Country Programme Mid Term Evaluation

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2011-2015, Indonesia
Evaluation Type:
Outcome
Planned End Date:
10/2014
Completion Date:
08/2014
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
35,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document 0 0 UNDP Indonesia CPAP MTR Final_report.docx report English 1675.99 KB Posted 717
Download document TOR_County _Programm_ mid Term_ERC.doc tor English 172.00 KB Posted 501
Title Country Programme Mid Term Evaluation
Atlas Project Number:
Evaluation Plan: 2011-2015, Indonesia
Evaluation Type: Outcome
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 08/2014
Planned End Date: 10/2014
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Others
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021)
  • 1. Output 1.1. National and sub-national systems and institutions enabled to achieve structural transformation of productive capacities that are sustainable and employment - and livelihoods- intensive
  • 2. Output 1.3. Solutions developed at national and sub-national levels for sustainable management of natural resources, ecosystem services, chemicals and waste
  • 3. Output 1.4. Scaled up action on climate change adaptation and mitigation across sectors which is funded and implemented
  • 4. Output 1.5. Inclusive and sustainable solutions adopted to achieve increased energy efficiency and universal modern energy access (especially off-grid sources of renewable energy)
  • 5. Output 2.1. Parliaments, constitution making bodies and electoral institutions enabled to perform core functions for improved accountability, participation and representation, including for peaceful transitions
  • 6. Output 2.2. Institutions and systems enabled to address awareness, prevention and enforcement of anti-corruption measures across sectors and stakeholders
  • 7. Output 2.3 Capacities of human rights institutions strengthened
  • 8. Output 5.1. Mechanisms in place to assess natural and man-made risks at national and sub-national levels
  • 9. Output 5.3. Gender responsive disaster and climate risk management is integrated in the development planning and budgetary frameworks of key sectors (e.g. water, agriculture, health and education)
  • 10. Output 5.4. Preparedness systems in place to effectively address the consequences of and response to natural hazards (e.g. geo-physical and climate related) and man-made crisis at all levels of government and community
  • 11. Output 6.1. From the humanitarian phase after crisis, early economic revitalization generates jobs and other environmentally sustainable livelihoods opportunities for crisis affected men and women
Evaluation Budget(US $): 35,000
Source of Funding: Country Office
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Nationality
Mike Freeman Team Leader
Hizrah Muchtar Team Member
GEF Evaluation: No
Key Stakeholders:
Countries: INDONESIA
Lessons
1.

1.       The Government of Indonesia (GOI) views UNDP as the agency with its ability to be a close, neutral and trusted partner, noting its willingness to work closely with them and directly contribute to their efforts. A successful attribute of this relationship is the ability of partners to share the work. UNDP has helped government in piloting new ideas and provided them with supports on human resources in enhancing policies and activities that supports development program implementation. UNDP has successfully filled the gap of the GOI’s limitation especially on the resources mentioned above.

2.       At higher levels, the CPAP fits well within the UNPDF, responding clearly to UNPDF Outcomes and Sub-outcomes. UNDP plays a major role in formulating the UNPDF. But we have found it more difficult to fit the UNDP CPAP to all the corresponding UNPDF Outputs, because it is not always clear which agencies are expected to undertake which elements. UNDP does have a close collegiate relationship with other UN agencies. But we have concluded from this and earlier evaluations that UN inter-agency programming is not particularly strong within the CPAP. We suspect that the competition between agencies for limited donor funding does not help. Further development of inter UN agency programming could usefully be considered for the future. We document where inter-agency links have been built in programming.

3.       At the Outcome level, 77% of Outcomes have been achieved or are showing significant or some progress towards 2015 targets. 23% are showing no change or regression. The evaluation team suggests that using an on or off track assessment for Outcome progress, just over 51% of the Outcome indicators are on track for achievement by 2015 and 20% are off track. Progress against the remaining 29% of 2015 Outcome targets is assessed as “unclear” (we are unable to draw firm conclusions). For Output level targets for 2015 we have drawn conclusions that 50% are on track for achievement by 2015 and 7% are already achieved. We consider 43% are off track for achievement by 2015 and 10% are unclear. At face value overall progress is reasonable but not particularly high. UNDP ought to be able to improve on this in the remaining period of this planning cycle. There are problems with some of the indicators that have been chosen and the way they are used. In some cases targets are over-ambitious and will simply not be achieved.

4.       Delivery rates: UNDP meets its financial delivery targets and may deliver slightly more funds than it plans. Individual unit delivery rates averaging 93% are very reasonable. But as former evaluators of projects we find it hard to obtain accurate financial data on projects, with the ATLAS system evaluator unfriendly. Nevertheless project delivery rates are probably quite good.

