Indonesia - Green Prosperity - Participatory Land Use Planning

Metadata Updated: December 22, 2017

The primary purpose of this qualitative pre/post performance evaluation (PE) is to identify progress (in phase 1) and achievement (in phase 2) of short-term and long-term outcomes of PLUP, focusing on PMAP 1. A secondary purpose is to assess the implementation performance of PLUP in order to inform future PMAP roll-out in other areas. Phase 1 data collection occurred from August - October 2016, and Phase 2 will be conducted in 2018 to serve as an endline for PMAP 1 outcomes. The phasing of data collection activities is intended to both identify immediate lessons learned in PMAP 1 implementation as well as capture changes in PMAP 1 outcomes over an extended period of time, accounting for long-term effects not readily materialized by the time project activities have concluded.

The report addresses five key evaluation questions, as listed below. In particular, the report focuses heavily on presenting information to address Evaluation Question 1, as it relates to both project outputs and nine project outcomes (or progress against targeted project achievements). 1. How has PLUP progressed in the achievement of short-term outcomes, and how is it likely to progress in the achievement of long-term outcomes? 2. Were achievements toward identified PLUP outcomes varied by geography, community type, or gender and vulnerable/marginalized groups? 3. What were the main challenges in managing PLUP? 4. What were unintended results (positive or negative) achieved on PLUP? 5. Through what pathways, if any, is increased spatial certainty likely to increase household incomes? What evidence does the evaluation find for this?

In relation to Evaluation Question 1, while many PMAP 1 activities have been completed, key outputs - particularly village maps and the district Information Management System (IMS) - have yet to be delivered to actual users in partner areas. Specifically regarding Task 1 maps, there are indications of proposed use of maps at the village level, but the extent of the resource mapping and use of these maps for spatial planning varied across sampled villages. The focus of PMAP 1, Task 1 at the village level is largely geared towards establishing agreement of village boundaries. Task 1 is also especially relevant in terms of conflict. There is evidence that the project helped address administrative disputes through their use of a participatory and technology-based approach to VBS/RM, and made important contributions in setting up dispute resolution mechanisms in high conflict-prone areas. In some instances, however, the project re-opened existing disagreements that had been ignored or were dormant. Each sub-district the ET visited had one (or more) disputes remaining after the completion of the VBS/RM process.

Turning to Task 2 - 4 progress at the time of the evaluation, some geospatial and licensing data had been compiled; Geographic Information System (GIS) and IMS trainings had been completed in all districts; and a geographically specific IMS had been developed. Additional outputs including the complete database, and those related to the IMS had not been realized (including installation of the IMS, hardware, and internet connection). Users of the IMS were enthusiastic about the tools; however, there remain significant threats to use after delivery of this output. When the ET was conducting fieldwork, there was no plan for i) coordination of spatial planning; ii) installation and establishment of the IMS; and iii) management and maintenance of the IMS. The lack of an exit strategy for PMAP 1 also raised questions about sustainability and continued use of all task outputs that had clearly generated much interest among local stakeholders. In terms of the nine PLUP outcomes, the most measurable change for short-term outcomes (Outcomes 1 - 6) was identified at the village level. For example, Outcome 1 is increased public perception of spatial certainty. The evaluation found evidence of this in sampled PMAP 1 villages from pre-PMAP 1 activities, as measured through awareness and understanding of village boundaries. Progress at the district and national level across short-term outcomes, however, was less prominent.

While some progress was identified in long-term outcomes (Outcomes 7 - 9), the majority of information presented in the report for these outcomes is baseline information to be used as a point of comparison in Phase 2 of the PE.

Evaluation Question 2 presents data that explains how project progress against outputs did not, in general, vary by characteristics including geography, implementer, phase of implementation, gender, or marginalized/vulnerable groups. Outcomes baselines, however, do vary substantially by district; each district has a unique context that will be important to re-evaluate in 2018 in terms of confidence in administration, capacity, and licensing and permitting. Furthermore, in Evaluation Question 4, the ET identified unintended results of PMAP 1. Respondents noted more positive than negative unintended results, with one important positive result being indications of replication of the VBS/RM process in Mamasa and Mamuju districts, in West Sulawesi Province.

Within this context of project progress, in Evaluation Question 3, the ET explores the management structure and challenges faced during PMAP 1 implementation. The most commonly mentioned barriers had to do with PMAP 1 resources and unclear expectations. The contractor was found to be resourceful in addressing these barriers; however, MCA-I and MCC were critical of the performance of the implementer, and reported that the implementer under-delivered on some basic output requirements like the delivery of the VBS/RM process as specified in the Contract.

Lastly, in regards to Evaluation Question 5, though GP has missed an opportunity to demonstrate that increased spatial certainty leads to greener investments in partner districts because of the adjusted sequencing of PLUP and the GP Facility Investments, the evaluation found plausible pathways through which spatial certainty as advocated for through PLUP can contribute to GP's goals. Findings indicate that the objectives that PMAP 1 is seeking to achieve remain relevant, particularly in the context of governance, development planning, and safeguards in Indonesia. It is not surprising that implementation has drawn interest from international institutions like the World Bank, and from key government reform projects like the Peat Restoration Agency (BRG).

Access & Use Information

Public: This dataset is intended for public access and use. License: No license information was provided. If this work was prepared by an officer or employee of the United States government as part of that person's official duties it is considered a U.S. Government Work.

Downloads & Resources

Dates

Metadata Created Date November 22, 2016
Metadata Updated Date December 22, 2017

Metadata Source

Harvested from MCC Data.json

Additional Metadata

Resource Type Dataset
Metadata Created Date November 22, 2016
Metadata Updated Date December 22, 2017
Publisher Millennium Challenge Corporation
Unique Identifier DDI-MCC-IDN-PLUP-2016-v01
Maintainer
Monitoring & Evaluation Division of the Millennium Challenge Corporation
Maintainer Email
Public Access Level public
Bureau Code 184:03
Metadata Context https://project-open-data.cio.gov/v1.1/schema/catalog.jsonld
Schema Version https://project-open-data.cio.gov/v1.1/schema
Catalog Describedby https://project-open-data.cio.gov/v1.1/schema/catalog.json
Harvest Object Id 303070cc-5a19-4323-9d75-9319e9cba381
Harvest Source Id 56258383-6604-4f83-87c7-7d7be329c1b3
Harvest Source Title MCC Data.json
Homepage URL https://data.mcc.gov/evaluations/index.php/catalog/180
Data Last Modified 2017-12-21
Program Code 184:000
Source Datajson Identifier True
Source Hash 3bed7eed6a892b609193eda0370c42201e5493aa
Source Schema Version 1.1

Didn't find what you're looking for? Suggest a dataset here.