00077733 Enhancing the Protected Area System in Sulawesi (E-PASS) for Biodiversity Conservation GEF Terminal Evaluation

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2016-2020, Indonesia
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
03/2021
Completion Date:
03/2021
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
40,000

Share

Title 00077733 Enhancing the Protected Area System in Sulawesi (E-PASS) for Biodiversity Conservation GEF Terminal Evaluation
Atlas Project Number: 00077733
Evaluation Plan: 2016-2020, Indonesia
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 03/2021
Planned End Date: 03/2021
Management Response: Yes
UNDP Signature Solution:
  • 1. Sustainable
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
SDG Goal
  • 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
  • 15.5 Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity and, by 2020, protect and prevent the extinction of threatened species
Evaluation Budget(US $): 40,000
Source of Funding: EPASS Project
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 23,291
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: Yes
  • Joint with Ministry of Environment and Forestry
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Dr.Arun Rijal External Evaluator arunrijal@yahoo.com
Dr.Arun Rijal External Evaluator arunrijal@yahoo.com
GEF Evaluation: Yes
GEF Project Title: Enhancing the Protected Area System in Sulawesi (E-PASS) for Biodiversity Conservation
Evaluation Type: Terminal Evaluation
Focal Area: Biodiversity
Project Type: FSP
GEF Phase: GEF-5
GEF Project ID: 4867
PIMS Number: 4392
Key Stakeholders:
Countries: INDONESIA
Lessons
1.

1. Community organisations lack scientific knowledge on importance of forest and biodiversity and also their relation to ecosystem and other environmental issues. The project support to enhance their knowledge and strengthen their capacity will help to encourage them tocontribute in biodiversity conservation and forest protection

2. Working directly through existing government structures brings dividends. The project chose to work directly with the Ministry of Environment and Forestry and other local governmentrather than setting up parallel implementation structures. This decision has proved very successful not only in empowering government by providing experience and training, but also in developing effective government “ownership”, engagement, participation and motivation, thereby promoting long-term sustainability of the project’s achievements.

3. Designing a project linking various institutions from grassroots level institutions (NGO and CCA), government agencies, local authorities and communities generates huge benefits for sustainability, and through the synergies developed provides the intervention with much greater effectiveness than that which can be achieved by stand-alone projects.

4. Community participation in the project design, formulation of implementation modality, implementation and monitoring is very important.This will help to implement projects effectively and also make activities sustainable.In this project, the inclusion of local communities, through the RBMand micro-finance approach helped local communities to identify environmental issues related to species conservation and forest protection that need to be addressed and enabled them to innovate a wide range of mitigation measures and livelihood improvement strategies.

5. Local communities are aware of causes of deforestation and biodiversity loss but due to lack of livelihood alternatives they are forced to continue unsustainable practices, so considering alternatives for betterment of livelihood throughmicro-grants and other activities willgenerate their cooperation for effectively addressing threat to forest and biodiversity.

6. Constant contacts with communities are vital to community-based forest and biodiversity protection projects

7. Implementation by the institution with long experience and capacity makes program technically sound.


Findings
1.

1. The project was able to accomplish several activities and the remaining ones have been initiated andwill contribute towards meeting the targets with follow up and support from the implementing and executing agencies. To address the PA related problems, the project intervened in three areas: review and improvement of policies, awareness generation, capacity enhahcement of protected areas personals and communities.

2. The policy development approaches included revision of policies and plans to update them and also to support RBM approaches. Similarly, policy was developed to support economic sustainability of PAs. The project contributed to revise management plans with updated information and programs to address threats through participatory approaches. To encourage evidence-based planning, the project conducted studies and generated knowledge on biodiversity, key habitats and status and trend of poaching and deforestation. With the information, a database is developed with access to planning personnel from national and local governments.

3. Without addressing livelihoods of the people it is not possible to address threats to biodiversity and forestbecause poverty is one of the root causes. Hence, the project provisioned micro-grant program with priority to women to support local economy and encourage people to contribute in conservation. This also helped to develop local stewardship for the conservation of biodiversity of the Sulawesi.

4. Similarly, to reach a large audience, the information generated by the project was uploaded in websites of the implementing Ministry and UNDP and also networking with like-minded institutions within the country was facilitated by the project. Awareness generation, formation of community groups to support biodiversity conservation, adaptation activities (through migro-grant), mitigation activities like afforestation which contribute to prevent disasters and improved PA governance also helped to mainstream UNDP priorities.

5. The E-PASS Project was designed with provision for appropriate management arrangements but due to delay in recruitment of staffs in the beginning of the project, delay in transfer of fund to site level and COVID-19 pandemic towards the end of the project, programs were affected and some of the activities were not competed by the time of terminal evaluation. Despite delay in the initial year and also delay in disbursement of money, the project team has managed to deliver a series of interventions that have reduced the threats to forest and biodiversity to a certain level. This has partly been achieved through generation of awareness from local to the national level, mainstreaming biodiversity conservation in planning and funding, enhancing monitoring and management capacity, encouraging communities in conservation and developing suitable policies to support conservation efforts. Since some of the activities were initiated late and also due to COVID-19 it was affected, some target indicators were not seen by the evaluation team. Though the project has been underpinned by good science and a technical approach of good calibre, there is still room for further technical improvement. It has enhanced capacity to incorporate ground information related to poaching, deforestation and forest degradation into the development planning process of the local government in the pilot areas; and improved environmental awareness and raised concerns about threats to forest and biodiversity at the local communities and government.