5.       Value for money: UNDP in Indonesia seems to get good value for money in comparison to delivery utilising for instance market mechanisms although we can offer no numerical exactness for this conclusion. Local costs are generally modest although UNDP is finding that delivery at local level in some remote areas is considerably more expensive.

6.       NIM and DIM: The National Implementation Modality (NIM) is efficient and very much aids ownership by government agencies. We understand that Direct Implementation is occasionally used under a specific set of guidelines but we cannot comment on whether this is any more of less efficiency than NIM. UNDP has used letters of agreement in the past and these have been relatively efficient in establishing funding channels. Due to regulation changes they will not be able to be used in the future. Methods have been trialled in at least 4 projects to channel funds to the regions through Ministry of Home Affairs systems. They are not easy to establish and this will be a challenge for the future.

7.       Other efficiency issues: UNDP should note that donors would like better reporting on projects. We suggest that if UNDP were to invest in clarity in its reporting, to improve the tangibility of what it does by marketing its products and enhancing clarity in understanding of exactly what the agency does, this would bring dividends. Project inception delays are quite common most often due to late negotiation or arrival of funding. Project extensions are common on either cost or no-cost bases. From an external perspective this is not a mark of efficiency. Project under-funding is becoming an increasingly serious challenge and has been noted by UNDP and GOI. Project lay-offs have occurred in the past and are disruptive to and a stress on human resources.

8.       Sustainability.

·       Poverty reduction and MDGs: We particularly see the links between poverty reduction and provincial governance work as being useful for the future. UNDP can have a major role to play with Bappenas in rolling out pro-poor planning, budgeting and monitoring in the remainder of this CPAP period and the next. There is a challenge to link this work into developing minimum service standards for district level use. We do not at this stage see a high level of sustainability in the approaches UNDP has made to local economic development, either in the poverty or provincial governance Outcomes, but approaches for the future might benefit from analysis of lessons to date. Challenges will emerge in this Outcome area from the new sustainable development goals. UNDP should be in a good position to work in this area but should note that to date links between MDG work and other parts of the portfolio have not been particularly strong. It might be better in the future to define MDGs (or whatever replaces them) as the core of CPAP, to which all programme Outcome area contribute. This could logically include aid effectiveness.

·       Natural resource management: With extensive successes in watershed management during this cycle we are a little unsure what the next stage of work for UNDP will be. However further work on developing private public partnerships would be logical. UNDP’s work on marine and coastal ecosystems probably may have a fair way to go to demonstrate sustainability in the Indonesian context. This may see challenges in extending work from the Arafura and Timor Seas to wider Indonesian application. National plans and strategies for the control of persistent organic pollutants are in place and are being refined and we suggest that this brings its own level of sustainability (they are unlikely to be reversed). Embedding action on POPs within a range of ministries will be a continuing challenge.

·       Renewable energy and energy efficiency: This Outcome has adequately demonstrated contributions from technology demonstration and transfer, which is a bottom up approach, rather unusual within the UNDP paradigm of working at the national level on the regulatory framework and then extending this to provinces and districts through a process of facilitated support. But we acknowledge that top-down challenges such as market transformation and feed-in tariffs for renewal energy remain. Ultimately if significant energy efficiency gains are to be made and contributions made to response to climate change challenges, renewable and energy efficient sources will need to be widely used.  UNDP now needs to evaluate results and recommend for scale up and replication as well as to continue to advocate for change.

·       Climate change: There is likely a considerable challenge in the future to fully embed climate change institutional and financial arrangements in Indonesia (i.e. to ensure that they are sustainable). The evaluators assume that UNDP will still be playing a significant role in this into the next CPAP period.

·       Public representation and participation: The Indonesia Democracy Index initiative has been very successfully introduced and nurtured. It has a very high likelihood of being sustained in the future providing GOI funding for data collection, analysis and publication is ensured in future years. Inroads are being made to help sub-national governments both contribute to and benefit from the IDI process. This speaks of increasing sustainability. Networks of this nature obviously need to survive changes in membership and helping to add structure and process could help. The aim to assist networks to fulfil a greater role in policy formulation will not now happen in this CPAP cycle but should be an ambition in the next cycle with the target of the 2019 elections in mind. Work on civic education may show progress by 2015 and could be a useful CPAP element in the future.

·       Provincial governance: Replication of gains made in provincial governance in the work that UNDP has supported is very much on the national agenda and it is hoped that this will appear in the next RPJMN. There is considerable potential for follow-up work for UNDP in such a programme.

