Moldova MEBP I FinEval - Final

Final evaluation of the project
“Moldova Energy and Biomass Project (MEBP)”
Report
Submitted to UNDP Moldova
7 December 2014
Jan H.A. van den Akker

Pavel Gavrilita
Disclaimer
Please note that the analysis and recommendations of this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the United
Nations Development Programme, its Executive Board or the United Nations Member States. This publication reflects
the views of its authors.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank UNDP Moldova and the MEBP Project Team for the assistance and information
provided during this mid-term review.
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ANRE National Agency for Energy Regulation
Moldova Energy and Biomass Project Final evaluation 2

(MEBP)
PB Project Board
PM Project Manager
CHP combined heat-power (a.k.a. co-generation)
CO Country Office
CSO civil society organization
DoA Description of Activities (of the Project Extension 2014-2017)
EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
EE energy efficiency
IEA International Energy Agency
EEA Energy Efficiency Agency
EEF Energy Efficiency Fund
ENPI European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument
EoI expression of interest
EU European Union
EUD Delegation of the European Union
EUR Euro
GEF Global Environment Facility
GJ gigajoules (= billion Joule)
GWh Gigawatt-hour (= billion watt-hours)
Ktoe kiloton of oil equivalent (= 41.86 million MJ)
kW kilowatt (= thousand Watt)
kWh kilowatt-hour (= 3.6 MJ)
LPA Local public authority
LPG liquid propane gas
MEBP Moldova Energy and Biomass Project
MJ megajoule (= million Joule)
MDL Moldovian Leu (EUR 1 = MDL 18.3; 1/10-07/11/14)
MoE Ministry of Economy
MoEnv Ministry of Environment
MoSEFF Moldovan Sustainable Energy Financing Facility
MoREFF Moldovan Residential Energy Efficiency Facility
MoRDC Ministry of Regional Development and Construction
n.a. not available or not applicable
NBS National Bureau of Statistics
NGO non-governmental organization
PJ petajoule (= billion MJ)
PMT Project Management Team
PPP public-private partnership
ProDoc project document
PV photovoltaic
RE renewable energy
RES renewable energy sources
RFP request for proposals
SWH solar water heater
TJ terajoule (= million MJ)
ToR Terms of reference
UN United Nations
UNDAF United Nations Development Assistance Framework
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNECE UN Economic Commission for Europe
UNFCCC UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
VAT value-added tax
WB World Bank
yr year
TABLE OF CONTENTS

(MEBP)
LIST OF ACRONYMS.................................................................................................................................................. 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................................................ 4
LIST OF BOXES.......................................................................................................................................................... 5
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................................................... 7
2. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................. 11
2.1 DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT......................................................................................................................................11
2.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVE AND DESCRIPTION....................................................................................................................11
2.3 MAIN STAKEHOLDERS: SUMMARY LIST.....................................................................................................................12
2.4 PURPOSE OF THE FINAL EVALUATION AND METHODOLOGY..........................................................................................14
3. FINDINGS....................................................................................................................................................... 17
3.1 RESULTS: ACHIEVEMENTS OF OUTPUTS....................................................................................................................17
3.1.1 Output 1: Municipal biomass heating and fuel supply markets established..............................................17
3.1.2 Output 2: Foundations laid for establishment of efficient household heating, industrial co-generation and
biomass briquetting markets..................................................................................................................................25
3.1.3 Output 3: Capacity built for growth of biomass markets at regional and local levels in Moldova.............27
3.1.4 Output 4: Opportunities and benefits of biomass energy for Moldova are well known, visibility of project
results is promoted.................................................................................................................................................31
3.1.5 Conclusions on results in terms of achievement of outputs.......................................................................34
3.2 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFICIENCY.............................................................................................................35
3.2.1 Project setup..............................................................................................................................................35
3.2.2 Partnerships and stakeholder engagement...............................................................................................36
3.2.3 Adaptive management and work planning...............................................................................................37
3.2.4 Project budget and realized expenditures.................................................................................................38
3.2.5 Reporting and communications; monitoring & evaluation; role of UNDP.................................................39
3.2.6 Conclusions regarding project implementation and efficiency..................................................................40
3.3 DESIGN AND RELEVANCE......................................................................................................................................41
3.3.1 Relevance and ownership..........................................................................................................................41
3.3.2 Design and results framework...................................................................................................................42
3.4 IMPACTS AND SUSTAINABILITY...............................................................................................................................43
3.4.1 Results in terms of achievements of outcomes and objectives; impacts....................................................43
3.4.2 Sustainability and replication....................................................................................................................46
3.4.3 Proposed MEBP successor project 2014-2017...........................................................................................49
4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................................... 51
4.1 CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................................................................................51
4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................................................................................52
4.3 LESSONS LEARNED...............................................................................................................................................53
ANNEX A. TERMS OF REFERENCE............................................................................................................................ 54
ANNEX B. MISSION AGENDA.................................................................................................................................. 61
ANNEX C. DOCUMENTS REVIEWED......................................................................................................................... 62
ANNEX D. BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND SECTOR CONTEXT............................................................................63
D.1 ENERGY IN MOLDOVA.........................................................................................................................................63
D.2 RENEWABLE ENERGY AND BIOMASS ENERGY.............................................................................................................64
D.3 UNDP AND EU PROGRAMME IN MOLDOVA............................................................................................................68
D.4 MEDP PROJECT 2014-2017, DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION (DOA)............................................................................69
D.5 OVERVIEW OF STANDARDS FOR SOLID BIOMASS FUELS................................................................................................74
ANNEX E. ABOUT THE EVALUATORS....................................................................................................................... 76
ANNEX F.CONSULTANT CODE OF CONDUCT FORM................................................................................................. 77

(MEBP)
LIST OF BOXES
Box 1 List of main stakeholders involved in biomass for heating in Moldova 12

Box 2 Evaluation criteria and questions 15
Box 3 Overview of outputs, activity results and progress indicators 18
Box 4 Project organization structure (from ProDoc) 36
Box 5 Overview of planned and realized expenditures (2011-2014) per project output 38
Box 6 Overview of planned and realized expenditures (2011-2014) per budget category 39
Box 7 Suggestions for improved progress indicators in the results framework 42
Box 8 Description and cost of biomass fuel and biomass-fired boilers 44
Box 9 Example of project results and impacts: Boghiceni 45
Box 10 Activities on empowerment of women 46
Box 10 Assessment of sustainability of project results 46
Box 13 Potential of arable crop residues (left) and forest biomass (right) 64
Box 14 Power and heat market opportunities for biomass in Moldova 65
Box 12 Description of activities and targets of the proposed succesor phase (2014-2017) 69

(MEBP)
MAP
The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance
by the United Nations. Source: United Nations Cartographic Section

(MEBP)
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Brief description of the project
The Republic of Moldova is highly dependent on energy imports. Over 95% of Moldova’s energy needs are
ensured through imports. The Government has committed itself to reform the energy sector by increasing the
energy security of the country, while addressing environmental sustainability issues. Studies show that one
widely available renewable of energy is formed by residues and waste from agriculture, in particular straw
waste, form Moldova's renewable energy source with a large short- to medium-term potential. Traditionally,
biomass use has mainly been confined to rural residential heating in the form of firewood and unprocessed
agricultural residues, such a straw, in inefficient stoves.
To address this issue, the project “Moldova Energy and Biomass Project”, hereafter referred to as MEBP, has
been implemented with a EUR 14.56 million budget by the United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP) with the European Union (EU) as the main donor. The Project Document (ProDoc) mentions that
the overall objective of the project is to “contribute to a more secure, competitive and sustainable energy
production in the Republic of Moldova through a targeted support to the most viable and readily available
local source of renewable energy, namely biomass from agricultural wastes”. The project purpose is “to
increase the use of renewable energy technology significantly through fuel switching and energy efficiency”.
This objective and purpose are to be achieved by the realization of four inter-related outputs (work packages)
and activities:
 Output 1, “Municipal biomass heating and fuel supply markets established” (work package 1) aims to
improve municipal heating of public buildings in rural areas and establish related fuel supply markets
 Output 2, “Foundations laid for establishment of efficient household heating, industrial cogeneration and
biomass briquetting markets” (work package 2) focusses on three emerging technology options for
biomass energy in Moldova, which will be assessed, developed, and piloted
 Output 3, “Capacity for growth of biomass markets at regional and local levels is built in Moldova” (work
package 3) aims to ensure that the benefits of biomass energy demonstrated and deployed under outputs 1
and 2 are delivered in a lasting and long-term way and that local capacities for further replication is
ensured
 Output 4, “”Opportunities and benefits of biomass energy for Moldova are well known locally, and
visibility of project results promoted” (work package 4) will facilitate widespread dissemination on the
general and specific advantages and impacts of using biomass energy in Moldova
Context and purpose of the evaluation
The project is scheduled to end by December 2014. As per UNDP guidelines, a final evaluation needs to be
carried out by one or more independent consultants. This report summarizes the findings of the final
evaluation conducted during October-November 2014. The overall objectives of evaluation are to assess the
achievement of project results, help identify and critically analyse the relevance of the project activities as
well as the effectiveness of the implementation. The evaluation examines whether the activities, outputs and
objectives outlined in project document have been achieved, and underlying factors affecting either
positively or negatively the implementation of the project, draw lessons and make forward-looking
recommendations for improvement of the sustainability of benefits obtained from the project.
Main findings and conclusions

(MEBP)
Considering that there were only few concentrated biomass energy activities in Moldova prior to the MEBP,
the evaluation observes that the Project has made an impact on raising awareness, knowledge and interest in
biomass energy development in Moldova. The evaluation judges the overall rating of the project to be
‘satisfactory’, as it has achieved most of the targets (defined in 2010 during project formulation) and has laid
a foundation for further development of the bioenergy market.
Results
The project has achieved the following outputs:
 Various new businesses have been launched during the project’s implementation period. There are now
more than 100 companies that produce modern solid biofuels (i.e. briquettes or pellets made out of
agricultural residues, such as straw of sunflower seeds) on the market; about 30 assemblers/importers of
boilers and equipment that can burn biomass; while various agricultural entrepreneurs produce the
required agricultural produce and residues. Almost 400 jobs have been created associated with this
improvement bioenergy fuel supply activities by companies.
 New biomass fuel quality standards and a new regulation on their implementation should ensure that the
solid biofuels meet standards;
 Over 140 biomass heating systems have been installed in municipal institutions in 127 rural communities
(e.g. at schools, kindergartens, community centres, public offices), using straw and modern solid biofuels;
the community have been actively engaged in a unique participatory community mobilization approach;
 Some 450 households have signed up for installation and financing of briquette/pellet-fired boilers;
 The local public authorities, public institution managers, operators of heating systems and local
businesspeople have acquired knowledge and skills in producing and using biomass energy, by means of
targeted trainings, seminars, workshops and making available guidebooks and guidelines on selected
bioenergy topics;
 The population, local public authorities, private sector, and the civil society have been informed about the
opportunities and benefits of renewable energy source deployment; and awareness has been raised
amongst a wide range of segments amongst public and private sector decision-makers, educational sector
stakeholders, civil society organizations and, last but not least, the public at large.
Design and relevance

The project fits well in the framework of policies and strategies of the Government of Moldova, related to
the adoption of the treaty with the Energy Community and overall development strategy of Moldova, which
emphasizes the need for energy security, environmental protection and sustainable energy. The design of the
Project was based on the fact that only few activities had been implemented in developing biomass as a
source of modern solid fuels and low level of awareness existed amongst key stakeholders on the benefits of
biomass and business opportunities. Considering Project progress to date and taking into account what can
reasonably be achieved in a four-year period, the design of the Project has been appropriate to support
catalytic activities for biomass energy development and to instil public and private stakeholder confidence on
biomass energy.
Implementation and management approach

The implementation approach of the Project has been highly strategic in close collaborative working
relationships with national-level government institutions (in particular the project partner, Ministry of
Economy, other line ministries and the Energy Efficiency Agency) and in participatory manner with regional
and local administrative authorities and in close cooperation with stakeholders from private sector (suppliers
of biofuels and of heating equipment), funding facilities, universities and educational institutions and NGOs.
MEBP successfully applied an adaptive management approach, including accessibility, flexibility and quick
adaptation to the emerging needs and changing circumstances of the local market and national partners. All
risks and issues were regularly and properly assessed and followed by specific and well targeted measures
developed to prevent implementation failures in constant communications with the stakeholders involved.
Regarding budget, the project has been implemented in a cost-effective way, also in view of the fact that

(MEBP)
some activity results have exceeded planned targets. The disbursements has generally been in line with
implementation progress of the project’s activities, while also disbursements do not deviate much from the
original 2011 budget.
Impacts
Considering that there only few concentrated biomass energy activities in Moldova prior to the MEBP, we
can observe that the Project has made an impact on raising awareness, knowledge and interest in biomass
energy development in Moldova. The project had visible impact on the involved communities, local biofuel
producers and biomass burning technologies’ installers which clearly highlights the project’s extraordinary
role in the development and strengthening of local biomass fuel market in Moldova
The main result in terms of impacts is that the Project indeed has helped the Moldovan counterparts to lay a
strong foundation for the development of modern solid biofuels in an important and visible way. The
project’s effectiveness is based on its full alignment with the national energy policy and sustainable energy
strategies, as well as on strong commitment and ownership of the national implementing partners of the
produced outcomes.
Sustainability
The future impact will be largely based on the sustainability of the results of the project. Sustainability can
be defined as the likelihood of continuation of results and benefits after the project ends. The Evaluators
have the opinion that sustainability for the project’s outputs and objective is likely, although some moderate
risks and issues remain. Given the project’s success in terms of results achieved, a new project has been
proposed to UNDP and the EU Delegation, basically extending and expanding the project’s activities until
2017. If approved, this successor MEBP project will help to address these risks and remaining issues and
further ensure project sustainability
Recommendations
Based on issues discussed in the previous Chapters and sections, this section presents a number of
recommendations.
1) Implement the proposed successor MEBP project (2014-2017)
The Evaluators welcome this successor Project as a means to address remaining issues regarding
sustainability and competitiveness of solid biomass fuel. The success shown by MEBP so far is indicative for
potentially good outcomes of the successor phase as well. Our first recommendation is therefore for the EU
Delegation to endorse and fund the new project (again to be implemented by UNDP) in accordance with the
outputs and activities as described in its draft project document “Description of the Action”.
2) Additional recommendations:
Some suggestions for activities to follow up (or to be incorporated in the proposed successor Project) are
given below:
a) With the Ministry of Education, explore options to expand topics on sustainable energy (renewable
energy and energy efficiency) to higher grades (to help orient students in their choice of future
professions towards the end of their secondary education.
b) In the end-user awareness, communication and information disseminations, stronger links could be made
with messages on ‘energy efficiency’. Cost of fuel consumption cannot only be lowered by using cheaper
alternatives, but also by energy use improvements, such as energy efficient windows, efficient use of hot
water and good insulation of building walls and roofs as well as of heat ducts and pipes.
c) Towards the end (in 2017), the successor MEBP project would benefit from undertaking an ‘end-of-
project’ assessment of status, remaining barriers and gaps and recommendation for post-project actions.
This assessment should integrate the results of the various studies and assessments undertaken in the

(MEBP)
period 2011-2017 and give a concise but short overview of the market status solid fuels for heating and
cogeneration:
 Briquetting/pelleting (raw materials quality and price developments, state of technology, costs of
technology and pricing of biomass fuels, financial cost (with and w/o subsidy), analysis of legal,
financial risks and recommendations for action); update info and studies as needed on agricultural
production, biofuel availability and costs;
 Assessment of market opportunities for biomass heating in productive sectors (e.g. in local agro-
processing and food processing; greenhouses; as well as wood processing enterprises; own biofuel
production), covering aspects as energy needs, technology and size, initial and lifecycle costs as well
as perceptions and awareness of biomass fuel end-users); Current and potential demand for solid
biomass fuels (in residential, public buildings as well as productive sectors);
 Assess the role of subsidy instruments in view of future sustainability and the future role of existing
and potential financial blending facilities, incentives and risk guarantee schemes;
 Analysis of remaining gaps and barriers (if any) with recommendations for post-project action (for
policy makers; financial institutions; private sector entities);
 Summary of main results, approaches followed, costs-benefits and lessons learned regarding
implementation of biomass technology in Moldova (not only success stories of the results, but to-
the-point information on how it was done and why MEBP made a difference).
Lessons learnt
Some lesson learnt are regarding results and performance are:

 There is often a strong resistance to using biomass fuels which is often regarded by end users as well as
decision-makers at national and local level as ‘not modern’ and not perceived as a good alternative due
negative perceptions on cost, availability, reliability and quality of the fuel. In this context,
businesspeople do not easily see the opportunity to have a viable business operation of producing biofuels
or installing, operating and servicing biomass-based heating systems. End-users will not purchase
biomass fuels that are not readily available at a competitive price, while these fuels cannot be made
available because producers cannot find the markets to absorb their product. This is a problem of the ‘hen
and the egg’, which needs to be addressed in an integrated way working at demand and supply at the
same time in a pro-active attitude with mobilization of stakeholders and beneficiaries, ample public
awareness raising and stakeholder capacity strengthening activities, ensuring consistent quality of the
biomass fuels, as well as mobilization financial resources.
 Such a pro-active attitude, mobilization of resources, creation of working groups, and proper setting of
priorities has proven to be an essential element in identifying the optimal strategy for the project
implementation. In this regard, the flexibility and adaptability demonstrated by the project team, national
stakeholders and development partners proved to be an important ingredient of the project success and
impacts;
 Continuous dialogue with the national stakeholders (national, local and regional authorities; community-
based organizations; private sector) and development partners has been an efficient tool to drive the
project into the right direction. For example in 2012, based on the recommendations provided during
meetings of the Project Board, the approach in implementing project activities such as focus of
technology (from straw used in stoves towards densified biofuels used in biomass boilers), promoting
local production of biomass boilers, piloting pelletization technologies, piloting co-generation was
changed to more market competition modalities. Similarly, the household system subsidy program was
regularly revised and adjusted to the purchasing power of the target group;
 Ample public awareness-raising activities are required prior to, and during, the project launch activities in
the regions in order to contribute to a wider understanding of the benefits of the biomass energy sources
by potential beneficiary communities. In general, the communication and awareness-raising activities,
combined with comprehensive training modules contributed to a better understanding and knowledge of
the biomass-based heating by the general public.

(MEBP)
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 Development context
ensured through imports. The Government has committed itself to reform the energy sector by increasing
the energy security of the country, attracting investments in infrastructure, and participating in an energy
market based on equitability principles and mutual advantages. Various studies 1 mention that Moldova has a
great potential to produce energy from renewable sources, which at the present time has not yet been
harnessed. These studies mention that an abundantly available renewable resource is formed by residues and
waste from agriculture, in particular wheat straw waste, with large short- to medium-term potential. More
information on the energy sector in general and biomass resources is given in Annex D.
2.2 Project objective and description
The Moldova Energy and Biomass Project (MEBP) started officially in January 2011 with a EUR 14.56
million budget with the purpose to significantly increase the use of renewable energy technology through
fuel switching and energy efficiency. The project primarily focuses on improving heating comfort levels in
rural public sector buildings including schools and community centres by using readily available agricultural
wastes supplied from local agricultural enterprises and solid biofuel producers. The project is also
stimulating local markets for improved household heating; and biomass-based briquetting/pelleting, piloting
industrial cogeneration; as well as raising local capacity in the biomass sector, and promoting the benefits of
biomass energy and the project. With a planned duration of 4 year, the project is funded by the European
Union (EU; EUR 14 million) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP; EUR 0.56 million)
and executed by UNDP with the Ministry of Economy as ‘implementing partner’. Ending in 2014, a
successor MEDP project has been proposed to UNDP and EU that would extend and expand activities
initiated in the current project.
The overall objective of the project is to “contribute to a more secure, competitive and sustainable energy
local source of renewable energy, namely biomass from agricultural wastes”. The project purpose is “to
increase the use of renewable energy technology significantly through fuel switching and energy efficiency”.
The Project Document (ProDoc) mentions the following four inter-related outputs (work packages) and
activities:
 Output 1: Municipal biomass heating and fuel supply markets established (work package 1) aims to
improve municipal heating of public buildings in rural areas and establish related fuel supply markets.
Under this output:
o 130 thermal heating systems primarily burning straw are planned installed totalling about 35 MW
(average installed capacity of approx. 300 kWh) for the provision of heating for public buildings in
rural communities in Moldova (Activity 1.1);
o Supporting this, market mechanisms will be used to support the involvement of local fuel suppliers
to prepare, store and supply the fuel needed for the installed heating plants (Activity 1.2);
o Very focused low-cost actions on policy, regulation, and contracting to support the market
environment will make a third activity under output 1 (Activity 1.3).
1
See for example Panoutsou (2010), Zaharia (MEBP) as well as national energy policy documents (see Annexes C and D).

