Mid Term Evaluation

UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMEGLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY

Project Number: CEH/98/G35/A/1G/72

Project Name: Low Cost/Low Energy Buildings in the Czech Republic

Ian BrownSeptember 2002

Evaluation Report

1.0 Executive Summary.............................................................................................................4

2.0 Project Evaluation................................................................................................................62.1 Project Concept and Design.............................................................................................62.2 Project Implementation....................................................................................................62.3 Project Results..................................................................................................................8

3.0 Findings..............................................................................................................................173.1 Conclusions....................................................................................................................173.2 Recommendations..........................................................................................................203.3 Lessons Learned.............................................................................................................21

List of Annexes (Terms of Reference, Itinerary, Persons Interviewed)....................................22

2

Acronyms

CIS Commonwealth of Independent States (former Soviet Union)EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and DevelopmentEU European UnionGEF Global Environment FacilityM&E Monitoring and evaluationPIR Project Implementation ReportSEVEn Czech Energy Efficiency Centre (NGO)UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNDP RBEC UNDP Regional Bureau for Europe and the CIS

3

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The evaluation was conducted between 9 September and 13 September 2002, in conjunction with a concurrent SMP Review, based on the review of background documents (including a/o the project document, annual and quarterly work plans, PIRs, minutes of Steering Committee meetings) and personal interviews.

The principal findings of the review are as follows:

Project design:

The project is well designed and meets the key problems as set out in the project document, that are clearly still problems even four years after the drafting of this document, indicating both the importance of the project to address these problems, and the lack of other actions or initiatives other than this project to address these problems.

Project Implementation

Management arrangements have been satisfactory, and both the executing agency and implementing agency have fulfilled their roles without notable problems or difficulties. Of particular note in relation to project implementation are the constructive roles played by the Steering Committee and working teams/ panels of experts.

The Steering Committee has served both as a executive advisory board bringing high level direction to the project, and as a coordinating body allowing a very valuable exchange of information between the members (and in particular between different Ministries and public agencies, among whom coordination and communication is notably poor).

The working teams (for each of the three towns) have allowed architects and engineers to work together, with some healthy ‘competition’ between the teams. The Panel of Experts functioned both in an advisory function (as intended) and as a dissemination channel.

Project Results:

The project team have stated that the project was not primarily a construction project, but a communication and attitude change project (i.e. the construction of the low cost – low energy houses is a means to an end, but not an end in itself).

The objectives of developing a design and implementation scheme for the development of at least one no cost/ low cost energy housing development has been exceeded, and at least 3 buildings will be directly built by municipalities under the work of the project.

The objective of increasing awareness of decision makers has been met, and several buildings will be built outside the direct involvement of the project of the low cost/ low energy type based on the outreach activities of the project.

Revision of energy standards has been superseded by changes in the project implementing environment and the project has pragmatically adapted to these changes by focussing on the

4

need to harmonise standards with EU norms, and the adoption of ‘whole building’ consumption limits under the ‘Act on Energy Management’

The one-year delay in the construction of the first building (in Sušice) appeared to have been caused by factors beyond the control of the Implementing Agency (the loss of office of the ‘project champion’ mayor, and the lower level of interest of this successor. This delay has had important implications: the project period (and funds) do not allow full monitoring of the 3 sites in terms of the actual savings achieved (as compared to the design savings) except for a short period (probably 3- 4 months) in Sušice. In the other two cities, Humpolec and Zelezny Brod construction will only be completed after the end of the project.

While for the purpose of the project comparing the design (simulated) consumption of the low cost – low energy houses with the design consumption of traditionally constructed houses is a valid comparison, it is clear from all the discussions during this review that in order to overcome the very strong scepticism and resistance to the notion of low cost/ low energy houses (which seem simply too good to be true) building developers (in the public and private sector) require proof in terms of saving actually achieved in practice. This will need actual monitoring for at least 2 winters. While it was foreseen that monitoring would take 18 months, only 6 months will be possible in reality in the apartment building in the town of Sušice and none in the buildings in the towns of Humpolec or Zelezny Brod.

Discussions organised through the project on the criteria to be used by the State Housing Fund to take into the account the energy consumption of new housing applying for subsidies has included the ideas that low energy (low cost) housing should receive an extra subsidy, or that it should receive a higher priority for funding. The former idea seems to be illogical, and the latter idea entirely sensible.

The project has ‘facilitated’ the adoption of low-cost low energy houses, but it would not be realistic to expect a project of this size (three or even six buildings) to totally transform the market for housing in the Czech Republic. As indicated elsewhere, attitudes are strongly entrenched, the traditional building material industry has a powerful lobby, and the construction industry is a conservative and slow to change industry. Adopting new practices and new thinking in the house building industry is possible, but it will take longer than the duration of this project.

Based on these findings a number of recommendations were made;

Before the end of the project the Steering Committee should examine the question of who will pay for the post-project monitoring, and who will take responsibility for it.

The Steering Committee should also examine the question of funding and responsibility for the dissemination of the results of the monitoring (i.e, the results obtained from the monitoring the buildings constructed).