·       Access to Justice: UNDP work here is on track to assist GOI in completing one cycle of strategy development, implementation and evaluation by 2015 with a good prospect for further refinement of the strategy. This in itself demonstrates ownership by GOI and an inbuilt sustainability of what has already been achievedThere is a challenge to support replication of legal aid, public complaints and formal-informal justice linkages in the future. This will also link with the roll-out of the Provincial Government Assessment methodology for REDD+. This will likely be a major area of work for UNDP in the future and demonstrates considerable potential in cross-outcome cooperation.

·       Conflict prevention and management: Evaluators view that work under this Outcome at the national level is likely to bring benefits for many years to come, but UNDP needs to secure long-term funding to continue as an actor in this sector. UNDP should not consider exiting from this area during the next CPAP cycle. There is plenty left for UNDP and its partners to do, particularly at the sub-national level.

·       Disaster recovery: There is a considerable in-built momentum for sustainability of the results under this Outcome, particularly at the national level. This is likely to bring benefits for many years to come. The integration of conflict and disaster needs assessments methods has also been mooted.

·       Disaster risk reduction: DRR work at the national level is a proven strength of UNDP. Despite a slow start for SC-DRR II progress at the national level has been good with work on regulations and guidelines. It is quite clear that the major challenge is actually to make communities more resilient to disaster.


Findings
1.

 UNDP’s response to Indonesia’s Context

·       UNDP’s programme has been planned to respond directly to six of Indonesia’s eleven priorities:  bureaucracy & administrative reform;

health; poverty reduction, energy, environmental and disaster management; and disadvantaged, remote and post-conflict regions.  At this higher level of the programme, the CPAP is highly relevant and closely aligned to development needs as articulated by GOI. UNDP’s positioning of its programme within the Government of Indonesia’s priorities for this planning cycle has been exemplary and is probably the agency’s greatest strength.

·       With the UNDP’s vision at headquarters level as articulated in the Strategic Plan for 2014 to 2017 to simultaneously eradicate poverty and significantly reduce inequalities and UNDP’s Country Programme in Indonesia is well placed. The CPAP directly aligns to seven of Indonesia’s current development priorities, all of which are geared to the vulnerable and the poor. Resulting activities articulate poverty reduction and equality quite well. UNDP’s programme in Indonesia is also rights based and that human rights values also underpin the programme’s work. While human rights are not specifically addressed in most outcome areas in the CPAP, the exception being Access to Justice, they are clearly reflected, particularly (but not exclusively) in the areas of poverty reduction and democratic governance. The current CPAP also links very well to UNDP values of national ownership and capacity; we see these values are ingrained in much of the programme.

·       The Country Programme could usefully increase its relevance to delivery of basic services, as articulated as outcomes in the Strategic Plan. UNDP in Indonesia is not yet fully reaching the service delivery interface. There is evidence of significant gains in service delivery in the conflict prevention and disaster recovery areas, and some in poverty reduction and justice but there is still a way to go in other Outcome areas. From this evaluation and in previous ones has also shown that UNDP could mainstream gender more comprehensively within its programme.

·       While the CPAP is not in itself a “theory of change” (it is an action plan), we have found it difficult to see a clear theory of change at the CPD level. Our interpretation is that UNDP Outputs are intended to contribute to Indonesia’s outcomes, which are expressed at the higher levels of the CPAP. We would therefore expect to see strong logical links between Outputs and Outcomes in the CPAP results framework. This is not always the case. While we do think that the individual Outcomes mostly show clear logic, not all Outputs within them necessarily demonstrate a sense of “sufficiency” to meet Outcomes. 

 

UNDP’s results

·       UNDP broadly plays three major roles: building institutions and capacity; developing policies, strategies and regulations; and developing and trialling systems, tools and methods. It also acts a trustee/trust fund manager on behalf of GOI in some instances.

·       Building institutions and capacity: In implementing its priorities, Indonesia sometimes needs to establish new national institutions. In particular, UNDP has helped Indonesia’s efforts on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) in supporting the establishment of the National REDD+ Agency and the Indonesia Climate Change Trust Fund (ICCTF). UNDP has also worked effectively on capacity building support over a long period with the National Disaster Management Agency (BNPB). It has helped GOI to establish the National Coordinating Team for South-South and Triangular Cooperation.

·       Developing policies, strategies and regulations: Across the portfolio, UNDP has been instrumental in the development of national government policies, strategies and regulations. In some cases this is the result of long-term investments that are now coming to fruition. Prominent here is UNDP’s work with Bappenas in decentralisation, the MDGs, national law reform and climate change. We document a considerable number of Ministries that have benefitted from UNDP support in developing policies, strategies and regulations.

