses will be reduced by at least 10% over the 20 years, this emission factor is expected to decline to 322 gCO2/kWh in 2030. This emission factor in the years between 2007 and 2030 is linearly interpolated. CO2 emission factor of space heating services in public buildings The CO2 emission factors of space heating services in the public sector were calculated using a breakdown of the public buildings according to the space heating systems (Table E2-6), the efficiency of these systems (Table E2-5 and the information above), and the CO2 emission factors of fuels these systems use. Table E2-5 Efficiency of local space heating systems

Efficiency type Local boiler-houses/building boilers Stove heating

Natural gas Coal Fuel oil Coal

Boiler efficiency 85% 50% 50% 45%

Efficiency of the building heating network 80% 80% 80% 100%

Efficiency of heat production & distribution 68% 40% 40% 45%


63

Table E2-6 Breakdown of space heating systems in existing and new public buildings, 2008

Building types Central heating

Local boiler-houses/building boilers

Stove heating

Natural gas

Coal Fuel oil Coal

Existing buildings

Pre-schools 18% 55% 10% 0% 16%

Secondary comprehensive schools 14% 42% 30% 1% 13%

Institutions for extracurricular education of children 17% 39% 23% 0% 22% Boarding schools, orphan homes, children homes, residential schools, etc.

21% 47% 31% 0% 0%

Secondary specialized and professional schools 20% 50% 30% 0% 0%

High schools and institutions 20% 50% 30% 0% 0%

Hospitals 14% 42% 30% 1% 13%

Clinics 14% 42% 30% 1% 13%

New buildings

New buildings 3% 59% 38% 0% 0%

Source: estimated based on Gosarhotektstroi data The final results of calculation the CO2 emission factor of public buildings is presented in Table E2-7 below. Table E2-7 CO2 emission factors of useful space heating energy, 2008 - 2030 Building types 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Existing buildings

Pre-schools 458 457 455 453 451 449

Secondary comprehensive schools 552 551 549 547 546 544

Institutions for extracurricular education of children 550 549 547 545 543 541

Boarding schools, orphan homes, children homes, residential schools, etc. 505 504 502 499 496 494

Secondary specialized and professional 495 494 492 489 487 484

High schools and institutions 495 494 492 489 487 484

Hospitals 552 551 549 547 546 544

Clinics 552 551 549 547 546 544

New buildings

New buildings 512 512 511 511 511 510

E3. Definition of the baseline and alternative scenarios The project will produce some influence on the local market development for a few years, i.e. non-baseline investments that happen within this period after the project can be counted toward indirect impacts. In line with GEF guidance, tt was decided that the project influence period is 10 years. Business-as-usual baseline The project impact forecasted was compared to the Business-As-Usual Baseline, i.e. to what would happen without the GEF project. The business-as-usual baseline relies on the national trends expected. Important assumptions of the business-as-usual baseline additionally to those discussed above are:

1. The speed and the significance of national energy-efficiency building codes improvement. According to the Law, construction norms should be updated every five years. The first requirement to energy performance of the building envelope was introduced in 2000. Due to energy security (reliability) issues and growing energy prices, it is likely that the level of concern in the country will be strong enough in the short-term period, likely


64

within 3-5 years, to initiate the demand-side measures including the improvement of building codes. It takes 2-3 years to conduct the research on building codes; therefore it is likely that in the business-as-usual case the building codes will be updated within 5-8 years, i.e. by 2015. The question is however how much they would be strengthened. Based on the EU experience, the update usually takes place each 5-10 years and energy-efficiency requirement improvement is 10-20%/decade. Based on this experience, it is assumed that after 2015, building codes in Uzbekistan will be updated every 5 years with the rate of improvement of at least 10%/5 years (since there is a significant efficiency potential, the maximum from other countries experience was assumed).

2. The compliance rate to building codes. Low compliance of buildings to building codes is a worldwide problem met not only in developing and transition economies but also in developed ones. Whereas literature identifies cases of compliance as low as 5-10%, it was assumed that at least 20% buildings in Uzbekistan comply with building codes in the business-as-usual case. In case of non-compliance, it was assumed that building constructors follow the market trends and efficiency of new buildings is growing with the rate of autonomous efficiency improvement of ca 1%/yr. (the world average rate according to the IPCC 2001).