5

2.0 PROJECT EVALUATION

2.1 Project Concept and Design

The project aims to reduce CO2 emissions related to energy needs in newly constructed buildings by overcoming barriers that prevent the adoption of low cost low energy building development. The specific barriers in the Czech Republic to the development of those building include:a) Lack of practical experience among professional groups with the technical, economic,

social and environmental aspects associated with low-cost low-energy buildings;b) Lack of information to formulate new standards and proposals to promote the

construction of low cost energy efficient buildings based on economic, social and environmental benefits associated with them;

c) Lack of awareness on the part of decision makers, architects, builders and the general public of the possibilities and benefits of increasing the energy efficiency in buildings with little or no extra costs;

d) Lack of expertise in incorporating measures and technologies to increase the energy efficiency in buildings in the planning and construction phases in a cost-effective manner;

e) Remaining residential energy-price subsidies; andf) Lack of incentives and financial plans to support the higher up-front costs of currently

designed energy efficient buildings.

The conditions and problems that the project document sets out above are an accurate reflection of the problems related to improving energy efficiency in new housing in the Czech Republic. There appears to be very little understanding (even among informed professionals interviewed) of (a) of low energy housing in general, and (b) low cost/ low energy housing in particular. If there is any awareness of low energy housing at all (and it is a very limited awareness in the Czech Republic) there is a very strong belief that low energy housing is an unaffordable luxury. This view has been reinforced by environmental NGOs, whose promotion of renewable energy and a ‘high tech solution’ to reducing energy consumption has contributed to this belief.

The project activities appear to be well designed to meet the identified problems (problems that have been verified through this review).

2.2 Project Implementation

(a) General implementation and management

Based on the information received the financial management of the project appears to be have functioned satisfactorily. Although at the time of the review that actual disbursements are approximately 10% over the planned disbursements for 2002 this has been caused by the implementation of some actions during the first half of the year that were originally planned for the second half of the year, and it is expected that by the end of 2002 the actual disbursements will match the planned disbursements.

6

The project has been given a no cost extension and is now planned to finish in mid 2003.

(b) Management arrangements

The management/ implementation arrangements were reviewed, and the following findings are reported:

Executing Agency

No meetings were possible with the executing agency, so no definitive comments can be made concerning how adequately they have fulfilled their role. However no reports or indications were received of any problems of deficiencies concerning the executing agency (The Charles University Environmental Centre). In particular the lack of direct government involvement as executing agency did not appear to indicate a lack of interest of the government in the project, but rather a lack of confidence in the ability of the Ministry of Environment to properly manage the necessary responsibilities of executing agency at the time of the project design/ drafting of the project brief and project document in 1998. Two Ministries were interviewed (Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Regional Development) together with the Czech Energy Agency (an agency of a third Ministry, the Ministry of Industry), and all were full committed to the project and fully informed about the project (related to the effectiveness of the Steering Committee, below).

Project Steering Committee

The role and effectiveness of the Steering Committee was discussed with several members of the Steering Committee. A number of conclusions can be drawn from the comments made by Steering Committee members:

(a) The Steering Committee was effective in terms of advising on the project implementation. The membership of the Committee was at a high (decision making) level, and (unusually) the members of the Committee did not delegate their membership to subordinates, but participated to a high degree in terms of the numbers of members who attended meetings. Meetings were not seen as a talking shop or as a rubber stamp, but as actual ‘Steering’ committee meetings.

(b) The second function of the Steering Committee (that was very effective in terms of achieving the project goals of encouraging communication between different professions and between the housing and the energy communities) was the coordination function. The Steering Committee served to bring together representatives (at a high level) of different Ministries and State Agencies concerned with both housing policy, housing subsidy schemes, energy, environment, and architects and NGOs. All Steering Committee members interviewed gave high praise for the effectiveness of the coordination function (one stated that the Steering Committee meetings served a role as an inter-ministerial communication forum related to energy and housing that was not met by any other forum).

Project Implementation Unit

The project document stated that a ‘Project Implementation Unit’ would be established. A team (or unit) was established within the Implementing Agency in order to take on the

7

implementation responsibility (although the title of ‘PIU’ implies a more formal and rigid structure than was necessary or appropriate within such a small organisation as SEVEn).

Working Teams/ Panel of Experts

The implementing agency established three Working Teams and a Panel of Experts with the following organisation and responsibilities: one Working Team was established for each of the three municipalities (Sušice, Humpolec, and Zelezny Brod). These teams were made up of professional experts (architects, engineers) who were responsible for the designs and specifications for each of town. Each team was made up of a core team of 2-3 experts, assisted by other experts on a part time basis as required for particular specialised tasks (the total membership of each team was approximately 10 experts). The Panel of Experts was a team of 10 – 15 experts whose task was to provide independent peer review both to the working teams and to the implementing agency.

This arrangement appeared to function satisfactorily. One advantage of the separate working teams in each town has been the ‘competition’ between the teams, and the Panel of Experts appeared to function both in an advisory function (as intended) and as a dissemination channel (an additional benefit).

