00104290 Sixth Operational Phase of The GEF Small Grant Programme

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2016-2020, Indonesia
Evaluation Type:
Mid Term Project
Planned End Date:
01/2020
Completion Date:
03/2019
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
No
Evaluation Budget(US $):
25,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document TOR MTR.pdf tor English 582.79 KB Posted 25
Download document MTR Report 6th OP SGP.pdf report English 2691.84 KB Posted 27
Title 00104290 Sixth Operational Phase of The GEF Small Grant Programme
Atlas Project Number: 00104290
Evaluation Plan: 2016-2020, Indonesia
Evaluation Type: Mid Term Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 03/2019
Planned End Date: 01/2020
Management Response: Yes
UNDP Signature Solution:
  • 1. Resilience
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021)
  • 1. Output 3.3.1 Evidence-based assessment and planning tools and mechanisms applied to enable implementation of gender-sensitive and risk-informed prevention and preparedness to limit the impact of natural hazards and pandemics and promote peaceful, just and inclusive societies
SDG Goal
  • Goal 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns
SDG Target
  • 12.2 By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources
Evaluation Budget(US $): 25,000
Source of Funding:
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 30,000
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: Yes
  • Joint with YBUL
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
James Lenoci International Consultant
GEF Evaluation: Yes
GEF Project Title: Sixth Operational Phase of the GEF Small Grant Programme
Evaluation Type: Mid-term Review
Focal Area: Biodiversity
Project Type: EA
GEF Phase: GEF-1
GEF Project ID: 9086
PIMS Number: 5499
Key Stakeholders: YBUL
Countries: INDONESIA
Lessons
1.

Although the project concept described in the PIF contains information on how the project was expected to be consistent with national priorities and programs, the project design outlined in the Project Document does not indicate how the project strategy is aligned with national priorities. This is also reflected in the limited involvement with the governmental sector to date. The MTR consultant does recognize the mission of the GEF-SGP to engage at the grassroots level; however, implementing landscape approaches require broad stakeholder involvement.

Some of the performance metrics included in the project results framework are unrealistic. For certain indicators, the end targets could be appropriate for longer-term impacts, but not for what is reasonably expected to be achieved over the 4-year duration of the project. The project targets regarding greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions avoided that were estimated in the Project Document are unlikely to be achieved, as the low-emission field interventions will most likely be considerably fewer in number than envisaged. The strategic approach for Component 2 outlined in the Project Document on low-emission development is inconsistent with current circumstances and the needs of the local communities in the target landscapes. The project has engaged the UGM university to carry out pre-feasibility studies in order to provide recommendations on specific interventions at the local level. It seems that the added value the project is best positioned to deliver in this respect is to strengthen the enabling environment for participatory, smallscale low-emission approaches that can be scaled up across the four landscapes based upon lessons learned and best practice guidelines produced from the demonstrations completed during the project implementation timeframe. The project knowledge management approach is commendable, initiated concurrently and collaboratively with the field interventions. This is in distinct contrast to the common practice of distilling results near the end of a project, rather than integrating knowledge management into the implementation of the project.


Findings
1.

The project is benefitting from an experienced PMU, tried and tested small grant administration procedures and an extensive network of qualified partners. The organizational strength in engaging with local communities is demonstrated through the short time needed to mobilize field interventions, which were initiated very soon after the grant agreements were administered with the local partners.

The large number of partners involved strengthens the inclusivity of the project, enhances the capacity development dimension by reaching more organizations and promotes the potential for a higher number of partnerships. There are challenges, however, associated with working with a high number of partners, e.g., it is more difficult to manage inputs, transactional costs could be higher with many small grants compared with fewer grants and troubleshooting and mentoring requires more resources.

The project has recognized the need to provide technical assistance to the host organizations and local partners. And, several innovative approaches are being used on the project, including application of systems thinking to help prioritize resource allocation, targeting the root cause of the specific issue being addressed. The online, formed-based monitoring and reporting system the project has instituted is another innovative practice and a good adaptive response to the higher number of partners having varying degrees of capacities. And, efficiency gains have been realized through the use of social media, such as WhatsApp groups.

 

The landscape strategies include some broader environmental and development level objectives, but the strategies only extend through the 4-year project implementation phase. Extending the strategies across a longer timeline, consistent with a theory of change for the project, which has not yet been developed, would be advisable. And, aligning the strategies with governmental programs and plans would provide clearer guidance on potential sustainable pathways towards achieving longer-term impacts. The strategies should also adopt a more incremental approach towards achieving the intended results, recognizing the capacities of the local partners, the time required to realize behavioral or cultural change and cost constraints.


Latest Evaluations

Contact us

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