GEF alternative scenarios Eight alternative scenarios, which take place in case of the GEF project implementation, were developed. The important assumptions of the GEF scenarios are:

1. The speed and the significance of national energy-efficiency building codes improvement. Whereas the demonstration projects illustrate that an average thermal efficiency improvement of existing and new buildings could be as high as 50%, this is possible only in case if the efficiency technologies and the necessary expertise are available throughout the country. Based on this consideration, two groups of scenarios are assumed - GEF25% and GEF40% which will consider 25% and 40% efficiency improvement of the code in 2010 as compared to the 2000 code respectively; in the next 20 years after 2010 this code will be updated with the business-as-usual speed and magnitude, i.e. 10%/every 5 years.

2. High compliance rate in the GEF25%/40% Optimistic Scenarios. Another principal difference of the GEF project from the business-as-usual case is that it suggests a set of measures aimed to result in a high rate of compliance to the building codes if the project is successfully implemented. The review of worldwide experience attests that the compliance rates could be as high as 80 % (ex., cities of China). Based on this experience, the GEF Optimistic Scenario relies on the 80% compliance rate. In case of non-compliance, energy consumption of new buildings is the same as in the business-as-usual case, i.e. it improves by 1%/yr.

3. Low compliance rate in the GEF25%/40% Pessimistic Scenario. The GEF Pessimistic Scenario describes a case if the building codes will be developed in the frame of the present project in 2010 and further on as discussed above but the enforcement and monitoring programs will not bring the effect expected. In this Scenario, the compliance rate to the building codes is assumed as it is in the business-as-usual baseline.

4. The ambition to include energy-efficiency requirement to building renovation in the GEF25%/40% Ambitious Optimistic/Pessimistic Scenarios. During the project preparation phase, it was concluded that the largest absolute potential is in the stock of existing buildings rather than in those which are being constructed (due to long building lifetime). Since the building lifetime, i.e. the time before its reconstruction when energy-efficiency requirements will be valid for a building, is 50-100 years, the largest effect may be achieved if the energy-efficiency requirement will be included into the capital renovation process (капитальный ремонт). According to construction guidelines, a building should undergo the capital renovation every 10 years. The ambition to include energy-efficiency requirements into the capital renovation is illustrated in the GEF 25%/40% both Optimistic and Pessimistic Scenarios.

Additionally, the GEF-Demo Scenario was developed to illustrate the case if the demonstration phase of the project will be successfully implemented but the building code developed by the GEF project will not be approved. In this case, anyway some efficiency improvement will take place – some buildings similar to the demo-sites buildings especially commissioned by the same constructors as those which implemented the demo-sites will be replicated. Assuming a similar replication factor as in the BU approach, i.e. that approximately a quarter of public buildings planned for construction and capital reconstruction during 2010 – 2030 (in a difference with the BU method where only 4 years are taken) in the regions of demonstration sites will directly replicate the project methodology.


65

E4. Energy consumption and CO2 emissions of scenarios defined

Summary of the scenarios developed is presented in Table E4-1. Results of CO2 emission modeling for the scenarios are illustrated in Figure E4-1 and Summary Table E4-2 below.

E5. Summary of the bottom-up and top-down estimates and their comparison

The Annex concludes that according to the bottom-up estimates:

1. The direct CO2 emission reductions associated with thermal improvement of buildings over the 20-year lifetime are 8,805 tCO2

2. The indirect CO2 emission reductions associated with thermal improvement of buildings over the 20-year lifetime are 2.2 mln tCO2 if assumed that ca a quarter of Uzbek buildings constructed in 10 years immediately following the completion of the project demonstration sights in Uzbekistan replicate the project methodology

The Annex also concludes that according to the top-down estimates:

1. The indirect CO2 emission reductions associated with thermal improvement of buildings vary significantly depending on the level of ambitions of the scenario (i.e. success of the project)

2. Figure E4-1 and Table E4-2 illustrate that in case of high compliance of new and reconstructed buildings to the building codes, space heating requirement of -25% and -40% as compared to the current building code will reduce CO2 emissions of the whole sector of education and health buildings in 2030 by 7% and 11% respectively. The best result can be expected from the extension of the building codes to the buildings undergoing capital renovation. Since the stock of existing buildings is large, even in case of low compliance (i.e. pessimistic scenario) and 25% efficiency improvement of the new building code as compared to the current level will result in 22% of CO2 emission reduction in 2030 assuming that a building is renovated every 10 years. In case of high compliance, 40% efficiency improvement in 2010 of the current building codes will reduce CO2 emissions in 2030 by almost half.