Professional Committees

Two ad hoc professional committees were formed during the implementation of the project:A jury of professional experts formed a professional committee to judge the entries for the low energy – low cost housing design competition held for the city of Uherské Hradišté, and a professional committee (low energy working group) was formed with the brief of integrating low energy criteria into the existing government housing subsidy schemes.

(c) Equal participation of men and women

No gender issues were identified during this review, and no there were no indications of unequal opportunity for participation by women (it should be noted that the project document did not require the development of indicators of equal participation). There appeared to be active participation by women in decision making related to the project.

2.3 Project Results

The project results in terms of what happened as compared to the objectives and outputs (as set out in the Project Document) are reviewed in the table overleaf.

8

Table 2.1 Immediate objectives, outputs, and observed results:

No Immediate Objective Output Result to date

1 Set up the necessary arrangements for project implementation

1.1 A constituted Project Implementation Unit (PIU), a finalized work plan and detailed terms of reference for the subcontracts, and compilation of national institutions, industry representatives and experts to be engaged in the implementation of various activities associated with the project.

Project implementation arrangements were made within the Implementing Agency (a PIU was established in practice, if not in formal name).

Working groups were established for each municipality where the LC-LE housing is being/ will be constructed (Sušice, Humpolec, and Zelezny Brod).

Cooperation contracts have been signed with each of the three municipalities (Sušice, Humpolec, and Zelezny Brod).

Detailed work plans prepared for 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002.

Start up workshops organized in Brno, and 2 in Prague in May and June 1999.

Additionally 3 ‘Municipal Project Development’ workshops were organised with 60 participants

2. To develop a low-cost low-energy building concept suited for local conditions and tradition, and through the construction and operation of the building to gain hands on experience with the state of the art design, development, construction and operation of

9

such a building.

2.1 A detailed, approved technical design for the first low-cost/low-energy building.

The design for the Low Cost Low Energy apartment building in Sušice was developed in December 1999 and agreed with the town following intensive discussions to meet the requirements of the town (e.g. the addition of parking garages at the basement level required changes to the design). The project documentation for a building license was elaborated by May 2000.

The design for Humpolec were developed and finalized in December 2001. The project documentation for the building license remains to be completed (and the tender for the building firm to construct the building).

The design for Zelezny Brod has been finalised, again after lengthy discussions with the town, including public discussions in which the proposed design was presented to, and discussed with the possible occupants. The design was finalised in June 2002.

A design competition was held in the town of Uherské Hradišté with 18 participants. It is noteworthy that one of the design teams which took part in this competition went on to utilise the main elements of the design in a design for a speculatively built private development of 3 family houses (row houses) in Roztoky u Prahy.

2.2 A first low-cost low-energy building constructed.

The first building in Sušice is currently under construction, and is planned to be completed by end 2002. This is one year behind the originally planned schedule.

The second building in Zelezny Brod should commence construction in spring 2003 and be completed by end 2003, and the third building in Humpolec is awaiting a decision on the granting of the subsidy from the State Housing Fund for the partial financing of the construction. It is anticipated that this will be decided either in late September 2002 or in Spring 2005 (based on the bi-annual decision process of the State Housing Fund).

2.3 Report on the building performance over its first year of operation prepared

The first building is Sušice is not yet completed, and therefore this action cannot start. However it is already clear that this action cannot be completed within the time available before the end of the project since only 6 months are available

10

between the end of the project and the completion and occupation of the building in Sušice (and only half of one heating season, which is not enough to accurately assess the actual performance of the flats).

3 To facilitate the adoption and construction of low-cost low-energy buildings as a standard, “business-as-usual“ practice nationwide.

3.1 Increased awareness of decision makers, architects, construction companies and general public regarding the possibilities to increase the energy efficiency in buildings with little or no additional costs.

Several actions have been taken under the framework of the project to build awareness of decision makers:

The project workshops mentioned above, and the Steering Committee meetings and working teams have certainly had the effect of (a) raising awareness and (b) encouraging communication between the different professions and Ministries/ State Agencies.

The Architectural competition (for low cost/ low energy houses) in Uherské Hradišté drew 18 entries. The educational effect of this competition, and also the competition between the different designers of the projects in the three cities where buildings are to be built under the project (Sušice, Humpolec, and Zelezny Brod) is considered to have been substantial.

Four study tours were organised for Czech professionals as follows (of which one was in the Czech Republic):

Czech Republic: Brno, Ostrata u Zlína (November 1999)

Austria:, Gansendorf, Vienna (May 2000)

Kronsberg, Germany, (June 2000)

BRE, Great Britain, (May 2001)

11

An Atlas of Low Energy Residential Buildings was prepared, printed and distributed.

One issue of the Czech professional architectural magazine was devoted to the issue of low cost- low energy houses.

12

3.2 Development and adoption of revised national standards for improving the energy efficiency of the buildings.

The system of building regulation has changed during the implementation of the project in two important ways (that the project has had to adapt to take account of). Firstly the Act on Energy Management has been passed in 2000 and had introduced the concept of an energy consumption limit for new housing. It should be noted that this limit has been set at a level of 100 kWh/m2) a level that is broadly comparable to the present level of EU Member State building standards. The setting of a limit on consumption should work to the advantage of the aims of the project (the concept of an overall building limit has been established) although there are some doubts as to whether this ordinance will be enforced in practice.

