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:
Completion Date:
Management Response:
Evaluation Budget(US $):


Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document TOR MTR.pdf tor English 582.79 KB Posted 1210
Download document MTR Report 6th OP SGP.pdf report English 2691.84 KB Posted 1302
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
Focus Area:
  • 1. Resilience
  • 2. Others
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 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: Multifocal Areas
Project Type: FSP
GEF Phase: GEF-6
GEF Project ID: 9086
PIMS Number: 5499
Key Stakeholders: YBUL
Countries: INDONESIA

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.


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.


Ensure that project interventions and landscape strategies are aligned with governmental programs and plans, and strengthen involvement of governmental level stakeholders.


Update the landscape strategies according to a theory of change for the project, integrating global environmental benefits generated by the project and reconciling the scope and timeframe of the strategies, according to the capacities of the local partners, time required to achieve behavioral and cultural change.

A draft theory of change is included in the MTR report. The project should confirm the intermediate states envisaged in the causal pathways in achieving long-term impacts, verify the relevant impact drivers and assumptions, and reflect these aspects in updated landscape strategies.


Update the strategic approach for responding to barriers hindering implementation of low-emission development in the target landscapes (Component 2).

Based on the results of the pre-feasibility studies being carried out by the UGM university and other information gathered during the first half of the project, there is a pressing need to formulate an updated strategic approach for Component 2, secure approval by the PSC and initiate implementation, as time is of the essence.


Reconcile certain performance metrics and integrate gender mainstreaming objectives in the project results framework.

The project results framework should be adjusted according to achievable outcome level results, according to the project theory of change, reflecting the updated strategic approach to low-emission development (Component 2) and integrating the gender mainstreaming objectives. Some preliminary recommendations are included in the MTR report (see Annex 6). The GEF tracking tools should be updated according to adjustments to the project results framework; and the UNDP RTA should clear the midterm assessments of the tracking tools as part of the management response to the MTR recommendations.


Expand and strengthen stakeholder engagement associated with the biodiversity dimension of the project. In order to fulfill the community-driven conservation objectives of the project, it is important to strengthen engagement with enabling stakeholders. Each of the four landscapes are located either within or adjacent to national or provincial protected areas. For engagement with the PA management administrations and partners who are currently supporting community initiatives in these areas, it would be advisable to invite these stakeholders onto the multi-stakeholder landscape governance platforms, participate or observe in management effectiveness assessments, participate in community ranger training programs (such as the program supported by WWF for the Wakatobi marine national park), increase engagement with the cofinancing partner RARE in establishing territorial use right for fishing reserves in Wakatobi, etc.


Articulate and implement specific risk mitigation measures in response to the two issues characterized as moderate risk in the social and environmental screening at the PPG phase, namely gender equality and women’s empowerment and indigenous (local) peoples.

For example, it would be advisable to expand the gender analysis and action plan for the project, articulating how gender mainstreaming is an integral dimension of the project, not only covering issues at the activity level. A recommended mitigation measure for the indigenous peoples’ risk is to develop and implement an indigenous (local) peoples plan, that includes project-specific free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) procedures associated with collection and use of traditional knowledge


Develop an exit strategy and action plan for the project.

Using the project theory of change as guiding framework, develop an exit strategy and action plan that identifies specific actions along the causal pathways, responsible parties and partnerships and funding opportunities.


Extend technical assistance to local partners, supporting specific thematic areas.

There are capacity shortcomings across the target landscapes on addressing certain thematic areas. It would be advisable to organize technical assistance for these areas, including but not limited to the following: sustainable water management for small island ecosystems, biodiversity mainstreaming, seaweed mariculture (for example, troubleshooting the disease and lower productivity, and also addressing the project target of establishing at least two seaweed processing centers).


Develop a communication strategy that documents the communication and knowledge management approach implemented by the project.

The project is implementing an inclusive and proactive communication and knowledge management approach, but a communication strategy has not yet been developed (one of the performance metrics in the project results framework). It would be useful to document the methods being used, identify the specific gaps in knowledge, attitudes and practices that are targeted, describe how information and knowledge is being shared, etc.


Strengthen oversight support to the host organization in the Gorontalo landscape.

The host organization in the Gorontalo landscape does not have the level of experience working with the GEF-SGP as compared to the host organizations in the other three landscapes. It would be advisable to increase oversight support in Gorontalo, ensuring that the work program is consistent with the objectives of the landscape strategy.

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

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