Aceh Governance Transitional Porgramme (AGTP)

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2011-2015, Indonesia
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
06/2012
Completion Date:
07/2012
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
15,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document 4_TOR Int- Const AGTP Evaluation PMEU_4May.doc tor English 142.00 KB Posted 674
Download document AGTP Final Draft_uplooad to ERC.pdf report English 1478.60 KB Posted 1404
Download document AGTP Final report_uplooad to ERC.pdf report English 1276.16 KB Posted 984
Title Aceh Governance Transitional Porgramme (AGTP)
Atlas Project Number:
Evaluation Plan: 2011-2015, Indonesia
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 07/2012
Planned End Date: 06/2012
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Democratic Governance
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021)
  • 1. National, regional and local levels of governance expand their capacities to reduce conflict and manage the equitable delivery of public services
Evaluation Budget(US $): 15,000
Source of Funding: AGTP Project
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Nationality
Mike Freeman and Hizrah Muchtar Team Leader
Mike Freeman Team Leader
Hizrah Muchtar Team Member
GEF Evaluation: No
Key Stakeholders: Bappenas, Min of Home Affair, Government of Aceh
Countries: INDONESIA
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1 Recommendation 1. UNDP should continue to focus on bureaucratic reform in Aceh, perhaps in line with longer term goals for livelihoods, economic opportunity and environment. Specific work on the district/province split in service delivery would be appropriate.
2 Recommendation 2. Bureaucratic reform in Aceh would benefit from a longer-term approach. Also, discontinuity in funding should as much as possible be avoided.
3 Recommendation 3. Aceh's own capacity to fund bureaucratic reform is not insubstantial. UNDP and GOI should attempt to harmonize their funding contributions with those of Aceh.
4 Recommendation 4. UNDP should support further capacity developments in Aceh on a very focused basis, continuing where appropriate with agencies it has already supported, and developing support for other agencies on a very selected, focused basis.
5 Recommendation 5. The gains made through the CDNA process supported by AGTP need to be consolidated through support to the agencies concerned to develop and implement practical capacity development activities. This requires detailed design of these activities.
6 Recommendation 6. UNDP and the GOI, particularly MoHA and Ministry of Finance, should not give up the DIPA mechanism but should seek ways of streamlining it.
7 Recommendation 7. More consistency is required for gender mainstreaming in the future, and this should be seen in the light of opportunities presented by the migas money to continue to strengthen health and education services with a greater emphasis on gender mainstreaming (i.e. opportunity and empowerment)
8 Recommendation 8. UNDP and GOI should not assume that the gains made through AGTP Output 1 will automatically be retained in the future particularly with the new political environment in Aceh. For this reason, UNDP and GOI should consider further support for leadership and decision making in the future if this is requested by Aceh
9 The evaluation team questions why both the design framework and the programme indicators have changed or have needed to change, such as changes on the development objective, the statements for outputs 1 and 2, and shifts in the indicators used for measuring progress in AGTP, and reference to gender.
10 AGTP, in aiming for Output 2, at times appears ad hoc in its response, in that it has been hard for those outside the day-to-day administration of the program (including funders) to track the wide range of agencies that have received support from AGTP and the frequent additions and/or changes to program activities that have resulted.
1. Recommendation: Recommendation 1. UNDP should continue to focus on bureaucratic reform in Aceh, perhaps in line with longer term goals for livelihoods, economic opportunity and environment. Specific work on the district/province split in service delivery would be appropriate.
Management Response: [Added: 2012/12/13] [Last Updated: 2012/12/17]

This recommendation is a good idea and UNDP will be developing a new initiative on bureaucracy reform. This new initiative is based on UNDP?s experiences from various projects, including AGTP. The initiative will take the district/province split into consideration in its design. UNDP is also considering including Aceh within the scope of an ongoing national initiative on bureacracy reform.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
1. Conduct situational analysis for new initiative 2. Stakeholder consultations 3. Conduct donor mapping and consultation 4. Prepare a concept note on Bureaucracy Reform
[Added: 2012/12/17]
DGPRU 2013/03 Overdue-Initiated 1. Consultations with Aceh?s Provincial Secretary and the incumbent govenor?s Vision & Mision team have been conducted. 2. Programme framework on Aceh Forward is being drafted that covers project concept notes on bureaucracy reform, investment for development, conflict prevention and land redistribution, and local economic development. 3. The finalisation of a bureaucracy reform roadmap is now being carried out by another project in the decentralization cluster, implementing a similar initiative in different regions..
2. Recommendation: Recommendation 2. Bureaucratic reform in Aceh would benefit from a longer-term approach. Also, discontinuity in funding should as much as possible be avoided.
Management Response: [Added: 2012/12/13] [Last Updated: 2012/12/17]