Secondly the need to harmonise Czech building standards with EU norms (and in particular with the method of calculation of U values) has dominated Czech authorities for the period of implementation of this project, and the project has had to take account of this. Against this background the following actions have been noted in respect of this output:

Regulation passed (regulation 231) under the Act on Energy Management setting specific energy consumption limits (100 kWh/m2) (though independently of this project)

Harmonisation of Czech norms with European Standards EN832 is currently in process. This work is being coordinated by the Technical University, acting on behalf of the Ministry of Regional Development (who have responsibility for the housing sector).

In addition the draft EU Directive on the energy performance of buildings (COM 2001/ 226 final) has been published. This draft directive introduces building certification for both new and existing buildings and harmonised standards for the calculation of energy performance based on the building as a whole rather than on the evaluation of the performance of individual elements (e.g. roof, windows, walls). The Czech Republic will be required to implement this directive if it is passed.

Such a ‘whole building’ approach is already used in a number of EU Member States, and (if the directive is adopted) would assist the overall goals of the

13

project by focussing on the energy performance of the house as a whole (which is also the approach already adopted in the Czech Republic in relation to the regulation passed under the Act on Energy Management (regulation 231).

The project appears to have reacted pragmatically to changes in the programme implementation environment and are taking actions to fulfill the intention of this output based on the present circumstances. A Working Group has undertaken work in try to bring about a reduction in the limit set under the Act on Energy Management.

3.3 A government plan to promote the adoption of new standards and market penetration of low-cost low-energy buildings formulated.

The background for the funding of housing construction in the Czech Republic has changed since the project brief was drafted. The State Housing Fund was created in 2000 in order to encourage the development of the housing market, a market that remains highly distorted by the low rents paid in the regulated housing market. The State Housing Fund, under the Ministry of Regional Development but a legally autonomous unit is funded through privatisation revenues (the Minister of Regional Development is the head of the management committee of the State Housing Fund), and provides subsidies for new housing development at present channelled through municipalities.

The Ministry of Regional Development has established a working team ‘the Low Energy Working Group’ with the brief of integrating low energy criteria into the existing subsidy schemes. Two meetings of the working group have been held, and ideas discussed have included the idea that investors in low energy houses should receive a higher subsidy than the subsidy paid to ‘conventional’ energy houses, and the idea that low energy housing should receive a higher priority for housing subsidies.

The implications of these discussions and the extent to which they meet the required outputs as set out in the project document are discussed in more detail in section 3 below but several points can be made in respect of the observed results as compared to the planned results of this output:

The project team reacted pragmatically to the change in the system of housing funding, and the need to address the criteria of the newly created (new since the project conception) housing fund.

14

While no meeting was possible with the State Housing Fund, several other Steering Committee members mentioned the resistance of the State Housing Fund to the inclusion of low cost – low energy criteria within the decision on the allocation of subsidies. The State Housing Fund want to see real demonstrated results from the project (an understandable position).

The idea of giving higher subsidies to housing that is both more energy efficiency and the same cost as ‘conventional’ less energy efficiency housing was mentioned as being supported by several members of the Working Group. However it is illogical to pay someone more to save money, if there are no incremental costs, and such a move might be counter-productive to the aims of the project, i.e. it might strengthen the idea that municipalities and building professionals have in the Czech Republic that low energy housing is more expensive to build than conventional energy housing. It would be more logical to adopt the idea of giving low cost- low energy housing preference over housing with a higher energy consumption (but the same cost).

4 To strengthen the local project development capacity for the construction of low-cost low-energy buildings and to develop of a pipeline of at least 5-10 projects ready for investments.

4.1 Strengthened local project development capacity for the construction of low-cost low-energy buildings and a pipeline of at least 5-10 new projects to construct low -cost/low-energy buildings ready for investments

A ‘pipeline’ of 5 buildings was noted during the review (in addition to the one apartment building currently under construction in Susice. The 5 buildings are:

Humpolec – one apartment building

Zelezny Brod – three apartment buildings with a total of

Family houses (3 row houses) in Roztoky u Prahy (speculatively built private development).

Therefore the requirements of this output have been met.

15

Review, evaluate and disseminate the intermediate and final results of the project.

5.1 Final report (published in Czech and English)

To be completed.

5.2 Intermediate and final results of the project disseminated nationally and internationally

The dissemination efforts of the project have been noted as being substantial in scale. In addition to the project activities already mentioned above, the following dissemination actions have been noted to date.

CD Rom on low cost-low energy buildings in the Czech Republic

Web site page on the web site of SEVEn, and a free standing web site page for the project.

One day section of the conference ‘Energy Efficiency Business Week’ in November 2002 will be devoted to low cost – low energy housing, plus a seminar on low energy building materials and technology will be organised (for the accompanying exhibition).

It is considered that this output has been satisfactorily met to date. However, it should also be noted that the need to disseminate this project will not end with the end of the project, since it could be argued that the real work of dissemination will start once the results of the monitoring of the actual results of the consumption in the houses constructed are known. This point is considered further in Section 3.

