00085001 Transforming Effectiveness of Biodiversity Conservation in Priority Sumatran Landscapes (Tiger Project) GEF Mid-Term Evaluation

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2016-2020, Indonesia
Evaluation Type:
Mid Term Project
Planned End Date:
01/2020
Completion Date:
02/2020
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
40,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document TOR MTR 2019 (final).pdf tor English 249.54 KB Posted 132
Download document MTR-Tiger Final (24102019).pdf report English 1371.19 KB Posted 229
Title 00085001 Transforming Effectiveness of Biodiversity Conservation in Priority Sumatran Landscapes (Tiger Project) GEF Mid-Term Evaluation
Atlas Project Number: 00085001
Evaluation Plan: 2016-2020, Indonesia
Evaluation Type: Mid Term Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 02/2020
Planned End Date: 01/2020
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: Tiger Project
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 30,000
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Jose Galindo ECUADOR
GEF Evaluation: Yes
GEF Project Title: GEF Mid-Term Evaluation: Transforming Effectiveness of Biodiversity Conservation in Priority Sumatran Landscapes (Tiger Project)
Evaluation Type: Mid-term Review
Focal Area: Biodiversity
Project Type: FSP
GEF Phase: GEF-5
GEF Project ID: 4892
PIMS Number: 5363
Key Stakeholders:
Countries: INDONESIA
Lessons
1.

The Project has exceeded its target by 27% in relation to the most important Project indicator which is the “Increase in Sumatran tiger density”, this justifies the project intervention so far. The first two Outcomes are in general terms on track and pose low risk to advance towards accomplishment by the end of the Project. Performance is not uniform in all sites; progress is more evident in Bukit Barisan Selatan and Kerinci Seblat. The case of Berbak Sembilang entails more risk not to accomplish all expected results for Outcomes 1 and 2, considering the NP is relatively less consolidated and still has limited absorption capacity.

Limited progress is found in Outcome 3: Sustainable financing for biodiversity management, presenting a reasonable risk of not accomplishment. Indicator 3.1 has not achieved any of the five financial plans as expected, however progress exists in terms of improved budget allocation specially in Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park. No sustainable financing plans for production areas involving PPPs (Indicator 3.2) were developed so far, this indicator should be reviewed as it may not be relevant or feasible anymore. The Financial Sustainability Scorecard (Indicator 3.1) was filled in a participative manner but there is currently no plan, strategy or guideline on how the Project will catalyze change oriented to improve scorecard´s performance in the remaining implementation period.


Findings
1.

The Project is highly relevant for Indonesia, it is aligned with national policies and supports the implementation of the National Tiger Recovery Plan. It is widely recognized as flagship project for endangered species in Indonesia and the region. Implementation arrangements are adequate, the PMU is perceived as supportive and experienced, while the implementation partners proved to be an adequate strategy in terms of maximizing synergies, ensuring a differentiated approach and involving other local actors in the process. However, financial execution has reached only 29% of GEF budget, performing lower than expected at the midpoint, annual budgets execution varied from 68% to 81%.

Project demonstrated flexibility to attend emerging priorities and trends on a case by case approach, such as the case of including elephants in human – wildlife conflict management in BBS. Despite the barrier posed by the absence of an MoU with the Project implementing partners, they were able to adapt and find ways to deliver. In terms of stakeholder’s engagement, the Project is highly appreciated and recognized by beneficiaries at all levels. It was able to mobilize a wide range of actors in national and local governments, as well as communities and NGOs, however no participation from the private sector has been reported.

The Project promotes technology transfer & knowledge management to increase human and institutional capacities at national, community and local levels.  It contributes towards increased community, wellbeing by reducing stress and economic losses due to human wildlife conflict and facilitated livelihood opportunities to decrease pressure to natural resources and expanded innovative schemes such as the forest village and REDD + schemes.


Recommendations
1

Consider proactive alternatives to complement implementing partner´s delivery at the landscape level, assess pending disbursements and investments paralyzed by the absence of an MoU. If no progress could be ensured by current implementation arrangement, Project should consider using UNDP or national NGOs to assume delivery of pending outcomes.

2

At the site level there is a need to encourage a more fluent flow of information between implementing partners, NP and other authorities. PIU should have an enhanced coordination role in all landscapes, to ensure an integrated approach. NPs should be encouraged to have a greater participation and appropriation of different project activities, especially those outside of NP´s boundaries such as human-wildlife conflict.

3

It should not be assumed that all stakeholders are sharing the same level of understanding and awareness about the Project, especially because of rotation of staff and authorities. Most are not able to differentiate the Project with the usual interventions of implementing partners at landscape level. Therefore, the National Project Manager should proactively seek direct contact and meet with NP authorities on a regular basis to continuously evaluate progress, demonstrate adaptive management capacity and mobilize key partners and stakeholders towards developing specific landscape exit strategies.

4

New capacities, tools and operational guidelines delivered by the Project need an enabling environment and appropriate conditions to be absorbed by NPs. The PMU should be encouraged to play a political role to support implementing partners and PIU at the landscape level, providing a ground for increasing visibility and appropriation of newly acquired management practices and technologies, as well as engaging NP authorities to incorporate them within their ordinary planning and budgeting. There is a need to increase political commitment to accelerate the adoption of these practices as well as to ensure that partners are encouraged to transfer necessary skills and capacities to ensure sustainability and appropriation.