The main difference between the bottom-up and top-down scenarios is that the bottom-up estimates take into account only the replication of demonstration sites whereas the top-down scenarios describes the impacts of building codes depending on their efficiency improvement levels and compliance rates of buildings to them (the only one top-down scenario which corresponds to the bottom-up one is a so-called GEF Demo-Scenario, the only difference though is that the bottom-up replication is counted for buildings constructed during 2010 – 2014 whereas the top-down replication is applied to 2010 – 2030 period).


66

Table E4-1 Summary of the scenarios: space heating requirement (kWh/m2-yr.) and building code compliance rates (share of the stock)

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Business-as-usual (BAU) baseline

Existing buildings

Education exc. high 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200

High education 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200

Heath 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210

Building code for new and reconstructed buildings


High education 160 160 160 160 160 160 144 144 144 144 144 130 130 130 130 130 117 117 117 117 117 105

Heath 190 190 190 190 190 190 171 171 171 171 171 154 154 154 154 154 139 139 139 139 139 125

Compliance to building codes

All buildings 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Consumption of new and reconstructed buildings in the non-compliance case


High education 160 158 157 155 154 152 151 149 148 146 145 143 142 140 139 138 136 135 134 132 131 130

Heath 190 188 186 184 183 181 179 177 175 174 172 170 168 167 165 163 162 160 159 157 155 154 GEF-Demo Scenario: Demonstration sites will be build and some buildings will replicate their methodology but the building code developed by the project in 2010 will not be approved

Existing buildings

All buildings The same as for the business-as-usual scenario

Building code for new and reconstructed buildings


High education 160 160 160 160 160 160 144 144 144 144 144 130 130 130 130 130 117 117 117 117 117 105

Heath 190 190 190 190 190 190 171 171 171 171 171 154 154 154 154 154 139 139 139 139 139 125

Compliance to building codes (excluding new and reconstructed buildings which are replicated from the demo-sites)

All buildings 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Consumption of new and reconstructed buildings which are replicated from the demo-sites


High education 160 158 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79

Heath 190 188 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94

Share of new and reconstructed buildings which are replicated from the demo-sites

All buildings 0% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25%

Consumption of new and reconstructed buildings in the non-compliance case


High education 160 159 138 137 136 135 131 131 130 129 128 125 124 123 122 121 118 117 117 116 115 112

Heath 190 188 164 163 162 161 156 155 154 153 152 148 147 146 145 144 140 139 138 138 137 133


67

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 GEF Scenarios – building codes 2010 require 25% efficiency improvement of the 2000 code: - High Compliance (Optimistic) - High Compliance (Pessimistic) + Coverage of the Renovated Buildings by the Building Code (Ambitious) - Low Compliance (Pessimistic) - Low Compliance (Pessimistic) + Coverage of the Renovated Buildings by the Building Code (Ambitious)

Existing buildings (except for those buildings which undergone capital renovation in the Ambitious Case)


Building code (becomes valid for existing buildings undergoing capital renovation for the Ambitious Case)


High education 160 120 120 120 120 120 108 108 108 108 108 97 97 97 97 97 87 87 87 87 87 79

Heath 190 143 143 143 143 143 128 128 128 128 128 115 115 115 115 115 104 104 104 104 104 93

Compliance to building codes (Optimistic)

All buildings 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80%

Compliance to building codes (Pessimistic)

All buildings 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Non-compliance case


High education 160 158 157 155 154 152 151 149 148 146 145 143 142 140 139 138 136 135 134 132 131 130

Heath 190 188 186 184 183 181 179 177 175 174 172 170 168 167 165 163 162 160 159 157 155 154 GEF Scenarios – building codes 2010 require 40% efficiency improvement of the 2000 code: - High Compliance (Optimistic) - High Compliance (Pessimistic) + Coverage of the Renovated Buildings by the Building Code (Ambitious) - Low Compliance (Pessimistic) - Low Compliance (Pessimistic) + Coverage of the Renovated Buildings by the Building Code (Ambitious)

Existing buildings


Building code


High education 160 96 96 96 96 96 86 86 86 86 86 78 78 78 78 78 70 70 70 70 70 63

Heath 190 114 114 114 114 114 103 103 103 103 103 92 92 92 92 92 83 83 83 83 83 75

Compliance to building codes (Optimistic)

All buildings 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80%

Compliance to building codes (Pessimistic)