(MEBP)
 Output 2: Foundations laid for establishment of efficient household heating, industrial cogeneration and
biomass briquetting markets (work package 2) focusses on three emerging technology options for
biomass energy in Moldova, which will be assessed, developed, and piloted.
o Activity 2.1 focusses on domestic heating in rural areas, addressing the need for improved efficiency
of heating and possibly cooking;
o Activity 2.2 support the deployment of industrial co-generation based on feedstock from agro-
industry, and;
o Activity 2.3 plans to pilot and demonstrate biomass briquetting.
 Output 3: Capacity for growth of biomass markets at regional and local levels is built in Moldova (work
package 3) aims to ensure that the benefits of biomass energy demonstrated and deployed under outputs 1
and 2 are delivered in a lasting and long-term way and that local capacities for further replication is
ensured. For each stakeholder type to be reached under output 3, the first step will be the development of
training materials, to be placed in the public domain. These materials, to be updated and improved each
year, will provide an accessible repository of key information, and will be used either in the training to be
delivered under outputs 1 & 2 or in sub-activities under output 3. The stakeholders to be targeted include:
municipal management including mayors, civil servants, and teachers; straw-fired boiler operators; fuel
suppliers; and school children.
 Output 4: The opportunities and benefits of biomass energy for Moldova are well known locally, and
visibility of project results promoted (work package 4) will facilitate widespread dissemination on the
general and specific advantages and impacts of using biomass energy in Moldova. During the inception
phase of the project, a communication and visibility plan will be elaborated and agreed between the EU
Delegation and UNDP in promotion of the visibility of project results and positive impacts of the
partnership.
2.3 Main stakeholders: summary list
The following Box gives an overview of important project partners and/or other stakeholders:
Box 1 List of main stakeholders involved in biomass for heating in Moldova

Stakeholder Description
Government
Ministry of Economy The project implementing partner, the Ministry of Economy,
develops and implements energy policy and legislation in Moldova.
The Ministry is also responsible for developing the necessary
frameworks for renewable energy and energy efficiency.
Ministry of Environment The Ministry focuses on the environmental aspects of energy use.
From environmental sustainability point of view, it promotes
renewable energy and energy efficiency, also as a means to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
Ministry of Regional Development and The Ministry ensures the quality of constructions in terms of security
Construction against all types of risk factors - natural, technological and
Local public authorities (LPA) anthropogenic - as well as in terms of economic and technological
efficiency (low consumption of materials, energy, labour to achieve
and exploit objectives); and ensures development monitoring and
implementation of the National Regional Development Strategy and
National Plan of Spatial Planning. LPAs have competences in the
area of building and construction regulations, in the area of heating
and cooling as well as in the area of evaluation of the gas network
infrastructure. LPAs are encouraged to include heating & cooling
from renewable energy in the planning of local infrastructure

(MEBP)
Ministry of Education The Ministry is a key partner in the project’s initiatives regarding
incorporating themes on sustainable energy in secondary school
programmes as well as vocational training institutes.
Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry Regarding energy, the Ministry is a key partner related to the
production of agricultural products (of which the residues and waste
left after harvesting can be used for fuel use or), or in future, for the
production of dedicated energy crops) as well as mechanization of
agricultural production (e.g. straw baling equipment).
Energy Efficiency Agency (EEA) Established in 2010 under the aegis of the Ministry of Economy,
EEA is the administrative body in the field of energy and energy
efficiency. EEA also provides information to the public and develops
the framework for energy-relevant regulations and certification
schemes.
National Agency for Energy Regulation As of 1997, ANRE is the state body designed to regulate the energy
(ANRE) sector. On renewable energy, ANRE issues licenses to produce
electricity and heat from renewable sources, for biogas production to
be delivered within the networks of gas and for the production of
liquid biofuels.
National Standardization Institute (NSI) While the Ministry of Economy establishes the standardization
policy, the NSI is responsible for standardization and conformity
assessment to ensure quality assurance and competitiveness of
domestic products and consumer protection. NSI assists in the
development on standards (in case of the MEDP project, on biofuel
quality), provides services and training to companies for their
products to meet national and international standards.
Funding facilities
Energy Efficiency Fund (EEF) In accordance with the Law on Renewable Energy, the EEF was
created in 2012, and focuses focused on the identification, evaluation
and financing of energy efficiency and renewable energy projects.
During 2013-2020, the EUR 10 million fund provides sustainable
energy project developers with grants, loans, guarantees and
technical advice.
EBRD2 - Moldovan Sustainable Energy MoSEFF provides a credit line of EUR 22 million combined with a
Financing Facility (MoSEFF) 5-20% grant component for lending to Moldovan companies through
EBRD’s partner banks in order to support energy efficiency and
renewable energy investments in Moldova
EBRD – Moldovian Residential Energy MoREEF provides a credit line of EUR 35 million combined with
Efficiency Facility (MoREEF) 20%, 30%, 35% grant components for on lending to Moldovan
companies through EBRD’s partner banks in order to support energy
efficiency and RE investments in the residential sector of Moldova.
Other
Academies of Sciences; Technical These institutes have scientific and technological capacity for
University; Agriculture State University developing and implementing renewable energy and energy
efficiency projects, although up to now basically as pilot projects,
conducting research and gathering databases on renewable energy
sources
Chamber of Commerce The Chamber of Commerce is an important partner in promoting and
implementing project initiatives targeting the private sector and in
establishing business contacts both on the right and the left bank of
the Dniester
Consumer Protection Agency The Consumer Protection Agency deals with issues such as safety of
consumer products, liability of producers and sellers and business-to-
consumer practices. The Agency will become an increasingly
important partner in promoting biomass fuel quality.
2
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development

(MEBP)
2.4 Purpose of the final evaluation and methodology
The duration of the project is 4 years and is scheduled to end by December 2014. As per UNDP guidelines, a
final evaluation needs to be carried out by one or more independent consultants, ‘independent’ meaning not
previously involved in the project’s design, management or implementation of activities. The consultants
Johannes (Jan) Van den Akker (Netherlands) and Pavel Gavrilita (Moldova) were selected in consultation
with the project team and contracted by UNDP Moldova to carry out the evaluation assignment. They are
referred to in this report as ‘the Evaluators’ or ‘Evaluation Team’.
Objective of the evaluation
The purpose of this final evaluation is3 to “review the progress made by the project in fulfilling its agreed
objectives through the planned activities and to assess the efficiency and effectiveness with which resources
have been used to generate results and achieve project objectives with special emphasis on impact and
sustainability”.
The overall objective of evaluation are to assess the achievement of project results, help identify and
critically analyse the relevance of the project activities, as well as, the effectiveness of the implementation.
The comprehensive evaluation examines whether the activities, outputs and objectives outlined in project
document have been achieved, and underlying factors affecting either positively or negatively
the implementation of the project, draw lessons and make forward-looking recommendations for
improvement of the sustainability of benefits obtained from the project.
The Terms of Reference (ToR) further indicate that the UNDP Country Office of Moldova (hereinafter
referred to as UNDP CO) accordingly will make use of the exercise as a learning opportunity for the office
and key partners and stakeholders, as inclusively and practically possible. In particular, the findings and
recommendations generated by the evaluation should inform the implementation and targeting of activities
planned for the next stage of the project (planned for October 2014 – September 2017).
Methodology
The evaluation has been based using the following sources of data and data collection tools to answer the
evaluation questions:
 Review of reference materials and websites; such as and UNDP Moldova country programming 4; as well
as materials from donors (EU); official documents from Government; stakeholder publications;
 Desk review of relevant project(-related) documents; such as project document and amendments;
inception report; progress reports; donor (EU)-specific reports; budget and expenditures (ATLAS) and
technical reports as well as the draft document of the new project “MEBP, 2014-2017, Description of the
Action”;
 Missions to Moldova. A first one-week visit to take place from to have briefing and debriefing sessions
and discussions (including gathering the information on what the partners have achieved with regard to
the outcome and what strategies they have used) with management and program staff of UNDP Country;
donors (notably EU Delegation); and Government and public institution partners together with field visits
to selected project sites and discussions with project beneficiaries, private sector and NGOs.
The Evaluation Team has drawn up a table of main evaluation criteria and questions that need to be
answered to determine and assess project results, and to identify where the information is expected to come
from (e.g. documents, interviews and field visits).
3
As mentioned in the Terms of Reference (ToR) of this evaluation (see Annex A)
4
See list of documents in Annex C, such as the Country Analysis (UN, 2011), UNDAF for the Republic of Moldova 2007-2011 and
the UN Partnership Framework 2013-2017

(MEBP)
This evaluation covers the five major UNDP criteria of:
1. Results: achievements of project outputs, outcome and longer-term (foreseen and unforeseen) impacts;
2. Effectiveness: extent to which an objective has been achieved;
3. Efficiency: extent to which results have been delivered with least cost resources possible (also referred
to as cost-effectiveness);
4. Relevance: extent to which the project is suited to local and national development priorities and
strategies; Extent to which the project is in line with the strategic priorities under which it was funded
(in this case of UNDP and EU);
5. Sustainability: likely ability of the project’s intervention to continue to deliver benefits for an extended
period after project completion.
To these criteria ‘quality of design’ has been added by the Evaluators. The evaluation questions cover all the
evaluation questions suggested in the Terms of Reference (see Annex A). The list of evaluation criteria and
questions is presented below in the Box below, in which the main questions are linked with the various
sections and subsections of this report so that the reader can easily trace these throughout the report.
Box 2 Evaluation criteria and questions

Corresponding Chapter and section of the Main questions and evaluation scope (ToR)
report
3. Findings  Progress towards achievement of results? Were the outputs
 Results achieved?
o Achievement of outputs and  Were key methodologies and approaches that facilitate the success
activity results of the project and delivery of necessary outputs appropriate?
 What are the factors that affected either positively or negatively the
accomplishment of the outputs?
 Implementation and efficiency  What contribution has been made by UNDP and implementing
o Strategic partnerships and partners to the progress towards the implementation of activities
stakeholder engagement and achievement of the output and outcome? How appropriate
o Project management and were the inputs? Were the inputs sufficient to achieve the results?
administration How cost effective they were?
o Budget and expenditures  What were the partnerships formed? What was the role of UNDP?
How did the partnership contribute to the achievement of the
outcome? What was the level of stakeholders’ participation?
 Design and relevance  Was the project well-placed and integrated within the national
o Appropriateness and relevance government development strategies and donor programmes?
o Quality of design and results  Was the project logical framework well designed?
framework  Were the outputs (project components) relevant to the overall
project outcome?
 Impacts and sustainability  To what degree did the project contribute to the development of
o Achievement of outcomes; impacts sustainable energy production market in the country?
o Sustainability and replicability  To what extent are the MEBP project results sustainable, taking
into consideration the existing capacity, structures and political
context in the country?
4. Conclusions, recommendations and  What and how much progress has been made towards the
lessons learned achievement of the outcome (including contributing factors and
 Conclusions on achievements of the constraints)?
project’s objective; effectiveness  Distinguish the substantive design issues from the key
 Lessons learned implementation and/or management capacities and issues including
 Recommendations the timeliness of outputs, the degree of stakeholders and partners’
involvement in the completion of outputs, and how processes were
managed/ carried out.
 Lessons learned in addressing issues relating to relevance,
performance and success

(MEBP)
Corresponding Chapter and section of the Main questions and evaluation scope (ToR)
report
 Recommendations for potential follow-up interventions, how
feasible the follow-up actions would be, what alternatives can be
identified and/or what components can be added to it, what
knowledge products could be developed.
The review of documents provides the basic facts and information for developing a first draft evaluation
report, while the mission is needed to verify the basic facts, get missing data and to learn opinions of
respondents to help interpret the facts. The individual interviews with key informants were based on open
discussion to allow respondents express what they feel as main issues, followed by more specific questions
on the issues mentioned. The list of evaluation questions presented in Box 1 were used as a checklist to raise
relevant questions and issues during the interviews that correspond to the level and type of involvement of
the interviewee or the organization visited.
Regarding the data analysis and methods for analysis, the documents listed in Annex C were analysed. The
notes of the interviews with key informants were used to verify facts and information presented in reports
and documents and helped to formulate the conclusions and recommendations. Missions of 1-2 week’s
duration have the limitation of potentially getting a snapshot impression only. Nonetheless, the Evaluators
feel that this mix of data collection and analysis tools has yielded viable answers to the evaluation/review
questions within the limits of budget resources for the review and time availability.
This review has been conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the United Nations Evaluation
Group ‘Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation’ (see Annex G) and follows UNDP materials on evaluation 5.
Although not a GEF6-supported project, it also takes into account evaluation concepts presented in the new
UNDP guidelines on mid-term reviews (UNDP, 2014) 7 and final evaluations8, such as assessment of
sustainability considering risks that are likely to affect the continuation of project outcomes.
5
UNDP Handbook on Monitoring and Evaluating for Results;
6
Global Environment Facility
7
Project-Level Monitoring: Guidance for Conducting Mid-term Reviews of UNDP-supported, GEF-financed projects (UNDP, 2014)
8
Guidance for Conducting Terminal Evaluations of UNDP-supported, GEF-financed projects (UNDP, 2012)

(MEBP)
3. FINDINGS
This chapter presents an overview of the evaluation findings in three general areas, project results, project
formulation and project implementation. The findings are based around the evaluation criteria and questions,
(as given in Box 1) so that the reader can make a link with what was asked and what was found.
3.1 Results: achievements of outputs
On the following pages, Box 3 provides an overview of results in terms of achievement of the project outputs
and activity results against a set of progress indicators. The table provides the value and description of the
indicators at various points in time, i.e. baseline value (2011), the planned end-of-project target (end of 2014)
as well as the actual situation (Q4 2014). Box 3 follows the descriptions of indicators presented in the Project
Document (ProDoc; see its section V, Monitoring and evaluation framework). The description of values of
status description of indicators is taken from the ProDoc, the various progress reports (see Annex C) as well
as the draft document of the new project “MEDP, Project Extension 2014-2017, Description of the Action”
(section IV. Results and resources framework).
While Box 3 presents a qualitative overview in terms of targets planned and achieved, the main text in the
Sections 3.1.1 to 3.1.4 gives a more narrative description of the achievements of the project. For a discussion
on results in terms outcomes achieved and impacts, the reader is referred to Section 3.4.1.
3.1.1 Output 1: Municipal biomass heating and fuel supply markets established
The activities under the output 1 aim to improve municipal heating of public buildings in rural areas and
establish related fuel supply markets. The Project Document mentions in Activity 1.1 “Heating systems in
public buildings installed”: 130 thermal systems running on biomass energy, with an average capacity of
about 35 MW (or average capacity of thermal power 300 kW) planned to be installed in public building in
rural communities 141 thermal heating systems have been installed, in 127 villages in 36 districts in schools,
kindergartens, community centres and other public buildings. It is further detailed that this will be
accompanied by training and awareness raising amongst local public authorities and managers of institutions
where the biomass heating systems were placed to acquire knowledge and skills on proper management of
biomass heating systems in their communities, on ensuring energy efficiency, conducting fuel procurement
tenders, contracting and setting sustainable partnerships with the private sector.
Community mobilization and project selection approach

In support of this activity, a mechanism to ensure the development of local market for biomass boilers in
rural communities and to strengthen the business environment for biomass fuel production was designed and
implemented. This mechanism has consisted of the following steps:
1) Promotion, awareness and community needs assessment

(MEBP)
For this purpose the MEBP was promoted and launched in all districts of the country (a process which
was completed by mid-2013), by means of organizing seminars that were attended by 1,556 persons
representatives of local and district public authorities, NGOs, local press, etc. As a result of these
promotional activities at district level, 233 localities did submitted expressions of interests (EoIs) to
MEBP for installation of biomass heating systems in public institutions.

(MEBP)
Box 3 Overview of outputs, activity results and progress indicators
Indicator Baseline Status June/Sept 2014 End-of-Project target
(various reports)
OUTPUT 1: Municipal biomass heating and fuel supply markets established

Activity 1.1 Heating systems in public buildings installed (Activity Result 1)
a) Heating systems Isolated a) 141 heating systems installed (producing about 300 TJ) a) 130 heating systems installed (35
installed demonstration  in 127 villages in 32districts and UTA Gagauz Yeri MW or 300 kW on average)
 Number projects have  86 schools, 49 kindergartens, 4 community centres, 3 mayor offices, 1 providing 280 TJ
 Capacity been undertaken vocational school, 1 dormitory, benefitting 90,389 persons b) 260 jobs created
 Annual energy  Local awareness and promotion; community needs assessments and energy
b) Jobs created in target audits in buildings
communities9 b) 363 new jobs created in the sector with project support in 2011-2013
Note, selection methodology:

 Promotion in districts of Moldova (seminars, press, etc.)
 Community analysis and capacity analysis; pre-selection of project initiatives
through EoI (292 EoIs)
 Complex technical and social appraisal of project proposals;
 Energy performance assessment and participatory appraisal of LPA and local
Project Committee proposals (136 communities)
 Approval of biomass projects for investment by Project Selection Committee
Activity 1.2 Fuel cycle facilitated through leasing/hire-purchase mechanism for local fuel (Activity result 2)
c) Leased fuel supply Only limited c) Results: c) The ProDoc does not give a
systems demo projects  16 briquetting/pelleting equipment units leased (revolving fund managed by specific number, while the doc
 System capacity with few EEA) as well as bailing equipment (19) (revolving fund managed by 2KR); ‘Extension 2014-2017’ mentions
number of  Publications: a number of 130 leased fuel
companies o Guidelines for briquettes producers supply systems. The adjusted
targets, as provided to the
Impact: Evaluators is 35 units (25 2KR
 More than 80-100 briquette and pellets producers in operation in Moldova now and 10 AEE). Please note that the
(see “List of pellets and briquettes producers, ”) and about 30 assemblers/producers revolving funds will continue to
of biomass-based boilers and equipment operate after project closure.
Activity 1.3 Market environment enhanced to support quality, efficiency and effectiveness (Activity Result 3)
9
Please note that this Indicator b) summarizes the indicators ‘jobs created’ mentioned in the ProDoc for Activity Results 1 and 2

(MEBP)
(various reports)
d) Progress in addressing d) Progress: d) No target value has been
barriers as evaluated by  37 EU-based fuel quality standards (see “List of Standards’) provided
the project board10  1 technical regulation on biomass fuel quality adopted (mandatory for all fuel
suppliers, briquettes, pellets; Dec 2013)
OUTPUT 2: Foundations laid for establishment of efficient household heating, industrial cogeneration and biomass briquetting markets
Activity 2.1 Market solutions for high efficiency affordable rural biomass household heating identified and piloted (Activity result 4)
e) Annual increase of 50% No improved e) No clear data were made available e) Increase in requests of 50% in
in requests for heating systems f) Systems: year 1, year 2 and in 2014
information locally 612 household biomass boilers financed (through MEBP’s incentive f) At least 600 domestic systems
f) Deployment of systems: produced, no mechanism) and installed installed (original target: 500)
 Number of domestic biomass g) 10 jobs created in selected partner companies g) 25 jobs created
systems on a semi- cogeneration,
commercial basis limited briquette Publications:
g) Jobs created11 production  “Estimation of the energy potential of biomass from agricultural crops at regional
and rayon levels for 2009-2010”
 “Market Survey on Affordable Rural Biomass Household Heating Solutions”
Activity 2.2 Industrial cogeneration using biomass fuel demonstrated (Activity Result 5)
h) Installation of at least g) Study on potential of biomass cogeneration technologies (in progress) h) One cogeneration (a.k.a. CHP,
one cogeneration plant combined heat-power) plant
Activity 2.3 Market solutions for biomass-heat supply services in public buildings (Activity Result 6):
i) Successful operation of h) One pilot activity on public-private partnerships (PPP) for biomass heating i) One briquetting plant
commercial briquette services in public buildings (Green Farm LLC; construction in Leova district).
enterprise12 See study “PPP establishment for biomass-based heat supply services in Leova
District public buildings”
OUTPUT 3: Capacity built for growth of biomass markets at regional and local levels
10
The ‘Evaluators’ observe that this Indicator does not adequately describe the activity. For example, “Number of standards and regulations” would have been a better indicator
11
Please note that the Indicator f) summarizes the indicators ‘jobs created’ mentioned in the ProDoc for Activity Results 4 and 5
12
The ‘Evaluators’ observe that this Indicator does not adequately describe the activity. For example, “Number of PPP for biomass-based heating services implemented ” would have been a
better indicator with as target value ‘one pilot PPP activity’

(MEDP)
(various reports)
Activity 3.1 Capacity of municipal leaders to manage biomass systems enhanced (Activity Result 7)
j) Number of municipal j) Results reported: j) 150 municipal leaders trained
leaders trained13  518 LPA representatives and institution managers trained on basic technical,
operational and managerial skills for good operation, maintenance and
‘effective management of biomass heating systems at community level’
 For preparation of the 127 villages (see Activity 1.1):
o 1,754 people (LPA, local entrepreneurs, NGOs) trained on ‘community and
local resource mobilization’
o 1,592 people (LPA, project committees, managers and staff of public
institutions on ‘project management and implementation’
 1,277 key actors in 118 communities in 25 districts required skills on ‘project
sustainability and participatory M&E’
Activity 3.2 Training materials developed for sound operation of straw-fired boilers (Activity Result 8)
k) Positive feedback from k)Training and education materials and approaches developed and applied in k) No value has been included
municipal leaders (who training given to firms in activity 1.1:
will use their materials  “Guidebook for Biomass Boiler Operators” and “8-step roadmap for Effective
to inform their dealings Biomass Heating” elaborated and distributed in 118 communities
with operators) during  Related to activity 1.1:
training events14 o Training of 376 operators in the 127 beneficiary communities
o 118 training at boiler plants by design-build companies
Activity 3.3 Training materials developed for commercial fuel suppliers (Activity Result 9)
l) Number of fuel suppliers l) 456 potential and active biomass fuel suppliers participated in trainings, l) 150 fuel suppliers trained
trained workshops and roundtable discussions
Activity 3.4 Community understanding and acceptance of biomass energy enhanced through school educational program (Activity Result 10)
m) Number of children m) Results: m) 9,000 children
13
The Evaluators believe that this indicator should have been slightly different. It is not clear what the definition of ‘leader’ is. Admittedly with the advantage of hindsight, we note that the number
given, 150, more closely matches the “Number of municipalities or public institutions whose leaders/representatives are trained” and the actual number of people trained is much larger than just
150. The target value (Dec 2014) of this redefined indicator would then be “Leaders/managers from at least 150 municipalities trained.
14
This could be an Indicator to measure the effectiveness of the training, but it is not clear how ‘positive feedback’ should be defined and how the indicator should be operationalized. Not
surprisingly, the progress of this Indicator is not reported in progress reports. As with Indicator j), this Indicator in fact underreports the actual results achieved of the project, which goes much
beyond what the Indicator expresses. A better Indicator would have been, for example, “Number of Number of staff (operators, managers) of boiler heating systems trained;” and “Number of
training materials and guidebooks” elaborated.

(MEDP)
(various reports)
participating in  Materials elaborated, such ‘Educational brochure’, ‘Teacher’s Guide on RE
awareness activities and EE”
 19,000 pupils from 352 schools (incl. 6000 from the 127 MEBP communities
of activity 1.1) participated in educational activities on RE and EE; 200
children participated in ‘summer camps’
 Training of 254 school teachers and principals (at 127 schools; activity 1.1)
 Inclusion of curriculum on ‘RES” as optional in upper grades (up to grade IX)
OUTPUT 4: Opportunities and benefits of biomass energy for Moldova are well known, visibility of project results is promoted
Activity 4.1 Media campaign (Activity Result 11)
Activity 4.2 Annual national awards (Activity Result 12)
Activity 4.3 Communication and visibility of project results (Activity Result 13)
n) Enquiries to the PMT n) 300 requests of information about project activities during 2013; About 450 in o) Enquiries have increased by 50%
increasing annually (in Jan-Jun 2014 (from entrepreneurs, managers, NGOs, local authorities etc.) by in yr2, yr3 and yr4
%) e-mail, phone, letters p) Media references have increased
o) Media references to o) n/a by 50% in yr2, yr3 and yr4
project objective in p) Moldova Eco-Energetica is 90% high & very high appreciated q) Surveys indicate 90% ‘high’ and
positive light, awards ‘very high’
and/or project impacts Campaign and materials:
increase by 50%  Website www.biomasa.md, updated on weekly basis, also promoted on
annually Facebook and UNDP website
p) Evaluation surveys show  Dissemination of about 300 media materials (TV, radio, press releases,
that the awards are YouTube) coinciding with 42 public and media events (exhibitions, festivals
valued and indicate and events (e.g. Sustainable Energy Week); 83 news and press releases on
positive intention to take project results, 12 video and audio spots and video-graphics on bioenergy; and
actions 23 media field trips at project locations
q) Media references to  Publications:
awards increase 50% o Stories about the project in UNDP publications;
annually o Project Newsletter (18)
o Calendar, fact sheets (baling, briquetting, subsidy HH program); leaflets
 Moldova Eco-Energetica Award; support provided and now under ownership of
MoE and EEA; “Moldova Eco-Energetica Magazine”

(MEDP)
The Project Selection Committee15 selected 225 communities, based on specific pre-defined criteria
throughout a staged, competitive and transparent process, for assessing local initiatives and awareness
activities:
 Awareness and promotion activities were organized at local level in all those 225 selected villages,
consisting of meetings with representatives from the mayor’s office, local councils, managers of
public institutions, entrepreneurs and other active community people. Each community selected a
“Community project committee”, consisting of about 6-8 persons. These meetings helped to ensure
transparency regarding the institutions that were connected to biomass heating system. A total of 7,725
community’s members attended these meetings and participated in the decision making process.
 Analysis of needs and capacities to implement a biomass-based heating project in public institutions in
the 225 selected localities, i.e. appraisal of the current potential of the community to switch to
renewable energy sources, local contribution, and the possibilities of the community to provide the
institution with the necessary biomass fuel, project sustainability, and other relevant information. The
study served as a baseline for project cost estimate. Moreover, it helped to determine the local
contribution to the project implementation. This analysis allowed the Project Selection Committee to
have a clear picture of the technical condition of the buildings and allowed to exclude those without
suitable conditions for installation of biomass heating systems16.
2) Energy performance and final participatory appraisal of buildings

 In the 136 communities selected, energy auditing experts were hired to the energy performance
assessment, including the calculation of boilers capacity against the technical condition of the building
and recommendations for the improvement of energy efficiency of the building;
 Local public authorities and Project Committees from the pre-selected localities organized final
project assessment meetings with the participation of community representatives. About 5,075
representatives of LPAs, community stakeholders and other community members got involved in the
final evaluation of projects and decision making process on approval of projects for the investment
stage (including assessments of community institutional capacity, need for energy efficiency
improvement, availability of biomass fuel dry storage capacity in the community, environmental
aspects, project cost estimate and operational capacity and training needs);
 Following the final assessments of the project appraisal reports organized by communities and MEBP
experts, the Projects Selection Committee approved 128 communities for the investment stage (the last
meeting of the Committee was held in July 2013).
3) Design and construction

In parallel with the community engagement and investment identification, activities on installation of
biomass heating systems were carried out. The procurement of the installation works followed the
‘Design-Build’ approach. The specific of the selected procurement approach is that the owner holds one
single contract with a Design-Build entity (consortium) which has to do the technical design and also
perform the construction works, while in the traditional Design-Bid-Build approach separate contracts are
concluded with the designer and the construction company.
The procurement was additionally streamlined by setting a shortlist of pre-qualified Design-Build entities
(consortia) among which Limited International Competitions would be conducted. The shortlist was
established following the evaluation of a number of qualification and eligibility criteria that would not
need to be re-evaluated during the Invitations to Bid (ITBs)17.
An experienced consultant was hired to provide the following:
15
The body that considers and approves the project proposals relating to the installation of biomass-fired heating systems in rural
communities. The Committee comprises representatives of project partner institutions. Approved by the Project Board in 2011, it
has included the following seven members: 1) Ministry of Economy, 2) Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry, 3) Ministry of
Regional Development and Constructions, 4) Energy Efficiency Agency, 5) EU Delegation to the Republic of Moldova, 6) UNDP
Moldova and 7) the Moldova Energy and Biomass Project (MEBP)