16

3.0 FINDINGS

3.1 Conclusions

Project design:

The project is well designed and meets the key problems as set out in the project document, that are clearly still problems even four years after the drafting of this document, indicating both the importance of the project to address these problems, and the lack of other actions or initiatives other than this project to address these problems.

Project Implementation

Management arrangements have been satisfactory, and both the executing agency and implementing agency have fulfilled their roles without notable problems or difficulties. Of particular note in relation to project implementation are the roles played by the Steering Committee and working teams/ panels of experts.

The Steering Committee has served both as a executive advisory board bringing high level direction to the project, and as a coordinating body allowing a very valuable exchange of information between the members (and in particular between different Ministries and public agencies, among whom coordination and communication is notably poor).

The project teams (for each of the three towns) have allowed architects and engineers to work together, with some healthy ‘competition’ between the teams. The Panel of Experts functioned both in an advisory function (as intended) and as a dissemination channel.

Project Results:

The objectives of developing a design and implementation scheme for the development of at least one no cost/ low cost energy housing development has been exceeded, and at least 3 buildings will be directly built by municipalities under the work of the project.

The objective of increasing awareness of decision makers has been met, and several buildings will be built outside the direct involvement of the project of the low cost/ low energy type based on the outreach activities of the project.

Revision of energy standards has been superseded by changes in the project implementing environment. This has required the need to harmonise energy efficiency building standards with EU norms and EU methods of calculating energy efficiency in housing, and also by the passage of the ‘Energy Management Act’ that gave the responsibility of setting energy efficiency performance standards in housing to the Ministry of Industry. The work underway to change the minimum efficiency standards for new housing supported by State Funds from the present 100 kW/ M2 to a lower level is useful, but its realization to a lower standards (based on the results of this project) will almost certainly have to wait for actual measurable results from the 3 cities involved in the project. Calculations and computer simulations of savings are not enough to convince a very sceptical audience (even ‘supporters’ of the project expressed the view that the need actual results to justify replication of the project).

The one year delay in the construction of the first building (in Sušice) appeared to have been caused by factors beyond the control of the Implementing Agency (the loss of office of the ‘project champion’ mayor, and the lower level of interest of this successor). Indeed the application for a grant from the Czech Energy Agency programme to support energy efficiency investments in 2000 (which would have amounted to approximately 10% of the value of the building in Sušice) which was granted largely due to the support given by the Implementing Agency (and the loss of the grant because of the delayed start of construction by the town) would seem to indicate that the cause of the delays lay beyond the direct responsibility of the Implementing Authority. It appears in fact that the town wanted a building to be ‘dropped in on them’ and SEVEn insisted that the town should take ‘ownership’ of the project.

While this attitude was certainly correct, and will assist the replication of the project (without any ownership the town would have no interest in learning from the project) this one year delay in the start of construction has had important implications: the project period (and funds) do not allow full monitoring of the 3 sites in terms of the actual savings achieved (as compared to the design savings) except for a short period (probably 3- 4 months) in Susice. In the other two cities, Humpolec and Zelezny Brod construction will only be completed after the end of the project.

The purpose of the project is to achieve the design (and construction) of housing that has a comparable cost to ‘conventional’ housing but has a much lower energy consumption. This means comparing the design performance (through simulation and calculation) of the low energy housing with conventional housing. For the purposes of design it is the calculated performance that is important, and if the methodology used for calculation is the same for both the low energy low cost housing and conventional housing, then the results should be convincing. Unfortunately, it is clear from all the discussions during this review that in order to overcome the very strong scepticism and resistance to the notion of low cost/ low energy houses (which seem simply too good to be true) building developers (in the public and private sector) require proof in terms of saving actually achieved in practice. This will need actual monitoring for at least 2 winters. While it was foreseen that monitoring would take 18 months, only 6 months will be possible in reality.

Discussions organised through the project on the criteria to be used by the State Housing Fund to take into the account the energy consumption of new housing applying for subsidies has included the ideas that low energy (low cost) housing should receive an extra subsidy, or that it should receive a higher priority for funding. The former idea seems to be illogical, and the latter idea entirely sensible.

Impact of the project

The scale of the project should be borne in mind when assessing the impact of the project. It is not realistic to expect that based on this project every house or apartment building built in the Czech Republic will immediately be a low cost – low energy design. This will depend on the results of the constructed houses. The project has ‘facilitated’ the adoption of low-cost low energy houses, but it would not be realistic to expect a project of this size (three or even six buildings) to totally transform the market for housing in the Czech Republic. As indicated elsewhere, attitudes are strongly entrenched, the traditional building material industry has a powerful lobby, and the construction industry is a conservative and slow to change industry.

18

Adopting new practices and new thinking in the house building industry is possible, but it will take longer than the duration of this project.

The project team have stated that the project was not primarily a construction project, but a communication and attitude change project (i.e. the construction of the low cost – low energy houses is a means to an end, but not an end it itself). This is a completely correct assertion. This is important to consider when judging the impact of the project. At this point in the project it is clear that progress has been made in two aspects of the communication/ attitude change process:

Professionals from different branches (architects, structural engineers, heating engineers) have worked together in a way that allowed integrated solutions to be developed that have had an important impact in terms of reducing energy consumption for a given cost of construction.