6. To make the outcomes and interventions sustainable, the project formed community groups (CCA), trained them in various technologies and also developed models for sustainable financing. The community members were made aware of the benefits of conserving forest and biodiversity for economic development and environment protection. The project tested participatory management of protected areas for long term sustainability of protected area management. Since these approaches showed very positive impact, the lessons learned from this should be replicated in other areas of Indonesia.

 


Recommendations
1

The project has generated experience from partnership, financial mechanism and project activities. These learning should be utilised to improve future project design and implementation by UNDP

2

The project faced difficulties in disbursing money to the community groups. This has also affected the activities that were to be implemented through community groups (CCA). The fund transfer to site level needs to follow UNDP guidelines and also Indonesian regulation (bureaucracy) and difficulties to access banks in rural areas. It is suggested to improve the mechanism for direct transfer of money to the project sites so that project activities will not suffer. During COVID-19 situation, the transfer of money was improved that means there is way to address this issue.

3

The risk related to biodiversity in Sulawesi is anthropogenic, so it is important to have strong awareness programs to change attitude and actions. The awareness programs of this project seem not sufficient, so it is recommended to continue awareness activities for school children and for community members beyond the project life.

4

There are several activities which were not completed and were ongoing. Both executing and implementing agencies need to expedite the completion of the project activities

5

The project initiated an RBM practices for protection of PAs. To make this approach sustainable, RBM guidelines regulation is also developed and submitted. This regulation was not approved by the ministry. Hence, ministry staffs, PA-officials and UNDP should continue following this regulation for approval. Similarly, the SRAK (Action Plan) Maleo Senkawor 2019- 2028 is also awaiting approval.

6

The project initiated microgrant programme for economic development of the local communities. Such programmes should be continued beyond the project life to encourage communities in conservation and also to improve their livelihood.

7

The exit strategy was not completed by the time of TE. So, the PMU should develop exit strategy of the project. It was learned that stakeholders at different sites had exit strategy. PMU should include those exit strategies in the overall exit strategy of the EPASS project.

8

There was no initiation to involve private sector in this project. Private sector could contribute to make conservation sustainable as they contribute by paying conservation fees, rent of using PA or promoting products from PAs and bufferzones

9

It is recommended to upscale and replicate lessons learned on RBM from this project by UNDP and other agencies involved in this project. There could be many potential donors willing to invest in such activities so it is also recommended that lessons learned should be disseminated to a large audience including other areas of the cattle corridor and beyond. UNDP and GEF could use its network for dissemination.

10

Successful options to finance PAs should also be piloted in all PAs of Sulawesi and other parts of Indonesia.

11

As economy of the communities living in the vicinity of the PAs are weak which make them depend on forest resources for their livelihood, it is recommended to develop more economic development activities for the improving local economy to reduce their dependency on forest resources.

12

In this project, it was observed that some of the research activities were overlapping. Hence it is suggested that future project should avoid consider overlapping of research or any other activities.

Management Response Documents
1. Recommendation:

The project has generated experience from partnership, financial mechanism and project activities. These learning should be utilised to improve future project design and implementation by UNDP

Management Response: [Added: 2021/04/20]

UNDP is to take the lessons learned from TE report

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Programme personnel (UNDP CO) will work with MoEF, BAPPENAS and other relevant stakeholders to incorporate the lessons-learned in knowledge sharing activities (webinar, seminar, etc.), and other relevant project implementation
[Added: 2021/04/20]
UNDP CO, MoEF and BAPPENAS 2021/12 Initiated
2. Recommendation:

The project faced difficulties in disbursing money to the community groups. This has also affected the activities that were to be implemented through community groups (CCA). The fund transfer to site level needs to follow UNDP guidelines and also Indonesian regulation (bureaucracy) and difficulties to access banks in rural areas. It is suggested to improve the mechanism for direct transfer of money to the project sites so that project activities will not suffer. During COVID-19 situation, the transfer of money was improved that means there is way to address this issue.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/04/20]

UNDP CO will improve the CCA financing mechanism

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
UNDP Indonesia will coordinate with relevant stakeholders, including MoEF and BAPPENAS to develop and establish relevant Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for fund transfer to CBOs/CCAs
[Added: 2021/04/20] [Last Updated: 2021/06/04]
UNDP CO 2021/06 Completed The SOP for fund transferred to CBOs/CCAs is decided would refer to MoEF Technical Guidance (Juknis) . The transferred fund to CBOs/CCAs has been implemented for conservation activities History
3. Recommendation:

The risk related to biodiversity in Sulawesi is anthropogenic, so it is important to have strong awareness programs to change attitude and actions. The awareness programs of this project seem not sufficient, so it is recommended to continue awareness activities for school children and for community members beyond the project life.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/04/20]