(MEDP)
 Training for MEBP project staff and UNDP CO on processes in ‘design-build’ procurement;
 Determine selection procedures for pre-qualification and Limited International Competitions;
 Evaluation of Design-Build contractors according the evaluation criteria and selection of at least five
Design-Build entities (consortia) in the shortlist and to be on-call to advise on evaluation criteria,
wording of ITBs etc., and support the first tranche of projects on an advisory basis.
In the ITBs, the shortlisted design-build contractors could provide their offers. Based on life-cycle cost
considerations, the best-value proposals were selected and contracted. Contracts were then signed with
the design-build contractor. Regarding implementation, the contracts specifically include training of the
local operators by the contractor, with the e local authority and community Project Committee doing the
overall management, with MEBP project engineering staff responsible for monitoring of quality and
supervision of the works.
Given the fact of little familiarity with the biomass heating technologies in Moldova, and also due to tight
project schedule, it was opted at the onset of the Project for the Design-Build approach to procurement
provided the following specific advantages:
 Single point of responsibility - the “technology risk” is transferred entirely to the contractor which
assumes overall responsibility for the quality of design as well as quality and compliance of
construction works;
 Time constrains and resource allocation – in case of Design-Build approach selection of contractors is
done in one single competition, while for the traditional Design-Bid-Build approach two separate
competitions would be conducted, first for contracting the designer and second for selection of the
construction company. Moreover, the overall time necessary for completion of design and construction
works in the traditional approach is significantly longer since the tender for construction could only be
launched after the design is completed and approved by relevant authorities, a process that itself takes
usually around 4-5 months. The Design-Build contracts the construction works could be carried out by
the contractor in parallel with the design elaboration thus significantly reducing the total amount of
time. On the other hand, the Design-Build procurement approach is about 10-15% more expensive
than the ‘Design-Bid-Build’ approach.
Achievements
Up to date (01 Dec 2014), 127 projects have been approved for the investment stage, of which 118 have been
completed, and another 9 projects are at the implementation stage. The 127 projects consist of biomass
heating systems (with an installed capacity of an estimated 30.6 MW) in 144 public institutions, including 86
schools, 49 kindergartens, 4 community centres, 3 mayor’s offices, 1 vocational school and 1 dormitory. As
a result of these 127 projects, it is reported in the progress reports that 90,389 people have benefited from
improved thermal comfort, including 26,865 children, 4,761 of public employees and 58,763 parents and
other population groups in total18. MEDP has sought equal participation of men and women in all decision
making processes in communities associated with the implementation of biomass projects.
As a result of installation of biomass-based heating system and assuming a capacity utilization factor of
30%19, it will be possible to produce energy of approximately 80.4 GWh (= 290 TJ). The Project’s
16
Selection of local initiatives was undertaken by the Project Selection Committee. The Committee based their decision on the project
selection criteria such as: existence of a suitable public buildings in the community; community mobilization and capacity of local
resources (aiming at 15% of project cost); the existence of local producers and regional biomass available in quantities necessary to
provide the opportunity to store community biomass fuel required for heating season; Local Public Administration support; motivated
leaders (of the public institutions); local partnership developed between local administration and community actors; immediate
impact on project beneficiaries.
17
Although the Project Document specified that Limited International Competitions would be conducted in the form of Request for
Proposals (RFP), in which the design-build contractors would be selected based on the best value and life-cycle cost of proposals, it
was finally agreed to conduct the Limited International Competitions following the ITB format, where the contracts would be awarded
to the lowest priced technically compliant offeror
18
The data in this section are taken from the Excel file “Heating Systems installed in Rural Public Institutions with MEDP”; dated
01.12.2014
19
Note that the systems will be used in the winter period primarily

(MEBP)
contribution to the biomass heating systems has been a total of EUR 12,299,885. The major part of costs
related to the installation of biomass-fired heating systems has been covered by the Project (covering design,
assembly of the heating equipment, connection to power and water supply networks, renovation of the heat
supply station, building and testing). The community contribution has included construction materials,
labour, energy conservation measures in the building, contracting of the operator and technicians and
biomass storage and is estimated, in-kind and in cash, is estimated at EUR 1,571,433.
Of the systems, 15% was straw-based and 85% was based on briquettes or pellets as fuel. This reflects a
change in focus of the project, originally on straw bales as raw material, and shifting to the use of pellets and
briquettes from agricultural residues (straw and other) as fuels of preference; as a response to the observation
during project implementation of a rapidly growing market development of supply and demand for modern
solid biofuels.
Installation of the biomass-based heating systems has been accompanied by training and awareness raising of
local public authorities and managers (of institutions where the biomass heating systems were to be placed)
to acquire knowledge and skills on proper management of biomass heating systems in their communities, on
ensuring energy efficiency, conducting fuel procurement tenders, contracting and setting sustainable
partnerships with the private sector.
The activities undertaken under this component have been implemented based on the participatory
mechanism and approach, as described above. This approach contributed to the community mobilization and
sustainable local development. Most of the activities were implemented in close cooperation with decision-
making actors at the local level with a strong participation of community’s members, district and national
stakeholders at all stages of preparation and implementation of community projects, strongly ensuring local
‘ownership’. This has contributed to the mobilization of the population and local sources, overseeing the
implementation of local initiatives, sustainability and transparency projects at community level.
Activity1.2 “Fuel cycle facilitated through leasing/hire-purchase mechanisms for local fuel suppliers”
foresees fostering the development of the private sector market for contractors willing to supply fuels (in
particular for the heating biomass-fired plants installed in public institutions) with financial support from the
MEBP. The ProDoc mention that with seed money from the project a revolving fund is to be set up which
can provide loans to partner companies to purchase straw gathering and baling equipment as well as
briquetting equipment. Prospective partner companies are provided an interest-free four-year contract to be
paid back in instalments with a 20% down-payment, 20% at the end of the first year and 30% during the
following years. Payments are to be exempt of VAT, custom duties and commissions or fees.
Achievements
To operate the revolving funds, an agreement was made between the Ministry of Economy and two
partner/service providers:
 2KR – Project Implementation Unit20; subcontracted to sell straw baling and handling equipment;
 Energy Efficiency Agency, subcontracted to sell the briquetting and pelletizing equipment.
PIU 2KR procured and put into operation a cumulative number of 19 baling equipment sets. EEA completed
the procedure for reception of 16 briquetting equipment units, which have been put into operation. The
procedure for another round has been completed with four winning beneficiaries. The funds spent by the
project to support the lease-hire system has been USD 500,000 for straw baling equipment and USD 500,000
on briquetting/pelleting equipment.
As mentioned in the ProDoc, activity 1.3 “Market environment enhanced to support quality, efficiency,
and effectiveness” addresses issues in policy, legislation and bylaw development to facilitate the local
20
Cooperation project between Japan and Moldova providing support on purchasing tractors and other agricultural equipment to help
increase production of food crops and stabilize productivity. 2KR Moldova has developed and tested lease-finance models for
agricultural equipment

(MEBP)
biomass markets, by involved relevant government stakeholders as well as private sector (biomass producers
and buyers) to address barriers and adopt best EU practice.
The quality of fuels has become an issue. While at the conception of the Project only a few biofuel producers
were in place, currently over 100 companies are operational that produce biofuels such as briquettes and
pellets21. The quality of their products have not always been uniform or meeting fuel quality standards and
end-users’ expectations and the Project’s activities in Activity 1.3 have focussed on this issue.
Achievements
 Meetings and round tables were organized on improvement of the legal
framework regulating the biomass fuel market;
 Support was provided for the formulation of standards on biomass fuels.
This has resulted, in close collaboration with the n close collaboration with
the National Institute for Standardisation, in 37 EU-based fuel quality
standards (that have been adopted since 2012; listed in Annex D.5) and a
technical regulation on biomass fuel quality which requires all local
producers to put certain physical and chemical characteristics to be labelled
on briquettes and pellets (approved in Dec 2013);
 Background analysis and guidelines, such as the “Guidelines for Briquettes
Producers”
3.1.2 Output 2: Foundations laid for establishment of efficient

household heating, industrial co-generation and biomass
briquetting markets
The project aims to support the establishment of commercial business processing biomass derived from
agricultural waste or residues providing quality fuels for households, public buildings and commercial
establishments. In order to have an idea of the order of magnitude of fuel supply, a study was conducted
during the first stage to estimate the energy potential of
biomass for briquetting from agricultural crops, at
regional and rayon levels. The study has been used as
a reference as well while identifying beneficiaries of
the project.
One such beneficiaries are households, which are the

focus group of Activity 2.1 “Market solutions for
high efficiency affordable rural biomass household
heating identified and piloted”. The ProDoc
mentions that the activity aims at stimulating the
market for high efficiency biomass heating systems
suitable for rural areas with a target of at least 500
energy efficient biomass heating systems (using
briquette or pellet-fired boilers) installed in individual
household or small businesses by the end of the
project.
Achievements
The following sub-activities were implemented:
 Information and outreach, by means of support to promotional activities of partners with the purpose of
expanding consumers’ knowledge and understanding of efficient biomass domestic heating and
21
A list of biomass fuel suppliers is available from http://www.biomasa.md/img/docs/Briquettes-pellets-producers.pdf

(MEBP)
opportunities and by means of publications and other communication
activities (as part of Output 4). Also, several promotional activities were
organized to support local biomass boiler producers.
 Review of available technologies for efficient household heating, looking
at technology performance, fuel requirements, features (cooking, baking,
central heating, or hot water), costs and market research on consumer
needs and attitudes. The results of this assessment are summarized in the
publication “Market Survey on Affordable Rural Biomass Household
Heating Solutions”;
 Another sub-activity involved tested the efficiency of three different
types of boilers (briquette-fired, pellet-fired and combined), to see which
method established itself as the best for the local market. During the
2012-13 heating season the main performance indicators of the three
selected boilers were monitored in terms of quantity of generated heat,
quantity of fuel used, work autonomy, and additional factors.
 The Project has aimed at stimulating this nascent market by providing a
small subsidy to households up to a level that market volume (e.g. a production of 5,000 a year) would
bring sufficient economics of scale to have a sustainable market. The Project has financed 612 household
small boilers and that have been installed after approving the contracts. The large number of requests for
registering in the Program is due to the promotion activities carried out within the given period, but also
the considerable amount of subsidy provided (on equipment to households or as a production incentive
for boiler producers).
Total cost of this activity was EUR 819,852, of which EUR 2,693 was spent on promotional activities, EUR
795,600 on supporting the small boilers (implying a subsidy of EUR 1300 on average per system 22) and USD
21,559 for EEA’s administration cost. The Project team has been monitoring market developments to know
results and extract lessons learned that were used in adaptive management. For example, the focus in the
Project has shifted from stoves (using straw) at the onset, towards using modern solid fuels (briquettes and
pellets) in small boilers for space heating.
There have been developments in Moldova regarding energy pricing and various policies trying to create an
enabling environment for independent power producers to feed power into the grid, such as the Law of
Renewable Energy (2007) and various ANRE Resolutions. For background information on energy in
Moldova the reader is referred to Annex D of this report. Co-generation (combined heat and power) from
biomass is an opportunity for grid feed-in the Project has wanted to support. As part of activity 2.2
“Industrial cogeneration using biomass fuel demonstrated” the project has supported:
 Study on market opportunities and analysis on market barriers (policy and regulatory; availability and
costs of technology; finance; awareness and capacity), based on which recommendations for investment
strategies are made;
 Technology demonstration of at least one CHP unit using biomass form agricultural waste or residues. A
tender was launched jointly with the Energy Efficiency Agency with a call for proposals to identify a
suitable agro-industrial demo project. The Project evaluated the expressions of interest and proposals with
the final decision made by the Project Board. Five companies participated in the tender and as result IM
Sudzuker Moldova SA (a sugar producing company) has been selected for grant funding. The grant
funding will be used to cover feasibility studies, engineering design and partial support of investment
cost.
For the activity 2.3 “Market solutions for briquetting/pelleting piloted” the Project Document mentions
the goal of establishing at least one commercial briquette business using biomass from agricultural waste or
by-products from agro-industrial processes. The expected impact resulting from the implementation of
biomass processing is the possibility to enhance energy safety of rural communities throughout the country,
22
Average cost of a 25 kW system is EUR 3,100. Subvention thus has been 40-41% of the boiler heating system cost

(MEBP)
to foster the development of enterprises for processing locally available biomass, and to set up sustainable
partnerships, that contribute to the economic development of villages and regions.
Achievements
With various briquette producers operating, the Project has shifted attention from merely supporting one or
more producers to how production can be successfully linked with provision of heating services. The Project
has supported a public-private partnership (PPP), which would demonstrate the viability and feasibility for
private enterprises as producers of fuel out of the local raw material to provide biomass-based heating
services in public buildings. A competition was launched for Local Governments working together with a
local contractor. In the PPP heat delivery service model, the private partner delivers heat generated from
biomass fuel and is paid by the rayon council per unit of energy (tariff based), while the private counterpart
has the right to manage and use the equipment within the PPP. Through financial support extended by
MEBP, the selected beneficiary will be able to cover part of the investment costs incurred for the
procurement of the biomass processing equipment, with the remaining part covered by the beneficiary.
Green Farm LLC, the winning company of the PPP contract, initiated the construction works of the biomass
heating systems at the related institutions from Leova district 23. The works are expected to be finalized in
time at the beginning of the heating season.
3.1.3 Output 3: Capacity built for growth of biomass markets at regional and local levels in
Moldova
The ProDoc mentions that output 3 aims to ensure that the benefits of biomass energy demonstrated and
deployed under outputs 1 and 2 are delivered in a lasting and long-term way and that local capacity for
further replication is ensured. The stakeholders targeted include: a) municipal management including
mayors, civil servants, and local teachers; b) straw-fired boiler operators; c) fuel suppliers; and d) school
children. For each stakeholder group, the following steps are followed:
 Development of training materials, to be placed in the public domain, to be updated on a regular basis;
 Implement training and awareness raising activities;
 Monitoring of the impact of the capacity development.
General achievement
Given the novelty of biomass-based heating in Moldova, MEBP staff members and team of experts, designed
and delivered comprehensive training packages. Linked with Outputs 1 and 2, the project provided coaching
and advice to community stakeholders along the entire project cycle. The spectrum of activities ranged from
the participatory identification of public buildings to be heated with biomass, to mobilising people and
resources in target communities; conducting joint energy audits of proposed public buildings; preparing
project proposals and budgets and ensuring proper operation on a daily basis and long-term sustainability of
installed biomass systems.
Activity 3.1 “Capacity of municipal leaders to manage biomass systems enhanced” focuses on local
public authorities, managers of public institutions and local civil servants (such as teachers) to acquire
knowledge and skills on proper management of biomass heating systems in their communities (maintenance
routines, optimum system operation avoiding overheating and underheating, performance monitoring) as
well as sound management of fuel supplies, storage and contracts (conducting fuel procurement tenders,
contracting and setting sustainable partnerships with the private sector).
Achievements
23
For more background info on the PPP model pioneered in Leova district, see the project publication “Feasibility Study, PPP
establishment for development of biomass-based heat supply service to Leova district public buildings”

(MEBP)
Related to the Activities 1.1 and 1.2, trainings for municipal leaders was organized as well as ‘on-the-job’
training of authorities on fuel supply. Completed by 2014 were:
 Training on Effective Management of Biomass Heating Systems at Community Level (as part of activity
1.1, 518 LPA representatives and managers of institutions from all those 127 beneficiary communities of
MEBP benefited);
 Training on Community and Local Resources Mobilization with 1754 people participating from the 138
communities participating in Activity 1.1 (LPA representatives, project committee members, local
entrepreneurs, local NGOs). Topics covered: collection of local resources/funds (the community
contribution) for project implementation, establishment of local partnerships, participatory evaluation of
project proposal
 Training on Project Management and Implementation (1,592 persons – LPA members, project committee
members, managers and technical staff of beneficiary public institutions from the 127 communities
selected to have heating systems supported; Activity 1.1). Topics covered: ensuring the local
contribution; monitoring the project implementation; providing the institution with biofuel (straw bales,
briquettes, pellets); and ensuring project transparency throughout implementation.
 Training on Project Sustainability and Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation (organized in 14
communities from 6 beneficiary districts of the project). During these trainings, the people responsible for
ensuring project sustainability within the community define a number of quantitative and qualitative
indicators to monitor the performance of the implemented project as well as a sustainability plan;
 In order to facilitate the assimilation of new technologies at the community level and their efficient usage
for the administration of biomass heating systems, MEDP organised specialised training to increase the
knowledge and skills of community key actors in the following areas, e.g. on
o normative and institutional framework;
o assessment of biomass potential;
o technology of pellet, briquette, and straw-bale production and the quality-price correlation;
o establishment and management of relationships with biofuel suppliers;
o planning of procurement of fuel for the community biomass-fired boiler plants;
o socio-economic impacts at the local level;
o establishment of public-private partnerships at the local level; and
o opportunities and techniques to attract investments at the community level.
The initial design of the training activities was based on the idea of providing communities with all the types
of skills, knowledge and abilities necessary to efficiently implement and manage a biomass heating system.
The training activities demonstrated their effectiveness and efficiency, as proven by the results achieved, i.e.
all planned public biomass heating systems (see Output 1) were timely and duly installed and operating with
no delays and interruptions. One can conclude that the selected methodology of transferring skills and
knowledge to the communities’ representatives contributed to the sustainability of the project activities and
ensured the community ownership.
A very significant results of the trainings is that the communities, with the support of the project team and
experts, elaborated and implemented a local-tailored development plan on resource mobilization for the
implementation of the biomass heating projects. The long-lasting impact of this approach is that the
communities not only learned about advantages of the use of biomass energy, but also changed their
behaviour in this regard. After the installation phase, communities took full responsibility for the
management, operation and maintenance of heating systems. In this regard, a series of trainings were offered
to the biomass boilers operators in the recipient communities as will be detailed below.
The “Training materials developed for sound operation of straw-fired boilers” (Activity 3.2) has
supplemented the training given by design-build firms for biomass boiler operators (activity 1.1).

(MEBP)
Trainings were organized at 118 finalized boiler plants, with a total of
354 operators acquiring the critical set of skills and knowledge needed
for proper operation of boiler plants (e.g. starting/stopping the boiler
plant, fuel upload and correct dosage, verification of fuel quality, labour
security and fire safety rules, monitoring the system parameters, boiler
cleaning and ash removal, prevention and/or removal of defects, actions
in case of accidents, technical servicing and conscientious use of
systems, etc.).
Introductory trainings for biomass-fired boiler operators before the

installation of boiler plants were completed in 2013, in which 376
operators from all those 127 beneficiary communities of the project
obtained a set of key skills and knowledge covering the sound operation
of biomass-fired boilers, labour safety and fire-prevention measures, and
efficient maintenance of the systems.
The ‘Guide for Biomass Boiler Operators’ has provided a resource on the operation and maintenance of
straw-fired boilers. These have also been provided to municipal leaders as part of activity 3.1. A “Roadmap
for Effective Biomass Heating” was distributed in 118 beneficiary communities.
Activity 3.3 (“Training materials developed for commercial fuel suppliers”) aims at enhancing the
knowledge and capacity of commercial fuel suppliers basically for self-study and cover opportunities and
risks relating to biofuel production and marketing information on business opportunities, benefits, and risk,
necessary machinery (mechanization of straw gathering process from cereals/grains; agricultural straw-
baling machinery; organizing the process of gathering, storing and marketing of straw-bales; technology and
machinery for biomass-based pellet production and briquetting); fuel quality control; financial issues and
return on investment; as well as creation of a generic business plan.
Achievements
The Project has developed a “Practical Guide for Biofuel Suppliers” to serve as guidance for those
entrepreneurs who are interested in launching their business in the area of biofuel (briquettes, pellets, straw-
bales) production and marketing.

(MEBP)
Biomass energy is generally seen as ‘informal’, associated with poor village life, not modern, and associated
with dirty, polluting, and labour-intensive practices. Activity 3.4 “Community understanding and
acceptance of biomass energy enhanced through school educational program” therefore was designed to
bring about a change in these attitudes by providing information on modern biomass energy, focusing on the
youngest members of the society as one of the best way to have long-lasting changes in perceptions.
Achievements
To this end, an educational initiative dedicated to renewables and energy efficiency was launched in schools.
Sub-activities included:
 Stakeholder dialogue and partnerships with local NGOs;
 Teacher awareness raising and training in schools that are receiving straw-
fired boilers. Approximately 254 teachers and school principals from 127
schools participating in the program, benefited from certified trainings
 Translation and adaptation of school educational and methodology
materials already available including incorporation of local information on
the practical benefits and opportunities of biomass energy in schools in
Moldova.
An educational brochure “Renewable Energy Sources” was piloted as well as a

Teachers’ Guide on Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency. The optional
subject “Renewable Energy Sources” has been included in the curriculum for
pupils of upper grades (VII and VIII). The idea emerged to supplement the
existing educational brochure in 2014 with an extended didactic support of 240
pages, representing a significant revision and detailing of the topics described
in the original educational brochure of 2012 (26 pages).
This Educational Initiative covers all schools from the recipient communities of the Project, with the
intention to involve school students and teachers in interactive and practical activities dealing with the
promotion of alternative energy sources and energy efficiency practices. For example, students and teachers
build samples of installations based on renewable energy, take part in debates on a variety of topics relating
to alternative power and energy efficiency, carry out study-visits to biomass-fired boiler plants and prepare
practical papers and topic researches to be shared with their colleagues, parents, community decision-
makers, etc. The most active school students have the opportunity to take part in topic-related Summer
Camps where they can deepen their knowledge on sustainable power and energy efficiency. The first
Summer Camp with an eco-energy specificity was organized in June 2012. Also, a Mascot named
ENERGEL was devised for this campaign, as a partner and friend of school students and young people in the
process of exploration of eco-energy and rational energy consumption.
As part of ensuring the sustainability of educational activities on renewable

and efficient use of energy, the Ministry of Education addressed a memo to
educational departments in all 33 districts (including ATU Gagauz Yeri)
with the recommendation to make use of the educational brochure
“Renewable Energy Sources” and the Teachers’ Guide for the courses on
Environmental Education, Nature and Habitat, Education for community
development, as well as for the works of environmental and natural
sciences school clubs. As a result, an additional 225 schools with over
13,000 pupils of 7th and 8th grades throughout Moldova joined the
educational initiative and received copies of the Educational Brochure and
Teacher’s Guide. By the end of the second quarter of 2014, about 19,000
pupils from 352 schools (6,000 pupils from 127 schools located in the
MEBP beneficiary communities, and 13,000 pupils from 225 schools
outside MEBP) had participated in the educational activities dedicated to

(MEBP)
renewables and energy efficiency. Approximately 200 children from communities covered by MEBP did
participate in the two Summer Camps “Energel” (June 2014 and July 2013).
Energel
In order to ensure the sustainability of the knowledge products developed for local and district authorities in
the field of biomass-based energy production and energy efficiency measures, MEBP and EEA approached
the Academy of Public Administration (APA), the institution officially assigned by the Government of
Moldova to train central and local level authorities, to uptake and integrate these as part of their training
activities. The educational course was piloted by the APA in 2012 with a group of 18 mayors and district
level authorities and by the end of 2014 had expanded to about 110 district and community-level authorities.
3.1.4 Output 4: Opportunities and benefits of biomass energy for Moldova are well known,
visibility of project results is promoted
This output of the Project intends to facilitate widespread dissemination on the general and specific
advantages and impacts of using biomass energy in Moldova, to raise awareness on the potential of
renewable energy in general and promote the visibility of the partnerships and the impact of the various
project activities by means of national and local press, TV, radio and other relevant information sources.
The achievements are described below.
Newsletters have been produced on a regular basis to project beneficiaries and mass media. The project has
developed a dedicated biomass-for-energy website www.biomasa.md24 that is regularly updated with updated
on a weekly basis with news, new communication materials produced in video or print format as well as
information about the project and project materials. Information on the web is accessible in Romanian and
English, while the electronic newsletters are also available in Russian.
24
The web address was created in parallel with original webpage www.biomasa.aee.md to increase access by using a simpler name