It was clear that is was (and is, and will be) very difficult to persuade these building professionals to think in terms of payback and cost effectiveness. The small ‘low energy’ community in the Czech Republic have thought in terms of low energy housing as (a) higher cost and (b) using high cost and uneconomic renewable energy solutions. Environmental groups have contributed to this way of thinking (and some opposition to the concept of low cost low energy housing was noted on the grounds that the emphasis on cost did not allow some renewable ‘shiny toys’ to be included in the designs).

However, it was also clear that designing the buildings can only achieve limited results in terms of attitude change. Further and more substantial progress will require the completion, monitoring, and successful use of the buildings in terms of the realised consumptions matching the design criteria if the strongly expressed scepticism towards the idea that low energy housing can be built without any incremental cost. is to be overcome.

Sustainability

The project is considered to be very sustainable, both in terms of static sustainability and dynamic sustainability. The project has very good prospects for replication both within the sector of municipal multi-family housing (the target of the project) and more generally in the housing sector in the Czech Republic and other neighbouring countries.

Contribution to capacity development

The result noted above: that the project encouraged communication between different groups of building professionals and different Ministries and State agencies (with a previously poor record of cooperative working relationships) has contributed to capacity development (the capacity for both policy makers and building professionals to replicate the project).

Synergy with other similar projects, funded by the government or other donors

The Dutch Government financed a project entitled “Construction of Low-energy Family Houses at Svitavy.” The efficient homes were Dutch-designed single-family residential houses. This project appears does not appear to have had significant local capacity building objectives (using Dutch designs for the housing) but the project has helped in the general awareness raising of low energy housing in the Czech Republic.

19

The Chamber of Commerce of the Czech Republic prepared a public competition “Earth for Grandchildren” focusing on advanced space heating and other technologies using the low-cost low-energy building concepts designed during the GEF/UNDP project’s architectural competition in Uherské Hradiště as a basis for this competition.

The National Energy Efficiency Strategy and the Action Plan for the Czech Republic, funded partly by the World Bank, was prepared by a consortium of local and Dutch consultants for the Government of the Czech Republic. It included a discussion of the state subsidies affecting new housing construction. SEVEn, as a member of this consortium, applied its experience from this GEF/UNDP project to its work on the high-level report.

3.2 Recommendations

Based on the review of the project, the following recommendations are made:

The Steering Committee should raise and discuss (and try to find a solution) to the problem of post project monitoring, which is a key to the replication of the project. The project team may have initially underestimated the strength of the attitudes that low energy means both high costs and high technology (unproven) building technologies. Neither is true (as the project demonstrates), but this requires the evidence from actually completed and monitored projects.

The need for post project monitoring requires three interrelated questions to be solved: what level of detail is required for the monitoring, and the related question of who will pay for it? Monitoring is an activity that normally expands to fit the budget – the budget usually determines the degree of detail possible, the number of data loggers installed etc, and thirdly, who is going to be responsible for the organisation of the monitoring and for the analysis of the data received?

The monitoring question should be discussed by the Steering Committee before the end of the project. As noted above, the Czech Energy Agency indicated an understanding of the importance of the issue and a willingness to explore whether the necessary financing could be found within the programme budget of the Agency. However, even if such a solution is possible, the responsibility for organising the monitoring should be explicitly addressed. Logic suggests that SEVEn could organise the monitoring, since (a) it was originally foreseen that they would take on this task for one year for one building, and (b) it is fully compatible with their role in terms of promotion and dissemination of the results of the project.

The second issue raised by the need for monitoring after the end of the project is the need for funding for the dissemination of the results. This issue was not explicitly raised during the review meetings. It is clear that monitoring of the buildings and determining the real energy savings in the actual buildings will not in itself do anything to promote the wider use of the lessons of the project (i.e. to promote the use of the design concepts and building practice on a wider scale).

It is recommended that the Implementing Authority SEVEn should examine the likely funding needs for the dissemination of the lessons of the monitoring in the three cities where buildings are being constructed through the project, and should make recommendations to the Steering Committee on the necessary funding needs. Based on this recommendation the

20

Steering Committee should consider (a) what are the potential sources of funds and (b) who should have responsibility for the actual dissemination.

3.3 Lessons Learned

Low energy housing need not cost more, and does not involve high technology solutions. The key to the lower energy consumption of the houses designed through the project lies in a combination of careful orientation and passive solar design, high quality construction and attention to detail (for example avoiding thermal bridges which are a source of heat losses).

Promoting the wider use of the concept of low-energy houses that do not cost more than traditional construction requires a change in attitudes in the architectural profession and in the building industry, and changing attitudes is much more difficult than building houses.

Post-project monitoring is crucial to the wider replication of the lessons of the project, and how to ensure the funding for this, and who will take responsibility for it, and who will pay for, and take responsibility for the dissemination of the findings of the post-project monitoring should be discussed and solved before the end of the project.