MoEF and relevant stakeholders (including such NGOs and CBOs working in Sulawesi as Yayasan Selamatkan Yaki) will continue carrying out its programme to assure awareness activities for school children and for community members beyond the EPASS project period.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
MoEF in coordination with relevant stakeholders, including MoEF, BAPPENAS, NGOs etc. to promote the importance of protected areas in Sulawesi.
[Added: 2021/04/20] [Last Updated: 2021/06/04]
MOEF 2021/12 Initiated The activity is on going. One study produced by EPASS to promote the establishment of BLU of national parks management. It will be included in MoEF Annual Work Plan and processed to formal regulation History
4. Recommendation:

There are several activities which were not completed and were ongoing. Both executing and implementing agencies need to expedite the completion of the project activities

Management Response: [Added: 2021/04/20]

UNDP, MoEF, and Bappenas will expedite the completion of the pending project activities

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
MoEF will keep on monitoring the progress
[Added: 2021/04/20]
PMU, UNDP, Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MOEF) 2021/12 Initiated
5. Recommendation:

The project initiated an RBM practices for protection of PAs. To make this approach sustainable, RBM guidelines regulation is also developed and submitted. This regulation was not approved by the ministry. Hence, ministry staffs, PA-officials and UNDP should continue following this regulation for approval. Similarly, the SRAK (Action Plan) Maleo Senkawor 2019- 2028 is also awaiting approval.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/04/20]

UNDP and MoEF will collaboratively improve the guidelines and SRAK to be approved by the minister

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
MoEF will keep on monitoring the progress
[Added: 2021/04/20]
UNDP, MOEF 2021/12 Initiated
6. Recommendation:

The project initiated microgrant programme for economic development of the local communities. Such programmes should be continued beyond the project life to encourage communities in conservation and also to improve their livelihood.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/04/20]

UNDP, MoEF, and Bappenas will consider continuing the micro-grant programme through the future related projects and programmes at the same sites

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
MoEF will keep on monitoring the progress.
[Added: 2021/04/20] [Last Updated: 2021/06/04]
UNDP, MOEF 2021/12 Initiated The activity is on going History
7. Recommendation:

The exit strategy was not completed by the time of TE. So, the PMU should develop exit strategy of the project. It was learned that stakeholders at different sites had exit strategy. PMU should include those exit strategies in the overall exit strategy of the EPASS project.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/04/20]

PMU will complete the exit strategy together will all PIUs

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
PMU in coordination with MoEF have coordinated the importance of this exit strategy in December 2020
[Added: 2021/04/20]
PMU 2020/12 Completed
8. Recommendation:

There was no initiation to involve private sector in this project. Private sector could contribute to make conservation sustainable as they contribute by paying conservation fees, rent of using PA or promoting products from PAs and bufferzones

Management Response: [Added: 2021/04/20]

UNDP and MoEF consider involving private sectors in the future projects

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
MoEF is working closely with relevant stakeholders in Sulawesi to explore potential partnerships with private sectors. The effort is incorporated into the PA Management Plan in each protected area.
[Added: 2021/04/20]
UNDP, MOEF 2021/12 Initiated
9. Recommendation:

It is recommended to upscale and replicate lessons learned on RBM from this project by UNDP and other agencies involved in this project. There could be many potential donors willing to invest in such activities so it is also recommended that lessons learned should be disseminated to a large audience including other areas of the cattle corridor and beyond. UNDP and GEF could use its network for dissemination.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/04/20]

UNDP, MoEF, and Bappenas consider to upscale and replicate lessons learned on RBM from this project

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
UNDP in coordination with relevant stakeholders will utilise lesson learned on RBM of this project
[Added: 2021/04/20]
UNDP, MOEF 2021/12 Initiated
10. Recommendation:

Successful options to finance PAs should also be piloted in all PAs of Sulawesi and other parts of Indonesia.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/04/20]

MoEF and Bappenas will consider piloting the scheme of financing PAs in Sulawesi and other parts of Indonesia

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
BAPPENAS in coordination with relevant stakeholders to assure the potential plan and implementation.
[Added: 2021/04/20]
MOEF 2021/12 Initiated
11. Recommendation:

As economy of the communities living in the vicinity of the PAs are weak which make them depend on forest resources for their livelihood, it is recommended to develop more economic development activities for the improving local economy to reduce their dependency on forest resources.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/04/20]

UNDP and MoEF will develop more economic development activities for the improving local economy to reduce their dependency on forest resources.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
MoEF and BAPPENAS in coordination with relevant stakeholders
[Added: 2021/04/20]
UNDP, MOEF 2021/12 Initiated
12. Recommendation:

In this project, it was observed that some of the research activities were overlapping. Hence it is suggested that future project should avoid consider overlapping of research or any other activities.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/04/20]

UNDP and MoEF will apply this recommendatio n to avoid the overlap of the researches and activities in the future projects.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
MoEF, BAPPENAS and UNDP will coordinate with relevant stakeholders who are planning to or have conducted research activities in Sulawesi.
[Added: 2021/04/20]
UNDP, MOEF 2021/12 Initiated

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