BIOMASS CO-GENERATION

Report Cover Image
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
Lessons & Summary was included in the Evaluation Report.

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document TOR__Biomass_Final_Evaluation_2009.doc tor Posted 820
Download document BIOMASS_Final_Evaluation.zip report English Posted 1021
Download document 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:
  • 1. Crisis Prevention & Recovery
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:
Name Title Nationality
Mott MacDonald, Ltd. Team Leader
GEF Evaluation: Yes
Evaluation Type:
Focal Area:
Project Type:
GEF Phase: GEF-null
PIMS Number:
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.

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

1 UN Plaza
DC1-20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel. +1 646 781 4200
Fax. +1 646 781 4213
erc.support@undp.org