(MEBP)
Under Activity 4.1 a “Media campaign” has been developed to provide information to the local press, TV,
radio and on social media (Facebook, YouTube) on the benefits of biomass for energy and renewable energy
and energy efficiency in particular. Various media materials have been disseminated, including stories
about project activities (e.g. on the household subsidy component). Video and audio spots can be accessed
through YouTube. The Program was also promoted within a number of big events with the participation of
local public administration authorities, and other key stakeholders from energy sector. The project has
participated in events such as the Europe Days and European Sustainable Energy Week through interactive
activities and live shows on renewable energy production.
As a result of direct communication actions such as public events, thematic discussions, awareness raising
meetings, community mobilisation actions etc. and outreach communication
activities (press releases, newsletters, video&audio spots etc.) about 2,000
media materials (TV, radio, newspapers, news agencies and thorugh Web
portals) about the opportunities and benefits of biomass energy for
Moldova, and project results/activities have been disseminated. In total,
around 2 million persons were reached and informed via the media
campaign actions.
Innovative campaign elements include the biomass-fired boilers caravan

and participation thereof in exhibitions. The purpose has been for people to see how a biomass boiler is
functioning, the types of boilers produced and assembled in Moldova:
 SMS texting information campaign promoting the Household and Microenterprises Subsidy Program
(Activity 2.1): thousands of people from all the regions received in 3 days information about the increase
of subsidy share. As a result, in less than a month, more than 500 of persons submitted requests to finance
their purchase of biomass boilers;
 The “Sun Dai Fest”is an open air festival of Eco-technologies and innovations with concertd of live music
powered by solar energy. Thousands of festival participants watched “live” operation of renewable
energy technologies (wind turbines, solar collectors, photovoltaic panels, geothermal pumps and biomass
boilers). Also, young people – advocates of “eco energy” - presented their innovations designed to
generate clean energy, cut down energy consumption and, thus, lowering power bills.
The project has been reported and made visible outside Moldova. In 2012 and 2013 the Project
accomplishments were disseminated in the publication “Empowering Lives. Building Resilience” of the
Regional UNDP Office for Europe and CIS countries, which incorporates the success stories of UNDP
projects in Europe and Central Asia. A story on a female beneficiary in the household subsidy component

(MEBP)
(Activity 2.1) was published on International Women’s Day at the UNDP website 25. Gender results are also
reported in a blog on the UNDP Teamworks platform26.
Also under this activity, a study visit for journalists to an EU country with advance experience in using
renewable sources, in particular biomass, for energy production was carried out. In December 2013, 13
journalists and communication experts from the Moldova learned the experience of Austria in using
renewable energy. The journalists and communication experts visited locations/projects successful in using
and producing biomass energy, and had meetings with mass media institutions, NGOs active in the sector
and representatives of the Austrian Agency for Energetics. The purpose of the visit was to learn more about
the experience of Austria in using biomass energy and other renewable energy sources, as well as the
experience of mass media in organizing campaigns for renewable energy promotion and their impact on
public opinion27. During 5 days, the journalists visited enterprises producing solid biofuel, companies
producing biomass fired boilers and localities massively using energy produced from renewable sources.
Mass-media have been regularly monitored. For example, within the period January-June 2014, over 150
mass-media materials (TV reports and programs, radio news, articles in newspapers, news for the web portal
and news agencies) about the opportunities and benefits of biomass energy for Moldova and project
results/activities were disseminated.
In Activity 4.2 “Annual national awards” the Project has instigated and thereafter supported, in partnership
with EEA and the Ministry of Economy (MoE), the organization of the annual Eco-Energetica Moldova
Competition, for example, by making suggestions on the regulations of the Competition (e.g. establishing a
Secretariat responsible the Competition’s administration and organization; re-titling award categories on
heating and power production within the Bioenergy Category; setting rules for submission and evaluation of
participants). In close partnership with MoE and EEA, a national-wide competition to award the successful
projects on using and promoting ‘renewable energy and energy efficiency’ was initiated and implemented by
the project. The involvement of national partners from the very beginning in every phase of the competition
ensured that they have assumed ownership of the activity. This is also evidenced by its financing, i.e. MEBP
provided financial coverage for the organization of competition & award ceremony on a sliding scale: 2011 -
100%, 2012 - 80%, 2013 - 60%, 2014 - 30%). The rest of the budget was covered by EEA funds, the donor
community and private sponsors.
Media references to MEE are reported by the Project team as at least 165 times (2011: 30, 2012: 50, 2013:
85, with 2014 to be known after 5 December). Related to the event is the publication of the “Moldova Eco-
Energetica Magazine”, an EEA initiative (i.e. not funded by the Project but from EEA funds) in 2013 and
now in 2014. The 2014 edition contains success stories of the Competition 2013 finalists, information about
activities of the key actors in energy sector, as well as news on the national competition Moldova Eco-
Energetica 2014.
To give some insight in how the event is organized, a summary description below is given on the
organization of and participation in the Award Ceremony:
 Competition:
o The “Regulation, Evaluation Criteria, Selection Procedures and Application Guidelines” including
Award Categories, for the Moldova Eco-Energetica Awards were developed by the project as a
result of consultations with national partners and relevant stakeholders in working groups with field
experts.
25
www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/Cross-Practice%20generic%20theme/UNDP_RBEC_SuccessStories_v3.PDF
26
www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/ourwork/womenempowerment/successstories/women-fuel-success-in-moldova.html?
cq_ck=1393963529358
27
Austria is one of the leading companies in the production and consumption of energy from renewable sources. In Austria, 32% of
the total energy consumed comes from renewable sources and 58% comes from biomass. Source: MEBP project team

(MEBP)
o Based on the Regulation, a Coordination Board of Moldova Eco-Energetica was established
consisting of 11 members representing the line ministries, local authorities, civil society, academia
and donors.
o Four evaluation panels were established consisting of 16 experts to review the submitted applications
in two stage selection process (desk evaluation and field visit verification) and propose the winners
to Coordination Board.
o 3 editions of the competition have been organized, in which 125 projects enrolled
o Media campaigns promoted the competition;
 Award Ceremony:
o The competition was launched in December 2011 during a festive event, where a number of local
successful projects selected by a group of experts in the sustainable energy area were showcased and
awarded. Up to now, three editions of Moldova Eco-Energetica Award Ceremony were conducted
(the fourth to be organized on 5 December 2014).
o Over 1000 invitees, including top officials, ministers, ambassadors, as well as representatives from
the private sector, academia and civil society, have participated to the Ceremony in previous years.
Again, 1000 people are expected to participate in the 2014 Award ceremony
o In the 2012 and 2013 Moldova Eco-Energetica Award Ceremonies, 34 successful projects were
awarded and 13 are to be awarded at 5 December 2014. Also, 47 trophies and 47 success stories
were produced.
As part of Activity 4.3 “Communication and visibility of project results” mass-media and public opinion
were regularly informed about all important events, activities, and accomplishments in the project by
distributing news and press releases to national and regional mass-media, and posted on the UNDP web
page, social networks, UN Magazine, EU cooperation news, Energy Efficiency Newsletter (IDIS Viitorul),
etc. All communication materials were in line with the Joint Visibility Guidelines for EC-UN actions.
A registry of information requests has been updated regularly. In the period March 2011-October 2014, over
2,000 persons, mainly agricultural entrepreneurs, local public authorities, managers of public institutions
from rural areas, and NGOs requested information from the project team via e-mail, telephone, letters, and
visits to the project office on project activities.
3.1.5 Conclusions on results in terms of achievement of outputs
Evaluation questions (see Box 2)

 Progress towards achievement of results? Were the outputs achieved?
 Were key methodologies and approaches that facilitate the success of the project and delivery of necessary
outputs appropriate?
 What are the factors that affected either positively or negatively the accomplishment of the outputs?
As described in detail in the previous Sections 3.1.1 to 3.1.4, the Project has achieved most of its intended
outputs and activity results, including demonstrating solid biomass fuel supply (briquette and pellet
production) and demand-side projects (public buildings and households), strengthening institutional and
human resource capacity to support the development of biomass energy projects in Moldova (notably
standards and regulations on biomass fuel quality; training of biomass boiler operators, local decision-
makers and fuel supplying companies) as well as setting up of a revolving fund to finance biomass energy
projects and raising awareness amongst the public at large on biomass energy projects in Moldova.
The project has attempted to encourage the market for solid biomass fuels by addressing issues along the
bioenergy production chain, from gathering the agricultural raw materials (e.g. straw baling), to processing
into densified fuel (such as briquettes and pellets and quality of fuels), to the operation of the biomass-

(MEBP)
burning equipment (e.g. biomass boilers) to the prospective end user of the energy service (e.g. efficient and
effective use of heat generated).
The Project’s intervention rightly address issues along the supply chain of biomass heating simultaneously.
Examples of project interventions, mentioned in the previous sections of this report, are:
 Study on biomass residues potential in various districts;
 Support (information and training; revolving funds) given to producers of biofuels (e.g. pellets or
briquettes from straw or sunflower residues) as well as on improving fuel quality (e.g. standards and
regulations).
 Support given to boiler heating system operators and managers (information, guidelines)
 Support provided to end users in the public sector as well as private sector (information, training;
awareness creation).
The market for densified biomass fuels has developed more rapidly than was anticipated during project
conceptualization. This factor has induced changes in the Project’s focus away from straw-bales biomass to
briquettes and pellets. To give an example, , with almost 65 operating producing briquettes in 2012 and over
100 in 2014, the need for supporting a briquette production facility became obsolete and the Project Board
recommended expanding activity 2.3 into a PPP approach with pelletizing as technology of biomass
processing. For more on influencing factors, the reader is also referred to Section 3.2.3 on adaptive
management.
3.2 Project implementation and efficiency
This Section describes the project management setup (section 3.2.1) as well as the Evaluator team’s
observations on stakeholder relations, project management, implementation and budget control.
3.2.1 Project setup
The project management arrangements are shown in the diagram in Box 6 on the next page (following
description in the Project Document). The project has been implemented under the National Implementation
Mechanism (NIM) with the Ministry of Economy as national implementing partner in line with UNDP rules
and procedures. UNDP Moldova supports the Project in the project assurance role by carrying out objective
and independent project oversight and monitoring functions.
A Project Board (PB) has managed the Project at the highest decision-making level and has been
responsible for making management decisions for a project when guidance is required by the Project
Manager, including recommendation for UNDP/Implementing Partner approval of project plans and
revisions. The Project Board has been made up of a representative of each of the following entities:
 Ministry of Economy (MoE), Senior Executive and chairing the Project Board 28
 Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry (MoAFI)
 Ministry of Environment (MoEnv)
 Ministry of Regional Development and Construction (MoRDC);
 Ministry of Finance,
 Energy Efficiency Agency (EEA)
28
Formerly, Mr. Valeriu Lazar and currently Mr. Andrian Candu

(MEBP)
Box 4Project organization structure (from ProDoc)
Project Board
Senior Beneficiaries
MoAFI, MoEnv, EE Agency; Senior Supplier
MoF, MoRDC, St. Chancellery, Executive EU Delegation
CALM and civil society Chair: MoE UNDP
representative
Project Assurance
Advisory Committee UNDP Moldova
Incl. EEAgency, EEFund,
MoCRD, MoEd, Academia, Civil
Society, Regional Development
Agencies, LPA representatives,
PM team
Agricultural, Bio-fuel and Boiler
Producers Associations, Donor Project Support
Organizations (WB, EBRD, Project Manager Admin. & Finance Associate (1)
others) Project Assistant (1)
National staff
Short-term experts Community mobilization officer (2); Engineer (1);
Design-build advisor (Int) Business Development Officer (1); Procurement and contract
Technical experts (Loc + Int) management officer (1); Communication Officer (1) and Training
Trainers (Loc + Int) specialist officer (1)
Others as required
 State Chancellery;
 UNDP,
 EU Delegation to Moldova (the primary donor),
 Congress of Local Authorities of Moldova (CALM);
 and one representative of civil society
The Project Management Team (PMT) has been established, and staffed with a Project Manager (PM), a
team of project officers in the fields of finance, procurement and contract management, community
mobilization, business development, engineering, and media and training 29.
An Advisory Committee was established to facilitate effective and quality implementation and coordination
of the project. With the Project Board the main decision making body of the project, the Advisory Group is a
representative group reflecting the broader range of key stakeholders of the project. It has been made up of
representatives from UNDP and the EU Delegation, technical specialists representing the other project board
members, as well as representatives of the Ministry of Education and Ministry of Construction and Regional
Development, Energy Efficiency Agency, Energy Efficiency Fund, Academia, civil society, agricultural
producers associations, Regional Development Agencies and representatives of district councils and Local
Public Authorities, representatives of donors active in the sector, and other relevant programs. The Group
has met if required, but usually on a quarterly basis just before the quarterly meetings of the Project Board.
29
Currently consisting of Alexandru Ursul (Project Manager); Tatiana Craciun (community mobilization), Nicolae Zaharia (business
development), Victoria Ignat (training and capacity buildimg), Ina Prisacaru-Zglavuta (communications), Iuliana Bostan (project
replaced assistant), Vitalie Vieru. (engineer), MIhail Maciuca (procurement) and Natalia Murahovschi (administration and finance).
Mr. Vieru replaced Vsevolod Valcov, who sadly passed away early 2014.

(MEBP)
In addition to these original management arrangements (described in the ProDoc), a Project Selection
Committee was set up to ensure transparency in the biomass heating community projects evaluation and
selection process (see Output 1) and to ensure efficient coordination of project with complementary
programmes, projects and national policies. It included representatives of the Ministry of Economy (MoE),
Energy Efficiency Agency (EEA), Ministry of Constructions and Regional Development (MoCRD),
Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry (MAFI); Energy Efficiency Fund (EEF); Delegation of the
European Union to the Republic of Moldova; UNDP Moldova and of the MEBP Project Management Team.
3.2.2 Partnerships and stakeholder engagement
In Moldova, the Ministries of Economy, Environment and Agriculture and Food Industry, as well as
university departments, research institutes and NGOs are or have been involved in research and
implementation of biomass-related projects in general.These organizations have shown enthusiasm and a
willingness to cooperate with the MEBP bioenergy project.
The National Agency for Energy Efficiency (EEA) has been the main implementation partner and the Project
beneficiary. In the Evaluators’ view, the Project has interacted well with a large number of stakeholders,
such as central and local authorities, academic and education institutions, line ministries and state agencies,
civil society organizations, private sector and the country population, as evidenced by the list of entities
participating in the Project Board, Advisory Committee and the Project Selection Committee.
From the onset, the project team has established good relationships with such national partners as MoE,
EEA, MoAFI, ,Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Education, Academy of Public Administration,
Institute of Continuous Formation, Institute of Energy and other stakeholders, which ensured a large
involvement of local partners in the process of day-to-day project implementation. Implementation
approaches to the Project have been conducted in a participatory manner based on close collaborative
working relationships between the Project team, national stakeholders, local authorities and managers of
public buildings, providers of biomass fuel and boiler assemblers/producers as has been detailed in the
description of achievements in Section 3.1.
Regarding beneficiaries, the Evaluation Team met a number of the project beneficiaries during the field visit
of the mission that seemed to be well content with the biomass heating systems installed. Project
involvement in these districts has provided beneficiary communities with reliable sources hot water and
heating using locally available (straw and or briquettes/pellets) as fuel.
3.2.3 Adaptive management and work planning
The MEBP team has shown accessibility and flexibility in managing of the project and was responsive to the
requests of the local partners (mentioned in the previous section). As result, local partners have been strongly
committed to the project. Together with the project’s adaptive management, this has formed a key
ingredient for its success and allowed it to stay relevant and effective in a rapidly changing environment and
emerging market.
Some examples of ‘adaptive management’ are given below:

 Initially the project was targeting straw in the form of straw bales 30. However, it quickly adapted the type
of biomass technologies to be supported to reflect the emerging market of solid biofuels and changed
demand from beneficiaries, namely for more advanced solid biomass fuels (briquettes and pellets);
30
See for example, the description on page 45 in the ProDoc of Activity Result 1, “130 thermal systems primarily burning straw will be
installed”

(MEBP)
 The initial idea of Activity 2.3 (Activity result 6) is presented in the ProDoc as ‘supporting the creation of
at least one commercial briquette business’. With already 65 companies producing biomass briquettes by
the end of 2012, this concept was changed into a PPP (public-private partnership) approach for biomass-
based heating services with higher replication potential and with focusing on pelletizing instead of
briquettes (as a more advanced biomass processing technology; see Annex D);
 The lease/-hire purchase Activity 1.2 (Activity result 2) initially foresaw the establishment of a revolving
fund for straw baling equipment only with 2KR as partner. With an eye on the rapidly evolving market,
the activity was quickly expanded to briquetting and pelleting equipment (including getting the EEA on
board as a new partner) and more in-depth assessments on the potential of biomass briquetting (as we
described in Section 3.1.2);
 In the household boiler component (Activity 2.1), the project very quickly reacted to the demand and
preference of the beneficiaries in terms of the approach applied, implying a shift away from stoves to
household-size biomass boilers;
 The project also realized the need to raise awareness of potential beneficiaries in a hands-on and
accessible manner, and as such implemented innovative approaches like the SMS campaign and a mobile
caravan of boilers;
 For some activities the capacity development component (Output 3) changed its approach from merely
providing training materials to a much more comprehensive capacity development approach linked with
strengthening the capacity of stakeholder and partners needed to be able to implement certain project
activities (e.g. training of municipal leaders, managers and representatives, Activity Result 1; boiler
operators, Activity result 8; fuel suppliers, Activity Result 9);
 A number of commercial and awareness raising activities have been added during project
implementation. For example, the Sun-Dai Fest was instigated to raise awareness among the younger
generation in a very innovative and attractive manner (see section 3.1.4 in this report);
 With more and more biofuel producers in the country, the quality of briquettes and pellets has become an
issue. In the absence of a quality testing laboratory, the project quickly reacted and produced a video and
leaflets explaining in very simple but effective ways how to test the quality of biofuels.
3.2.4 Project budget and realized expenditures
An overview of the performance of the project in terms actual expenditures per main project output and main
type of assistance is given in the table of Box 5 below.
Box 4 Overview of planned and realized expenditures (2011-2014) per project output

(MEBP)
- UNDP 0.56
Project 2011-2014 (million EUR)

Original Expenditures
Direct project cost budget (15-10-2014)
Output 1
Heating systems and equipment 8.73 9.35
Fuel supply systems 1.00 0.95
Technical assistance 0.50 0.35
Output 2
Heating systems 1.10 0.87
Output 3
Output 4 0.00 0.00
Management
Techn. assistance 1.12 0.72
Equipment and supplies 0.08 0.07
Total 13.64 12.94
UNDP admin fee 0.92 0.78
Grand total 14.56 13.72
It should be noted that detailed financial management or disbursement issues are not the subject of the final
evaluation as such, as the project has a separate financial auditing process. This Section focusses on the
progress in expenditures vs. planned budget in relation with the progress in implementation of activities. Box
6 on the next page gives an overview of the project budget and expenditures per main budget category. Data
presented in the Boxes 5 and 6 are based on the financial info provided by the Project team.
It follows from these tables that disbursements has generally been in line with implementation progress of
the project’s activities, while also disbursements do not deviate much from the project budget (compared
with the original 2011 budget and subsequent budget revisions). It should be noted that in Activity 1.1 the
beneficiary communities have also contributed in-kind and in cash to have biomass heating systems installed
(see Section 4.1.1) and this should be actually be considered as additional co-financing. In general, the
expenditures have been line with the activities these were programmed for in the Project Document and
subsequent Annual Work Plans.
Project management cost (the cost of project staff, vehicles, office equipment and other office cost; see Box
6) were budgeted at EUR 1.13 million (or 8% of the total direct project cost of EUR 13.64 million). Also,
expenditures have followed this share (7% of total disbursements of EUR 12.40 million).
Box 5 Overview of planned and realized expenditures (2011-2014) per budget category

(MEBP)
Project budget (in EUR) Expenditures
Original 2011 Revision 2013 Revision 2014 (at 30-09-14)
Project staff 821,600 671,138 606,804 549,287
- Travel and local transport 42,750 59,400 52,850 43,775
Internat consultants (plus travel) 188,350 48,140 45,255 44,930
Nat consultants (plus travel) 226,450 209,800 227,400 210,798
Vehicles, office equipment 63,600 63,600 63,600 63,552
Office cost (rent, utilities, communication, fuel) 201,600 201,600 187,820 162,864
Other equipment
- biomass heating (A.1.1) 8,710,000 9,490,000 9,490,000 9,345,695
- auditing (A.1.1) 20,000 20,000 6,364 6,364
- biomass household heating (A.2.1) 120,000 60,000 59,195 59,195
- biomass CHP system (A.2.1) 200,000 200,000 200,000 155,080
- briquetting plants (A.2.3) 200,000 100,000 97,698 97,698
Seed capital and incentives
- Lease-hire (straw baling; briquetting/pelleting) 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 660,050
- Incentives domestic stoves 580,000 640,000 816,979 363,030
Action costs
- publications, training packages, education 78,000 48,000 46,533 46,533
- reports and pamphlets 10,000 10,000 6,439 6,439
- audiovisuals 104,000 104,000 106,852 101,554
- visibility and media campaign 49,000 49,000 49,000 46,200
- district/villages: promotion, roundtables 78,900 78,900 74,900 72,477
- energy audits 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000
- annual awards ceremony 161,600 161,600 161,600 145,872
- evaluation 29,400 29,400 25,300 5,308
- trade missions; licensing, A.2.1) 280,000 201,000 131,000 37,708
- market research (A.2.3) 40,000 40000 42,301 31,555
- NGO education (A.3.4) 60,000 60,000 66,177 66,177
- training; conferences fees (staff) 8,000 8,000 8,111 6,777
- miscellaneous 346,862 66,534 47,934 46,341
TOTAL 13,644,112 13,644,112 13,644,112 12,399,259
Admin fee, UNDP 915,888 915,888 915,888 776,780
3.2.5 Reporting and communications; monitoring & evaluation; role of UNDP
The PMT has produced regular progress technical and financial reports as well as Annual Work Plan.
Assessment and impact logs have been used to monitor the impact of various activities. Reporting in
implementation progress and results has been adequate (progress reports, MEBP website, project
publications and PR materials).
These together provide a picture of the project’s accomplishments up to date. However, some of these
reports are not accessible to the public at large (such as the progress reports), or reports present results at a
certain point in time, or technical studies and documents focus on a particular component only. As we
Evaluators can attest as ‘outsiders’, it is easy to get lost in the details of these reports and it takes time to get
a grasp of the project’s impacts that go far beyond reported number of pilots implemented, amount of press
releases, number of trainings organized, etc. Also given its high profile of the project and now nearing its
point of closure, the project would benefit from an ‘easy-to-read’ publication that would summarize the
achievements in all components in an integrated manner, and not only presenting ‘what was done and
achieved’ but ‘how it was done’.
Communications to the media and stakeholders are described in detail in Section 3.1.4 and have been part
of the communication, visibility and media engagement strategy formulated at the onset of the Project and
has been successfully implemented during the course of the project.