5

There is a need to clarify the role of PMU with regards to Outcome 3. For the remaining period of implementation, Outcome 3 should be closely monitored by  PMU to avoid implementing in insolation and to better reflect barriers and opportunities at the landscape level.

6

Outcome 3 needs a differentiated implementation plan and strategy to attend STP separately from EPASS. Project implementation should have its own personality and build a customized response based on the specific characteristics and challenges of the Project´s landscapes, in order to move faster and concentrate on delivering expected outputs.

7

Gender mainstreaming should be actively encouraged and pursued at site and systemic level. Gender plan must be transferred to PIU and implementing partners, as specific guidelines and tools should be developed to mainstream gender across output delivery.

8

For the remaining period, the project must concentrate on building an exit strategy prioritizing capacity building efforts, especially in areas where there is still dependency from partners. Knowledge and technology transfer must be accelerated, NPs should have the capacity to process and analyze data, as well as to use it for improving decision making.

9

The exit strategy should propose guidelines and basic standards for capacity building in general, as well as differentiated case by case approach for each project site. It should provide concrete actions in areas where there is still dependency from partners.

10

Actively pursue participation and appropriation of NPs in implementation of different activities. Promote joint teams and define clear counterparts who will take the lead after the project ends.

11

Support NPs to justify and budget additional funding and staff to undertake patrolling and ensure that intensity and quality will be maintained after the project ends.

12

Management plans should have a clear financial plan and gap assessments; project should encourage proper financial planning at the site level to complement management tools.

13

Targets for Output 1,3 have been achieved and even exceeded. In light of what has been discussed during the inception workshop, EoP targets for Outcome 1,3 were already revised once, but they should perhaps be revised again considering they have already exceeded the new targets set by the end of the Project.

14

NPs and KSDAs should be encouraged to assume a greater participation in human-wildlife conflict. This remaining period of implementation should focus on joint implementation as well as formal designation of NP counterparts and teams.

15

Wildlife crime intelligence gathered by implementing partners would need greater mainstreaming and complementary support from governmental agencies. Joint collaboration and additional support should be encouraged in terms of money laundering and digital crime, ideally officialized through MoU´s and political endorsements.

16

Follow up workshops and meetings should be undertaken with actors that were gathered originally in 2017, in order to evaluate the results achieved so far, envision future challenges to be addressed by the Project and renew stakeholder´s commitment

17

Additional resources should be planned for outreach, strategic communications and advocacy, as a means to influence stakeholders in policy and decision making. Coordination with other Projects such as the IWT and EPASS could achieve scale of economies and enhanced impact for this end

18

There is a need to develop and highlight a business case about human-wildlife conflict, assessing the cost-benefit of these investments as interesting opportunities for sound state investments

19

Project's Indicator 2.2 should be revised to better reflect current situation, as it should not measure exclusively agency staff involvement but also landscape level representation and real support towards sustainable livelihood opportunities. Instead it should pursue that at least one innovative forest and wildlife intervention should be in place in each landscape.

20

Considering the limited time available, implementing partners should urgently define the innovative practice to be implemented in Bukit Barisan Selatan, Berbak Sembilang and Gunung Leuser. Although FFI´s village forest model is highly relevant and innovative, it seems there would  not be enough time to fully undertake such complex model, unless there is an agreement with implementing partners to ensure further implementation and sustainability after Project ends. In this case, FFI could provide support to replicate the village forest model in other landscapes instead of choosing an entirely new intervention

21

This Outcome urgently needs specific and differentiated implementation strategy and action plan for the STP. The outcome must have a comprehensive step by step approach to guide the team towards output delivery and ensure alignment to support and mainstream sustainable finance in the first two project outcomes.

22

The Outcome must reorient implementation towards becoming a resource center for mainstreaming sustainable finance across the overall intervention. The transversal spirit of this Outcome should be highlighted and appropriately landed to landscape needs.  Financial sustainability and innovative strategies such as the Human Wildlife Conflict Fund should be mainstreamed into Component 3.

23

The Project should consider diversifying risk. As of now, it seems that success will be highly dependent on one single consultancy/team focusing exclusively on one sustainable financing mechanism. This strategy is not consistent with international practice and increases the risk of non-accomplishment. Instead, the Project should envision a portfolio approach, proposing a diversified set of funding sources, self-generated revenues and national level mechanisms.

24

Considering the limited time available, the Project needs additional technical support and enhanced capacities to analyze both national as well as international best practices and mobilize the outcome towards successful implementation. If this specific expertise is not available in Indonesia, international consultants should be considered as well as knowledge transfer within UNDP network using programs such as BIOFIN.

25

The project should consider developing business case in each area presenting financial and economic analysis to strengthen negotiation capacity and increase political awareness, to increase budget allocations and guide enabling policies and decision making.

26

Consider revising indicator 3.2 to cope with new national priorities and attend relevant niches. This outcome could be redirected to address sustainability schemes oriented to community-based interventions, such as SMART Patrolling, Human – Wildlife conflict or innovative sustainable livelihood practices.