21

LIST OF ANNEXES (TERMS OF REFERENCE, ITINERARY, PERSONS INTERVIEWED)

Annex 1: List of Persons Interviewed

Annex 2: Itinerary of the Review

Annex 3: Terms of Reference

22

Project Number: CEH/98/G35/A/1G/72Project Name: Low Cost/Low Energy Buildings in the Czech RepublicMid-Term Evaluation

List of Persons Interviewed:

Implementing Authority SEVEn: Jaroslav Maroušek, Executive Director

Jiři Zeman Project Manager

Petra Neuwirthova, Project Coordinator

Ministry of Environment/ OFP Michal Pastvinský Director, Global Relations Dept. (two meetings)

Miroslav Hájek, Director of Environmental Economy Dept.

Town of Sušice Mgr. Jiřina Rippelová Mayor

Ing. Petr Kočman, Deputy Mayor

Ministry of Regional Development Daniela Grabmullerová, Director, Housing Policy Dept.

Mgr. Jaroslav Kubečka, Head of Analysis

Architect Arch. Josef Horný

League of Ecological Alternatives Karel Merhaut

Czech Energy Agency Ing. Plocková

Zelezny Brod design team: Arch Cižék, Architect

Ing. Roch, Engineer

Arch. David Damaška. Architect

23

CZECH REPUBLIC LOW-COST, LOW-ENERGY HOUSING MSP

Agenda for GEF Secretariat Managed Project Review (SMPR) and Mid-Term Evaluation (MTE):

Date SMPR MTE9 Sep 02 Project Briefing

Lead: GEF SecretariatVenue: SEVEn PragueParticipants: SMPR reviewers, MTE reviewer, UNDP observer, UNDP liaison officer, project manager.Time: 09:00-13:00

9 Sep 02 Introductory Meeting with OFP/NPDLead: UNDP/Project TeamVenue: Ministry of EnvironmentParticipants: SMPR reviewers and UNDP, GEF Operational Focal Point and/or National Project Director (former GEF OFP and current Deputy Minister) as per availability/ MTE reviewerTime: Afternoon

9 Sep 02 Meeting with Project TeamLead: Project TeamVenue: SEVEnTime: 16:00-18:00

9 Sep 02 Meeting with IA staff/ liaison officer and Regional CoordinatorLead: UNDPVenue: RestaurantTime: 19:00 (Dinner meeting)

10 Sep 02 Trip to Project Construction Site and Meeting with City OfficialsLead: Project teamParticipants: SMPR reviewers, MTE reviewer, city officialsVenue: City of Sušice (transportation by minibus)Time: Morning

11 Sept Ministry of Regional DevelopmentParticipants: SMPR reviewers, MTE reviewerVenue: Ministry of Regional DevelopmentTime: morning

11 Sept 02 Meeting with Architect/ Member of panel of expertsParticipants: SMPR reviewers, MTE reviewerVenue: SEVEnTime: Morning

11 Sept 02 Meeting with NGO/ Steering Committee Member (League of Ecological Alternatives)Participants: SMPR reviewers, MTE reviewerVenue: SEVEnTime: Afternoon

12 Sept 02 Meeting with Czech Energy AgencyParticipants: SMPR reviewers, MTE reviewerVenue: Czech Energy AgencyTime: morning

24

12 Sept 02 Focus Group Meeting with Project Architects and Civil Engineers/ Zelezny Brod projectLead: Project teamParticipants: SMPR reviewers, MTE reviewerVenue: SEVEnTime: Afternoon

13 Sept 02 Wrap-Up with OFP/NPDLead: UNDP/Project TeamVenue: Ministry of EnvironmentParticipants: SMPR reviewers and UNDP, GEF Operational Focal Point and/or National Project Director (former GEF OFP and current Deputy Minister), MTE reviewerTime: Morning

13 Sept 02 Wrap-Up Meeting (MTE)Lead: UNDPParticipants: UNDP, MTE reviewerMTE reviewer will discuss findings and next steps with UNDPTime: 10:00

25

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR EXTERNAL EVALUATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE/ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROJECT

for Czech Republic: Low Cost/Low Energy Buildings in the Czech Republic (CEH/98/G35)

1. BACKGROUND

UNDP strives to promote sustainable human development. The sustainability of all development efforts depends on the preservation of the local and global environment. The UNDP support for environmental protection also focuses on energy efficiency.

The medium-sized project titled Low Cost/Low Energy Buildings in the Czech Republic is to help the country to improve the energy efficiency of its public sector, thus mitigating the emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly their CO2 component.

The objective of the project is to reduce the CO2 emissions of the Czech Republic by improving the energy efficiency of the new buildings to be constructed in the country, and thereby simultaneously reducing the operational costs and increasing the comfort level of the apartments.

The project goal is expected to be achieved by: (i) Developing a design and implementation scheme for construction of new low-

cost, low-energy buildings; (ii) Gaining, adopting and disseminating practical experience with developing low-

cost low-energy residential buildings among all involved professional groups (architects, designers, developers, construction companies, investors);

(iii) Strengthening the local capacity to develop low-cost low-energy building projects, preparing new energy standards for buildings, and designing a financial mechanism for a widespread expansion of similar buildings; and

(iv) Ensuring that the investment costs of low-cost low-energy buildings are comparable to the costs of a standard building, and that the investment costs of the building are to be covered by a local investor and not by the project budget itself.