(MEBP)
Several activities of the project (both revolving funds, household subsidy scheme, co-generation pilot, etc.)
were directly implemented by national partners (so called responsible parties), applying the UN’s
Harmonized Approach to Cash Transfers (HACT). The HACT approach was launched in 2005 and applied
by the UN agencies involved (including UNDP) in their country programs 31. It aims to reduce transaction
costs pertaining to the country programmes of the agencies by simplifying and harmonizing rules and
procedures, strengthen the capacity of implementing partners to effectively manage resources, and help
manage risks related to the management of funds and increase overall effectiveness. UNDP deserves
significant credit for implementing this new HACT approach in this project and reportedly has contributed to
building capacities of national counterparts as part of project implementation and ensure national ownership.
The 2011 Project Document contains a reasonably detailed monitoring and evaluation (M&E) plan. Main
reporting tool have been the project progress reports as well as reporting to the EU Delegation (listed in
Annex C) and these provide the necessary information on project progress and issues. Regarding the results
framework, we observe that some indicators do only partially monitor an activity, as we will discuss in the
next section 3.3 on project design. In addition, there were changes in focus of certain activities (as described
in section 3.2.2 on adaptive management) and these changes have not led to retrofitting the indicators of the
results framework. In general, we feel therefore that the logical results framework (logframe) actually
underreports the achievements. Only when combining the logframe with the various project reports and other
info does a fuller picture of the project’s achievements emerge.
3.2.6 Conclusions regarding project implementation and efficiency

 What contribution has been made by UNDP and implementing partners to the progress towards the
implementation of activities and achievement of the output and outcome? How appropriate were the inputs?
Were the inputs sufficient to achieve the results? How cost effective they were?
 What were the partnerships formed? What was the role of UNDP? How did the partnership contribute to the
achievement of the outcome? What was the level of stakeholders’ participation?
In general, most activities have been implemented in a timely manner (as discussed in Section 3.1) and with
the budget resources allocated). In some activities, spending has been less than planned (see for example
activity result 2.1), while in other outputs more activities were added than the ones originally planned for. It
should also be noted that in some activities, the achievements that exceed the target originally planned (as
described in the Sections 3.1 and 3.2.3) which leads the Evaluation Team to conclude that the budget was
utilized as intended and in a cost-effective manner. In conclusion, considering the achievements the cost-
effectiveness (efficiency) of the Project has been more than adequate, while the project inputs have been
utilized in an efficient manner.
Review of the project’s progress reports and also discussions with the stakeholders during the mission reveal
quite satisfactory supervision and backstopping by efforts by UNDP Moldova. The implementation
approaches by the Project have been conducted in a participatory manner based on close collaborative
working relationships between the Project team, national stakeholders, local authorities and managers of
public buildings, providers of biomass fuel and boiler assemblers/producers.
3.3 Design and relevance

 Was the project well-placed and integrated within the national government development strategies and donor
31
It is mandatory for UNDP, UNICEF, UNFPA and WFP to use the HACT approach

(MEBP)
programmes?
 Were the outputs (project components) relevant to the overall project outcome?
 Was the project logical framework well designed?
3.3.1 Relevance and ownership
Bioenergy has been facing many barriers to its more widespread application:
 Lack of awareness of government officials at national and local level; and the general public on the
benefits of biomass as an energy resources offering fuel savings and business opportunities;
 Lack of working examples of the use of modern solid biomass fuels (such briquettes and pellets);
 Lack of businesses to provide sustained biomass fuel supplies;
 Lack of capacity and skills to install, manage and operate biomass-based boilers and heating systems.
Prior to the MEBP initiative, there were a few concentrated activities to develop biomass-for-energy:
 Detailed analysis of the availability and potential of alternative energy in Moldova began with a study
financed under the Austrian Global Environment Consultant Trust Fund, which resulted in “Renewable
Energy (Biomass) Sector Study, Potential Use of Renewable Energy (Biomass) in Moldova”(2002);
Cooperation with the Biomass Centre in Kiev resulted in further analysis and building energy audits and
the proposal “Financing energy efficiency and fuel switching measures for buildings in rural areas”;
 The World Bank, with a GEF grant of USD 972,920, implemented ‘Renewable Energy from Agricultural
Wastes’ during 2005-2008. The GEF project established eleven demonstration pilot installations in eight
locations with an installed capacity of 2.72MW, using straw as an energy source. The heat plants used
were based on proven Danish designs, supplying heat to public buildings in rural communities. The
biomass fuel cycle was mainly supported by the provision of straw balers supplied through the 2KR 32,
followed by a further demonstration installation (300 kW), financed by JICA and implemented by the
2KR implementation unit.
In recent years, the Moldovan government has adopted a number of policies and strategies, related to the
adoption of the treaty with the Energy Community and overall Development Strategy of Moldova, which
emphasizes the need for energy security, environmental protection and sustainable energy. Important
strategies and plans mention the increased use of renewable energy sources, in particular agricultural
residues and waste, in general considered to an abundantly available renewable resource (see Annex D for
more details):
 Law on Renewable Energy Sources (2007)
 Law on Energy Efficiency (2010)
 Energy Strategy of the Republic of Moldova until 2030
 National Renewable Energy Action Plan of the Republic of Moldova for 2013-202
 National Programme for Energy Efficiency 2010-2020
Project results have been attained with strong drivenness of the Moldovan authorities, not only at national
but also at local level, as further evidenced by:
 Management of the revolving funds for biomass handling and biofuel processing equipment of Activity
1.2 by 2KR and EEA;
 Elaboration and approval of standards for briquettes and pellets and corresponding Government
regulations (see Annex D.5 for a list of standards);
 Active participation of local public authorities (LPAs) in the PPP pilot of Activity 2.3 as well as the
participation in the selection, installation and monitoring of public building heating systems (Activity 1.1)
as well as related trainings (such a training on mobilization of community and local resources; training on
monitoring and participatory evaluation and the training on implementation and management at
community level.
32
The agricultural mechanisation and farmer support programme supported by the Government of Japan.

(MEBP)
Based on the above, the Evaluation Team has the opinion that the project results have been attained with
strong ownership and drivenness of the Moldovan government and stakeholders to a significant extent.
3.3.2 Design and results framework
Considering the project progress to date and taking into account what can reasonably be achieved in a 4-year
period, the design of the Project has been appropriate to support catalytic activities for biomass energy
development and to instill public and private stakeholder confidence on biomass energy. The successes to
date in promoting biomass heating systems in residential and public sector has led to request to extend and
expand the technical assistance activities of MEBP in a new successor project (as we will discuss in Section
4.3).
Box 6 Suggestions for improved progress indicators in the results framework

Activity Result indicators Alternative indicators
(as given in the Project Document) (suggested by the Evaluators)
d) Progress in addressing barriers as d1) Number of fuel quality standards and number of regulations
evaluated by the project board
i) Successful operation of commercial i) Number of PPP for biomass supply and heating services
briquette enterprise implemented
j) Number of municipal leaders trained j1) Number of municipalities or public institutions whose
leaders/representatives trained
j2) Number of people trained
j3) Number of trainings organized
k) Positive feedback from municipal k1) Number of staff (operators, managers) of boiler heating systems
leaders (who will use their materials to trained;
inform their dealings with operators) k2) Number of trainings organized
during training events k3) % of participants expressing satisfaction with the training
k4) Number of training materials and/or guidebooks elaborated
m) Number of children participating in m1) Number of children participating in awareness activities
awareness activities m2) Number of school teachers trained
r) Status of publications and media and communication campaign:
1. Status of project website; number of visitors to website;
2. Number of media materials disseminated
3. Number of Newsletters published and other number of other
materials (PR materials; stories in third-party publications)
4. Number of Eco-Energetica events organized
Outcome-level A) Jobs created (at outcome level rather than being put at activity
results level, as in Indicators b) and g) of outputs 1 and 2; see
Box 3)
B) Number of enterprises created (fuel supply and/or biomass-
based heating services)
C) Amount of solid fuels (briquettes, pellets) produced annually
and burnt in biomass based heating systems
 Direct (in project-supported facilities)
 Indirect: estimate of national level figures of B) and C)
The design of the Project has been based on the fact that only few activities had been implemented in
developing biomass as a source of modern solid fuels. As such, there was little consistent information on the
use of biomass for heating with a low level of awareness amongst key stakeholders on the benefits of
biomass and business opportunities in the sector. During project implementation, it turned out that the market

(MEBP)
for briquettes had been growing faster than previously assumed, there were changes in focus of certain
activities (as described in Section 3.2.2 on adaptive management).

(MEBP)
These changes have not led to retrofitting the indicators of the results framework. Also, some indicators
chosen in the (original logical framework) do only partially monitor an activity. In general, we feel therefore
that the logical results framework (logframe) actually underreports the achievements. Thus, the logframe
would have been benefitted from some additional indicators (at the formulation stage) or re-adjusted
indicators (reflecting changes during implementation). We have indicated this in Box 7.

(MEBP)
Regarding outcome, an obvious indicator (being an energy project) would be a summary indicator on the

(MEBP)
households and small businesses, linked with the Activities 1.1, 1.2 and 2.1 of the Project). These indicators
could be extended to the national level to capture possible indirect effects. Estimates of the solid biofuel
production and consumption at national level (by gathering sales data, surveys) would give insight in the
current status of the solid biofuels in comparison with the status in 2010/11. Although maybe difficult to
estimate, the national level of solid biofuel production and consumption could say something on the indirect
impact of the projects through replication of biomass heating projects, increased awareness, institutional
strengthening etc. on the development of the biofuel market in Moldova.
3.4 Impacts and sustainability

 To what degree did the project contribute to the development of sustainable energy production market in the
country?
 To what extent are the MEBP project results sustainable, taking into consideration the existing capacity,
structures and political context in the country?
3.4.1 Results in terms of achievements of outcomes and objectives; impacts
The project results and resources framework (logical framework) refers to two outcomes in the UNDP
country program (see Annex D.4), namely ‘number of new job created’ and ‘number of small business
increased’. The latest reporting on progress 33 mentions that in Output 1, some 363 new jobs were created
during 2011-2014 linked with the Project’ support as compared with 260 given as the target value by the end
of the project. Linked with Output 2, 10 jobs were created over 2011-2013, mentioning 25 as the end-of-
project target value.
33
See the draft document “MEDP Project Extension 2014-2017, Description of the Action”

(MEBP)
These new jobs have been, for example, boiler operators, educators in kindergartens, and technical staff for
biofuel production) including 112 in public institutions.
The installation of biomass boilers and the provided to the production facilities of densified biomass fuels
(briquettes and pellets) has drawn interest to biomass business opportunities amongst suppliers and
assemblers/producers of biomass-based heating systems. There are now (2014) more than 100 briquettes and
pellets producers on the market34 and about 30 assemblers/importers of boilers and equipment that can burn
biomass. This positive dynamic development was possible also due to the support of MEBP granted through
the revolving funds (Activity 2.1) established to offer local entrepreneurs advantageous conditions for
launching and/or extending businesses in the field.
Considering that there only few concentrated biomass energy activities in Moldova prior to the MEBP, we
can observe that the Project has made an impact on raising awareness, knowledge and interest in biomass
energy development in Moldova. The Evaluators feel that the government stakeholders (at national and local
level) have been highly supportive of Project assistance to improve energy security and environmental
conditions and creating local employment. The Project is also having a positive impact on raising awareness
amongst education sector stakeholders in Moldova on the benefits on biomass energy projects.
The purpose was to increase the use of renewable energy technology. The Project has aimed at contributing
to a more secure, competitive and sustainable energy production in Moldova through targeted support to the
most viable and readily available local source of renewable energy, which is biomass from agricultural
wastes. As Evaluators we have the view, based on our discussions on the results achieved (outputs,
outcomes) that the Project indeed has helped the Moldovan counterparts to lay a strong foundation for the
development of modern solid biofuels in an important and visible way. The next section will discuss on the
sustainability of these results and achievements.
Box 8 Example of project results and impacts: Boghiceni

Boghiceni village is a community in Hincesti rayon with about 3,000 inhabitants and an infrastructure which
includes several public service institutions. Most of them need to be renovated and heated in order to ensure indoor
thermal comfort. For biomass heating, the community did select (by means of the participatory process described
in section 3.1.1), the local gymnasium, where 275 pupils are studying and 50 are employed persons. From all the
above mentioned public institutions, the gymnasium was the prior institution for ensuring thermal comfort, in order
to perform the educational process. At the moment of project initialization, the gymnasium was heated by a
thermal station that used coal. As the thermal station was obsolete and located too far from the gymnasium, the fuel
consumption was too high and the expenditures exceeded planned amounts. Often, the boiler equipment broke
down, leaving the school without heating. Pupils and teachers got sick of respiratory illnesses too often, and in
some cases the educational process was interrupted.
The local public authority and the administration of the gymnasium were willing to engage into this project on the
heating with biomass of the gymnasium and contributed to the development of partnership with local business for
production and use of own energy sources from agricultural waste, and obtain savings for the local budget.
The community managed to implement successfully the project on gymnasium heating with biomass
(briquettes/pellets) and is using this fuel since 2012, already the third heating season. Even in the first heating
season the institution obtained savings to the budget of MDL 120 thousands The institutions’ administration is
responsible for the investment made, and ensures annually boilers’ equipment functioning and procurement of the
necessary fuels. Meanwhile, as a result of the project implementation, “Biosolar Energ” LLS has launched a
production line of pellets from waste obtained after grain harvest, that enables the gymnasium to purchase fuel
produced in the locality. This company has created 7 new jobs.
34
See www.biomasa.md/img/docs/Briquettes-pellets-producers.pdf

(MEBP)
3.4.2 Sustainability and replication
Replicability
An interesting result obtained in Component 1 is the expanded use of biomass fuel in the institutions outside
the MEBP project. This result was possible due to capacity development of the community members in
renewable energy, experience in local resource mobilization, acquired experience in managing biomass
boilers and developing local partnerships in order to improve working conditions in public institutions. An
example confirming the replication potential of the project is the successful history of s. Boghiceni in the
Hânceşti rayon (described in Box 9). One year after the implementation of the biomass heating project,
obtaining benefits, especially savings to institutional budget, the community didn’t stop and went further and
expanded the use of biomass. The local public administration has installed biomass boilers in the local
kindergarten by own sources of MDL 300,000 and with the support of the state budget (through the rayon
council of Hincesti)".
Box 9 Activities on empowerment of women

The MEBP has been trying to integrate the gender dimension into its activities. Some examples are listed below:
 Integrating gender dimension in the eligibility criteria of the Household Boiler Subsidy Program (activity 2.1),
by stressing that “single women/mothers will have a priority in the selection process”;
 Including the success story of Ludmila Abramciuc - beneficiary of the Briquetting/pelleting Equipment Leasing
Program in the UNDP global campaign dedicated to the International Women’s Day. The success story was
published by the New York Office of UNDP, on the corporate webpage of the organization at:
http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/ourwork/womenempowerment/successstories/women-fuel-
success-in-moldova.html?cq_ck=1393963529358
 Submitting the application for participation in the Gender Knowledge Forum. One example is the case of
biomass fuel production business managed by Ludmila Abramciuc.
 Publication of a blog regarding the gender results of the Energy and Biomass Project on the UNDP Teamworks
platform. https://undp.unteamworks.org/node/447820
Sustainability
The future impact will be largely based on the sustainability of the results of the project. Sustainability can
be defined as the likelihood of continuation of results and benefits after the project ends. Consequently, the
assessment of sustainability considers risks that are likely to affect the continuation of the project outputs.
Box 11 presents an assessment that at which specific project results (per output) are considered at risk of not
being sustainable; and ends with looking at which factors in the external environment may influence
sustainability, notably costs of biofuels versus price developments of the fossil fuel alternatives.
Box 10 Assessment of sustainability of project results
Output Assessment of sustainability

Municipal biomass Institutional and technical capacity
heating The community mobilization approach applied for the implementation of Output 1 ensures
that ownership was created from the outset and the required capacities are built to ensure
Risk: the sustainability of the project and the investment. With the project’s guidance each
 Local municipalities community/project sites elaborated a sustainability plan together with training on
show limited implementation of the plan and project management. Projects in public buildings were
enthusiasm; selected in a participatory and transparent manner (as described in detail in Section 3.1.1
 Corruption could of this report). The process of fuel supply in the regions has been continuously monitored
undermine results by project team, surprise visits organized to communities and recommendations to

(MEBP)
 Lack of culture of beneficiaries have been timely made. As a result of the monitoring process, most of the
participation institutions are timely provided with biomass fuel; have at their disposal trained personnel
to operate the biomass heating systems; thermal plants are technically prepared by the start
of the heating season. Most of the beneficiary institutions improved their energy efficiency
mechanisms and renovated their indoor heating systems.
The beneficiary institutions received technical assistance and information from MEBP
consultants regarding fuel producers in Moldova, ways of assessing the quality of fuel,
maintenance of heating equipment and other relevant aspects. The Academy of Public
Administration (APA) - the institution officially assigned to train central and local level
authorities, to uptake and integrate biomass-based energy these as part of their training
activities. The course was piloted in 2012, and by Dec 2014 around 110 representatives
from district and community level authorities has received training.
Financial
District councils, local authorities and managers of the beneficiary institutions have
invested financial resources worth MDL 28.3 million (approx. USD 1.6 million alongside
the project’s contribution of USD 12.3 million) in public building heating systems
(activity 1.1). However, in the longer run the municipalities and district would have to
purchase the equipment themselves from the state budget. There are some encouraging
signs (see the part on “replication” in the main text). The Project appears to have catalysed
biomass boiler installation, but a commitment would be needed for budgetary allocations
to install biomass-based heating as first choice of option, also in the absence of external
funding, such as MEDP’s. To mitigate annual budget restraint risks, the project has
sought to promote multi-year fuel supply contracts, such as the PPP for fuel supply and
heating service. One PPP has been identified (in Leova district). For MEBP support, but it
should be noted that 12 rayons have expressed interest to establish a PPP in collaboration
with a local entrepreneur.
Socio-political
In principle, there has been strong local community and political support for biomass-
based heating systems. There is always a longer-term risk that, faced with budget
restraints, public procurement will favour systems with low initial investment but higher
lifecycle cost over low-cost investments.
Biomass-based Institutional and capacity
household heating The project has raised awareness at local level as part of the municipal biomass heating
activities and the general awareness creation component. Given the interest shown by EEA
Risk: as well as local authorities it can be assumed that awareness creation will be sustained.
 Negative view by the
general public and Financial
stakeholders on using High perceived cost of biomass-based heating combined with insufficient purchasing
biomass as fuel power may lead to a lower-than-expected purchase and installation of these systems. The
project has tried to address the low purchasing power issue in households and micro-
enterprises by the household subsidy program of Activity 2.1. However, this raises
questions on the attractiveness of biomass heating system in the future for households with
the applications for new households closed at project’s end. This risk is reduced by
existing facilities for supporting ‘green investments’ exist, such as the MoREEF facility.
Also, the analysis of Box 10 shows that, while initial cost of the boiler is higher, in general
briquettes and pellets are competitive on a lifecycle basis with boilers fired by gas, so even
without subsidy biofuel application could be beneficial for many end-users.
Awareness
The ProDoc mentions resistance of the public to accept biomass fuel as an alternative
energy source. After a slow start, demand for household systems in activity 2.1 started to
significantly increase towards the end of 2014. This indicates a potential for further
upscaling of household system initiative. In the longer run, communication and training
activities need to be continued by other agencies (EEA, NGOs, educational) emphasize the
advantage producing energy (power and heat) out of biomass, continuing the MEDP’s

(MEBP)
educational program and general awareness raising activities/
Production and supply Technical capacity
of modern solid The number of companies involved in production of densified biofuels (briquettes and
biofuels pellets) has grown significantly to over 100. On competitiveness vis-à-vis fossil fuel, the
reader is referred to Box 11. Prices of fuels can be variable. The market of compacted
Risks: biomass (briquettes, pellets) will depend on the price at which the biofuels can be sold; if
 Examples of poor too low, it will not yield an attractive return on investment in the densification equipment
biomass fuel quality for biofuel suppliers; if too high, customers will leave the biofuels for the cheaper
produced in Moldova alternatives if available in the form of fuel oil, coal or natural gas and will not invest in
discourage end-users adaptions in their heating systems to accommodate the biomass-based fuels. The project
fuel for heating; has made an important effort in creating a competitive market for biomass fuel supply; for
 Average cost of the near future, we can assume that the more the market expands (with various Moldovan
biomass fuels and suppliers of biofuels and burning equipment), the likelier solid biomass fuel prices will
heating systems is stabilize or even decline. Given this interest by local investors in developing the biofuel
higher than fossil fuel market in apparent response to increased market demand, the growth of biofuels market is
alternatives likely to be sustained.
Finance
The seed capital allocated by the project will continue to leverage private investment and
remain an asset for the sector. During project implementation the capacities of the partner
institutions where built (including all operational manuals and procedures) allowing for a
smooth continuation and effective management of the Revolving Fund after the project
ends.
Institutional:
Examples of poor biomass fuel quality in the past have discouraged users into using the
fuel for heating. This risk has been lowered considerably with approval of standards and
the approval by end 2013 of the mandatory regulation for solid biomass fuels.
Awareness creation Awareness and capacity
and technical capacity At local level, the risk is that the enthusiasm shown by local municipalities and villages to
adopt heating by straw, briquettes or pellets after the support of the project has ended,
Risk: especially if the people trained (managers, administrators, operators) will over time be
 Local capacity for replaced by local councillors and staff that have not been exposed to the project’s
delivery and financial awareness creation activities. On the other hand, the Project has done great efforts in
operations; engaging as much as stakeholders as possible at the local level from the beginning of the
 Negative view by the project. Local authorities have been provided with the full set of training and orientation
general public and materials required for hiring and training future boiler operators; these will help to explain
stakeholders on using the responsibilities and roles of biomass boiler operators, as well as advantages in
biomass as fuel operating biomass-burning boilers
Regarding the educational programme, the Ministry of Education addressed a memo to

educational departments in all 33 districts (including ATU Gagauz Yeri) to make use of
the educational brochure “Renewable Energy Sources” and the Teachers’ Guide for the
courses on Environmental Education, Nature and Habitat, Education. Consequently, and
additional 225 schools (in the initial design of this activity were 127 schools were
targeted) joined the educational initiative. The subject “Renewable Energy Sources” was
introduced in the list of optional courses for 5th to 9th grade students (Ministerial Order
no. 679 from 07.07.2013 on “Activity plan for primary, secondary and high-school
education for the period 2013 – 2014”. Regarding awareness creation, the Moldova Eco-
Energetica is an excellent example of how this activity by its approach (supported by the
Project, but managed by the national partners) to ensure sustainability.
Government Socio-political and institutional
Political instability may affect the efficiency of the project implementation with respect to
Risk: cooperation with municipalities, and a supportive policy environment for renewables. The
 Ongoing support current support from the national government for renewable energy and energy efficiency
from the national may change on the longer term if energy security electricity and gas imports) improves.
government for We consider this risk as low, given the closer integration of Moldova in EU programmes,

(MEBP)
bioenergy is low; such as the Energy Community, the country is likely to have sustainable energy objectives
 Political instability in its strategies and plans both on the short and longer term. The MEBP intervention in
may affect the renewable energy sector has good sustainability prospects also because of the policy and
efficiency of the regulatory framework put in place (see Annex D for a short overview).
project implementation
External factors In principle, straw and other agricultural residues are abundantly available in Moldova.
Droughts and bad harvests may impact the quantity and price of raw materials. However,
Risk: requirements of agricultural residues for energy are much less than national availability, so
 Prices of fossil fuels this risk is considered low. Another risk is that the high share of natural gas s in Moldova’s
fall, while cost of energy supply; more security in gas supply and lower gas prices in the future could result
biofuels and end-use in a lower level of interest amongst potential biomass fuel users.
equipment rise;
 Weather risks affect
the availability of
residues
The summary conclusions we have is that sustainability for the project’s outputs and objective is likely,
although some moderate risks and issues remain. Given the project’s success, a new project has been
proposed to UNDP and the EU Delegation, basically extending and expanding the project’s activities until
2017. The successor project will help to address these risks and remaining issues and further ensure project
sustainability. This will be discussed further in the next section.
3.4.3 Proposed MEBP successor project 2014-2017
A draft document “Description of the Action (DoA) of the Project Extension (2014-2017)” of MEDP has
been presented to the Delegation of the EU, the main donor, and to UNDP. A detailed description of the
logical framework with progress indicators is given in Annex D.4. The project objective and the four
interrelated outputs remain the same in the proposed successor project, but some activities were added while
the focus of some activities has changed to be able to remaining gaps and needs:
 Geographical focus.
MEBP’s focus up to now has been on rural areas and communities. However, during project
implementation a strong level of interest of small towns was noticed to install biomass-based heating
systems within selected public buildings. Support will extended to small and medium-sized towns.
Second, the project will expand to areas not previously covered, i.e. the Transnistria region 35, ATU
Gagauzia36 and Taraclia district. The well-tested and comprehensive community mobilization approach
and capacity development for municipal leaders, building managers, boiler operators and fuel supplies
will continue in the newly identified towns and target regions
 Technology focus.
o While commercial briquette production is already well established, pelleting techniques are still only
scarcely applied in solid biomass production. The successor Project will focus on creating a well-
informed market both on consumer and the producer side, e.g. through the development of
comprehensive web platform connecting producers with clients, systematically monitoring price
developments and providing information to business on latest technologies and business opportunities.
o On the demand-side more focus will be on integrated solutions, i.e. extending space heating solutions
to hot water supply and energy efficiency measures. For example, the biomass heating systems could
35
Transnistria-based entrepreneurs expressed their interest to start biomass processing businesses. Although covered by a natural
gas network to a large extent, MEDP will be promoted in remote areas not yet connected to the network. Challenges will be to
establish a good relation with the Transnistrian de-facto authorities and a good dialogue with the various stakeholders will be crucial
36
One of the biggest sunflower processing factories in Moldova is located in Gagauzia, producing significant quantities of sunflower
husk residues which are currently used only in small quantities for pellets production.