1. Recommendation:

Consider proactive alternatives to complement implementing partner´s delivery at the landscape level, assess pending disbursements and investments paralyzed by the absence of an MoU. If no progress could be ensured by current implementation arrangement, Project should consider using UNDP or national NGOs to assume delivery of pending outcomes.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/02/11]

The extension of MoU between Ministry of Environment and Forestry and international NGOs that becoming project's partners is still on process. The extension process has delayed implementation of project's activities at field. Project has raised this issue in the last project board meeting and National Project Director already requested special letter from Ministry of Environment and Forestry to give special permit for international NGOs to continue  project's activities.    

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Project’s partner coordinated with UPT to discuss project’s implementation
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/09/28]
PMU, UNDP, MoEF 2021/10 Initiated The project’s management unit and implementation unit are regularly conducted project coordination with UPT/national park authorities including in planning and implementing the programs. Partners are still in the process proposing extension to PMU. History
The project raised this issue within PBM and produced recommendations for solutions
[Added: 2020/02/11]
PMU, UNDP, MoEF 2019/07 Completed The process is on-track
KSDAE has issued letter to guarantee the ongoing implementation activities by projects under KSDAE
[Added: 2020/02/11]
PMU, UNDP, MoEF 2019/07 Completed
2. Recommendation:

At the site level there is a need to encourage a more fluent flow of information between implementing partners, NP and other authorities. PIU should have an enhanced coordination role in all landscapes, to ensure an integrated approach. NPs should be encouraged to have a greater participation and appropriation of different project activities, especially those outside of NP´s boundaries such as human-wildlife conflict.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/02/11]

PIU is coordinating closely with National Park Authority in each landscape. The Regional Coordinator discussed planning and activity implementation with NP and its partners. Project and partners also coordinated with BKSDA to handle human wildlife conflicts in National Park’s boundaries and working closely in implementing activities and interventions in National Park areas. However, project will encourage NPs to involve in project activities outside park boundaries. In Berbak Sembilang National Park Forum Sembilang, communication forum that hosted different stakeholder already functioning. PIU will coordinate more with the forum to create better communication and coordination. In Kerinci Seblat National Park, informal coordination is ongoing involving BKSDA, KPH, NP and other stakeholders to correspond with issues at landscape level using WA Group and others. The same communication platform (WA Group) is existing in other landscape in Gunung Leuser and Berbak Sembilang National Park. 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The project (PIUs) will create Biannual Meeting in each landscape with project partners and relevant stakeholders to discuss project’s implementation and to engage different stakeholders outside NP’s boundaries.
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
PMU, MoEF. 2021/10 Initiated This activity is on-going. The project implementation units coordinate directly with national park in planning their activities including when proposing budgets. All of those interventions must be acknowledged by NP authorities, including by head of national park, before they could send to PMU and UNDP for approvals. Contracts with partners will be extended. History
PIUs will coordinate closely with NPs to make sure greater participation of different project activities
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
PMU, MOeF 2022/03 Initiated This Project is on going. Project implementation units perform daily, monthly, quarterly and annually coordination with national parks and should inform their plans and activities until the end of project no cost extension in March 2022. History
3. Recommendation:

It should not be assumed that all stakeholders are sharing the same level of understanding and awareness about the Project, especially because of rotation of staff and authorities. Most are not able to differentiate the Project with the usual interventions of implementing partners at landscape level. Therefore, the National Project Manager should proactively seek direct contact and meet with NP authorities on a regular basis to continuously evaluate progress, demonstrate adaptive management capacity and mobilize key partners and stakeholders towards developing specific landscape exit strategies.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/02/11]

Communication between Project Management Unit and National Park Authorities run well assisted by staff in Project Implementation Unit in all landscapes. Activities in landscape level - and their reporting - must be approved by national park authorities thus project always coordinates closely with national park managers.

Consensus between project and partners (NGOs) have been built to increase awareness of the project using direct and indirect communication strategy that explain project’s supports to implementing partner’s interventions.

According to the recommendation, project will arrange regular visit to each national park, at least twice in a year to evaluate project progress and discuss emerging issues. In regards of developing specific exit strategy in each landscape, project arranged a special meeting in each landscapes in second semester of 2019.    

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
PMU will coordinate with NP closely by conducting regular coordination in landscape level
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
PMU, MoEF, UNDP 2022/03 Initiated The activity is on going. Project management unit and national park authorities are performing routine coordination as part of planning, monitoring and evaluation by project until end of project period as the project proposed no cost extension until March 2022. History
Project’s partners in landscape level should - in detailed - provide information about GEF Tiger project to all stakeholder to increase awareness of the project during implementation of GEF funded activities.
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
PMU, MoEF, UNDP 2021/10 Initiated PMU and PIU have conveyed this specific recommendation to project’s partners and project’s partners have responded by creating activities and publishing several studies and reports mentioning GEF Tiger roles in their projects. Contracts with partners will be extended. History
Project (PIUs) develop a landscape based exit strategy in coordination with NPs and project partner.
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
PMU, MoEF 2022/03 Initiated the activity is on going . PMU discussed exit strategy in the last project board meeting and PIU Berbak Sembilang conducted initial meetings to discuss the exit strategy with national park and project’s partners and coordinated with other entity like Bappenas that is still developing sustainable financing mechanism, one of three main components in TIGER project’s implementation. History
4. Recommendation:

New capacities, tools and operational guidelines delivered by the Project need an enabling environment and appropriate conditions to be absorbed by NPs. The PMU should be encouraged to play a political role to support implementing partners and PIU at the landscape level, providing a ground for increasing visibility and appropriation of newly acquired management practices and technologies, as well as engaging NP authorities to incorporate them within their ordinary planning and budgeting. There is a need to increase political commitment to accelerate the adoption of these practices as well as to ensure that partners are encouraged to transfer necessary skills and capacities to ensure sustainability and appropriation.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/02/11]

Project’s interventions to increase management capacities and adopt new technology and management practices have been considered in NP’s budgeting and planning. For example, the implementation of SMART RBM Patrolling activities that require the use of new technology in planning and reporting. The project has been able to acquire recommendation from Director General of KSDAE that supports implementation of SMART RBM system by national park authorities in landscape levels. Project has also been supporting national park authorities to develop new NP’s management plan that represents national park’s identity.

Not only creating enabling condition environment and certain condition for new capacities and tools to be absorbed by NP but project also succeed to ensure sustainability capacities and tools implemented by NP through integrate them in management plan especially at Berbak National Park. Project ensure similar situation being replicated into other landscapes

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Ensure capacities, tool, guideline initiated by project include in new management at Sembilang; Leuser; and Kerinci Seblat
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
PMU , MOEF 2021/10 Initiated the project is currently working with partners, project is implementing capacity building activities in tiger monitoring and protection involving stakeholders in those mentioned national parks. History
Efforts in mainstreaming newly acquired management practices will be replicated in other landscape
[Added: 2020/02/11]
PMU , MOEF, UNDP 2021/01 Initiated
5. Recommendation:

There is a need to clarify the role of PMU with regards to Outcome 3. For the remaining period of implementation, Outcome 3 should be closely monitored by  PMU to avoid implementing in insolation and to better reflect barriers and opportunities at the landscape level.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/02/11]

Since the agreement in implementing activities of Component 3 made by IP-UNDP-Bappenas prior to project started, PMU will raise this issue in the Project Board meeting to get attention and recommendation from Project Board member. PMU also request coordinating unit under Bappenas to report regularly progress of component 3.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Raising the issue in PBM
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
PMU, MoEF, BAPPENAS, UNDP 2021/01 Initiated Project is planning to facilitate PBM in near future. History
PMU has requested Component 3 Coordinating Unit to provide periodic information on Component 3 outputs’ developments and results.
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
PMU 2022/03 Initiated Coordination is ongoing with component 3 coordinating unit to provide periodic information on their outputs. The current support from Bappenas was mentioned on PIR July 2020. History
6. Recommendation:

Outcome 3 needs a differentiated implementation plan and strategy to attend STP separately from EPASS. Project implementation should have its own personality and build a customized response based on the specific characteristics and challenges of the Project´s landscapes, in order to move faster and concentrate on delivering expected outputs.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/02/11]

Component of sustainable financing is implemented by two project, EPASS and Sumatran Tiger Project. However each project still maintained different approach for this particular component that was based on each project document. Sumatran Tiger Project is developing sustainable financing mechanism based on public and private partnership scheme where EPASS is developing sustainable financing mechanism based on ecotourism scheme.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
PMU is making sure the Component 3 coordinating unit takes the right approach in developing sustainable financing mechanism.
[Added: 2020/02/11]
PMU 2019/12 Completed
7. Recommendation:

Gender mainstreaming should be actively encouraged and pursued at site and systemic level. Gender plan must be transferred to PIU and implementing partners, as specific guidelines and tools should be developed to mainstream gender across output delivery.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/02/11]

PMU will consider its resource to develop gender mainstreaming guideline to be used by PIU and partners in project’s implementation. PMU will also incorporate gender mainstreaming issues in project’s activities in landscape level for example in forest restoration activities in Kerinci Seblat National Park, Gunung Leuser National Park and Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park and community based ecotourism initiative in Kerinci Seblat National Park. 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Adopting / implementing gender mainstreaming guideline into specific activities i.e ecotourism and forest restorations.
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
PMU, UNDP, MoEF, Project partners 2021/10 Initiated PMU, PIU and project’s partners are implementing gender related activities in all project landscapes. The report could be found in the latest Project Implementation Report. History
Developing gender mainstreaming guideline
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
PMU, UNDP 2020/07 Completed The gender mainstreaming guideline is available. History
Promoting the gender mainstreaming document to PIU and partners
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
PMU, UNDP, MoEF 2020/08 Completed PMU has discussed gender mainstreaming with PIU and partners in several meeting. History
8. Recommendation:

For the remaining period, the project must concentrate on building an exit strategy prioritizing capacity building efforts, especially in areas where there is still dependency from partners. Knowledge and technology transfer must be accelerated, NPs should have the capacity to process and analyze data, as well as to use it for improving decision making.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/02/11]