·       Developing and trialling systems, tools and methods: UNDP is effective and has considerable expertise and experience in helping the national government to develop, trial and implement tools, most of which are aimed for use by sub-national governments. We document many of these and while these clearly belong to national and sub-national governments, we suggest that UNDP might consider these as highly visible products of its work and market them as products, and perhaps assist Indonesia also use them internationally through South-South cooperation programs).

·       The following summarises our findings from evaluation by Outcome:

·       Poverty reduction and MDGs: UNDP is offering special assistance to Indonesia to accelerate the MDGs. The National MDG report for 2013 is in the pipeline and these annual reports are of very good quality. This is core business for UNDP and the agency is effective here. The extent of development of local livelihood strategies is still unclear. Work on social protection is now commencing. The establishment of an MDG HD Public Policy Centre has not gone ahead. Work on aid effectiveness needs more push but UNDP is now easing back into this area and there are early signs of progress. This is a major role area for UNDP; it is cross-cutting in nature and could be a separate outcome area in the future which could link with work on MDGs or their successors.

·       Natural resources management: Much progress has been made in watershed management, with an impressive and growing number of watersheds with local institutional and community infrastructure. There is still more to be done to develop public/private/community partnership mechanisms for the management of forests and watersheds. Work on coastal and marine data looks to be well on track and is translating into national (and international) strategies. The evaluation team has been unable to assess how far work in developing and implementing a national plan for the Arafura and Timor Seas will go by 2015. Work on developing strategies and guidelines for reducing persistent organic pollutants has gone well and is largely on track. This is a multi-ministry effort and there is a range of actors in this area. UNDP is not yet in a position to greatly influence timing and further work in the next CPAP period will probably be needed.

·       Energy efficiency and renewable energy: Here we see a modest and well-designed investment. This is a vibrant effort that is operating somewhat outside of UNDP’s more usual paradigm of working with the national government to develop policies and tools. It is largely approaching its task from the bottom up, persuading government, the private sector and we hope communities that energy alternatives are viable. This links with the work under the poverty and MDGs Outcome on corporate social responsibility and public private partnerships.  UNDP is assisting the national government to put into place strategies for renewable energy and energy efficiency. More work remains to be done.

·       Climate change: UNDP has undertaken a lot of very effective work in climate change during the current CPAP period. We view its work on helping GOI to establish a REDD+ agency as having been a UNDP flagship activity. Extensive investment over a number of years is bringing significant benefits. UNDP’s work on supporting the development of climate change funding mechanisms is also a flagship activity, with nationally owned funding mechanisms now developed and being rolled out. UNDP has also contributed to Indonesia’s almost certain achievement of current targets for the reduction of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFC) under the Montreal Protocol. Significant work has also been undertaken to pilot climate change adaptation associated with disaster risk reduction at decentralised level.

·       Public representation and participation: UNDP’s programme in this area has shown mixed degrees of progress. But the Indonesian Democracy Index (IDI) is a major highlight of UNDP’s programme. The point is not that Indonesia’s score is dropping (which it unfortunately is) but that the Nation now has a very useful yardstick against which to self-measure its progress in democracy. But work in areas such as civic education, women’s participation and the development of a facility for “consolidation of democracy” has been somewhat slow and hampered by lack of funding.

·       Provincial governance and decentralisation: UNDP is able to offer significant contributions in this area. Significant support has been provided for reform of Indonesia’s decentralisation framework and work has gone ahead to develop approaches to minimum service standards. Much more work will be needed in the future to make inroads on delivery of services at the district level (where the bulk of services are delivered). Bureaucracy reform has been supported in pilot provinces including the development of road maps and the trialling of pro-poor planning and budgeting. Some progress is being made in merit based systems for appointments and promotions, human resources and remuneration. While it is not captured in the CPAP framework, we note significant contributions in governance support in Aceh, use of new funding mechanisms for UNDP support and development and application of sound methods to ensure asset transfer in post-disaster recovery circumstances. Some useful work has been done on provincial and district aid management. Work on South-south cooperation at the subnational level did not come to fruition.

·       Access to justice: Very useful and effective work has been done on helping the national government to develop and extend frameworks for legal aid and public complaint procedures and in bringing together local customary justice systems and the formal justice system. UNDP has also supported the Secretariat for Access to Justice to get other national agencies to adopt aspects of the national strategy. UNDP has played a very useful role in helping to establish a strategy for access to justice which is an agenda for major reform. There has also been useful work on a participatory governance assessment methodology for REDD+ which has been trialled and which links to climate change and conflict prevention. This is one of UNDP’s most cross-program aligned initiatives and this is important.

