Country Assistance Program Evaluation for Indonesia (2005)

Evaluation Document | 31 December 2005

This country assistance program evaluation, the first prepared for Indonesia, focuses on the responsiveness of the Asian Development Bank country strategy and program to changes and challenges between 1990 and 2004.

This country assistance program evaluation, the first prepared for Indonesia, focuses on the responsiveness of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) country strategy and program (CSP) to changes and challenges between 1990 and 2004. On a cumulative basis, Indonesia is ADB's largest borrower and largest recipient of technical assistance. The evaluation assessed the overall performance of the ADB strategy and program in Indonesia as partly successful.

Lessons

  • ADB should continue to target support for sectors where it has a comparative advantage, subject to the Government indicating that they continue to be priorities for ADB assistance
  • Geographical coverage needs to be reduced to decrease transaction costs and complexity of implementation and management of operations. This would also improve the potential for sustainability of outcomes as the same local governments (LGs) will be provided with physical and social infrastructure support.
  • ADB has devoted substantial attention to governance issues in Indonesia, but results of governance reform are not immediate. Some of ADB's initiatives have established good governance practices at the village level, though these are not always sustainable unless LGs and communities are involved throughout the project cycle.
  • The policy agenda needed to attract private sector investments has potential elements in which ADB can engage, but this also needs strong government ownership.
  • Current PPTA grant resources are inadequate for detailed project preparation. Government borrowing should be in two stages: after the preliminary work on feasibility, and after safeguard issues have been finalized.
  • Given the lack of clear and cohesive administrative procedures, ADB could support the Government in strengthening administrative procedures in passing on loan and TA funds to LGs, if requested by the Government.
  • Provincial governments should be given the mandates to coordinate and prioritize projects between districts in their provinces and to monitor development effectiveness, governance, and the delivery of LG services.
  • Capacity development is needed to make local officials more responsible for environmental and natural resource management, and to identify and cultivate champions for sustainable development.
  • ADB should discuss with the Government an agenda for good governance and for addressing issues of corruption.
  • TAs need to be more strategically aligned, and have increased ownership by EAs, improved ADB supervision, and recruitment of better consultants.

Recommendations

  • The next CSP should identify niches where the Government wants ADB to play a major role in
  • building the necessary systems and capacity to improve efficiency in spite of decentralization
  • improving governance and anti-corruption initiatives
  • increasing public and private sector investment for the provision of public goods
  • building an enabling environment for the private sector
  • The next CSP should select key focus areas based on ADB's sectoral track record, mainstreaming governance in ADB operations, and geographic location. The areas of focus must reflect government priorities and the programs of other development partners.
  • The coverage of the CSP must be consistent with available ADB resources, both budgetary and staff, giving consideration on staff redeployment and strengthening the skill mix at IRM.
  • In order to cut costs of monitoring, ADB needs to use validated country information systems, coordinate with development partners, and limit the amount of data collected to what is useful for senior managers in the Government and in ADB.
  • The Government has identified ADB's policies, processes, and procedures that need improvement, and the latter should address these.
  • The next CSP should identify ways to catalyze private sector investment.

Contents 

  • Executive Summary
  • Map
  • Introduction
  • Analysis of Development Issues
  • Assessment of Country Strategy and Program
  • Assessment of Outcomes and Outputs of Strategic Thrusts
  • Assessment of the Portfolio
  • Review of Other Factors
  • Overall Assessment
  • Lessons, Conclusions, and Recommendations
  • Appendixes

Note on IED's Country Evaluations and Validations

Using its 2015 Guidelines for the Preparation of Country Assistance Program Evaluations and Country Partnership Strategy Final Review Validations, the Independent Evaluation Department (IED) intends to provide an objective and informed judgement of the performance and results of country partnership strategies (CPSs), particularly in terms of their relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and development impacts.

In ascertaining relevance, IED considers not only the alignment of the program with country needs and government objectives, but also cross-sector CPS objectives, appropriateness of modalities and sector program designs, and sufficiency of donor coordination.

The effectiveness of a country program in delivering results is also an important aspect of an IED evaluation. Primary focus is on the achievement of the outcomes and outputs of ADB interventions (and the likelihood of achievement if the program is still ongoing), as worded in CPSs and their results frameworks. These include knowledge products and institutional development efforts.

Performance and results are likewise judged from an efficiency perspective, that is, whether the program was delivered in a cost-effective and timely manner, and generated value for money. It also considers the capacity of executing agencies that may contribute to start up and implementation delays, and cost overruns.

Another critical element of IED's evaluation is the likely sustainability of results over the medium term, technically, financially, environmentally, socially, politically, and institutionally. Further, IED looks at how results led to development impacts. Specifically, whether ADB contributed to achieving the CPS objectives, directly through its sector programs and implementing cross-cutting agenda(s) across various modalities in different sectors and by various development partners.

IED gives special importance to cross-cutting objectives by considering how the cross-sectoral and thematic objectives of the CPS are articulated in the results framework and provided with appropriate indicators and targets; and how the program achieved the cross-sector thematic results. Equal weights are given to the achievement of sector and cross-cutting objectives in the relevance and development impact assessments, in both country assistance program evaluations (CAPEs) and CPS final review validations (CPSFRVs). This aligns with ADB's increasing emphasis on achieving corporate strategic priorities.

In preparing its country evaluations and validations, IED conducts document reviews, consults with concerned departments, staff, governments and other stakeholders, and undertakes evaluation missions. IED has put in place a quality assurance system to ensure consistent application of its 2015 guidelines. In CPSFRVs, IED's primary focus is to validate the evidence presented in the CPS Final Review.