All buildings 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Non-compliance case


High education 160 158 157 155 154 152 151 149 148 146 145 143 142 140 139 138 136 135 134 132 131 130

Heath 190 188 186 184 183 181 179 177 175 174 172 170 168 167 165 163 162 160 159 157 155 154


68

Figure E4-1 CO2 emissions associated with the Scenarios developed for existing and new education and health buildings, 2009 - 2030

3,250

3,750

4,250

4,750

5,250

5,750

6,250

6,750

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Thousand tCO2

BAU Baseline

GEF Demo



GEF 25%: Low Compliance (Pessimistic )




GEF 40%: Low Compliance (Pessimistic)



69

Table E4-2 Summary of the CO2 mitigation potential associated with the GEF Scenarios, 2010 - 2030

Scenario

Absolute potential of CO2 emission reductions, thousand tCO2/yr.

Potential for CO2 emission reductions as the share of baseline emissions

Absolute potential of lifetime CO2 emission reductions, thousand tCO2/yr.

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

GEF Demo 0 66 126 180 228 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 2.8% 3.5% 0 1,325 2,522 3,597 4,555 GEF 25%: High Compliance (optimistic) 22 127 239 356 477 0.4% 2.0% 3.7% 5.5% 7.3% 441 2,540 4,775 7,118 9,546 GEF 25% Including Capital Renovation: High Compliance (Optimistic) 170 1,053 1,942 2,276 2,567 2.7% 16.5% 30.1% 34.9% 39.1% 1,786 11,041 21,095 28,446 34,871 GEF 25%: Low Compliance (Pessimistic ) 6 34 59 82 102 0.1% 0.5% 0.9% 1.3% 1.6% 114 671 1,176 1,632 2,045 GEF 25% Including Capital Renovation: Low Compliance (Pessimistic) 26 473 1,041 1,261 1,446 0.4% 7.4% 16.1% 19.3% 22.0% 922 6,126 12,178 17,204 21,559 GEF 40%: High Compliance (Optimistic) 36 208 380 552 723 0.6% 3.3% 5.9% 8.5% 11.0% 713 4,151 7,597 11,035 14,455 GEF 40% Including Capital Renovation: High Compliance (Optimistic) 242 1,477 2,618 2,903 3,149 3.9% 23.2% 40.5% 44.5% 47.9% 2,506 15,279 27,745 34,117 39,638 GEF 40%: Low Compliance (Pessimistic) 9 54 94 131 164 0.1% 0.8% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 182 1,074 1,881 2,611 3,272 GEF 40% Including Capital Renovation: Low Compliance (Pessimistic) 26 563 1,213 1,420 1,594 0.4% 8.8% 18.8% 21.8% 24.3% 1,102 7,186 13,841 18,621 22,751


70

ANNEX G: LIST OF ACRONYMS APR – Annual Performance Report AWP – Annual Work Plan CEO – Chief Executive Officer CIS – Commonwealth of Independent States EE – Energy Efficiency EU – European Union FSP – Full-Sized Project GEF – Global Environment Facility GDP – Gross Domestic Product GHG – Greenhouse gases HVAC –Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning IAs –Implementing Agencies IBD – Integrated building design IDA - International Development Association IW – Inception workshop M&E – Monitoring and Evaluation NGO – Non-governmental Organization PB – Project Board PIF – Project Information Format PIR – Project Implementation Report PIU – Project implementation unit RCU – UNDP/GEF Regional Coordinating Unit in Bratislava RE - Renewable Energy SNiP – Building Standards and Rules (building codes) TBD – To be determined TOE – Tons of oil equivalent ToR – Terms of reference UNDP – United Nations Development Programme UNDP-CO – United Nations Development Programme Country Office USD – US Dollar USSR – Union of Soviet Socialist Republics UZS – Uzbek Som


71

ANNEX H LETTERS OF CO-FINANCING [Provided separately]