·       Conflict prevention and recovery: Work in this area shows a clear progression and consistent support since at least 2002 and therefore over three consecutive UNDP programme periods and has been very effective in moving towards national outcomes in this area. If current funding constraints and regulatory bottlenecks can be overcome, consolidation and extension by UNDP and its national government partners of sub-national gains can be effectively achieved. A decade after commencing this work, UNDP is now taking a major national role in building long-term policies and systems for peace. This is a good example of maturation of a long-term support strategy by UNDP and is another “flagship”. Further work in the next CPAP cycle to fully embed results at sub-national level is called for.

·       Post crisis recovery: The national government is largely able to handle most recovery needs without outside assistance. Significant trialling of methodologies has already been undertaken in the regions and the National Disaster Management Agency (BNPB) should be able to carry results forward. However, funding is shortly to cease and UNDP will need to think what it should carry forward and how. The post-disaster assessment and monitoring methodologies are primed for replication around the country (a UNDP agenda internationally). This will likely be a challenge for the next CPAP cycle.

·       Disaster risk reduction: UNDP has helped BNPB over two CPAP periods in a number of major DRR initiatives. This has included work on the National Disaster Management Plan (2010 -2014) which includes disaster risk reduction. Now the government is reporting that all 33 provinces have disaster management plans based on risk assessment, which is a significant achievement. However, it is not clear from current data how many provinces are actually implementing DRR elements of their plans. UNDP has played a central role in national DRR planning processes in a very useful three-way relationship between BNPB, Bappenas and UNDP. There have been useful links with other agencies, such as the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Environment as well as other UN agencies. Unfortunately, almost none of these achievements are reported in the CPAP framework for this Output as its indicators and targets are entirely geared towards results at sub-national level. Funding is not currently available for sub-national activities.


