Terminal evaluation - Energy Efficiency Improvements in the Indian Brick Industry

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2013-2017, India
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
11/2016
Completion Date:
12/2016
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
20,000

Share

Title Terminal evaluation - Energy Efficiency Improvements in the Indian Brick Industry
Atlas Project Number: 00047625
Evaluation Plan: 2013-2017, India
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 12/2016
Planned End Date: 11/2016
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Environment & Sustainable Development
  • 2. Others
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
  • 1. Output 1.5. Inclusive and sustainable solutions adopted to achieve increased energy efficiency and universal modern energy access (especially off-grid sources of renewable energy)
Evaluation Budget(US $): 20,000
Source of Funding:
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Rogelio Aldover
Sanjay Mande Dr sanjaymande@gmail.com INDIA
Dr. Sanjay Mande National Consultant
GEF Evaluation: Yes
GEF Project Title: GEF-UNDP-MoEF Project 3465 – Energy Efficiency Improvements in Indian Brick
Evaluation Type: Terminal Evaluation
Focal Area: Climate Change
Project Type: MSP
GEF Phase: GEF-4
GEF Project ID:
PIMS Number: 3465
Key Stakeholders:
Countries: INDIA
Lessons
1.
  • There needs to be clear monitoring guidelines for charge out rate band allowed as against that mentioned in the ProDoc. In this case TERI charged very high (2-4 time) the charge out rate as compared to that mentioned in the ProDoc and only after 21 months down the lone after project start this issue propped up and got highlighted in MTR, though TERI justified the chargeout rate and claims have informed UNDP in advance at the start of implementation there is need to put in place some guiding framework and monitoring mechanism to prevent occurrences of such incidences in future GEF projects as it eventually impacts project implementation and effectiveness; as in this case project practically got seized for more than 2 years crucial project implementation for resolution of the issue.

2.

There is need to have independent professional inputs, including international consultant, while developing project document and strong and realistic LFA. In this case the project development process had been a very long process (almost 7 years from 2001 onwards); though fortunately all major stakeholders viz. TERI, MoEF and UNDP remained committed to the project development during despite such long development period. Also though LogFrame and baseline and incremental analysis was included in the approved ProDoc, as also mentioned in MTR, it was very generic and not very closely tailored to the project’s specific context and desired outcomes. Though an updated LFA was prepared by the PFU/PMU but was never implemented, as by the time the updated LFA was ready for consideration in December 2011, as mentioned earlier, the project had effectively ceased operations over the still unresolved issue of TERI staff charge out rates higher (2-4 time) than that specified in the ProDoc


3.

There is need to clearly develop and mention base line scenario in ProDoc for example for number of bank loan for REBs in base year 2008 which has resulted in quantifiably verifying the project impact during the course of execution. In order to avoid such confusion in measuring the project achievements there is need to have very clear and quantifiable benchmark in a such a manner that will help track and monitor efficacy of the project


4.

As mentioned in the mid-term evaluation report also there was confusion about the actual number of REB units implemented additionally during the first year of the project, as many were mentioned as already existing at project start though they did get lot of benefit in the form of facilitation support from the project. There is need to avoid such misunderstanding and confusion in projecting the project achievements


5.

One of the key shortcomings observed during the project execution has been lack of focus on demonstration or replication projects. The so-called 9 “demonstration” projects were in most cases already producing REBS or were no longer interested in producing REBs, which was projects main focus. This might have occurred due to the long time delay in project development and the final approval from the GEF. There is a need to set clear guidelines for the selection of units as project demonstration/ replication units and to provide systematic support in the form of specific technical support to streamline/stabilize and increase the production, monitoring, documentation, and support for market development, so that there is a demonstrable improvement in the production volume/quality/productivity of these units and the project is able to meet at least some significant part of its CO2 reduction target


Findings
Recommendations
1

Fast track inclusion of REB in public sector procurement guidelines

2

Expedite inclusion of REB in relevant BIS (Bureau of Indian standards)

3

Need to brand the website and include content in local language

4

Follow up programme to capitalize on the momentum created by the project to scale up REB producing units

1. Recommendation:

Fast track inclusion of REB in public sector procurement guidelines

Management Response: [Added: 2017/01/03]

The project made breakthrough in Public Works Department, Government of Punjab included REBs in their procurement schedule. MoEFCC has taken note of this progress and may consider sending circular to state authorities to consider including REBs in procurement schedule.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Enhance the efforts to ensure REB to get included in large number of PWDs and other agencies across the country
[Added: 2017/01/03] [Last Updated: 2019/02/01]
Ministry of Environment Forest, Climate Change, Urban Development departments of State Governments, Public Works Departments 2019/01 No Longer Applicable [Justification: The activity was completed and the project has been closed. ]
History
2. Recommendation:

Expedite inclusion of REB in relevant BIS (Bureau of Indian standards)

Management Response: [Added: 2017/01/03]

Two of the project partners, namely The Energy and Resources Institute and Punjab State Council for Science & Technology are in the committee set up by the BIS to revise the standards for REBs. These two agencies have their core mandate to work in brick sector and hence they are expected to be on board and take forward the agenda of getting REBs included in the BIS.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Expedite follow-up with Chairman of CED-30 committee of BIS to complete inclusion of REBs in relevant standards like IS 2222, IS 3952
[Added: 2017/01/03] [Last Updated: 2019/02/01]
TERI and PSCST 2019/01 No Longer Applicable [Justification: The activity has been completed and the project is closed. ]
History
3. Recommendation:

Need to brand the website and include content in local language

Management Response: [Added: 2017/01/03]

Noted. The same will be conveyed to TERI and PSCST to translate the contents to local language by giving copy rights

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Developing robust frame work for branding and quality control of project website Make available case studies and key important information available on the website into local (here Hindi or state languages) to have intended impact and enhance utility to end-users.
[Added: 2017/01/03] [Last Updated: 2019/02/01]
TERI, PSCST 2019/01 No Longer Applicable [Justification: The project has been closed.]
History
4. Recommendation:

Follow up programme to capitalize on the momentum created by the project to scale up REB producing units

Management Response: [Added: 2017/01/03]

A concept note “Market development for Resource Efficient Walling Materials” has been submitted to MoEFCC for consideration under for any funding. This includes scaling up REB production.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Follow up on concept note to develop a programme to capitalize on the momentum
[Added: 2017/01/03] [Last Updated: 2019/02/01]
UNDP, MoEFCC 2019/01 No Longer Applicable [Justification: The project has been closed]
History

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