Sumatran Tiger Project will accelerate capacity development in data processing and data analysis by modifying formal training into “on the job training” where participants will be assisted based on their top skills and reducing number of participants to help participants focus on the training materials. Project will communicate these initiatives to national park authorities and project’s partners in relevant events.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The project was working with partners and national parks to conduct training and capacity building based on local needs and implemented CD scorecard review by independent consultant. The information from CD scorecard assessment will be updated to make sure the capacity of NP staff is increasing
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
PMU, UNDP, MoEF 2021/10 Initiated Training need assessment has been conducted. Training activities have been implemented based on local needs. CD score card assessments have been conducted in two of four project’s landscapes. History
Project has recruited consultant to conduct training needs assessment in protected areas and produced recommendations based on ASEAN Competency Standard
[Added: 2020/02/11]
PMU, UNDP, MoEF 2019/01 Completed
The project has developed training curricula in coordination with Ministry of Environment and Forestry’s training agency
[Added: 2020/02/11]
PMU, UNDP, MoEF 2019/01 Completed
9. Recommendation:

The exit strategy should propose guidelines and basic standards for capacity building in general, as well as differentiated case by case approach for each project site. It should provide concrete actions in areas where there is still dependency from partners.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/02/11]

Sumatran Tiger Project will accommodate capacity development approach as one of project’s exit strategies. Project has also initiating training for national park managers to make sure that they will implement adaptive management and internalize project’s initiatives in their system.

In Berbak Sembilang NP, the authority will create road map in term of transferring knowledge from partners to NP staff.

In Gunung Leuser National Park, the authority will create SOP for every functional position in National Park Management to increase effectiveness of management in NP including in SMART patrolling, data recording and data management at resort level. The target is reducing operational dependency from NP’s partners.

In Bukit Barisan Selatan NP, the authority will create minimum operational requirement for number of personnel working in National Park Area and propose the standard to KSDAE. The project’s partner will train more staff in data processing and data management at national park level and resort level. The project already developed patrolling procedures that will become guidance in technical implementation of forest patrol.

The project also facilitated multi stakeholders coordination forum at provincial level that could become project’s legacy in dealing human and wildlife conflicts in North Sumatra and Leuser Landscapes. The forum is potential to create better coordination between parties handling human and wildlife conflict and to transfer knowledge to relevant stakeholders.         

MDM initiatives should be replicated and mainstreamed across Sumatran landscapes using lessons learned and practical guidance from already existing Masyarakat Desa Mandiri initiatives in Sumatra.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Conducting training for national park managers.
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
PMU, UNDP, MoEF 2021/10 Initiated Due to Covid-19 pandemic, the training programs scheduled in 3 series from March – Sept 2020 were postponed. Project facilitated series of webinar on Tri-Sector Leadership Training as a light version of the training program on Tuesday, May 27, 2020. A total of 70 participants from Directorate General of KSDAE-MoEF, NGOs, local government and civil society attended the event. Director General of KSDAE, Wiratno becoming the main speaker History
Project’s partners should provide technical guidance in implementation of every project activities to transfer knowledge and increase capacity of national park’s staff for example in SMART patrolling, camera trap analysis etc.
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
PMU, UNDP, MoEF 2020/08 Completed Technical guidance has been produced and implemented by project in all landscapes and their activities could be found in Project Implementation Report History
Developing project’s exit strategy that incorporated capacity development initiatives.
[Added: 2020/02/11]
PMU, UNDP, MoEF 2019/07 Completed
10. Recommendation:

Actively pursue participation and appropriation of NPs in implementation of different activities. Promote joint teams and define clear counterparts who will take the lead after the project ends.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/02/11]

The project will request NP authority to assign staff as counterpart in every topic of project implemented activity. PMU will monitor progress through project partners and PIUs to follow up this action.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Project discuss with NP authority and project partner to ensure assignment of counterpart in each topic of project implementation
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
PMU, UNDP, MoEF 2022/03 Initiated This is part of project’s planning and implementation in coordination with national park’s authorities. The discussion is remaining as regular activities History
Monitor involvement of NP’s counterpart through PIUs and project partners
[Added: 2020/02/11]
PMU, UNDP, MoEF 2021/01 Initiated
11. Recommendation:

Support NPs to justify and budget additional funding and staff to undertake patrolling and ensure that intensity and quality will be maintained after the project ends.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/02/11]

Project needs to ensure that each national park will allocate sufficient budget in their management plans as part of project’s exit strategy. This strategy has been adopted in Berbak National Park’s management plan.

Number of conservation areas that needs to be effectively managed is 552 units. KSDAE will provide sustainable funding - part of KSDAE long-term planning - to fund technical activities (for example in national park protection). Funding allocated for these activities is Rp400 billion in 2020. 