72

ANNEX I MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN Project Inception Phase A Project Inception Workshop will be conducted with the full project team, relevant government counterparts, co-financing partners, the UNDP-CO and representation from the UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating Unit. A fundamental objective of this Inception Workshop will be to assist the project team to understand and take ownership of the project’s goal, objective and outcomes, as well as finalize preparation of the project's first annual work plan on the basis of the project's logframe matrix. This will include reviewing the logframe (indicators, means of verification, assumptions), imparting additional detail as needed, and on the basis of this exercise finalize the Annual Work Plan (AWP) with precise and measurable performance indicators, and in a manner consistent with the expected outcomes for the project. Additionally the purpose and objective of the Inception Workshop (IW) will be to: (i) introduce project staff with the UNDP-GEF expanded team which will support the project during its implementation, namely the CO and responsible Regional Coordinating Unit staff; (ii) detail the roles, support services and complementary responsibilities of UNDP-CO and RCU staff vis à vis the project team; (iii) provide a detailed overview of UNDP-GEF reporting and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) requirements, with particular emphasis on the harmonized Annual Project Implementation Reviews (PIRs)/Annual Project Report (APR), Project Board Meetings, as well as mid-term and final evaluations. Equally, the IW will provide an opportunity to inform the project team on UNDP project related budgetary planning, budget reviews, and mandatory budget rephasings. The IW will also provide an opportunity for all parties to understand their roles, functions, and responsibilities within the project's decision-making structures, including reporting and communication lines, and conflict resolution mechanisms. The Terms of Reference for project staff and decision-making structures will be discussed again, as needed, in order to clarify for all, each party’s responsibilities during the project's implementation phase. Monitoring responsibilities and events The day-to-day monitoring of implementation progress will be the responsibility of the project manager, whose work will be based on the project's annual work plan and its indicators. Annual monitoring will be carried out by the Project Board (PB), including Government, UNDP, and key beneficiaries of the project, which is the highest policy-level meeting of the parties directly involved in the implementation of a project. The first such meeting will be held within the first twelve months following the inception workshop. A detailed schedule of Project Board’s meetings to review project progress will be developed by the project management, in consultation with project national executing agency, State Agency for Contsruction and Architecture, and stakeholder representatives and incorporated in the Project Inception Report. Such a schedule will include: (i) tentative time frames for Project Board’s meetings and (ii) project related Monitoring and Evaluation activities. For each Project Board meeting the project manager will prepare annual project report and submit it to the PB members at least two weeks prior to the meeting for review and comments. In addition, ad-hoc meetings can be scheduled between the Government, UNDP, project manager, and other pertinent stakeholders as deemed appropriate and relevant to allow parties to take stock and to troubleshoot any problems pertaining to the project in a timely fashion to ensure smooth implementation of project activities. Day to day monitoring of implementation progress will be the responsibility of the Project manager, assisted by experts as deemed necessary based on the project's Annual Work Plan and its indicators. The Project Team will inform the UNDP-CO of any delays or difficulties faced during implementation so that the appropriate support or corrective measures can be adopted in a timely and remedial fashion. Periodic monitoring of implementation progress will be undertaken by the UNDP-CO through quarterly meetings with the National Executing Agency, or more frequently as deemed necessary. This will allow parties to take stock and to troubleshoot any problems pertaining to the project in a timely fashion to ensure smooth implementation of project activities. Project Reporting The Project Manager in conjunction with the UNDP-GEF extended team will be responsible for the preparation and submission of the following reports that form part of the monitoring process:


73

A Project Inception Report will be prepared immediately following the Inception Workshop. It will include a detailed First Year/Annual Work Plan divided in quarterly time-frames detailing the activities and progress indicators that will guide implementation during the first year of the project. This Work Plan would include the dates of specific field visits, support missions from the UNDP-CO or the Regional Coordinating Unit (RCU) or consultants, as well as time-frames for meetings of the project's decision making structures. The Report will also include the detailed project budget for the first full year of implementation, prepared on the basis of the Annual Work Plan, and including any monitoring and evaluation requirements to effectively measure project performance during the targeted 12 months time-frame. The Inception Report will include a more detailed narrative on the institutional roles, responsibilities, coordinating actions and feedback mechanisms of project related partners. In addition, a section will be included on progress to date on project establishment and start-up activities and an update of any changed external conditions that may effect project implementation. When finalized the report will be circulated to project counterparts who will be given a period of one calendar month in which to respond with comments or queries. Prior to this circulation of the Report, the UNDP Country Office will review the document. As part of the Inception Report, the project team will prepare a draft Reports List, detailing the technical reports that are expected to be prepared on key areas of activity during the course of the Project, and tentative due dates. Where necessary this Reports List will be revised and updated, and included in subsequent APRs. These technical reports will represent the project's substantive contribution to specific areas, and will be used in efforts to disseminate relevant information and best practices at local, national and international levels. The UNDP/GEF PIR/APR will be prepared on an annual basis prior to the PB meeting to reflect progress achieved in meeting the project's Annual Work Plan and assess performance of the project in contributing to intended outcomes through outputs and partnership work. The PIR/APR will include the following: (i) An analysis of project performance over the reporting period, including outputs produced and, where possible, information on the status of the outcome; (ii) The constraints experienced in the progress towards results and the reasons for these; (iii) The three (at most) major constraints to achievement of results; (iv) AWP and other expenditure reports; (v) lessons learned; and (vi) Clear recommendations for future orientation in addressing key problems in lack of progress. Short reports outlining main updates in project progress will be provided quarterly to the local UNDP Country Office and the UNDP-GEF regional office by the project team. During the last three months of the project the project team will prepare the Project Terminal Report. This comprehensive report will summarize all activities, achievements and outputs of the Project, lessons learnt, objectives met, or not achieved, structures and systems implemented, etc. and will be the definitive statement of the Project’s activities during its lifetime. It will also lay out recommendations for any further steps that may need to be taken to ensure sustainability and replicability of the project’s activities. Independent evaluations The project will be subject to two independent external evaluations as follows. An independent Mid-Term Evaluation will be undertaken at the mid point of project implementation (January 2012). The Mid-Term Evaluation will determine progress being made towards the achievement of outcomes and will identify course correction if needed. It will focus on the effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness of project implementation; will highlight issues requiring decisions and actions; and will present initial lessons learned about project design, implementation and management. Findings of this review will be incorporated as recommendations for enhanced implementation during the final half of the project’s term. The organization, terms of reference and timing of the mid-term evaluation will be decided after consultation between the parties to the project document. The Terms of Reference for this Mid-term evaluation will be prepared by the UNDP CO based on guidance from the Regional Coordinating Unit and UNDP-GEF. An independent Final Evaluation will take place three months prior to the terminal tripartite review meeting and will be undertaken in accordance with UNDP and GEF guidance. The final evaluation will focus on the delivery of the project’s results as initially planned (and as corrected after the mid-term evaluation, if any such correction took place). The final evaluation will look at impact and sustainability of results, including the contribution to capacity development and the achievement of global environmental goals. The final evaluation should also provide recommendations for follow-up activities, and the report will feature management response to the issues raised. The Terms of Reference for this evaluation will be prepared by the UNDP CO based on guidance from the Regional Coordinating Unit and UNDP-GEF.


74

Audit clause The Government of Uzbekistan, and the relevant authorities in the regions of Kashkadarya and Karakalpakstan, will provide the Resident Representative of UNDP Uzbekistan with certified periodic financial statements, and with an annual audit of the financial statements relating to the status of UNDP (including GEF) funds according to the established procedures set out in the Programming and Finance manuals. The Audit will be conducted by the legally recognized auditor of the Government, or by a commercial auditor engaged by the Government. Learning and knowledge sharing Results from the project will be disseminated within and beyond the project intervention zone through existing information sharing networks and forums. One of the networks is the UNDP-supported “Environment and Sustainable Development in Central Asia and Russia” network (CARnet: www.caresd.net). In addition, the project will participate, as relevant and appropriate, in UNDP/GEF sponsored networks organized for Senior Personnel working on projects that share common characteristics. The project will identify and participate, as relevant and appropriate, in scientific, policy-based and/or any other networks, which may be of benefit to project implementation though lessons learned. The project will identify, analyze, and share lessons learned that might be beneficial in the design and implementation of similar future projects. Identify and analyzing lessons learned is an ongoing process, and the need to communicate such lessons as one of the project's central contributions is a requirement to be delivered at least once every 12 months. UNDP/GEF shall provide a format and assist the project team in categorizing, documenting and reporting on lessons learned. Finally, there will be a two-way flow of information between the project and the UNDP-GEF global Framework Programme on Low Greenhouse Gas Emissions Buildings. Activities that will benefit the project and support effective project learning and knowledge sharing will include those carried out under two of the thematic approaches in the framework programme: 1) Using public buildings and municipalities as promoters of energy efficiency; and 2) Promoting and increasing the uptake of high quality energy building regulations. The project results will be useful to the framework programme in areas where it focuses on the leading role of the public sector, such as codes, metering, assessment and monitoring, and broad education programmes. Data from the project will also enhance the state of knowledge of building performance in the broader region.

project document (gef)

Documents