We fully agree with the recommendation. UNDP is committed to continue working in Aceh with a focus on bureaucracy reform and capacity development. UNDP is currently lobbying potential development partner(s) to collaborate on future projects in Aceh. UNDP can work closely with the GoA to design an appropriate programme on bureacracy reform, that might include piloting in one district. While UNDP recognizes that bureacracy reform takes place over time and ideally requires long-term donor support, it should also be noted that within the current donor context, it may be difficult to secure funds for longer-term periods.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
1. Conduct situational analysis 2. Stakeholder consultations 3. Conduct donor mapping and consultation 4. Ensure bureacracy reform is a priority in the Mid-term Development plans (RPJM Aceh 2012-2017). 5. Map out actors in bureacracy reform (due to the range/ number of actors and institutions working on similair issues).
[Added: 2012/12/17]
DGPRU 2013/12 Overdue-Initiated This relates to actions that will be undertaken to respond to recommendation number 1.
3. Recommendation: Recommendation 3. Aceh's own capacity to fund bureaucratic reform is not insubstantial. UNDP and GOI should attempt to harmonize their funding contributions with those of Aceh.
Management Response: [Added: 2012/12/13] [Last Updated: 2012/12/17]

This recommendation makes a good sense. Intensive consultations with national and local government partners as well ,as with other development partners, are undertaken across UNDP?s intiaitves to maximize the effectiveness of its development assistance. Aceh?s Biro Organisasi dan Tata Laksana (Organizational and Administrative Bureau), with support from UNDP, is trying to secure funds from the provincial budget (APBA) in 2013 for bureaucracy reform. UNDP facilitated a meeting between BKPP and the Ministry of Administrative Reform and Bureaucratic Reform (PAN Kemeneg) to lobby for the allocation of funds for bureacracy refrom in Aceh.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
1. Conduct situational analysis 2. Stakeholder consultation 3. Conduct donor mapping and consultation 4. Ensure funds are being allocated in APBA and APBN.
[Added: 2012/12/17]
2013/03 Overdue-Initiated This relates to actions that will be undertaken to respond to recommendation number 1.
4. Recommendation: Recommendation 4. UNDP should support further capacity developments in Aceh on a very focused basis, continuing where appropriate with agencies it has already supported, and developing support for other agencies on a very selected, focused basis.
Management Response: [Added: 2012/12/13] [Last Updated: 2012/12/17]

We agree with this recommendation. To maximize the impact of UNDP?s interventions, continued support is should be based on past experiences and best practices. The AGTP supported Capacity Development Needs Assessment (CDNA) and strategy development for 8 key provincial government agencies in Aceh could serve as a reference for developing future projects. Future initiatives will seek to continue cooperation with BKPP, which is well placed to support long term capacity development within bureacracy reform programmes.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
1. Develop project concept note based on CDNA faciclitated by AGTP 2. Conduct donor mapping and consultation 3. Working with BKPP on future program and BKPP role in BR program.
[Added: 2012/12/17]
DGPRU/CPRU 2013/03 Overdue-Initiated DGPRU/CPRU has recruited consultants to gather and review information on government, donor and private sector interests and programmes in Aceh. This is to identify opportunities for developing a programme framework on Aceh Forward, and will further support the formulation of programme and resource mobilization strategies.
5. Recommendation: Recommendation 5. The gains made through the CDNA process supported by AGTP need to be consolidated through support to the agencies concerned to develop and implement practical capacity development activities. This requires detailed design of these activities.
Management Response: [Added: 2012/12/13] [Last Updated: 2012/12/17]

Detailed reports have captured the CDNA/CDP process and results. Action plans for each target institution list detailed activities with expected outputs and the budget requirements. However, it should be noted, as the evaluation points out, that the CDPs have not been applied by all assisted provincial agencies, partly because of the lack of involvement of senior government officials and due to the inability of the agencies to implement plans because of the reliance on external resources (funding and expertise).

