00104290 Sixth OP of the GEF SGP in Indonesia (6th SGP) GEF Terminal Evaluation

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2021-2025, Indonesia
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
04/2022
Completion Date:
03/2022
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
No
Evaluation Budget(US $):
30,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document TOR TE GEF 6th SGP.pdf tor English 577.69 KB Posted 37
Download document GEF-SGP6 Terminal Evaluation Deliverable 3 v.150322 (2).pdf report English 1366.57 KB Posted 14
Download document Notes of Meeting NSC 16 Maret 2022.pdf related-document English 945.38 KB Posted 10
Download document TE Report Clearance Form.docx.pdf related-document English 528.16 KB Posted 13
Title 00104290 Sixth OP of the GEF SGP in Indonesia (6th SGP) GEF Terminal Evaluation
Atlas Project Number: 00104290
Evaluation Plan: 2021-2025, Indonesia
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 03/2022
Planned End Date: 04/2022
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Resilience
  • 2. Sustainable
  • 3. Others
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021)
  • 1. Output 1.4.1 Solutions scaled up for sustainable management of natural resources, including sustainable commodities and green and inclusive value chains
  • 2. 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
  • Goal 14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development
  • Goal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss
SDG Target
  • 12.2 By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources
  • 14.2 By 2020, sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts, including by strengthening their resilience, and take action for their restoration in order to achieve healthy and productive oceans
  • 15.2 By 2020, promote the implementation of sustainable management of all types of forests, halt deforestation, restore degraded forests and substantially increase afforestation and reforestation globally
Evaluation Budget(US $): 30,000
Source of Funding: GEF SGP
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 30,000
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Jose Galindo International Evaluator jose@mentefactura.com ECUADOR
Mardha Tillah National Evaluator mardhat@gmail.com
GEF Evaluation: Yes
GEF Project Title: 00104290 Sixth OP of the GEF SGP in Indonesia (6th SGP)
Evaluation Type: Terminal Evaluation
Focal Area: Biodiversity
Project Type: FSP
GEF Phase: GEF-6
GEF Project ID: 00104290
PIMS Number: 5499
Key Stakeholders: Ministry of Environment and Forestry, The National Research and Innovation Agency, sub-national governments, community networks, NGOs (Yayasan Bina Usaha Lingkungan, World Research Institute (WRI) Indonesia, Yayasan Detara), private sectors (PT. Martina Bertho, Tbk)
Countries: INDONESIA
Lessons
1.
  1. Relatively small investments can make an important difference in terms of improving quality of life in rural vulnerable communities.
  2. Working through host organizations in each region allowed a more organized and strategic intervention because they played a critical role landing technologies and practices to the local context.
  3. Productive activities should have a consistent approach towards generating entrepreneurial, organizational and business capacities, not only to sell products but also to sell the knowledge acquired.

Tag: Sustainability UNDP management

Findings
1.
  1. The project is highly relevant for the country because it has an integrated approach that contributes to the different programs in the country such as land reforestation, climate change adaptation, and social forestry.
  2. The project design was weak; although it was guided by the global logical framework of SGP projects, it would be expected to be adequately articulated to the national context and policies.
  3. The adaptive management of the project is noteworthy; on the one hand, it is appreciated that the Project Management Unit (PMU) decided to follow a landscape approach to fill the gap of not having a ProDoc as a guide for its implementation. Likewise, the management of COVID-19 was adequate.
  4. The project was able to fulfil all the indicators of its two components. In some cases, it even exceeded the planned target by a significant margin. In some cases, it is important to mention, the goal was achieved thanks to cooperation with other programs such as RARE.
  5. The project contributed to the strengthening and transfer of technologies; however, the sustainability perspectives are uncertain as there are not formal institutional commitments or budgets allocated to maintain most of the projects.

Recommendations
1

Terminal Evaluation recommendation A1
The project design has been generally evaluated as weak; it was not an adequate navigation tool for SGP´s implementation. Future designs should make a greater effort in terms of characterizing intervention areas, increased understanding of the ecosystems, providing quantitative data to justify targets and interventions using gender equality perspective. Larger meaningful stakeholder consultation and effective participation during project design could bridge information gaps and improve appropriation.

2

Terminal Evaluation recommendation A2.

Failure and unsuccessful projects are perhaps more important to assess and analyze than successful ones. Key aspects behind failure and success should be analyzed to improve project preparation and selection process.

3

Terminal Evaluation recommendation B1.  

Stakeholder´s involvement plan should not only list potential actors and organizations, but it should also describe them and analyze what concrete measures and activities will be carried out to ensure their involvement and participation from the benefits derived from project intervention.  

4

Terminal Evaluation recommendation B2.

Communities and host organizations were not involved in project design. It is recommended to improve their participation, especially in setting goals and targets. 

5

Terminal Evaluation recommendation B3.

The Ministry of the Environment and Forestry could have played a greater role in project implementation, especially in terms of dissemination of lessons learned and scaling up technologies and practices implemented by communities.

6

Terminal Evaluation recommendation B4.

Involve the Ministry of Women Empowerment and Children Protection in the project design and implementation so that the project’s outputs and outcomes and the data could be used by the MoWECP and at the same time it would also sensitize the ministry of Environment to gender-based natural resources management/governance discourses. The same recommendations also apply to other relevant ministries or governmental agencies

7

Terminal Evaluation recommendation C1.

Report on project indicators should disaggregate between direct and indirect impacts derived from project intervention. There should be a clear indication about what has been achieved through GEF investments and what has been accounted as progress funded by other sources.

8

Terminal Evaluation recommendation C2.

Implementation should allocate sufficient time and facilitate dedicated spaces for PMU and host organizations to ensure a common understanding of project strategy, goals and targets. These spaces to share views and lessons learned should continue during implementation.   

9

Terminal Evaluation recommendation C3.

It is recommended that personnel or an organization is given a specific task to ensure the adoption of, or to link, the project outputs and outcomes in national level government.

10

Terminal Evaluation recommendation D1.

Add gender-based qualitative indicators to ensure the long-term changes by increasing stakeholders’ knowledge/awareness on inclusive, if not specifically mentioned as gender mainstreamed natural resources management so that it will strengthen the overall gender responsive/sensitive approach of the project. An activity to achieve this target could be in form of gender equality and social inclusion training for the community members, men and women, grantees and government officials

11

Terminal Evaluation recommendation D2.

Define indicators that qualitatively measure the changes of women and other marginalized groups, leadership in community-based landscape/seascape management. In addition to the gender-based quantitative indicators. For example, setting indicator on women or other marginalized groups’ increasing capacities to speak in public (e.g. women’s group, community’s meeting, speaking to the authorities, depending on the context), in advocating for their rights fulfilment in landscape/seascape management, or increasing positive perception of men and women in regards with women’s roles in landscape/seascape management. An example of activities to achieve this result could be exchange learning programme between community groups (women groups, youth groups, etc.) not only between the grantees

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