Recommendations
1 1. Maintain the fundamental vision of poverty eradication: This is the fundamental for all of UNDP?s contributions and is core to GOI?s own development vision. This will not change and partners should ensure it stays at the top level of programme thinking.
2 2. Maintain the portfolio: At CPAP level maintain the four pillar portfolio of poverty, environment, democratic governance and crisis prevention and recovery, but seek as appropriate to refine outcomes and outputs as per suggestions from this evaluation process.
3 3. Ensure sound dialogue in 2014: 2014 is a vital year for UNDP and its GOI partners, particularly Bappenas to ensure that full advantage is taken of the golden opportunity to ensure that UNDP?s contribution to the RPJMN 2015 -2019 is as closely aligned as possible.
4 4. Follow the SDG process: As sustainable development goals are firmed up in the lead-in to the post-2015 period, ensure that SDGs are fully reflected in the design for the next CPAP period.
5 5. Inter-agency and inter-unit synergies: UNDP should seek to build on its good relations with other UN agencies to significantly enhance inter-agency programming and synergies. It should also attempt to do this internally by building better programme linkages between units. This would benefit from analysis of potential links between projects and programmes and someone should be assigned to do this.
6 6. Improve sufficiency between outputs and outcomes: the notion of sufficiency is a useful tool for analysing CPAP design and UNDP should seek to improve sufficiency between Outcomes and their subsidiary Outputs.
7 7. CPAP Strategies for the future: UNDP should consider a more explicit underpinning of MDGs (or SDGs) for the next CPAP with a view to clearer definition of poverty reduction, either as an underpinning for the whole program or as a separate Outcome area. UNDP should consider raising aid effectiveness to an Outcome status.
8 8. Develop a ?product? outlook: UNDP and GOI have worked very closely to develop a large number of tools, methods and systems which together form a product base, which they can together offer to donors and other GOI agencies (and possibly internationally through South-South cooperation programs). UNDP should lead the process of consolidating this product base, seeking 1) synergies in product use between programme elements and 2) adaptations of tools for new purposes.
9 9. Improve reporting: UNDP should be mindful of the need to more accurately report, particularly to donors, taking care to differentiate what UNDP has done and what others have done. This and the ?product? approach would greatly enhance tangibility of what UNDP does, particularly in areas high in government process.
10 10. More emphasis on sub-national work: Work with long-term national government partners to extend tried and tested approaches and products to sub-national levels, wherever possible leveraging national funding for replication purposes. Seek as much as possible to involve districts and municipalities in extension efforts. Fully utilise pro-poor planning to link with service delivery. Note that it may be possible to leverage GOI funding to enhance UNDP?s work at the sub-national level.
11 11. Build more bottom-up approaches: recognising that UNDP can use, in some cases is using and has used bottom-up approaches, further develop on a pilot basis a small number of initiatives that work from the local level back to the centre and which can utilise tried and tested products (tools and methods). Become more demand oriented and thus link communities with proven contributions on the supply side and in doing so link with communities. Consider for disaster recovery a quick response team approach adapted perhaps from the UNDP SURGE system. Seek to gain more experience of real-life development.
12 12. Rationalise indicators: UNDP should seriously examine the indicators it uses for the next CPAP period, largely, but not exclusively at the Output level. It should consider, within its framework of cooperation with GOI, which is understood to drive choice of indicators: a) having fewer Output indicators (one per Output would be ideal); b) avoiding complex indicators that can show conflicting trends; c) ensuring before they are used that indicators can be measured; d) ensuring that targets directly inform indicators; e) avoiding aspirational indicators that cannot be met; f) ensuring that where national and sub-national activities are planned that indicators are developed for both levels; and g) in addition to simple numerical indicators utilise where possible qualitative indicators that provide a ?story?. These measures would contribute to a better demonstrated programme;
13 13. Develop sustainability and exit strategies: Particularly at the design stage develop sustainability strategy and associated exit strategies that clearly define at what stage external support is no longer needed. Implicit in this is how to determine when such sustainability targets have been met.
14 14. Gender strategies and mainstreaming: In order to ensure that UNDP strategic goals on gender are targeted, place much higher emphasis at design and early implementation of gender mainstreaming strategies.
15 15. Outcome recommendations: The following are Outcome level recommendations and are essentially challenges and opportunities for UNDP if it is to continue in the Outcome areas in which it is already working: ? Poverty: develop more sustainable approaches to local economic development; coherently link poverty reduction initiatives through CPAP outputs with a clear Outcome; develop private public partnerships within the framework of locally managed watersheds; recapture the momentum on aid effectiveness perhaps by raising it to Outcome status; ? Natural resources management: add to sustainability of coastal and marine ecosystems management frameworks; embed action on persistent organic pollutants within a wider range of ministries; ? Renewable energy/energy efficiency: consolidate gains on RE/EE through replication of technologies that have been demonstrated as viable and strengthening of market mechanisms and tariffs through advocacy; ? Climate change: improve ways of measuring change in this challenging area (M&E) to help fully embed gains already made; ? Public representation and participation: consolidate and further develop initiatives for women in decision making and parliaments; develop systems and institutions for civic education; ? Provincial governance: roll-out of pro-poor planning, budgeting and monitoring systems and better focus on minimum service standards at district level; follow-through on provincial bureaucracy reform measures and focus on public service standards; ? Access to justice: consolidate legal aid, particularly by focus on improving delivery rates of available funding; consolidate pubic complaints mechanisms (roll out); consolidate results from customary law work again with view to replication. Replicate work on the Participatory Governance Assessment; ? Conflict prevention and peace building: Extend the comprehensive framework for conflict prevention and peace building to all sub-national governments; seek ways of involving more national level stakeholders; ? Disaster recovery: Continued roll-out of disaster recovery framework sub-nationally; Development of SURGE capacity; integration of conflict and disaster needs assessment methodologies; roll-out/replicate the village information system; ? Disaster risk reduction: make communities more resilient to disaster; improve measures of success in this field (for the sector and for the CPAP) including in conjunction with MOHA on data collection; work from the bottom up as well as the top down.
1. Recommendation: 1. Maintain the fundamental vision of poverty eradication: This is the fundamental for all of UNDP?s contributions and is core to GOI?s own development vision. This will not change and partners should ensure it stays at the top level of programme thinking.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/18] [Last Updated: 2014/12/18]

Yes, poverty erradication will be included in Outcome 2 of the new CPD

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
We are now formulating the CPD
[Added: 2014/12/18] [Last Updated: 2018/11/07]
PMEU 2015/02 Completed CPD approved by the Executive board. History
2. Recommendation: 2. Maintain the portfolio: At CPAP level maintain the four pillar portfolio of poverty, environment, democratic governance and crisis prevention and recovery, but seek as appropriate to refine outcomes and outputs as per suggestions from this evaluation process.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/18] [Last Updated: 2015/01/04]

