Success message
error message
warn message
00060467 People Centred Development Programme (PCDP) Final Evaluation
Commissioning Unit: Indonesia
Evaluation Plan: 2011-2015
Evaluation Type: Project
Completion Date: 08/2014
Unit Responsible for providing Management Response: Indonesia
Documents Related to overall Management Response:
 
1. Recommendation: Recommendation 1: The agenda of reducing poverty and improving education, health and livelihood conditions in Papua is unfinished. Therefore it is strongly recommended to continue external technical support to further improve and strengthen capacities of relevant institutions towards achieving desired goals.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/19]

One of the PcDP?s exit strategies is to coordinate with line ministries who has similar programme that can continue the ground works which has been prepared by PcDP. BAPPENAS as the NPD has been facilitated to take the lead in coordinating this response.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Exit strategy meeting with Papua and West Papua stakeholders and line ministries.
[Added: 2014/12/19] [Last Updated: 2018/11/07]
DGPRU NPD PcDP 2015/03 Completed Due to inauguration of new government and awaiting the mid term development plan some programme directions for Tanah Papua are awaiting this national guideline. History
2. Recommendation: Recommendation 2: PCDP during its second phase has extended commendable support and has closely collaborated, especially with provincial government institutions. However discussions suggest that collaboration with district and sub-district level institutions was considerably limited. Since actual implementation mandate especially for delivery of health and education services lies at district and sub-district level, therefore there is a greater need for fostering collaboration at the district and community level. It is therefore recommended that future such projects shall by design extend maximum support and collaborate closely with the institutions at the district and sub-district level.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/19]

Key Actions:

3. Recommendation: Recommendation 3: Evidence based planning and implementation remained the hallmark of PCDP-II overall strategy. Substantial capacities have been built for provincial and selected district authorities in collection, management and use of data for planning and monitoring purposes. However these mechanisms are still in early stages of development, therefore it is recommended to continue project support to fully strengthen desired capacities. Furthermore there is also a strong need to extend data acquisition and management related facilitation to all districts, even villages in Papua region.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/19]

Key Actions:

4. Recommendation: Recommendation 4: PCDP has developed and successfully piloted model for integrated education and health services at the village level. However the actual benefits will flow only once this model is implemented on a large scale in the whole of Papua region. Therefore it is strongly recommended to foster advocacy efforts for the adoption and replication of the proposed model on a wider scale. The process needs to be fully documented and manuals prepared and disseminated to all stakeholders. In this regard some sort of action plan need to be devised with provincial and especially district level stakeholders for the large scale replication of the proposed model especially in the remote villages.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/19]

Key Actions:

5. Recommendation: Recommendation 5: The model for integrated service delivery was actually developed with the active participation of local CSOs. Therefore large scale replication of the model will certainly require the due involvement and expertise of these CSOs. However discussion suggests that CSOs involvement in state funded delivery services is viewed with skepticism. Therefore it is recommended that the mandatory involvement of CSOs in scaling up of the model services should be strongly advocated with local governments and standard operating procedures developed and implemented for inclusion of CSOs during large scale replication of the model.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/19]

Key Actions:

6. Recommendation: Recommendation 6: Project interventions were too thinly spread over Papua region, with isolated interventions in distant and remote areas. This spread over has somehow diluted the efficiency, effectiveness and especially impact of these small endures. Therefore it is recommended that such pilot projects should better concentrate all interventions in a specific geographical area, may be a couple of district in each province. On one hand this will give way to greater efficiency and on the other it will also generate some measurable impact. These districts may serve as model districts for rest to follow.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/19]

Key Actions:

7. Recommendation: Recommendation 7: Future such projects needs to be designed using logical framework analysis techniques (involving all stakeholders especially communities) to give way to a strong logic among activities, outputs, outcomes and impact. Overall project results are meant to contribute to overall CPAP outcomes, duly supported by indicators and targets and regularly reported on. However CPAP outcomes are cumulative country (national) level outcomes, whereas a number of initiatives and projects are contributing to achieve a single outcome. This makes it cumbersome to assess the extent of contributions made by an individual project like PCDP towards broader CPAP outcome. To measure contributions of individual projects identification of project specific intermediate outcomes is considered important. These project level outcomes can be linked to CPAP outcomes and should be made integral part of the RRF duly supported by measurable indicators, baselines and specific targets. Furthermore periodic data needs to be regularly collected to measure progress toward desired outcomes at the project level
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/19]

Key Actions:

8. Recommendation: Recommendation 8: Future projects need to advance their interventions from focusing on women?s participation to gender mainstreaming in all stages of development including project/programme planning, implementation, budgeting and monitoring and evaluation. Provision of technical support to existing Gender Mainstreaming Working Groups need to be continued and new Gender Mainstreaming Working Groups need to be established and supported in other districts.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/19]

Key Actions:

9. Recommendation: Recommendation 9: A number of stakeholders both internal and external are actively involved in perusing same goals in Papua region. However sometime they operate in isolation without interacting or sharing experience with each other. This at times leads to duplication and overlap of interventions. There is a strong need to synergize collective efforts and to further strengthen existing coordination forums and mechanisms to learn from each other experience and avoid duplication. It is recommended that future such projects shall incorporate some sort of communication and coordination strategy in their designs.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/19]

Key Actions:

10. Recommendation: Recommendation 10: As mentioned PCDP-II was marred heavily by high turnover of project staff, hampering the overall efficiency and effectiveness. On one hand Papua region is a very remote and difficult place to work in and, on the other there is very limited availability of local qualified and experienced professionals. Thus most of the project staff is brought in from outside Papua, which in turn are not very sustainable. Therefore to avoid frequent turnover of project staff some sort of contractual and career incentive mechanisms should be sorted out to keep staff motivated to work in Papua region.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/19]

Key Actions:

11. Recommendation: Recommendation 11: The people of Demaisi village, during evaluation team visit, also strongly voiced their need for transportation of their agricultural produce to main market in Monakwari city. The current cost of transportation on individual basis is too high for profitability. Therefore it recommended that PCDP, in collaboration with PERDU- a local CSO, shall explore the possibilities of developing an arrangement for transport of products from the village to the market on an initially subsidized cost sharing basis. This can be done immediately as PCDP component-3 (systems for livelihood improvement) is still ongoing through 2014. It is believed that this small intervention may bring substantial extra income and will improve livelihoods. Based on its success the facility can be sustained by communities and extended to other villages.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/19]

Key Actions:

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