The ultimate objective of the project is to ensure that the construction of low-cost low-energy buildings will be sustainable and can be replicated after project termination.

2. PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION

Considering the importance of climate change issues and the high responsibility attached to the project as funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), UNDP has decided to conduct a mid-term evaluation in order to contribute to ensure proper documentation of lessons learned.

26

The evaluation should focus on the following issues:

Relevance of the project to:a) Development priorities at the local and national level;b) Target groups - identification of their specific needs relative to their status and

responsibilities; c) Direct beneficiaries - Government, local authorities, public services, utilities, residents;d) UNDP mission to promote SHD by assisting the country to build its capacities in the

focal area of environmental protection and management.

Performance - look at the progress that has been/is being made by the project relative to the achievement of its immediate objectives, outputs and activities

a) Effectiveness - extent to which the project achieves its immediate objectives and produces the desired outcomes; cost effectiveness and success rate of transforming inputs into outputs;

b) Efficiency - optimal transformation of inputs ant outputs, including an assessment of the different implementation modalities;

c) Timeliness of inputs and results,

Management arrangements focused on project implementationa) General implementation and management - assess the project in terms of quality and

timeliness of inputs and activities, with particular reference to financial and human resources management

b) Management arrangements - evaluate the adequacy of the project, including the effectiveness of the Project Steering Committee and the Project Board.

c) Equal participation of men and women – assess indicators developed under the project to measure this equal participation.

Overall success of the project with regard to the following criteria:a) Impact - assessment of the results with reference to the development objectives of the

projects; b) Sustainability - assessment of the prospects for potential replication of the project

positive results after termination of UNDP support; static sustainability which refers to the continuous flow of the same benefits to the same target groups; dynamic sustainability use and/or adaptation of the projects’ results by original target groups and/or other target groups;

c) Contribution to capacity development - extent to which the project has empowered target groups and have made possible for the government and local institutions (municipalities) to use the positive experiences; ownership of projects’ results;

Synergy with other similar projects, funded by the government or other donors.

Recommendations and lessons learned for further implementation for achieving project objectives including future support of UNDP and/or the Government.

27

3. COMPOSITION OF THE EVALUATION MISSION

The evaluation mission will be undertaken by External International Consultant (See ANNEX I for terms of reference).

The consultant will be identified by UNDP in consultation with the Project. He will be responsible for preparing the evaluation report and the project evaluation report is completed in accordance with UNDP guidelines.

4. METHOD AND EXPECTED OUTPUTS

The evaluation will take place mainly in the field. The evaluator should work closely with the government counterparts, the project management, SEVEn, The Energy Efficiency Center, the sub-contractors and direct beneficiaries.

The evaluator should consult all relevant sources of information, such as the project document, project reports, project budgets, progress reports, project files, and any other material that they may consider useful.

The evaluator should also use interviews as a means of collecting data on the relevance, performance and success of the project.

Although the mission should feel free to discuss with the authorities concerned, all matters relevant to its assignment, it is not authorized to make any commitment on behalf of UNDP or GEF or the project management.

The output of the mission will be an Evaluation Report. The format and length will be determined by discussion between Review Team and UNDP Bratislava.

5. DURATION OF THE EVALUATION

The total duration of the evaluation will be 7 days. The start date of the evaluation will be 8 September 2002, according to the following plan:

Prior to fielding of the mission (1 day): - Acquaintance with the project document and other relevant materials with information

about the project;- Familiarization with Czech energy efficiency legislation and overall policy on the

decentralization and local self-governance;- Detailed mission programme preparation in cooperation with SEVEn, The Energy

Efficiency Center. SEVEn will organize the schedule of the mission and will provide transportation to the consultant;

During the mission: 2 days:- Briefing with UNDP;- Visit to the office of the Executing Agency and Implementing Agency in Prague and

briefing with the project management and project staff;

28

- Joint review of all available materials- Interviews with national policy makers at the Ministry for Environment, the Ministry of

Economic Affairs and with management of SEVEn;

2 days - Interviews with key beneficiaries and stakeholders, including meetings with State

Housing Fund Officials, Group Meeting with Project Architects and Civil Engineers, meeting with City Officials, etc.

- Trip to Project Construction Site

1 day:- Additional information review - Structuring and development of a draft report - Debriefing with UNDP

After the field mission (1 day): - Completing of the draft report- Presentation of draft report for comments and suggestions- Presentation of final evaluation report

6. INFORMATION PROVIDED TO THE MISSION BY

UNDP/SEVEn - project document, project reports, progress report, draft of PIR report, annual project reports, TPR, Project Board and Steering Committee meetings minutes; revised budgets;

SEVEn - national development priorities, national energy strategy, Energy and Energy Efficiency Act, Second National Communication on UNFCCC, National Climate Change Action Plan, etc.

29