Agree. We will maintain the four pillar portofolio of poverty, environment, democratic governance and crisis prevention.Outcome will be alligned with the UNPDF.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
We are now formulating the CPD
[Added: 2015/01/04] [Last Updated: 2019/06/23]
PMEU 2015/02 Completed The formulation was conducted and use recommendation given History
We are now formulating the CPD
[Added: 2019/06/15]
PMEU 2015/02 Canceled
3. Recommendation: 3. Ensure sound dialogue in 2014: 2014 is a vital year for UNDP and its GOI partners, particularly Bappenas to ensure that full advantage is taken of the golden opportunity to ensure that UNDP?s contribution to the RPJMN 2015 -2019 is as closely aligned as possible.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/18]

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Engagement in the process of dialog for RPJM 2015-2019
[Added: 2019/06/20]
UNDP CO Indonesia 2015/02 Completed The UNDP Program designed to align with RPJMN 2015-2019
4. Recommendation: 4. Follow the SDG process: As sustainable development goals are firmed up in the lead-in to the post-2015 period, ensure that SDGs are fully reflected in the design for the next CPAP period.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/18]

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
We are now formulating the CPD where SDGs is part of its analysis
[Added: 2019/06/20]
UNDP CO Indonesia 2015/02 Completed SDGs is integrated across programmatic analysis in CPD, and it reflects on programmatic targets History
5. Recommendation: 5. Inter-agency and inter-unit synergies: UNDP should seek to build on its good relations with other UN agencies to significantly enhance inter-agency programming and synergies. It should also attempt to do this internally by building better programme linkages between units. This would benefit from analysis of potential links between projects and programmes and someone should be assigned to do this.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/18]

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Analysis on the opportunities of building synergies with inter agencies and inter unit, and documenting strategies in the new CPD
[Added: 2019/06/20]
UNDP CO Indonesia 2015/02 Completed The analysis conducted and its recommendation adopted in dCPD
6. Recommendation: 6. Improve sufficiency between outputs and outcomes: the notion of sufficiency is a useful tool for analysing CPAP design and UNDP should seek to improve sufficiency between Outcomes and their subsidiary Outputs.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/18]

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Analyzing the link of the new outcome and outputs to produce the logic framework for next programming in the new CPD
[Added: 2019/06/20]
UNDP CO Indonesia 2015/02 Completed The result from analysis adopted in CPD
7. Recommendation: 7. CPAP Strategies for the future: UNDP should consider a more explicit underpinning of MDGs (or SDGs) for the next CPAP with a view to clearer definition of poverty reduction, either as an underpinning for the whole program or as a separate Outcome area. UNDP should consider raising aid effectiveness to an Outcome status.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/18]

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
We are now formulating the CPD
[Added: 2019/06/20]
UNDP CO Indonesia 2015/02 Completed SDGs are integrated in programmatic analysis and target
8. Recommendation: 8. Develop a ?product? outlook: UNDP and GOI have worked very closely to develop a large number of tools, methods and systems which together form a product base, which they can together offer to donors and other GOI agencies (and possibly internationally through South-South cooperation programs). UNDP should lead the process of consolidating this product base, seeking 1) synergies in product use between programme elements and 2) adaptations of tools for new purposes.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/18]

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Designing strategy to accommodate UNDP and GOI in working closely to develop number of tools, system , relevant products and its publication
[Added: 2019/06/20] [Last Updated: 2019/06/23]
UNDP CO Indonesia 2015/02 Completed The strategy has been accommodated History
9. Recommendation: 9. Improve reporting: UNDP should be mindful of the need to more accurately report, particularly to donors, taking care to differentiate what UNDP has done and what others have done. This and the ?product? approach would greatly enhance tangibility of what UNDP does, particularly in areas high in government process.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/18]

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The reporting mechanism will be developed in regular basis. UNDP CO will ensure all donor report will meet the donor requirement and standard
[Added: 2019/06/20] [Last Updated: 2019/08/06]
UNDP CO Indonesia 2015/02 Completed reporting mechanism developed in quarterly basis and annually. It measures progress and achievement updates of projects. History
10. Recommendation: 10. More emphasis on sub-national work: Work with long-term national government partners to extend tried and tested approaches and products to sub-national levels, wherever possible leveraging national funding for replication purposes. Seek as much as possible to involve districts and municipalities in extension efforts. Fully utilise pro-poor planning to link with service delivery. Note that it may be possible to leverage GOI funding to enhance UNDP?s work at the sub-national level.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/18]

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Emphasis on subnational works and long term national government partners will be included in the document of new CPD
[Added: 2019/06/20]
UNDP CO Indonesia 2015/02 Completed Opportunities for working at sub national and national works were identified in CPD, including identification on risk and recommendation of actions
11. Recommendation: 11. Build more bottom-up approaches: recognising that UNDP can use, in some cases is using and has used bottom-up approaches, further develop on a pilot basis a small number of initiatives that work from the local level back to the centre and which can utilise tried and tested products (tools and methods). Become more demand oriented and thus link communities with proven contributions on the supply side and in doing so link with communities. Consider for disaster recovery a quick response team approach adapted perhaps from the UNDP SURGE system. Seek to gain more experience of real-life development.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/18]