(MEBP)
be expanded with heat exchangers and accumulation tanks to provide for hot water, while also the
boilers could be combined with solar hot water systems for hot water supply;
 Fuel quality
With the fast-developing solid biofuels market, the Project has addressed the increased need for quality
assurance based on standards regulating quality requirements for different types of biofuels. A crucial
next step is operationalizing the technical regulation by ensuring enforcement and compliance with the
new standards. MEDP will support a quality control and certification mechanism has to be put in place,
requiring an authorized body (quality control centre) skilled and equipped to test locally produced solid
biofuels;
 Demand and technology delivery models
o Apart from continuing stimulating demand from the public sector and private households, the
successor Project will increasingly focus on the commercial sector as consumer of solid biofuels;
o The viability of PPPs as a market-based model to provide heating services to the public sector will be
further demonstrated addressing the gap of limited practical understanding of the PPP mechanism.
Also, the PPP approach also responds to another identified gap, namely the limited availability of
maintenance and operations support and specialised consultancy services in the regions;
o With respect to the latter, more emphasis will be placed on building the managerial capacities of
biofuel producers and technology providers to ensure their continued competitiveness under changing
market conditions. Specific attention has to be given to the need for continuous training of boiler
operators.

(MEBP)
4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 Conclusions

 What and how much progress has been made towards the achievement of the outcome (including contributing
factors and constraints)? Distinguish the substantive design issues from the key implementation and/or
management capacities and issues including the timeliness of outputs, the degree of stakeholders and partners’
involvement in the completion of outputs, and how processes were managed/ carried out
The overall conclusion of the team of Evaluators is that the Moldova Energy and Biomass Project (MEBP)
has been quite instrumental in putting biomass-for-energy on the agenda in Moldova, especially given the
fact that were only few concentrated biomass energy activities prior to 2010:
 Design: the project is timely and relevant given the formulation of renewable energy and energy
efficiency laws and regulations with achievement targets for the year 2020 and in view of Moldova’s
accession to the Energy Community. The project document is well written and the results framework
(logframe) clear in its outputs and activities, although the framework could have benefitted from better
progress indicators;
 Implementation: the project has been implemented according to plan in the four-year period within the
budget available in close cooperation with the various stakeholders at the national level (government,
chamber of commerce, universities, NGOs) as well as the local level (LPAs and local institutions, local
companies);
 Results: most of the results as planned in the project documents have been obtained in all the four main
outputs of the project. The activity on cogeneration has met slower progress, but in many activities the
project has achieved more results than planned.
The Project has formed a strong base for the further development of markets for solid biomass fuels (straw
and densified biomass) and has made an impact on raising awareness, dissemination knowledge and know-
how and generating interest amongst a broad range stakeholders (local public sector, individual households,
biomass fuel suppliers, boilers assemblers/importers, education sector and national government institutions).
Training materials and courses have been developed and the capacity of municipal leaders, biomass suppliers
and operators of heating systems strengthened, while the project has extensively promoted the benefits of
biomass-for-energy and of sustainable energy use and supply in general by media and communication
campaigns, has developed good resource materials and has achieved the incorporating of biomass (and
renewable energy in general) as a genuine topic in school curricula.
In general, the Evaluation Team concludes that the project has made substantial progress towards the
achievement of outcomes and the objective in a highly satisfactory way.

(MEBP)
4.2 Recommendations
Final evaluation questions (see Box 2)

 Recommendations for potential follow-up interventions, how feasible the follow-up actions would be, what
alternatives can be identified and/or what components can be added to it, what knowledge products could be
developed.
Based on issues discussed in the previous Chapters and sections, this section presents a number of
recommendations.
1) Implement the proposed successor MEBP project (2014-2017)
The Evaluators welcome this successor Project as a means to address the remaining issues regarding
sustainability and competitiveness of solid biomass fuel (mentioned in section 3.4.2). The success shown by
MEBP so far is indicative for potential good outcomes of the successor phase as well. Our first
recommendation is therefore for the European Union (EU) to endorse and fund the new project (again to be
implemented by UNDP) in accordance with the outputs and activities as described in the draft document
“Description of the Action” (see Annex D.4)
2) Additional recommendations:
Some suggestions for activities to follow up (and to be incorporated in the proposed successor Project) are
given below:
a) Activity 3.4: With the Ministry of Education, explore options to expand the thematic area of sustainable
energy (‘RE and EE’) to higher grades (to help orient students in their choice of future professions
towards the end of their secondary education.
b) In the end-user awareness, communication and information disseminations, stronger links could be made
with messages on ‘energy efficiency’. Cost of fuel consumption cannot only be lowered by using cheaper
alternatives, but also by energy use improvements, such as energy efficient windows, efficient use of hot
water and good insulation of building walls and roofs as well as of heat ducts and pipes.
c) Towards the end (in 2017), the successor MEBP would benefit from undertaking an ‘end-of-project’
assessment of status, remaining barriers and gaps and recommendation for post-project actions. This
assessment should integrate the results of the various studies and assessments undertaken in the period
2011-2017 and give a concise but short overview of the market status solid fuels for heating and
cogeneration:
 Briquetting/pelleting (raw materials quality and price developments, state of technology, costs of
technology and pricing of biomass fuels, financial cost (with and w/o subsidy), analysis of legal,
financial risks and recommendations for action); update info and studies as needed on agricultural
production, biofuel availability and costs
 Assessment of market opportunities for biomass heating in productive sectors (e.g. in local agro-
processing and food processing; greenhouses; as well as wood processing enterprises; own biofuel
production), covering aspects as energy needs, technology and size, initial and lifecycle costs as well
as perceptions and awareness of biomass fuel end-users); Current and potential demand for solid
biomass fuels (in residential, public buildings as well as productive sectors);
 Assess the role of subsidy instruments in view of future sustainability and the future role of existing
and potential financial blending facilities, incentives and risk guarantee schemes;
 Analysis of remaining gaps and barriers (if any) with recommendations for post-project action (for
policy makers; financial institutions; private sector entities);

(MEBP)
 Summary of main results, approaches followed, costs-benefits and lessons learned regarding
implementation of biomass technology in Moldova (not only success stories of the results, but to-
the-point information on how it was done and why MEBP made a difference).
4.3 Lessons learned

 Lessons learned in addressing issues relating to relevance, performance and success
 There is often a strong resistance to using biomass fuels which is often regarded by end users as well as
decision-makers at national and local level as ‘not modern’ and not perceived as a good alternative due
negative perceptions on cost, availability, reliability and quality of the fuel. In this context,
businesspeople do not easily see the opportunity to have a viable business operation of producing biofuels
or installing, operating and servicing biomass-based heating systems. End-users will not purchase
biomass fuels that are not readily available at a competitive price, while these fuels cannot be made
available because producers cannot find the markets to absorb their product. A problem of the ‘hen and
the egg’, which needs to be addressed in an integrated way working at demand and supply at the same
time in a pro-active attitude with mobilization of stakeholders and beneficiaries, ample public awareness
raising and stakeholder capacity strengthening activities, ensuring consistent quality of the biomass fuels,
as well as mobilization financial resources.
 Such a pro-active attitude, mobilization of resources, creation of working groups, and proper setting of
priorities has proven to be an essential element in identifying the optimal strategy for the project
implementation. In this regard, the flexibility and adaptability demonstrated by the project team, national
stakeholders and development partners proved to be an important ingredient of the project success and
impacts;
 Continuous dialogue with the national stakeholders (national, local and regional authorities; community-
based organizations; private sector) and development partners has been an efficient tool to drive the
project into the right direction. For example in 2012, based on the recommendations provided during
meetings of the Project Board, the approach in implementing project activities such as focus of
technology (from straw used in stoves towards densified biofuels used in biomass boilers), promoting
local production of biomass boilers, piloting pelletization technologies, piloting co-generation was
changed to more market competition modalities. Similarly, the household system subsidy program was
regularly revised and adjusted to the purchasing power of the target group;
 Ample public awareness-raising activities are required prior to, and during, the project launch activities in
the regions in order to contribute to a wider understanding of the benefits of the biomass energy sources
by potential beneficiary communities. In general, the communication and awareness-raising activities,
combined with comprehensive training modules contributed to a better understanding and knowledge of
the biomass-based heating by the general public.

(MEBP)
ANNEX A. TERMS OF REFERENCE
A. BACKGROUND
ensured through imports. The dependency on the external sources of energy has led to a constant rise in price
for energy and to accumulation of large debts for external provider. The energy sector is a key sector for the
economy of the Republic of Moldova, being vital for the successful implementation of the national economic
development program.
The Government has committed itself to reform the energy sector by increasing the energy security of the
country, attracting investments in infrastructure, and participating in an energy market based on equitability
principles and mutual advantages. The Republic of Moldova has a great potential to produce energy from
renewable sources, which at the present time has not yet been harnessed. Studies show that one of the most
secure and easy to access alternative sources of energy is straw and other agricultural wastes, called biomass.
In particular, wheat straw waste is the Republic of Moldova's renewable energy source with the biggest
short- to medium-term potential.
The Moldova Energy and Biomass Project (MEBP) is a 4 years, 14.56 M EUR project that started in January
2011 with the purpose to significantly increase the use of renewable energy technology through fuel
switching and energy efficiency. The project primarily focuses on improving heating comfort levels in rural
public sector buildings including schools and community centers by using readily available agricultural
wastes supplied from local agricultural enterprises and solid biofuel producers. The project is also
stimulating local markets for improved household heating; piloting industrial cogeneration, and biomass-
based briquetting/pelleting, as well as raising local capacity in the biomass sector, and promoting the benefits
of biomass energy and the project.
Brief description of the project to be evaluated
The overall objective of the project is to contribute to a more secure, competitive and sustainable energy
local source of renewable energy, namely biomass from agricultural wastes.
The project consists of four inter-related outputs as follows:
Output 1: Municipal biomass heating and fuel supply markets established.

Activities under the output 1 aim to improve municipal heating of public buildings in rural areas and
establish related fuel supply markets. Under this output, about 130 thermal heating systems primarily
burning straw and other types of agricultural wastes for the provision of heating for public buildings in rural
communities in Moldova (activity 1.1) were built. Supporting this, market mechanisms were used to support
the involvement of local fuel suppliers to prepare, store and supply the fuel needed for the installed heating
plants (activity 1.2). Very focused low-cost actions on policy, regulation, and contracting to support the
market environment are making a third, minor output under this component (activity 1.3).
Output 2: Foundations laid for establishment of efficient household heating, industrial cogeneration and
biomass briquetting markets.
Under this output three emerging technology options for biomass energy in Moldova, are to be assessed,
developed, and piloted. Activity 2.1 focuses on domestic heating in rural areas, addressing the need for

(MEBP)
improved efficiency of heating and possibly cooking. Activity 2.2 has to support the deployment of industrial
cogeneration based on feed stocks from agri-industry. Activity 2.3 pilots and demonstrates biomass
briquetting.
Output 3: Capacity for growth of biomass markets at regional and local levels is built in Moldova
Output 3 aims to ensure that the benefits of biomass energy demonstrated and deployed under outputs 1 and
2 are delivered in a lasting and long-term way and that local capacities for further replication are ensured.
For each stakeholder type to be reached under output 3, the first step was the development of training
materials, to be placed in the public domain. These materials, updated and improved each year, provide an
accessible repository of key information, and are used either in the training to be delivered under outputs 1 &
2 or in sub- activities under output 3. The stakeholders targeted include: municipal management including
mayors, civil servants, and teachers; boiler operators; fuel suppliers; and school children as detailed below.
Given the significant budget support and cooperation between the EC (and other donors), and the national
authorities in the energy sector, including in policy and legislation for renewable energy, this project is not
seeking to address renewable energy policy and related capacities directly, apart from the very specific and
targeted activities that have been described under Activity 1.3 above.
Output 4: The opportunities and benefits of biomass energy for Moldova are well known locally, and
visibility of project results promoted
Output 4 facilitates widespread dissemination on the general and specific advantages and impacts of using
biomass energy in Moldova and promotes the visibility of the partnership and impact of the action. Under
activity 4.1 a media campaign is implemented at national and local levels focusing on raising awareness on
benefits and best practices related to the use of renewable energy. An annually organized National Awards
on Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency, under activity 4.2., rewards the most active and valuable
promoters and beneficiaries of energy produced from renewable sources and encourages new initiatives on
renewable energy and energy efficiency. It operates on an annual basis during the project lifetime, and
afterwards will be taken over by the designated Government institutions, under high-level patronage, and
with the support of external sponsors. Special emphasis is put on continuously communicating and giving
publicity to the results obtained within the project, and on promoting the impact of joint actions of
Government of the RM – UNDP - EU and national/ local partners.
B. PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION
The purpose of the Evaluation is to review the progress made by the project in fulfilling its agreed objectives
through the planned activities and to assess the efficiency and effectiveness with which resources have been
used to generate results and achieve project objectives with special emphasis on impact and sustainability.
The overall objectives of evaluation are to assess the achievement of project results, help identify and
critically analyze the relevance of the project activities, as well as, the effectiveness of the implementation.
The comprehensive evaluation will examine whether the activities, outputs and objectives outlined in project
document have been achieved, and underlying factors affecting either positively or negatively
the
iimplementation of the project, draw lessons and make forward-looking recommendations for improvement
of the sustainability of benefits obtained from the project.
The UNDP Country Office (hereinafter UNDP CO) accordingly will make use of the exercise as a learning
opportunity for the office and key partners and stakeholders, as inclusively and practically possible. In
particular, the findings and recommendations generated by the evaluation should inform the implementation
and targeting of activities planned for the next stage of the project (planned for October 2014 – September
2017).

(MEBP)
C. GENERAL TERMS OF EVALUATION AND PROPOSED METHODOLOGY
The Evaluation of project will be conducted by one International Consultant and one National Consultant,
working together as a team. The International Consultant will take the leadership and assume overall
responsibility for the quality and timeliness in the performance of this assignment.
The Evaluation should mainly concentrate on the following categories of analysis and evaluation
criteria:
relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and impact.
Relevance: the degree to which the purpose of the MEBP remains valid and pertinent.
Efficiency: the productivity of the implementation process - how good and how cost efficient was the
process of transforming inputs into outputs and outcomes.
Effectiveness: a measure of the extent to which the MEBP has contributed to achieve its results through an
effective use of resources.
Sustainability – to what extent are the MEBP project results sustainable, taking into consideration the
existing capacity, structures and political context in the country?
Impact: to what degree did the project contribute to the development of sustainable energy production
market in the country?
In principal, the evaluation is expected to address the following issues:
Project outcome status:
Project outcome Analysis – what and how much progress has been made towards the achievement of the
outcome (including contributing factors and constraints)?
Underlying factors: Analyze the underlying factors beyond UNDP’s control that influenced the outcome.
Distinguish the substantive design issues from the key implementation and/or management capacities and
issues including the timeliness of outputs, the degree of stakeholders and partners’ involvement in the
completion of outputs, and how processes were managed/ carried out.
Outputs status:
Output Analysis – Were the outputs (project components) relevant to the overall project outcome? Were the
outputs achieved? What are the factors that affected either positively or negatively the accomplishment of
the outputs?
Activities status:
Analysis of activities - Were the activities to achieve the outputs effective and efficient?
How well the activities were planned and implemented? Were key methodologies and approaches that
facilitate the success of the project and delivery of necessary outputs appropriate? Were gender equality
principles taken into consideration in the delivery and of key project outputs, i.e. were both men and women
involved in design, implementation and ensuring the sustainability of project results in target localities, did
women and men benefit equally from the project interventions?
Inputs status:

(MEBP)
Inputs Analysis - what contribution has been made by UNDP and implementing partners to the progress
towards the implementation of activities and achievement of the output and outcome? How appropriate were
the inputs? Were the inputs sufficient to achieve the results? How cost effective they were?
Partnership strategy: Ascertain whether UNDP’s partnership strategy has been appropriate and effective.
What were the partnerships formed? What was the role of UNDP? How did the partnership contribute to the
achievement of the outcome? What was the level of stakeholders’ participation?
Cross-cutting issues - Sustainability: assess the likelihood that the projects results will endure after the
active involvement of UNDP would end. To what extent the changes (and benefits) brought by the project
can be expected to last after its completion. The evaluation team should provide recommendations for
potential follow-up interventions, how feasible the follow-up actions would be, what alternatives can be
identified and/or what components can be added to it, what knowledge products could be developed.
The evaluation must provide evidence-based information that is credible, reliable and useful. An overall
guidance on project evaluation methodology can be found in the UNDP Handbook on Monitoring and
Evaluating for Results (Annex A). The evaluators should come up with a suitable methodology for the
evaluation of this intervention based on the guidance given therein.
During the evaluation, the evaluators are expected to apply the following participatory and consultative
approaches for data collection and analysis:
 Desk review of relevant documents (project documents with amendments made, review reports
- midterm/final, donor-specific, etc.);
 Discussions with the Senior Management and programme staff of UNDP Country Office;
 Briefing and debriefing sessions with UNDP, EU Delegation and the Government, as well as with
other donors and partners;
 Interviews with partners and stakeholders (including gathering the information on what the partners
have achieved with regard to the outcome and what strategies they have used);
 Field visits to selected project sites and discussions with project beneficiaries;
 Consultation meetings.
Interviews will be held with the following key partners, organizations and individuals at a minimum:
 EU Delegation to Rep. of Moldova
 UNDP Moldova CO
 Ministry of Economy
 Energy Efficiency Agency
 Ministry of Agriculture
 Ministry of Education
 Energy Institute, (Academy of Science)
 Local Public Authorities
 Managers of public institutions
 NGO “Alliance for Energy Efficiency and Renewables”
 Biofuel producers
 Academia, independent experts
 International organizations active in the Energy Efficiency and Renewables sector
D. COMPOSITION OF THE EVALUATION TEAM
The International Consultant will be assisted by a National Consultant in fulfilling the assignment. Members
of the evaluation team must not have been associated with the project’s formulation, implementation or

(MEBP)
monitoring. The International Consultant will undertake two visits to Moldova of minimum 5 days and 2
days respectively. During the first visit the International Consultant will undertake project site visits and
interviews with the relevant stakeholders, will collect all necessary evidence and by the end of the visit will
present the key findings to UNDP CO. During the second visit, the International Consultant will hold a
debriefing session presenting the outcome of the evaluation to UNDP CO and project Implementing Partners.
The National Consultant will provide substantive feedback and support to the International Consultant in the
construction of the evaluation report and in conducting field missions to Moldova (including field visits to
the MEBP project sites).
E. EVALUATIONS’S ETHICS
Evaluations (the review) in UNDP are conducted in accordance with the principles out lined in the United
Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG) ‘Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation (Annex B). The Evaluation team will
take every measure to safeguard the rights and confidentiality of key information providers in the collection
of data.
F. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
International Consultant
 Lead the evaluation and assume overall responsibility for its quality and timeliness;
 Desk review of documents, development of draft methodology, detailed work plan and Evaluation
outline;
 Briefing with UNDP CO, agreement on the methodology, scope and outline of the Evaluation report
prior to the first mission;
 Interviews with project implementing partners, relevant government bodies, NGO, independent
experts, beneficiaries and donor representatives;
 Field visit to the project site and interviews with local stakeholders;
 Elaboration of a summary key findings based on interviews and site visits performed;
 Debriefing with UNDP and project implementing partner;
 Development and submission of the first Evaluation report draft. The draft will be shared with the
UNDP CO, and key project stakeholders for review and commenting;
 Finalization and submission of the final Evaluation report through incorporating suggestions received
on the draft report;
 Supervision of the work of the national expert (during entire evaluation period).
National Consultant
 Collection of background materials upon request by International Consultant;
 Provision of important inputs in developing methodologies, work plans and Evaluation report
outlines upon request by International Consultant;
 Assistance to the International Consultant in desk review of materials;
 Assistance to the International Consultant in developing the mission agenda and establishing
meeting with relevant stakeholders;
 Participation in debriefings with UNDP CO representatives;
 Assistance to the International Consultant in conducting interviews with relevant stakeholders;
 Arranging field visits and assistance to the International Consultant in interviewing local
stakeholders at project sites, provision of interpretation in communication with beneficiaries when
required;

(MEBP)
 Assist the International Consultant in elaboration of a summary matrix of the project
implementation key findings based on interviews and site visits performed;
 Participation in briefing with UNDP and project implementing partners;
 Assistance to the International Consultant in developing the first draft of the Evaluation report. The
draft will be shared with the UNDP CO, and key project stakeholders for review and commenting;
 Assist the International Consultant in finalization of the Final Evaluation Report.
G. TIMEFRAME
It is expected that the evaluation would be conducted during September - November 2014, over a period of
up to 45 days from the commencement of the assignment.
Activity Timeframe: Activity / Deliverable Timing

Evaluation methodology and work plan agreed. All relevant input 7 days after commencement of
documents reviewed (home based) assignment
First visit to Moldova. Project site visits, interviews with partners and key 14 days after commencement of
stakeholders conducted. Summary key findings presented to UNDP CO. assignment
Drafting of the evaluation report (home based) Period between the first and the
second visit to Moldova
Second Visit to Moldova. Presentation of Draft Report. Briefing with 35 days after commencement of
UNDP and implementing partners. assignment
Finalization of the evaluation report. Final evaluation report submitted and 45 days after commencement of
approved (home based) assignment
H. EXPECTED DELIVERABLES
The key product expected from this evaluation is a comprehensive analytical report in English that should, as
a minimum, include the following contents:
• Executive summary;
• Introduction;
• Description of the evaluation methodology;
• Analysis of the situation with regard to the outcome, the outputs and the partnership strategy;
• Analysis of opportunities to provide guidance for the future programming, incl. concrete recommendations
for the second phase of the project;
• Key findings (including best practices and lessons learned);
• Conclusions and recommendations;
• Annexes: ToRs, field visits, people interviewed, documents reviewed, etc.
I. ORGANIZATIONAL SETTINGS
On operational level, the Consultants will work under the guidance of UNDP CO and under the supervision
of the Project Manager for Project-related documentation, administrative and financial aspects.