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
1. Revisit and verify data and information collected through the CDNA/CDP process. 2. Review the CDNA/CDP tools and review their applicability. 3. Strenghten the ownership and involvement of senior government officials in the process.
[Added: 2012/12/17]
DGPRU No due date No deadline established This relates to actions that will be undertaken to respond to recommendation number 4. A review of the CDNA/CDP tool should ideally be undertaken at a national or regional level to inform UNDP practices and improve existing tools.
6. Recommendation: Recommendation 6. UNDP and the GOI, particularly MoHA and Ministry of Finance, should not give up the DIPA mechanism but should seek ways of streamlining it.
Management Response: [Added: 2012/12/13] [Last Updated: 2012/12/17]

The DIPA mechanism will most likely be used again in the future, however, guidelines and SOPs on how to use it will be modified for further improvement, such as earlier planning and tighter focus as suggested by the evaluators. COSS mechanism could be used to bridge activities prior to having the DIPA mechanism is in place.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
1. UNDP will work together with GoI to develop guidelines and simplify SOPs with the aim to improve project delivery using the DIPA mechanism.
[Added: 2012/12/17]
DGPRU/PMEY 2013/12 Overdue-Initiated PMEU should take the lead in this process.
7. Recommendation: Recommendation 7. More consistency is required for gender mainstreaming in the future, and this should be seen in the light of opportunities presented by the migas money to continue to strengthen health and education services with a greater emphasis on gender mainstreaming (i.e. opportunity and empowerment)
Management Response: [Added: 2012/12/13] [Last Updated: 2012/12/17]

We agree with this recommendation. Although AGTP began work to mainstream gender issues into policy-making through the establishment of Gender Focal Point?s (GFPs) within government agencies (SKPAs), more programmes to advocate and to train policy-makers in Aceh on gender-related issues, particularly on basic service delivery, are still needed.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Intensively engage BP3A (Women?s Empowerment and Child Protection Agency) and GFPs of SKPA?s to map and analyze data, information, and work plans in relation to gender initiatives.
[Added: 2012/12/17]
DGPRU No due date No deadline established This relates to actions that will be undertaken to respond to recommendation number 4.
8. Recommendation: Recommendation 8. UNDP and GOI should not assume that the gains made through AGTP Output 1 will automatically be retained in the future particularly with the new political environment in Aceh. For this reason, UNDP and GOI should consider further support for leadership and decision making in the future if this is requested by Aceh
Management Response: [Added: 2012/12/13] [Last Updated: 2012/12/17]

The recommendation is well taken. While UNDP is hopefull that interventions started with AGTP support will be retained by the new political leadership, we do not assume that this will be done automatically . UNDP plans to continue its support to the Government of Aceh in the future. So far, the new administration is willing to adopt the strategy of Output 1 to ensure the Governor?s vision and mission are accomodated within the development agenda.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
1. Intensive consultation with Aceh?s new political leadership, offering support based on previously demonstrated successes. 2. UNDP proactively works with the Governor?s team to design appropriate programmes that meet required regulations and government expectations.
[Added: 2012/12/17]
DGPRU/CPRU No due date No deadline established This relates to actions that will be undertaken to respond to recommendation number 4.
9. Recommendation: The evaluation team questions why both the design framework and the programme indicators have changed or have needed to change, such as changes on the development objective, the statements for outputs 1 and 2, and shifts in the indicators used for measuring progress in AGTP, and reference to gender.
Management Response: [Added: 2012/12/13] [Last Updated: 2012/12/17]

When the Project Appraisal Document was being developed in2007, there was a need to change programme indicators to harmonize with the political and governance dynamics.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Future projects will document modifications in the indicators (through minutes of project board meetings or revisions of project document endorsed by UNDP and Implementing Partners).
[Added: 2012/12/17]
DGPRU/PMEU No due date No deadline established
10. Recommendation: AGTP, in aiming for Output 2, at times appears ad hoc in its response, in that it has been hard for those outside the day-to-day administration of the program (including funders) to track the wide range of agencies that have received support from AGTP and the frequent additions and/or changes to program activities that have resulted.
Management Response: [Added: 2012/12/13] [Last Updated: 2012/12/17]

AGTP was designed and implemented to support Aceh government in a period of transition and recovery. Flexible support to the government was often required in this context. UNDP recognizes that support to GoA was at times adhoc. While this was sometimes required in the context of recovery, decentralization, and the transition to normal development and therefore needed to be flexible, UNDP could have focused its support to be more strategic in value.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Future projects providing flexible support to government should also be strategic in selecting key areas of support, ensuring UNDP?s added value and assisting the government to fill critical gaps.
[Added: 2012/12/17]
DGPRU No due date No deadline established

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