- Evaluation Plan:
- 2007-2011, Thailand
- Evaluation Type:
- Project
- Planned End Date:
- 04/2009
- Completion Date:
- 06/2009
- Status:
- Completed
- Management Response:
- Yes
- Evaluation Budget(US $):
- 20,000
BIOMASS CO-GENERATION
| Document | Type | Language | Size | Status | Downloads |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 TOR__Biomass_Final_Evaluation_2009.doc |
tor | Posted | 820 | ||
 BIOMASS_Final_Evaluation.zip |
report | English | Posted | 1021 | |
 |
summary | Posted | 517 |
| Title | BIOMASS CO-GENERATION | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atlas Project Number: | |||||||||||
| Evaluation Plan: | 2007-2011, Thailand | ||||||||||
| Evaluation Type: | Project | ||||||||||
| Status: | Completed | ||||||||||
| Completion Date: | 06/2009 | ||||||||||
| Planned End Date: | 04/2009 | ||||||||||
| Management Response: | Yes | ||||||||||
| Focus Area: |
|
||||||||||
| Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021) | |||||||||||
| Evaluation Budget(US $): | 20,000 | ||||||||||
| Source of Funding: | |||||||||||
| Joint Programme: | No | ||||||||||
| Joint Evaluation: | No | ||||||||||
| Evaluation Team members: |
|
||||||||||
| GEF Evaluation: | Yes
|
||||||||||
| Key Stakeholders: | |||||||||||
| Countries: | THAILAND |
| Lessons | |
|---|---|
| Findings |
| Recommendations | |
|---|---|
| 1 | Project exeduting agency - Location of the project within EFE is a key feature of the implementaiton structure. ... It is difficult to tell without a comparison case how the success of the project would have been affectived if implementation had instead been carried out within the GOT. The example of using a QUANGO for implementation of project similar to RBBPGC can be said to be generally effective subject to meeeting the bulleted provisions, however. |
| 2 | Project governance - Project oversight from the PSC was sufficient for procedureal issues but less than optimal for strategic direction given the challenges faced with the evolving RE sector.Similar bodies for future UNDP/GEF projects could likely be improved through greater provision of information to PSC members and more frequent PSC meetings - following the example of the EFE board. |
| 3 | Performance Improvement - A lack of staff resources has been the major constraint on the project performing even better than it has. Specifically such limited staff resources have led to a trend of delays in deploying budgetary resoruces to meet the scheduled work plan and to a slightly narrower range of planned activities than may have been optimal. |
| 4 | Performance Improvement - M&E design was not considered significantly supportive of the Project and could beneficially have been streamlined, to provide more meaningful information and demand a lower proportion of skilled staff and financial resources. |
1. Recommendation: Project exeduting agency - Location of the project within EFE is a key feature of the implementaiton structure. ... It is difficult to tell without a comparison case how the success of the project would have been affectived if implementation had instead been carried out within the GOT. The example of using a QUANGO for implementation of project similar to RBBPGC can be said to be generally effective subject to meeeting the bulleted provisions, however.
Management Response: [Added: 2009/10/29]
Noted. Since this is final evaluation and the project is finished and closed, no further action is required, but the recommendation is noted for future reference.
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Noted. Since the project is finished and closed, the recommendation is noted for future reference.
[Added: 2009/10/29] |
Country Office | 2009/10 | Completed | Noted. Since the project is finished and closed, no further action is required, but the recommendation is noted for future reference. |
2. Recommendation: Project governance - Project oversight from the PSC was sufficient for procedureal issues but less than optimal for strategic direction given the challenges faced with the evolving RE sector.Similar bodies for future UNDP/GEF projects could likely be improved through greater provision of information to PSC members and more frequent PSC meetings - following the example of the EFE board.
Management Response: [Added: 2009/10/29]
Noted. Since this is final evaluation and the project is finished and closed, no further action is required, but the recommendation is noted for future reference.
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Noted. Since the project is finished and closed, the recommendation is noted for future reference, especially for reference by other similar UNDP/GEF projects.
[Added: 2009/10/29] |
Country Office | 2009/10 | Completed | Noted. Since the project is finished and closed, no further action is required, but the recommendation is noted for future reference. |
3. Recommendation: Performance Improvement - A lack of staff resources has been the major constraint on the project performing even better than it has. Specifically such limited staff resources have led to a trend of delays in deploying budgetary resoruces to meet the scheduled work plan and to a slightly narrower range of planned activities than may have been optimal.
Management Response: [Added: 2009/10/29]
Noted. Since this is final evaluation and the project is finished and closed, no further action is required, but the recommendation is noted for future reference, especially for similar UNDP/GEF project formulation.
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Noted. Since the project is finished and closed, the recommendation is noted for future reference.
[Added: 2009/10/29] |
Country Office | 2009/10 | Completed | Noted. Since the project is finished and closed, no further action is required, but the recommendation is noted for future reference. |
4. Recommendation: Performance Improvement - M&E design was not considered significantly supportive of the Project and could beneficially have been streamlined, to provide more meaningful information and demand a lower proportion of skilled staff and financial resources.
Management Response: [Added: 2009/10/29]
Noted. Since this is final evaluation and the project is finished and closed, no further action is required, but the recommendation is noted for future reference, esp for future GEF projects.
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Noted. Since the project is finished and closed, the recommendation is noted for future reference.
[Added: 2009/10/29] |
Country Office | 2009/10 | Completed | Noted. Since the project is finished and closed, no further action is required, but the recommendation is noted for future reference. |