Partners in Kerinci Seblat National Park and Gunung Leuser National Park have analyzed patrolling activities to increase patrolling effectiveness and resources efficiency, based on inventory reporting generated from patrolling data that has captured threats and biodiversity potentials at field levels. The approach needs to be mainstreamed at national level (KLHK). 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Three national parks (Kerinci Seblat National Park, Sembilang National Park, Gunung Leuser National Park) have allocated specific budgets from identified sources for forest patrolling in their management plans
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
PMU, UNDP, MoEF 2020/08 Completed This is part of annual planning where national parks identify sources of funding for protection activities including for forest patrolling. Budget has been allocated History
Forest patrolling will becoming one of project’s exit strategies.
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
PMU, UNDP, MoEF 2020/08 Completed Forest patrolling has becoming the main protection activity by national parks and conducted regularly as part of national park’s annual planning and budgeting and has been included in project’s exit strategies. History
12. Recommendation:

Management plans should have a clear financial plan and gap assessments; project should encourage proper financial planning at the site level to complement management tools.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/02/11]

To support development of Management Plan, project in cooperation with national park authority refer to government regulation (Perdirjen 14/2017). However, project need to result financial plan based on up dated management plan, that will be organized through Component 3.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Develop financing plan at all project landscape
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
Bappenas, MoEF, PMU, UNDP 2020/12 Initiated Bappenas that is responsible for Component 3 is still working to develop sustainable financing plans in project’s landscapes. History
13. Recommendation:

Targets for Output 1,3 have been achieved and even exceeded. In light of what has been discussed during the inception workshop, EoP targets for Outcome 1,3 were already revised once, but they should perhaps be revised again considering they have already exceeded the new targets set by the end of the Project.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/02/11]

Target for Output 1.3 has been revised based on proposals on inception workshop and this revision was approved by the first Project Board Meeting (PBM). Efforts needed to maintain the achievements based on the proposed changes. The specific target numbers put in the revision have accommodated project’s resources to achieve them. These targets have yet achieved in all landscapes at the same time extra efforts needed to maintain achievements thus target changes deemed unnecessary for this Output.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Ensure all targeted landscape achieve indicator output in doing forest patrol
[Added: 2020/02/11]
PMU , MOEF 2020/08 Completed
14. Recommendation:

NPs and KSDAs should be encouraged to assume a greater participation in human-wildlife conflict. This remaining period of implementation should focus on joint implementation as well as formal designation of NP counterparts and teams.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/02/11]

Guideline for handling Human-wildlife conflict (P.48) mentioned on coordination team and operational team which are involving NP and BKSDA staff. However, limited resources on both BKSDA and NP frequently caused both institution shared responsibility in doing field work to be more efficient. Project needs to intensify participation on both institution in handling human-wildlife conflict through joint implementation which has been started at Kerinci Seblat landscape. Leadership of Forestry Office of Lampung province has been proven effectively engaging stakeholders in responding human – wildlife conflict in BBS landscape

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
At landscape level, project schedule coordination to develop a joint task force to handle human and wildlife conflicts. In Lampung the joint taskforce has been established and operationalized. Currently, similar taskforce will be enforced following the revision of governor decree on HWC mitigation taskforce
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
PMU, UNDP, MoEF, Project partners, 2020/08 Completed Joint task force to handle human and wildlife conflict has been initiated in close coordination with project’s partner, WCS. History
Joint task-force authorized by district and provincial governments.
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
PMU, UNDP, MoEF, Project partners 2020/08 Completed Project was working with relevant stakeholders and producing provincial and district decrees that support human and wildlife conflict mitigation teams and task forces. History
NP and BKSDA are involved to operate conflict mitigation team.
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
PMU, UNDP, MoEF, Local Govt, project partners 2020/08 Completed It was part of regular coordination (standard operating procedure when dealing with human and wildlife conflicts inside and outside protected areas) between project, national parks and BKSDA. History
15. Recommendation:

Wildlife crime intelligence gathered by implementing partners would need greater mainstreaming and complementary support from governmental agencies. Joint collaboration and additional support should be encouraged in terms of money laundering and digital crime, ideally officialized through MoU´s and political endorsements.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/02/11]

MoEF and UNDP has also implementing Combating Illegal Wildlife and Trade (CIWT) project that more focus on subject of recommendation. Project will coordinate closely with CIWT to ensure that recommended topics are implemented and project will share lesson learned from project partners to be adopt in government agencies (DG of Gakkum) to make sure additional support in different crime prevention. 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Coordination meeting between Sumatra tiger project with CIWT to make sure additional support in different crime prevention.
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
PMU, UNDP, MoEF 2022/03 Initiated The activity is on going. The project is coordinating closely with CIWT to discuss support in wildlife crime prevention. History
Project share lesson learned implementation of wildlife crime intelligence to seek support from relevant government agencies
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
PMU, UNDP, MoEF 2020/08 Completed Many training activities for government agencies in dealing with wildlife crime has been reported in Project Implementation Report History
16. Recommendation:

Follow up workshops and meetings should be undertaken with actors that were gathered originally in 2017, in order to evaluate the results achieved so far, envision future challenges to be addressed by the Project and renew stakeholder´s commitment

Management Response: [Added: 2020/02/11]

Coordination among actors in 2017 (Gakkum, Police, KSDAE) still being maintained so far. However, project needs to evaluate previous intervention in regards of combating and prevention of illegal wildlife trade.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Project will renew MoU between Provincial Police POLDA in Kerinci Seblat National Park (TNKS)
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
MoEF, PMU 2021/10 Initiated The renewal process will be processed by project’s partner, FFI next year (2021). History
17. Recommendation:

Additional resources should be planned for outreach, strategic communications and advocacy, as a means to influence stakeholders in policy and decision making. Coordination with other Projects such as the IWT and EPASS could achieve scale of economies and enhanced impact for this end

Management Response: [Added: 2020/02/11]

The project will produce more lessons learned and conduct site visits to increase stakeholders’ awareness. Project implementation is also a mean of advocacy for example by conducting SMART’s national meeting. 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The project will conduct survey to analyze behavioral changes in communities
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
PMU, UNDP, MoEF 2021/10 Initiated Project is now working with partner to conduct the survey History
The project will produce more lessons learned from project interventions
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
PMU, UNDP, MoEF 2020/08 Completed The project produced several learning and knowledge products, such as the SMART RBM; conflict mitigation; ATLAS Sumatran tiger; METT policy brief; Garda Harimau. Where the knowledge product gets high appreciation and acceptance, both within the scope of the government and other stakeholders. These evidences were used in many publications and documents by relevant stakeholders History
18. Recommendation:

There is a need to develop and highlight a business case about human-wildlife conflict, assessing the cost-benefit of these investments as interesting opportunities for sound state investments

Management Response: [Added: 2020/02/11]

The project will evaluate economic value created from project’s intervention

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Project will discuss method of assessment and provide recommendation
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
PMU, UNDP, MoEF 2021/10 Initiated Project is working with partner to provide recommendation History
Project will promote implementation of cost benefit concept in handling human and wildlife conflicts.
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
PMU, UNDP, MoEF 2021/10 Initiated The implementation is on going and partly achieved with concept of Tiger Proof Enclosures implemented in several landscapes. History
19. Recommendation:

Project's Indicator 2.2 should be revised to better reflect current situation, as it should not measure exclusively agency staff involvement but also landscape level representation and real support towards sustainable livelihood opportunities. Instead it should pursue that at least one innovative forest and wildlife intervention should be in place in each landscape.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/02/11]

The key points for indicator 2.2 are innovation and inter-sectoral cooperation. The current indicators are still relevant only if the innovation being developed is involving other sectors outside of forestry sector. The innovation should also involve relevant agency staff in its outcome indicators, thus indicator 2.2 doesn’t need to be be revised. This conclusion was based on discussion with GEF OFP. Project needs to concentrate on the types of intervention being developed and consider the time availability to achieve them.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Lesson learned develop
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
PMU, UNDP, MoEF, project partners 2022/03 Initiated Project is developing final lessons learned discussing the successful efforts of project’s implementation in four landscapes. Lesson learnt will part of the process until end of the project in 2022 History
Project will discuss and agree upon innovation of each landscape with all stakeholder
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
PMU, UNDP, MoEF, project partners 2020/08 Completed This was part of project’s regular planning and has been reported in current project implementation report. In Bukit Barisan Selatan, project’s partner has initiated sustainable coffee supply chain management while in Kerinci project’s partner has proposed for green infrastructure responding to development of road crossing national park area. History
Agreed innovations are being developed and implemented
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
PMU, UNDP, MoEF, project partners 2020/08 Completed The innovations have been implemented and reported in project implementation report. History
20. Recommendation:

Considering the limited time available, implementing partners should urgently define the innovative practice to be implemented in Bukit Barisan Selatan, Berbak Sembilang and Gunung Leuser. Although FFI´s village forest model is highly relevant and innovative, it seems there would  not be enough time to fully undertake such complex model, unless there is an agreement with implementing partners to ensure further implementation and sustainability after Project ends. In this case, FFI could provide support to replicate the village forest model in other landscapes instead of choosing an entirely new intervention

Management Response: [Added: 2020/02/11]

The key points for indicator 2.2 are innovation and inter-sectoral cooperation. The current indicators are still relevant only if the innovation being developed is involving other sectors outside of forestry sector. The innovation should also involve relevant agency staff in its outcome indicators, thus indicator 2.2 doesn’t need to be be revised. This conclusion was based on discussion with GEF OFP. Project needs to concentrate on the types of intervention being developed and consider the time availability to achieve them.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Lesson learned develop
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
PMU, UNDP, MoEF, project partners 2022/03 Initiated History
Project will discuss and agree upon innovation of each landscape with all stakeholder
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
PMU, UNDP, MoEF, project partners 2020/08 Completed This was part of project’s regular planning and has been reported in current project implementation report. In Bukit Barisan Selatan, project’s partner has initiated sustainable coffee supply chain management while in Kerinci project’s partner has proposed for green infrastructure responding to development of road crossing national park area. History
Agreed innovations are being developed and implemented
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
PMU, UNDP, MoEF, project partners 2020/08 Completed The innovations have been implemented and reported in project implementation report. History
21. Recommendation:

This Outcome urgently needs specific and differentiated implementation strategy and action plan for the STP. The outcome must have a comprehensive step by step approach to guide the team towards output delivery and ensure alignment to support and mainstream sustainable finance in the first two project outcomes.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/02/11]