(MEBP)
The payment for services provided by the Consultants will be made according to deliverables completed, and
approved by the UNDP.
The International Consultant shall bear all the travel related and subsistence expenses in Moldova. In-country
transportation shall be provided by UNDP.
J. REQUIRED QUALIFICATIONS AND COMPETENCIES
The International and National Consultants must possess the following qualifications:
International Consultant:
• Master’s degree or equivalent in Management, Business Administration, Economy, Engineering,
Local Development and/or other relevant fields;
• At least 8 years of work experience in the areas relevant to the assignment (economic, regional and
local development, consulting services, private sector and business development, energy efficiency
and renewable energy, participatory and sustainable development);
• At least 5 years experience in conducting monitoring and/or evaluation of development projects in
the field of economic and energy efficiency/renewable energy field;
• Knowledge and experience with programming development, monitoring and evaluation;
• Excellent analytical and writing skills;
• Excellent spoken and writing skills in English. Knowledge of Russian or Romanian is an
advantage;
• Familiarity with development approaches in the energy sector in the region is a strong advantage.
National Consultant:
• University degree in Natural Resource Management, Environmental management, Engineering,
Energy, or other related areas;
• Minimum 5 years of professional experience/technical knowledge in providing management
or consultancy services to the preferably in Environment, Engineering or Energy sectors;
• Good understanding of Moldovan Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy policies and
programmes;
• Previous experience with practical use of monitoring and evaluation methodologies;
• Experience in managing, monitoring and evaluating projects for UN or other international
development agencies in the region will be an asset;
• Fluent in English and Romanian both written and spoken. Knowledge of Russian is an advantage
K. REFERENCE MATERIALS
The following documents should be studied by the evaluators:

1. UNDP Handbook on Monitoring and Evaluating for Results (Annex A)
2. Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation (Annex B)
3. UNDP Results-Oriented Annual Report (ROAR) for Moldova (2011, 2012, 2013)
4. MEBP Project Document (Description of Action), draft Project Document for the second phase and
relevant progress reports
5. Other official documents and materials related to the domain from the government, donors, etc. Background
documentation is available on www.undp.md; www.gov.md; www.biomasa.md;

(MEBP)
ANNEX B. MISSION AGENDA
Mission 13-17 October 2014
Time Person, Organization
Friday, 10 October
11:30-12:30 Briefing by Mr. Gavrilita with Alexandre Darras, Attaché - Project Manager, EU Delegation to
Moldova
Monday, 13 October
09:00-10:00 Briefing with Nadja Vetters and Valeria Ieseanu (UNDP) and Alexandru Ursul, MEBP Project
Manager
Narine Sakhakyan, Deputy Resident Representative UNDP Moldova,
10:00-11:15 MEBP Project Management Team
11: 30-12:30 Mr. Valeriu Lazar, President of Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Former Deputy Prime
Minister, Minister of Economy and former Chairman of the MEBP Board
14:15-14:45 Ms. Oxana Paierele, Head of Regional Development Department,
Ministry of Regional Development and Constructions
15:00-16:00 Ms. Mariana Botezatu, Head of Energy Security and Energy Eff. Department,
Ministry of Economy
16:10-17:00 Vladimir Berzan, Academy of Sciences, Institute of Energy
17:00-18:00 Mr. Valentin Arion, Technical University, Professor, Head of Thermoenergetics Dep.
18:00-19:00 Victoria Ignat, former MEBP PMT member
Tuesday, 14 October
09:00-09:45 Ion Munteanu, IDIS Viitorul
10:00-10:45 Ina Zglavuta, MEBP PMT member,
13:00-14:00 Mariana Goras, Ministry of Education
14:15-15:00 Mr. Valeriu Bulgari, Executive Director, 2KR; Dan Prisacaru, Project Manager
15:30-16:20 Mr. Anatol Sirbu, Representative of Congress of Local Authorities of Moldova
16:30-17:00 Ion Tulbu, “Consocivil” and Valeriu Ceban, “DiTrade”, (design-build consortia)
17:00-17:50 Valeriu Plesca, “Green Farm”, (PPP)
17:50-18:30 Andrei Mereacre, “Darnic Gaz”, (small boilers)
Wednesday, 15 October
07:30-18:00 Field visit to MEBP project sites, Balti, Donduseni and Floresti districts
Thursday, 16 October
07:40-15:00 Field visit to MEBP project sites, Calarasi and Orhei districts
16:00-17:30 Mr. Mihai Stratan, Director of the Energy Efficiency Agency
17:45-18:30 Ms. Ludmila Andronic, Communication Expert
Friday, 17 October
09:00-09:45 Mr. Iurie Senic, Ecological Agriculture, Renewables and Irrigation Department, Petru Tataru,
Technology Dev. and Renewables Department, Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry
10:45-11:25 Mr. Semion Berzoi – Energy Efficiency Expert, Energy Efficiency Fund
11:30-12:30 MEBP PMT; Ms. N. Vetters,
12:30 – Ms. Narine Sahakyan, UNDP Deputy Resident Representative, Nadja Vetters, Valeria
13:00 Ieseanu, UNDP Moldova and Alexandru Ursul, MEBP Project Manager

(MEBP)
ANNEX C. DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
Project documents, progress reports

 MEBP Project Document (August 2012)
 MEBP, Project Extension 2014-2017, Description of the Action
 MEBP Progress Report, January-June 2014
 MEBP Progress Report, 2011-2012
 Communication Strategy of the MEDP (2012)
 Country Analysis Moldova (United Nations, 2011)
 UN Development Assistance Framework for the Republic of Moldova, 2007-2011 (2005)
 Towards Unity in Action, Partnership Framework, Republic of Moldova 2013-2017 (United Nations,
2012)
Project-supported technical reports and materials

 Estimation of the energy potential of biomass for briquetting from agricultural crops at regional level and
rayon levels for 2009-2010 (2012)
 Guidelines for a potential briquette producer (2012)
 List of suppliers for biomass equipment
 List of approved biomass projects (October 2014)
 Market survey on affordable rural biomass household heating solutions (2012)
 Newsletters, No. 1 to No. 17
 Various media monitoring reports
 Project website www.biomasa.md and “Project info sheet” (2011)
Other publications and documents
 Government of Moldova (2012), National Report for UN CSD Rio+20

 Government of Moldova (2013), National Renewable Energy Action Plan of the Republic of Moldova for
2013-2020
 Government of Moldova (2013), Energy Strategy of the Republic of Moldova until 2030
 NBS (2012), Energy balance 2012, Republic of Moldova, National Bureau of Statistics
 Panoutsou, C. (2010), Biomass in Western Balkans, Moldova and Ukraine, presentation
 UNECE (2009), Republic of Moldova: National Energy Policy Information for Regional Analysis, UN
Economic Commission for Europe
 World Bank (2014), Project Appraisal Document, District Heating Efficiency Improvement project
 Zaharia, N. (MEBP), Bioenergy in Moldova

(MEBP)
ANNEX D. BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND SECTOR CONTEXT
D.1 Energy in Moldova
Moldova imports all of its supplies of petroleum, coal, and natural gas, largely from Russia (and from
Ukraine, and Central Asia). Imported energy sources are about 94%, with hydropower and wood &
agricultural waste providing 1% and 5% respectively in 2007 (UNECE, 2009). Primary energy supply in
2011 (IEA website; Energy Balance 2011) was 3,324 ktoe (kilotons of oil equivalent), of which 123 ktoe
local production only. Per fuel type, supply was coal (3%), diesel and fuel oil (16%), gasoline (8%), natural
gas (64%), LPG (3%), wood (3%), electricity (11%) and other fuels (5%). After subtracting conversion
losses (mainly in using gas to generate electricity and heat) total final consumption was 2328 ktoe, of which
coal 4%, oil products 34%, natural gas 32%, electricity 17%, heat 10% and biomass fuels and waste 3%. Per
sector, consumption was 674 ktoe in industry, agriculture and construction, 370 ktoe in transport, 961 ktoe in
the residential sector, 257 ktoe in commercial and public sector with 66 ktoe for other uses.
Moldova has no domestic production of natural gas and relies entirely on pipeline imports from Russia.
Natural gas made up about 40% of total primary energy supply in 2012 (according to Moldova's National
Bureau of Statistics; EIA, 2014). Moldova is a transit country for natural gas. In 2010 it used 1152 million
m3 of natural gas, while 19,990 million m 3 was transited (NBS, 2010). Moldova has no significant refining
capacity and imports most of its petroleum liquids. Petroleum products accounted for 36% of the country's
total primary energy supply in 2012.
Power consumption in 2010 amounted to 4097 million kWh, consumed by industry and agriculture (22%),
commercial and services (20%), residential (55%) and other uses (2%). Installed capacity was around 3000
MW, but only about 1600 MW as used (in 2007; UNECE, 2009). Power is generated basically by the large
thermal power plant and a smaller hydro facility on the left-bank of the Dniester River (generating about
1675 million kWh in 2006)37 as well as from hydropower and CHP (combined heat & power) plants
(generating 1192 in 2006)38 on the right bank territory (with 224 million kWh imported in 2006).
Heat production amounted to 232 ktoe in 2011, of which 178 ktoe in the before-mentioned CHP plants and
94 ktoe in thermal plants39. With the large CHPs within the city limits, Chisinau and Balti are the only two
cities that now have operating district heating systems in Moldova. Termocom, the company serving
Chisinau, has a pipeline network of 711 km and serves a population of more than 500,000 or about 62% of
Chisinau residents, for whom the system is considered to be the least-cost option for heating. Due to the poor
quality of but relative high cost of the district heating service, many of the wealthier residents of Chisinau,
who could afford to, have transitioned to individual boilers in their own buildings. Although 40
One of the most evident problems in the energy sector in Moldova is also the current situation of the energy
infrastructure (requiring extensive capital investment) and its dependence on energy imports that are
extremely vulnerable towards political factors in the region.
37
This implies that 80% of electricity production capacity is located in the region of Transnistria (a.k.a as Transdnietsria) which has an
uncertain administrative status with separatist tendencies
38
Including plants using natural gas as fuel as well as 9 CHP plants at sugar factories
39
Losses: 48 ktoe
40
World Bank (2014)

(MEBP)
D.2 Renewable energy and biomass energy
Moldova uses only a very marginal part of its renewable energy potential, mainly wood and agriculture
waste for heating. The potential of renewable sources of energy is considerable, but currently contributes
only 3-4% of primary energy demand.
In the past, wind mechanical power was used (e.g. for milling), but in the 1960s these wind installation were
replaced by grid electricity. Measurements in the 1990s (at a weather station located in the south) showed
average wind speeds at 3-7 m/s (at 10 m height). New measurements by the Technical University in the first
decade of 21st century shows speeds of 7 m/s or more at 50 m height and estimated total potential of wind in
the south-western parts at 612 MW and potential production of 1,600 GWh 41. On the short-term, about 26-35
MW could be developed, generating between 86-111 GWh annually. Moldova has two small hydropower
plants at sites in Dniester and Prut river (64 MW in total, of which 40 MW available capacity) with small
privately owned plants adding 141 kW.
Solar irradiation is an average 1211 kWh/m 2/yr in the north and 1378 kWh/m2/yr in the south with sun
radiation varying between 1.0-1.4 and 5.2-5.9 kWh/m 2/day in December and July respectively. Solar energy
is mostly in tobacco production; about 80% is the harvest is traditionally dried using solar heat (about 14,000
tons in 2002). Some solar water heaters are used (about 1500 m 2 of solar collector area). Solar photovoltaics
(PV) is limited to a few applications (e.g. remote installations or small power irrigation). The study UNECE
(2009) gives a potential of 1 million m 2 for solar water heating, 80,000 m 2 for solar drying of agricultural
products and a short-term potential of about 5800 PV installations (generating 6.3 MW).
Biomass (fuelwood, wood waste and agricultural residues) are burnt for cooking and heating needs. About
363,000 ha of forests cover the country’s (10.7% of its territory). In 2005, timber harvesting was 39,000 m 3
and fuelwood gathering an estimated 352,200 m 3 (UNECE, 2009)42. Apart from forest lands, fuelwood is
gathered form orchards and vineyards.
Source: Taken from Panoutsou (2010)

Box 11 Potential of arable crop residues (left) and forest biomass (right)
41
UNECA (2009) and Zaharia (MEBP). Similar estimates in a EBRD-supported analysis gives 500 MW potential and 1,300 GWh
42
Based on data from the State Forestry Agency and State Ecological Inspectorate

(MEBP)
Box 12 Power and heat market opportunities for biomass in Moldova
Source: Panoutsou (2010)
Other estimates put wood use for domestic heating in the order of 2 million m 3 per year (around 600,000
tonnes), a proportion of which may be illegally logged. Moldova’s forest resources are limited and the
problem of illegal logging is considered a priority of the forestry sector given negative environmental
impacts of such logging.
There is consensus that agricultural residues forms Moldova's renewable energy source with the biggest
short- to medium-term potential, mostly in the form of sunflower and
grains residues (straw). The national arable cultivated area is
approximately 1.5 million hectares, accounting for 75% of land use.
The biomass potential is an estimated 21.0-50.4 petajoule (PJ) that
would come from field crop residues (58%), dedicated energy crops
(13%), forest-based biomass (10%), arboricultural residues (8%)
from orchards and vineyards and livestock residues (8%) 43. Biomass
offers market opportunities to generate heat and power in
cogeneration (CHP) schemes and for thermal purposes in boilers.
On average 200 ha of winter wheat per settlement is grown annually

generating up to 450 tons (nationally 700,000 tons), resulting in an
equal amount of wheat straw with an energy content of around 5,300
GJ (nationally 8,200 TJ, equating to about 8% of current national energy consumption). The unwanted straw
is either chopped and incorporated during ploughing or, more frequently burnt in the field (contrary to
regulation). This mostly unused biomass represents an available, substantial and reliable source of renewable
energy.
The total population as of January 2008, was around 3.5 million, of which 2.1 million (59%) lived in rural
areas. There are 1,680 rural settlements in Moldova (including Transdniestria region), administered through
658 local administrations.
Households and public buildings
Rural settlements, villages and towns, are broadly similar in structure. Public buildings and apartment blocks
(if any) are located in the town or village centre surrounded by private households. Each household usually
43
Data from MEBP ProDoc and Panoutsou (2010)

(MEBP)
has surrounding land and/or garden averaging 0.21 ha in size. Most households (85%) also have a land
entitlement in the agricultural land surrounding a village (the former collective), on average 1.8 ha.
Agricultural enterprises and individual families cultivate agricultural lands, for horticulture operations but
predominantly for arable agriculture: cereals, grains and oilseeds are elements of annual arable rotations in
every settlement, including winter wheat. Bioenergy has been mainly confined to residential wood stoves,
often antiquated and inefficient using biomass in the form of firewood and straw. Other fuels used are coal or
natural gas.
Public buildings (kindergarten, school, town hall, health centre, library, house of culture) are mainly heated
by coal or gas. Households use wood and coal heating (wood as well as wastes such as maize husks
accounting for up to 70% of fuel used), mainly from radiant stoves that also provide for cooking (but do not
provide hot water or central heating).
Many villages in Moldova are connected to a natural gas main, where buildings in these areas can, at the
owner’s expense, be connected to a natural gas supply. Since the rapid increase in gas prices connections
have slowed very significantly. In the difficult winter conditions public buildings such as schools,
kindergartens and community centres are usually maintained at uncomfortably low temperatures owing to
energy inefficiency and a lack of funds available within local administration budgets for fossil fuels. This
causes hardship and is cited as one of the reasons for the drift of people, especially the young, into towns or
migration.
Agro-industries
While the residential sector comprises the majority of Moldovan energy demand (45% in 2005), industry
makes up the second most important single sector (18%). Food processing is the largest domestic industry
accounting for 39% of industrial output in 2008 (source: MEBP ProDoc), comprised of about 280
enterprises, while providing employment for over 26,000 people. There should be significant potential for
biomass based co-generation of heat and power based on solid fuel combustion or biogas using agro-
processing wastes such as those from the wine industry, fruit processing, as well as husks, kernels, dust,
shelling, bark and trimmings.
Technological options
Direct combustion of biomass for power or heat generation is a mature, commercially available technology.
There are various systems to process biomass feedstock and use in combustion systems.
 Stoves and furnaces to generate heat;

o In Moldova, biomass residues (sunflower stems, maize cobs and stalks, straw) is used in domestic
stoves but at efficiency of 50% and below. Employing more effective technology can increase energy
efficiency to 75% or more and increase functionality (to provide for cooking, baking, hot water and
central heating circuits), depending on cost and consumer preferences;
 Biomass-fired boilers to generate steam or hot water;
 Power generation, in which the biomass-heated steam drives a steam turbine which generates
electricity.Combined heat and power (CHP) or cogeneration, is the simultaneous process of producing
heat and electricity from one sources of energy, such as biomass or natural gas. Biomass CHP systems
can provide heat or steam for use in industry or for the use of space and water heating in buildings.
Biomass-for-heating systems can be quite economical in agro-industrial or
wood processing industry where the biomass by-products of the processing
activities can be used as fuel. Economics is also affected by the cost of
transport of the biomass raw material to the plant’s site.

(MEBP)
 Develop briquetting and pelletization of biomass as a substitute for wood, coal or natural gas.
Densification of biomass (in particular forestry or agricultural residues) to briquettes or pellets increases
their energy content per unit of volume. It reduces transport and handling cost of the biomass. Also,
densification produces a fuel with more predictable burning characteristics than
the original residue feedstock and this is important in the case of larger burning
devices, such as boilers or furnaces. For example, some types of powdery
biomass, such as rice husks ort sawdust have problems with the ash generated
and would need special combustion systems. On the other hand, densification
requires machinery and adds to the cost of the fuel. However, although the cost
per tonne of feedstock is increased, the price of the feedstock per unit of energy
can be reduced. Thus, densified solid biomass fuels (briquettes or pellets) are
usually intended for household who can afford and industrial uses. A variety of
processing methods are available, varying from low-pressure systems, such as
manual presses, to high-pressure systems using rollers, pistons and screw
extruders. The most important characteristics for producing good-quality
briquettes or pellets are low water content of the raw material and low ash
content.
Government policy and strategy
Moldova’s energy policy deals with objectives, measures and activities oriented towards a more efficient,
competitive and reliable national energy industry whilst ensuring the country’s energy security, the
upgrading of energy-related infrastructure, improved energy efficiency and use of renewable energy sources,
and its integration into the European energy market.
To increase the share of renewable energy in power generation, in 2007 the Republic of Moldova adopted
the Law on Renewable Energy Sources (No. 160, 2007), which introduced the concept of public tender
procurement and electricity produced from renewable sources at a ‘cost-plus’ adjustable tariff. Changes in
the regulatory framework were prepared to improve the current situation and to attract new investment.
These regulations will provide clear tariffs for each type of renewable energy source and a transparent
mechanism for energy procurement based on an open tendering system 44. The Law sets the targets of 6%
renewable energy in power generation by 2010 and 20% by 2020.
The Moldovan Government has sought to connect the country to the EU's internal energy market, and the
country joined the EU Energy Community in 2010 with the goal of adopted the acquis of the Energy
Community 201545. In line with the EU Directive 2009/28/EC, Moldova committed to a binding share of
17% in renewable energy in final energy consumption.
Energy efficiency is given appropriate priority with an Energy Efficiency Law (No. 142, 2010) and
National Programme for Energy Efficiency 2010-2020 (adopted in 2011), which sets the principles for
energy efficiency and renewable energy. The National Energy Efficiency Action Plan 2013-2015 mentions
specific planning activities in the sector of energy efficiency and promotion of development of the
electricity, heating and cooling based on renewable sources of energy. A draft Law on Energy Performance
of Buildings is currently under development and would provide a framework for improvement of energy
performance of buildings, including promotion of decentralised energy (electricity, heating & cooling)
supply systems based on renewable energy sources.
44
See for example, ANRE Resolution 321 on the Methodology for the determination, approval and application of tariffs for electricity
generated from RES and biofuel and ANRE Resolution 330 (2009) on the provisions on guarantees of origin of electricity
generated from renewable energy sources. The Guarantee of Origin can be obtained from the power Transmission System
Operator.
45
The Energy Community is a community established between the European Union (EU) and a number of third countries to extend
the EU internal energy market to Southeast Europe and beyond. With their signatures Parties commit themselves to implement
the relevant EU acquis communautaire, to develop an adequate regulatory framework and to liberalize their energy markets in line
with the acquis under the Treaty

(MEBP)
The Law on science and technology parks and innovation incubators establishes incentives for the
residents of the science and technology parks; VAT exemption (20%) on import of goods and services;
custom tax exemption on import of goods and services, no-profit tax, as well as protection from any change
in legislations for 10 years.
Energy efficiency, renewable energy and market development of network energies (electricity and gas) are
the cornerstones of the recently adopted Energy Strategy of Moldova by the Year 2030 (adopted in Feb.
2013). The Strategy is the successor of the Energy Strategy of Moldova until 2020 (2007). Priorities in the
Energy Strategy include:
 Fulfil the requirements of the Energy Community and EU; full integration in the EU’s internal energy
market (gas and electricity by 2020);
 Strengthen the institutional framework for the new energy markets;
 Harmonize integration into the existing energy infrastructure and expected return of investments made in
the additional generation of clean energy;
 Reduce the impact of energy production and use on the environment;
 This strategy targets a share of 20% of renewable energy in the gross final energy consumption by 2020
(with an intermediate target of 10% by 2015) and of 10% in power generation; and targets 10% share of
biofuels by 2020 (4% by 2015)46;
 Reduce overall energy intensity by 20% in 2020; reduce energy consumption in buildings by 20% in 2020
(and achieve a 10% share in refurbished public buildings).
The National Renewable Energy Action Plan 2013-2020 (approved in Dec 2013) further defines policies
and actions towards development of renewable energy in Moldova. The Plan defines the sectoral targets
towards achievement of 20% RES in 2020 and sets up the required legislative, regulatory and administrative
actions to achieve those targets. The Plan mentions that small-scale cogeneration and heating projects in
small towns and villages is a critical issue on the Government’s policy agenda. Priority will be given to the
vulnerable groups in poor rural and urban areas to take advantage of sustainable socioeconomic development
opportunities through adequate regional and local policies. It is possible the main supporting scheme in this
case to be up-front subsidies financed.
D.3 UNDP and EU programme in Moldova
UNDP
This United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) is the business plan for the UN system
in Moldova for the period 2007-2011. It resulted from a consultative process between UN agencies, the
Government of Moldova, and civil society partners. Outcome 3 of the UNDAF is “By 2011, vulnerable
groups in poor rural and urban areas take advantage of sustainable socio-economic development
opportunities through adequate regional and local policies implemented by Local Public Authorities (LPAs)
and partners”. The MEBP project fits with the UNDAF Outcome and in particular with the Country
programme outcome 3.2 “New businesses and jobs are created in targeted poor and rural and urban areas”.
Energy and climate change mitigation actions in general remain a focus area for the UN system in Moldova.
Pillar 3 of the new Partnership Framework 2013-2017 is on “Environment, climate change and disaster risk
management” and its outcome 3.2 refers to “Strengthened national policies and capacities enable climate and
disaster resilient, low emission economic development and sustainable consumption” and mentions the
following indicators:
 Energy and resource intensity (target energy intensity: reduce with 7% by 2017 in comparison with
2010);
46
Total energy consumption of 2,160 kilotons of oil equivalent (ktoe) in 2020 with a share of renewable energy of 367 ktoe

(MEBP)
 Share of renewable energy in gross domestic consumption (target: 11% by 2017, related to national target
of 20% by 2020)
EU
INOGATE47 is an international energy cooperation program between the European Union (EU), the littoral
states of the Black and Caspian seas and their neighbouring countries and is one of the longest running
energy technical assistance programs funded by the EU. Up to 2006, it was funded by the TACIS Regional
Cooperation Programme48, and as of 2007, it has been funded by the European Neighbourhood and
Partnership Instrument (ENPI) under the ENPI-East Regional Indicative Programme 2007-2010 and 2010-
2013. Moldova is a partner country of the EU INOGATE energy programme, which has four key topics:
enhancing energy security, convergence of member state energy markets on the basis of EU internal energy
market principles, supporting sustainable energy development, and attracting investment for energy projects
of common and regional interest. In Moldova, INOGATE supports EBRD's Sustainable Energy Initiative,
which establishes sustainable energy financing facilities through local financial intermediaries, such as
MoSEFF (Moldova Sustainable Energy Finance Facility). Another program was Energy Saving Initiative in
the Building Sector in the Eastern European and Central Asian Countries (ESIB; 2010-2014).
D.4 MEDP Project 2014-2017, Description of the Action (DoA)
After 3 years of implementation, it has been proposed to extend and expand activities in a “successor
MEDP” to be implemented during 2014-2017, one hand based on his highly satisfactory performance and
the other hand to be able to address a number of remaining gaps and additional needs. The proposed new
project will again be implemented by UNDP with the main funding coming from the EU and is described in
the draft document “Moldova Energy and Biomass Project, Project Extension 2014-2017, Annex 1;
Description of the Action”.
Following the same logframe format, a summary of outputs and progress indicators is given below, taken
from the DoA document. Reviewing the list of indicators of the results framework we have suggestions for
improvement similar to the ones presented in Box7 in section 3.3. These are indicated in red text in the table
below49.
Box 13 Description of activities and targets of the proposed successor phase (2014-2017)
Indicator Extension Summary description of DoA activities
target (2017),
DoA
OUTPUT 1: Municipal biomass heating and fuel supply markets established

Activity 1.1 Heating systems in public buildings installed (Activity Result 1)
a) Heating systems a) 80 thermal  Continuation of community participation approach leading to
installed heating installation of 80 biomass
 Number systems o Expansion of support to small towns and a specific regional focus
 Capacity burning (Transdniestria region, ATU Gagauzia and Taraclia district)
 Annual energy biomass and o The same community mobilization approach will be followed
b) Jobs created in target about 20 (described in Section 4.1)
communities solar hot o For the design and installation, the newly tested ‘design-bid-build’
water approach will be followed, introduced in 2014) to current (design-
systems build)
(SWH) will
47
See www.inogate.org
48
Technical Assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent States (TACIS) from 1991-2006
49
During the mission, the Evaluators reviewed a previous version of the results framework and provided comments and suggestions

