Project assistance completion report : rural development monitoring and evaluation project

The project could not be implemented as originally planned due to personnel changes, contracting problems, and procedural difficulties - all of which led to delays in the delivery of project inputs. Following a mid-term review, the project was redesigned to focus on strengthening M&E at the departmental and provincial levels rather than developing a highly centralized system. The specific purpose, as amended, was to install data base and decision support systems in the National Economic and Social Development Board's (NESDB's) National Rural Development Coordination Center (NRDCC), pilot implementing agencies, and pilot provinces. Achievement of this amended purpose proceeded satisfactorily: microcomputers were installed not only in the pilot agencies and provinces but in all 72 provinces and 30 implementing departments, and management information systems were developed for annual planning and project M&E. Training in the use of these systems was provided to both service personnel and external information users. However, the decision support models provided in these systems need to be expanded. The project strengthened Thailand's rural development data base (NRD 2C) in terms of reliability and coverage so that it was used to generate socioeconomic information for the National Rural Development Program of the Sixth Plan. Specifically, the information was used to identify target areas in all below- average villages and some average villages. NRD 2C will be treated as a socioeconomic data base, which will be complemented and supplemented by sectoral data bases. It should not be more comprehensive as its reliability and economy would be sacrificed. Several lessons were learned. (1) NESDB is a policy planning and coordination body with limited implementation experience. In light of this, perhaps USAID/T should have taken a more active role in resolving implementation difficulties rather than adopt a wait and see attitude. (2) Loan funding of TA created problems for NESDB in procuring "benefits" (e.g., payment of taxes) for the expatriate advisors who replaced the originally intended TA team from the U.S. Census Bureau (3) Detailed documentation of project modifications after the mid-term evaluation facilitated the ensuing implementation. (4) Because the project was loan- rather than grant-funded, no funds were earmarked for evaluation. There was a significant delay in securing PD&S funds for the mid-term evaluation, and no final evaluation was conducted.