Outcome 3 needs a differentiated implementation plan and strategy to attend STP separately from EPASS. Project implementation should have its own personality and build a customized response based on the specific characteristics and challenges of the Project´s landscapes, in order to move faster and concentrate on delivering expected outputs.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Developing financial plan for all targeted landscapes based on comprehensive study in each landscape
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
Bappenas, UNDP, PMU 2021/01 Initiated Bappenas is still working to develop the financial plan with Starling. History
Continue the study conducted by previous consultant (ICRAF) to be implemented in TN Kerinci Seblat
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
PMU , MOEF , UNDP 2021/01 Initiated Bappenas and ICRAF are continuing the study. It is on going History
22. Recommendation:

The Outcome must reorient implementation towards becoming a resource center for mainstreaming sustainable finance across the overall intervention. The transversal spirit of this Outcome should be highlighted and appropriately landed to landscape needs.  Financial sustainability and innovative strategies such as the Human Wildlife Conflict Fund should be mainstreamed into Component 3.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/02/11]

Human conflict mitigation will be considered in developing Financial sustainability strategy

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Providing recommendation for sustainable finance mechanism, including guideline in channeling development budget at government (either provincial, district or village level) for HWC mitigation
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
Bappenas, MoEF,Ministry of Internal Affairs UNDP, PMU 2020/12 Initiated Bappenas is still working on the issue. History
Financing plan for each of the national parks will be developed based on landscape needs.
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
Bappenas, MoEF, UNDP, PMU 2020/12 Initiated Bappenas is still working on the issue. History
Identifying options to mitigate human and tiger conflict.
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
PMU, MoEF, UNDP, Bappenas 2020/08 Completed Several options and interventions have been created and implemented in coordination with relevant stakeholders. History
23. Recommendation:

The Project should consider diversifying risk. As of now, it seems that success will be highly dependent on one single consultancy/team focusing exclusively on one sustainable financing mechanism. This strategy is not consistent with international practice and increases the risk of non-accomplishment. Instead, the Project should envision a portfolio approach, proposing a diversified set of funding sources, self-generated revenues and national level mechanisms.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/02/11]

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Continue the study conducted by previous consultant (ICRAF) to be implemented in TN Kerinci Seblat
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
BAPPENAS, PMU, UNDP 2020/12 Initiated Bappenas and ICRAF are continuing the study. History
Recruit consulting firm to conduct a study in TN Gunung Leuser, TN Bukit Barisan Selatan, TN Berbak Sembilang
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
BAPPENAS, PMU, UNDP 2020/08 Completed Bappenas has recruited Starling. History
Hiring individual consultant with strong background in financing and conservation to supervise both consulting firm
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
BAPPENAS, PMU, UNDP 2020/08 Completed Bappenas has recruited the consultant. History
24. Recommendation:

Considering the limited time available, the Project needs additional technical support and enhanced capacities to analyze both national as well as international best practices and mobilize the outcome towards successful implementation. If this specific expertise is not available in Indonesia, international consultants should be considered as well as knowledge transfer within UNDP network using programs such as BIOFIN.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/02/11]

The recommendation will be considered by the project.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
PMU has facilitated discussion with BIOFIN regarding sukuk
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
BAPPENAS, PMU, UNDP 2020/08 Completed PMU has initiated discussion with Biofin related with feasibility study in building PPS (animal rescue center) History
Hiring staff with relevant skill in protected areas management, financing and governance in Indonesia
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
BAPPENAS, PMU, UNDP 2020/08 Completed Staff has been recruited History
25. Recommendation:

The project should consider developing business case in each area presenting financial and economic analysis to strengthen negotiation capacity and increase political awareness, to increase budget allocations and guide enabling policies and decision making.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/02/11]

Project is still waiting for the final report on sustainability financing from ICRAFT

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Feasibility study of implementing a sustainable financing mechanism has been done
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
BAPPENAS, PMU, UNDP 2021/01 Initiated Bappenas is still working on the issue. History
Implementation of sustainable financing mechanism in TN Kerinci Seblat
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
BAPPENAS, PMU, UNDP 2021/02 Initiated Bappenas is still working on the issue. History
Development of business/financing plan in other national parks
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
BAPPENAS, PMU, UNDP 2021/02 Initiated Bappenas is still working on the issue. History
26. Recommendation:

Consider revising indicator 3.2 to cope with new national priorities and attend relevant niches. This outcome could be redirected to address sustainability schemes oriented to community-based interventions, such as SMART Patrolling, Human – Wildlife conflict or innovative sustainable livelihood practices.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/02/11]

The recommendation will be discussed with relevant partners and if needed, the issues will be raised in the next Project Board Meeting.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
As proposed by PMU in Project Board Meeting 2019, Bappenas agreed to change the target for output 3.2 to Sustainable financing plans for project landscape.
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
BAPPENAS, PMU, UNDP 2020/08 Completed all were completed History
Partnership to support sustainable financing mechanism will be mainstreamed into RPJMN 2020-2024, as well as the utilization of Dana Desa (Village Fund) for managing the national parks.
[Added: 2020/02/11] [Last Updated: 2020/10/01]
BAPPENAS, PMU, UNDP 2020/08 Completed Bappenas has mainstreamed sustainable financing in RPJMN as reported in the last PIR. History

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