(MEBP)
target (2017),
DoA
be installed o In at least 20 sites biomass heating systems will be complemented
totalling with SWH systems for hot water, especially in facilities operated
about 180 TJ throughout the year (kindergartens and medical facilities)
(average  Seek collaboration and agreement with Energy Efficiency Fund
installed (EEF) on setting up a co-financing partnership for public heating and
capacity of hot water systems, based on EEF’s ‘joint finance scheme’ approach
boilers of with private sector projects
approx. 220  Monitoring of the 144 biomass heating systems installed in the first
kWth); phase (2011-14) looking at performance of equipment and collect
b) 144 jobs performance indicators, community commitments and providing as-
needed technical assistance
Activity 1.2 Fuel cycle facilitated through leasing/hire-purchase mechanism for local fuel (Activity result 2)
c) Leased fuel supply c) n.a.  No more seed capital will be provided for the revolving funds
systems (managed by 2KR and EEF), but the Project will monitor the
 System capacity operation of the two funds (spot-checks, field visits, audits and
periodic reporting) and define a clear exit strategy for the continued
use of the funds after the project’s end together with partners
involved (MoAFI, MoE) and the EU Delegation
Activity 1.3 Market environment enhanced to support quality, efficiency and effectiveness (Activity Result 3)
d1) Status of quality control d1) One Quality  Address the next main issue of enforcing standards and regulation
and certification body Assurance by means of the establishment of an authorized laboratory (QA
d2) Number of business Centre Centre) for testing and certification in cooperation with EEA, MoE
platforms supported and the National Institute for Standardization. The Project will
d3) Number and type of d2) Two provide support in capacity assessment, selecting the host for QA
promotional events business Centre, technical training and laboratory equipment. Following the
d4) Status of studies on platforms establishment of the biomass fuel-testing laboratory, a handbook on
bioenergy potential and d3) X events “Solid Biofuels Quality Assurance” will be developed and provided
market stimulation and Y trade to biomass fuel suppliers
instruments missions  In the first phase, 14 sensor systems were installed on biomass
d4) Two studies monitor. Based on this, a database and monitoring systems will be
carried out established (heat production, fuel consumption, temperature in
buildings, emissions) that will be maintained by EEA; during the
Project extension phase, field visits will provide additional data.
Regulations will be assessed to allow the (mandatory) registration of
boilers under the system with subsequent installation of sensor
equipment;
 Promote matchmaking biomass suppliers and users in online B2B
(business-to-business) and B2C (business-to-consumers) platforms
to facilitate the sales of biomass fuels, boilers and equipment by
providing registration (fuel suppliers, biomass boiler
importers/producers), info on technology, characteristics and
performance, existing incentives and regulations as well as market
data (prices, sales of biomass fuels). The project will support setting
up the needed web portal and selection of the host organization; an
interactive tool for producers to sell to consumer (‘market place’)
might be added;
 Promotional activities, such as roundtables and workshops on policy,
regulations and biofuel market development, study tour (for selected
entrepreneurs and policy makers on biomass fuel production,
marketing and trading) as well as supporting trade missions (one for
biofuel producers and one for biomass boiler producers and
assemblers)
 Provide support on reviewing existing studies, develop a consistent
methodology with indicators and data collection and update

(MEBP)
target (2017),
DoA
estimates of the bioenergy potential according to the new
methodology;
 Study aiming at identifying all potential financial, fiscal, economic,
legislative instruments for market stimulation and review their
feasibility and suitability, and recommend options for the most
promising package of interventions;
 Expert facility: individual experts or consulting services from Europe
will be made available to actors of the local biomass market,
providing access to specialized knowledge in production and
consumption of biomass, latest technologies and inventions,
international market development and trends, policy and regulatory
frameworks, support mechanisms and incentive schemes.
OUTPUT 2: Foundations laid for establishment of efficient household heating, industrial cogeneration and biomass
briquetting markets
Activity 2.1 Market solutions for high efficiency affordable rural biomass household heating identified and piloted
(Activity result 4)
e) Deployment of systems: f) Systems:  Household and micro-enterprises support:
 Number of residential  At least 300 o Study on existing subsidy mechanism with suggestions for
heating systems household improvement, aiming at a better and targeted approach, both in the
f) Jobs created and small residential sector as well as small enterprises
businesses o Installation of an additional 250 heating systems in private houses
g) 30 jobs and 50 micro-enterprises with the financial incentive provided in
created partnership with EEA (including systems in regions not covered by
MEBP earlier and with special attention to women-led households
and enterprises). Criteria will be defined with EEA and Chamber of
Commerce to be approved by Project Board. Eligible boilers (and
stoves) are those (partially) assembled or Manufactured in
Moldova using biomass briquettes and/or pellets;
Activity 2.2 Industrial cogeneration using biomass fuel demonstrated (Activity Result 5)
g) Installation of at least h) One  Complete study, propose a market development strategy (addressing
one cogeneration plant cogeneration policy and regulatory barriers identified);
plant  Support development of at least one CHP unit, based on call for
proposals (MEBP will provide for feasibility and design study and
grant incentive)
Activity 2.3 Market solutions for briquetting piloted (Activity Result 6):
h) Number of PPP for i) 7 public-  Establishment of up to 7 PPPs established based on a competitive
biomass supply and private process (with MEBP covering the cost of feasibility study and grant
heating services partnerships incentive) and at least one PPP in Gagauzia, Taraclia or Transnistria
implemented (PPPs) areas. The selection of PPPs will be based on a competitive process,
established by collecting Expressions of Interest from district and local
in addition authorities and subsequent competitive tendering by the LPAs for the
(8 in total, identification of the private sector partners50
2011-17)
Activity 2.4: Efficient and sustainable biomass burning technologies for production processes piloted and the potential of
household level residues explored (newly added activity)
i) Number of pilot projects  Identification of economic sectors with high replication potential of
j1 Status of replication using biomass in production processes; this assessment will be
strategy and guidelines integrated with the analysis undertaken on support mechanism and
biomass potential carried (see activity 1.3)
 Piloting the use of biomass for heat generation for production
50
In the PPP, a private company will be responsible for boiler operation (fuel type, quantity and quality, hiring and training operators,
maintenance of boiler room, daily operation, etc.) on a for-profit basis in the heating system of a public building

(MEBP)
target (2017),
DoA
processes in the framework of Agricultural Colleagues and
Professional Schools51 in two institutions with own available raw
materials, encompassing both production (e.g. briquetting) and use
(biomass boilers) and linked with VET activities (see activity 3.5);
 At least on pilot on collection of organic household and municipal
waste for briquette production by municipal or private enterprises (to
be delivered back to the households)52
 Promotion, dissemination of case studies and lessons learned;
replication strategy (incl. financial support; incentives) and
guidelines elaborated with MoSEFF and EEF and other partners
OUTPUT 3: Capacity built for growth of biomass markets at regional and local levels
Activity 3.1 Capacity of municipal leaders to manage biomass systems enhanced (Activity Result 7)
j) Number of j) Leaders  Continuation of training on biomass systems, EE (and expanded with
municipalities or public from 80 solar heating) for Local Public authorities and building managers
institutions whose municipaliti o Adapting/updating materials, impact monitoring and lessons
leaders/managers are es trained learned to the needs of each target group; translation into Russian
trained were possible;
o Number of people o Training workshops, study visits to sites with functioning biomass
trained heating systems; international study tour for selected LPAs (all
o Number of trainings activities with specific regional focus on two small towns in
organized Moldova as well as on Gagauzia, Transnistria, Taraclia);
o Use of ‘8-step roadmap for effective heating’ developed for
biomass heating systems under MEBP53. A similar roadmap will be
developed for solar collectors
Activity 3.2 Training materials developed for sound operation of straw-fired boilers (Activity Result 8)
k) Training indicators: k)  Further dissemination of Guide for Boiler Operators; the training
k1) Number of staff program for boiler operators will focus on ‘on-site learning &
(operators, managers) of practice’ at MEBP project sites (from installers/providers of
boiler heating systems respective equipment) and participate in visits to successfully
trained; operated sites and tailor-made training for integrated biomass and
k2) Number of solar systems
trainings organized  Support institutionalization of the training:
k3) % of participants o Identify measures (such as mandatory periodic training
expressing satisfaction requirements for boiler operators or at time of contracting) and
with the training support one or more relevant institutions with capacity
k4) Number of training strengthening (curricula and materials development, training of
materials and/or trainers)
guidebooks elaborated o Conduct training with a sample group of boilers operators, from
MEBP sites and new operators)
Activity 3.3 Training materials developed for commercial fuel suppliers (Activity Result 9)
l) Number of fuel suppliers l) 30 fuel  Targeted capacity development will, in cooperation with Chamber of
trained suppliers Commerce and EEA, continue on the aspects of setting up and
trained running a biomass fuel supply operation (with an emphasis on fuel
quality in line with the 2013 norms), focusing on 1) technologies for
solid biofuels, 2) management, marketing, planning, trading,
financing skills, 3) training on biofuel quality and capacity
51
In terms of cost consideration, the use of biomass fuels in closed-cycle systems, i.e. companies or entities that produce their own
agricultural residues
52
The pilot project will co-finance the investment cost related to installing a briquette production line and a biomass boiler for the
premises of the enterprise, and will cover the costs related to an awareness raising and education campaign among the households
benefiting from the services. In addition, small scale equipment or low cost collection bins, as initial incentive for households, will be
provided on a cost-sharing basis.
53
See the picture on page 32 of this report

(MEBP)
target (2017),
DoA
strengthening of Consumer Protection Agency)
 Training materials updated in line with 2013 regulation, including
elaboration of a ‘Solid Biofuels QA Handbook” that will also
indicate steps to be undertaken to achieve biofuels’ certification;
 Strengthening CSOs that work on women’s civic and economic
empowerment issues (e.g. include workshops, round table
discussions with successful business women, facilitating networks
 Workshops with business community and representatives from
government entities (EEA, line ministries, Consumer Protection
Agency)
 Assessment of needs and options to form a Biomass fuel suppliers
association
Activity 3.4 Community understanding and acceptance of biomass energy enhanced through school educational program
(Activity Result 10)
m) Number of children m) 2000 Proposed activities and focus:
participating in children  Continuation with awareness and educational activities for school
awareness activities children (specific focus on the three new target areas mentioned
before); Translation of educational materials in Russian;
organization of Summer Camps in Transnistria and of joint summer
camps with participation of children from the right bank (incl.
Gagauzia) and Transnistria
Activity 3.5 Vocational educational training for renewable energy sector professionals introduced (new)
n) VET program developed n) 1 vocational Proposed activities and focus:
and implemented educational  Assessment of integrating RE and EE in educational programs
training offered by VET institutions (esp. energy, engineering, construction)
(VET)  Develop materials/curricula on RE and EE (differentiated for
program different professions), implement ‘training of trainers’ scheme; visits
piloted and exchange with selected VET institutions in Europe and establish
partnerships)
 Pilot a course at a VET institution (incl. providing a basic set of tools
and equipment)
 Based on the results with the pilot, support MoEdu with integrating
RE course in curricula
OUTPUT 4: Opportunities and benefits of biomass energy for Moldova are well known, visibility of project results is
promoted
Activity 4.1 Media campaign (Activity Result 11)
Activity 4.2 Annual national awards (Activity Result 12)
Activity 4.3 Communication and visibility of project results (Activity Result 13)
o) Enquiries to the PMT o) Enquiries to Proposed activities and focus:
increasing annually (in PMT  Continuation of outreach communication actions (video/audio spots,
%) increase TV/radio, news and press) with an increased focus and
p) Media references to annually Transdniestria and Gagauzia (incl. development of a communication
project objective in with 20% strategy for these regions) and an increased focus on market
positive light, awards p) Media development for biofuel production
and/or project impacts reference  Extension of website in Russian (alongside Romanian and English)
increase by x% annually increase by and making more materials available in Russian
q) Evaluation surveys show 20%  Targeted training and study tour visit for journalists/NGOs/local
that the awards are annually authorities from selected regions to increase knowledge on RE and
valued and indicate r) Surveys EE
positive intention to take indicate  With the Eco-Energetica contest ownership fully assumed by MoE
actions 90% ‘high’ and EEA, the project will limit to facilitate partnerships and provide

(MEBP)
target (2017),
DoA
r) Status of publications and ‘very some TA in organizing and transparent evaluation of competition
and media and high’ and annual award ceremony
communication  Participation in public events (e.g. Sustainable Energy week);
campaign: showcasing success stories and results (incl. those related to women
1. Status of project livelihood improvements)
website; number of  Continued monitoring of project results and ensure EU and UNDP
visitors to website; visibility,
2. Number of media
materials disseminated
3. Number of Newsletters
published and other
number of other materials
(PR materials; stories in
third-party publications)
4. Number of Eco-
Energetica events
organized
D.5 Overview of standards for solid biomass fuels
Nr. d/o Indicativul standardului Titlul standardului

1. SMV EN 14588:2012 Solid biofuels - Terminology, definitions and descriptions
(EN 14588:2010, IDT)
2. SMV EN 14774-1:2012 Solid biofuels - Determination of moisture content - Oven dry method
- Part 1: Total moisture - Reference method
(EN 14774-1:2009, IDT)
- Part 2: Total moisture - Simplified method
(EN 14774-2:2009, IDT)
- Part 3: Moisture in general analysis sample
(EN 14774-3:2009, IDT)
5. SMV EN 14775:2012 Solid biofuels - Determination of ash content
(EN 14775:2009, IDT)
6. SMV EN 14778:2012 Solid biofuels - Sampling (EN 14778:2011, IDT)
7. SMV EN 14780:2012 Solid biofuels - Sample preparation (EN 14780:2011, IDT)
8. SMV EN 14918:2012 Solid biofuels - Determination of calorific value (EN 14918:2009,
IDT)
9. SMV EN 14961-1:2012 Solid biofuels - Fuel specifications and classes - Part 1: General
requirements (EN 14961-1:2010, IDT)
10. SMV EN 14961-2:2012 Solid biofuels - Fuel specifications and classes - Part 2: Wood pellets
for non-industrial use (EN 14961-2:2011, IDT)
11. SMV EN 14961-3:2012 Solid biofuels - Fuel specifications and classes - Part 3: Wood
briquettes for non-industrial use (EN 14961-3:2011, IDT)
12. SMV EN 14961-4:2012 Solid biofuels - Fuel specifications and classes - Part 4: Wood chips
for non-industrial use (EN 14961-4:2011, IDT)
13. SMV EN 14961-5:2012 Solid biofuels - Fuel specifications and classes - Part 5: Firewood for
non-industrial use (EN 14961-5:2011, IDT)
14. SMV EN 14961-6:2012 Solid biofuels - Fuel specifications and classes - Part 6: Non-woody

(MEBP)
pellets for non-industrial use (EN 14961-6:2012, IDT)
15. SMV EN 15103:2012 Solid biofuels - Determination of bulk density
(EN 15103:2009, IDT)
16. SMV EN 15104:2012 Solid biofuels - Determination of total content of carbon, hydrogen
and nitrogen - Instrumental methods (EN 15104:2011, IDT)
17. SMV EN 15105:2012 Solid biofuels - Determination of the water soluble chloride, sodium
and potassium content (EN 15105:2011, IDT)
18. SMV EN 15148:2012 Solid biofuels - Determination of the content of volatile matte (EN
15148:2009, IDT)
19. SMV EN 15149-1:2012 Solid biofuels - Determination of particle size distribution - Part 1:
Oscillating screen method using sieve apertures of 1 mm and above
(EN 15149-1:2010, IDT)
20. SMV EN 15149-2:2012 Solid biofuels - Determination of particle size distribution - Part 2:
Vibrating screen method using sieve apertures of 3,15 mm and below
(EN 15149-2:2010, IDT)
21. SMV EN 15150:2012 Solid biofuels - Determination of particle density (EN 15150:2011,
IDT)
22. SMV EN 15210-1:2012 Solid biofuels - Determination of mechanical durability of pellets and
briquettes - Part 1: Pellets (EN 15210:2009, IDT)
23. SMV EN 15210-2:2012 Solid biofuels - Determination of mechanical durability of pellets and
briquettes - Part 2: Briquettes (EN 15210-2:2010, IDT)
24. SMV EN 15234-1:2012 Solid biofuels - Fuel quality assurance - Part 1: General requirements
(EN 15234-1:2011, IDT)
25. SMV EN 15234-2:2012 Solid biofuels - Fuel quality assurance - Part 2: Wood pellets for non-
industrial use (EN 15234-2:2012, IDT)
26. SMV EN 15234-3:2012 Solid biofuels - Fuel quality assurance - Part 3: Wood briquettes for
27. SMV EN 15234-4:2012 Solid biofuels - Fuel quality assurance - Part 4: Wood chips for non-
28. SMV EN 15234-5:2012 Solid biofuels - Fuel quality assurance - Part 5: Firewood for non-
29. SMV EN 15234-6:2012 Solid biofuels - Fuel quality assurance - Part 6: Non-woody pellets for
30. SMV EN 15289:2012 Solid biofuels - Determination of total content of sulfur and chlorine
(EN 15289:2011, IDT)
31. SMV EN 15290:2012 Solid biofuels - Determination of major elements - Al, Ca, Fe, Mg, P,
K, Si, Na and Ti (EN 15290:2011, IDT)
32. SMV EN 15296:2012 Solid biofuels - Conversion of analytical results from one basis to
another (EN 15296:2011, IDT)
33. SMV EN 15297:2012 Solid biofuels - Determination of minor elements - As, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu,
Hg, Mn, Mo, Ni, Pb, Sb, V and Zn (EN 15297:2011, IDT)
34. SMV EN 15410:2012 Solid recovered fuels - Methods for the determination of the content of
major elements (Al, Ca, Fe, K, Mg, Na, P, Si, Ti)
(EN 15410:2011, IDT)
35. SMV EN 15149-3:2012 Solid biofuels - Methods for the determination of particle size
distribution - Part 3: Rotary screen method (CEN/TS 15149-3:2006,
IDT)
36. SMV EN 15370-1:2006 Solid biofuels - Method for the determination of ash melting behaviour
- Part 1: Characteristic temperatures method (CEN/TS 15370-1:2006,
IDT)
37. SMV EN 15569:2012 Solid biofuels - A guide for a quality assurance system
(CEN/TR 15569:2009, IDT)
4.4

(MEBP)
ANNEX E. ABOUT THE EVALUATORS
Mr. Jan van den Akker is a technology management scientist with a Master's degree from Eindhoven University of
Technology (Netherlands), specializing in international development cooperation. He is an expert on sustainable energy
policy and technologies. Mr. Van den Akker specializes in studies and analytical work, project design and development,
project coordination and implementation, project monitoring and evaluation, knowledge management, capacity
strengthening and public-private partnerships in the field of sustainable energy strategies, energy efficiency, energy
technologies and supply, climate change and the Clean Development Mechanism. He has lived and worked abroad for
over 7 years in Zambia, Mexico and Thailand. In addition, has undertaken numerous short missions to about 45
countries in Africa, Latin America and Asia & the Pacific.
In 2003/2004 he founded ASCENDIS, as an independent office, and has been providing consultancy on sustainable
energy and climate change, specializing in development issues. ASCENDIS is based in Westerhoven, Netherlands, but
offers services in Africa, Asia and the Pacific, Europe and Latin America & the Caribbean, often by associating itself
with local freelance experts, professionals and organizations. As a long-term expert with the United Nations system,
Mr. Van den Akker has provided advice to governments and organizations on the design of investment and capacity
building programs for UNEP, UNDP and UNIDO, mostly in GEF-funded activities, UNFCCC and for
NGOs/consultancy companies (e.g., Practical Action Consulting, Winrock) in the area of renewable energy, energy
efficiency and sustainable transportation.
Mr. Pavel Gavrilita is an environmental engineer with a Master’s of Science degree from Royal Institute of
Technology (Stockholm, Sweden). He is an expert on climate change and energy efficiency. Mr. Gavrilita has
experience in environmental policy, elaboration of strategic documents, coordination and implementation of UNDP and
WB projects. For the last years, Mr. Gavrilita has had provided consultancy services for private sector, UNDP and
UNFCCC.

(MEBP)
ANNEX F. CONSULTANT CODE OF CONDUCT FORM
Evaluators/reviewers:
1. Must present information that is complete and fair in its assessment of strengths and weaknesses so
that decisions or actions taken are well founded
2. Must disclose the full set of evaluation findings along with information on their limitations and
have this accessible to all affected by the evaluation with expressed legal rights to receive results.
3. Should protect the anonymity and confidentiality of individual informants. They should provide
maximum notice, minimize demands on time, and respect people’s right not to engage. Evaluators must
respect people’s right to provide information in confidence, and must ensure that sensitive information
cannot be traced to its source. Evaluators are not expected to evaluate individuals, and must balance an
evaluation of management functions with this general principle.
4. Sometimes uncover evidence of wrongdoing while conducting evaluations. Such cases must be
reported discreetly to the appropriate investigative body. Evaluators should consult with other relevant
oversight entities when there is any doubt about if and how issues should be reported.
5. Should be sensitive to beliefs, manners and customs and act with integrity and honesty in their relations
with all stakeholders. In line with the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, evaluators must be
sensitive to and address issues of discrimination and gender equality. They should avoid offending the
dignity and self-respect of those persons with whom they come in contact in the course of the
evaluation. Knowing that evaluation might negatively affect the interests of some stakeholders,
evaluators should conduct the evaluation and communicate its purpose and results in a way that clearly
respects the stakeholders’ dignity and self-worth.
6. Are responsible for their performance and their product(s). They are responsible for the clear, accurate
and fair written and/or oral presentation of study limitations, findings and recommendations.
7. Should reflect sound accounting procedures and be prudent in using the resources of the evaluation.
Evaluation/reviewer Consultant Agreement Form
Agreement to abide by the Code of Conduct for Evaluation in the UN System
Name of Consultant: J.H.A. VAN DEN AKKER (Team Leader, on behalf of the Team)
Name of Consultancy Organization (where relevant):
I confirm that I have received and understood and will abide by the United Nations Code of
Conduct for Evaluation.
Signed at Westerhoven, Netherlands

Signature:

(MEBP)

Moldova MEBP I FinEval - Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moldova MEBP I FinEval - Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moldova MEBP I FinEval - Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final evaluation of the project

“Moldova Energy and Biomass Project (MEBP)”

Jan H.A. van den Akker

ANRE National Agency for Energy Regulation

Moldova Energy and Biomass Project Final evaluation 2

Moldova Energy and Biomass Project Final evaluation 3

Moldova Energy and Biomass Project Final evaluation 4

Box 1 List of main stakeholders involved in biomass for heating in Moldova 12

Moldova Energy and Biomass Project Final evaluation 5

Moldova Energy and Biomass Project Final evaluation 6

Brief description of the project

Context and purpose of the evaluation

Main findings and conclusions

Moldova Energy and Biomass Project Final evaluation 7

Design and relevance

Implementation and management approach

Moldova Energy and Biomass Project Final evaluation 8

1) Implement the proposed successor MEBP project (2014-2017)

Moldova Energy and Biomass Project Final evaluation 9

Some lesson learnt are regarding results and performance are:

Moldova Energy and Biomass Project Final evaluation 10

2.1 Development context

2.2 Project objective and description

Moldova Energy and Biomass Project Final evaluation 11

2.3 Main stakeholders: summary list

Box 1 List of main stakeholders involved in biomass for heating in Moldova

Moldova Energy and Biomass Project Final evaluation 12

Moldova Energy and Biomass Project Final evaluation 13

Objective of the evaluation

Moldova Energy and Biomass Project Final evaluation 14

Box 2 Evaluation criteria and questions

Moldova Energy and Biomass Project Final evaluation 15

Moldova Energy and Biomass Project Final evaluation 16

3.1 Results: achievements of outputs

Community mobilization and project selection approach

1) Promotion, awareness and community needs assessment

Moldova Energy and Biomass Project Final evaluation 17

Moldova Energy and Biomass Project Final evaluation 18

OUTPUT 1: Municipal biomass heating and fuel supply markets established

Note, selection methodology:

Moldova Energy and Biomass Project Final evaluation 19

Moldova Energy and Biomass Project Final evaluation 20

Moldova Energy and Biomass Project Final evaluation 21

Moldova Energy and Biomass Project Final evaluation 22

2) Energy performance and final participatory appraisal of buildings

3) Design and construction

An experienced consultant was hired to provide the following:

Moldova Energy and Biomass Project Final evaluation 23

Moldova Energy and Biomass Project Final evaluation 24

Moldova Energy and Biomass Project Final evaluation 25

3.1.2 Output 2: Foundations laid for establishment of efficient

One such beneficiaries are households, which are the

Moldova Energy and Biomass Project Final evaluation 26

Moldova Energy and Biomass Project Final evaluation 27

Moldova Energy and Biomass Project Final evaluation 28

Moldova Energy and Biomass Project Final evaluation 29

Introductory trainings for biomass-fired boiler operators before the

Moldova Energy and Biomass Project Final evaluation 30

An educational brochure “Renewable Energy Sources” was piloted as well as a