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
In the formulation of new CDP documents, outputs will be designed to elaborate opportunities for new pilot approached on small initiatives.
[Added: 2019/06/20] [Last Updated: 2019/08/08]
UNDP CO Indonesia 2015/02 Completed Some pilot approaches have been defined in new CPD document History
12. Recommendation: 12. Rationalise indicators: UNDP should seriously examine the indicators it uses for the next CPAP period, largely, but not exclusively at the Output level. It should consider, within its framework of cooperation with GOI, which is understood to drive choice of indicators: a) having fewer Output indicators (one per Output would be ideal); b) avoiding complex indicators that can show conflicting trends; c) ensuring before they are used that indicators can be measured; d) ensuring that targets directly inform indicators; e) avoiding aspirational indicators that cannot be met; f) ensuring that where national and sub-national activities are planned that indicators are developed for both levels; and g) in addition to simple numerical indicators utilise where possible qualitative indicators that provide a ?story?. These measures would contribute to a better demonstrated programme;
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/18]

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Analysis on the result based management on efficient and effective result will be conducted in the process of formulating the new CPD
[Added: 2019/06/20]
UNDP CO Indonesia 2015/02 Completed analysis RBM was well adopted in the process of formulating CPD
13. Recommendation: 13. Develop sustainability and exit strategies: Particularly at the design stage develop sustainability strategy and associated exit strategies that clearly define at what stage external support is no longer needed. Implicit in this is how to determine when such sustainability targets have been met.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/18]

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
We are now in the process of formulating the new CPD
[Added: 2019/06/20]
UNDP CO Indonesia 2015/02 Completed Exit strategy and sustainability phase is analysed.
14. Recommendation: 14. Gender strategies and mainstreaming: In order to ensure that UNDP strategic goals on gender are targeted, place much higher emphasis at design and early implementation of gender mainstreaming strategies.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/18]

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
We are now in the process of formulating the new CPD where Gender strategies is mainstream in programmatic analysis
[Added: 2019/06/20]
UNDP CO INdonesia 2016/02 Completed Gender strategy and inclusive approach is adopted,
15. Recommendation: 15. Outcome recommendations: The following are Outcome level recommendations and are essentially challenges and opportunities for UNDP if it is to continue in the Outcome areas in which it is already working: ? Poverty: develop more sustainable approaches to local economic development; coherently link poverty reduction initiatives through CPAP outputs with a clear Outcome; develop private public partnerships within the framework of locally managed watersheds; recapture the momentum on aid effectiveness perhaps by raising it to Outcome status; ? Natural resources management: add to sustainability of coastal and marine ecosystems management frameworks; embed action on persistent organic pollutants within a wider range of ministries; ? Renewable energy/energy efficiency: consolidate gains on RE/EE through replication of technologies that have been demonstrated as viable and strengthening of market mechanisms and tariffs through advocacy; ? Climate change: improve ways of measuring change in this challenging area (M&E) to help fully embed gains already made; ? Public representation and participation: consolidate and further develop initiatives for women in decision making and parliaments; develop systems and institutions for civic education; ? Provincial governance: roll-out of pro-poor planning, budgeting and monitoring systems and better focus on minimum service standards at district level; follow-through on provincial bureaucracy reform measures and focus on public service standards; ? Access to justice: consolidate legal aid, particularly by focus on improving delivery rates of available funding; consolidate pubic complaints mechanisms (roll out); consolidate results from customary law work again with view to replication. Replicate work on the Participatory Governance Assessment; ? Conflict prevention and peace building: Extend the comprehensive framework for conflict prevention and peace building to all sub-national governments; seek ways of involving more national level stakeholders; ? Disaster recovery: Continued roll-out of disaster recovery framework sub-nationally; Development of SURGE capacity; integration of conflict and disaster needs assessment methodologies; roll-out/replicate the village information system; ? Disaster risk reduction: make communities more resilient to disaster; improve measures of success in this field (for the sector and for the CPAP) including in conjunction with MOHA on data collection; work from the bottom up as well as the top down.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/18]

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
We are now in the process of formulating the new CPD where outcome recommendation will be considered
[Added: 2019/06/20]
UNDP CO Indonesia 2015/02 Completed Outcome recommendation was adopted in CPD

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