Evaluation of Indonesia WFP Country Strategic Plan 2017-2020

Outputs: VAM products were among the most appreciated accomplishments. The Government considers WFP’s work in VAM was relevant and expects its continued strategic engagement. A planned campaign on nutrition messaging was not implemented due to resource shortfalls. WFP provided technical support to the national school meals programme (Progas). Despite significant buy-in by schools, national level roll-out was limited. The cost of diet study in 2017 was appreciated by stakeholders and is a good example of how technical studies can contribute to shaping government policy in social protection. Emergency Preparedness and Response (EPR) activities have seen the greatest expansion during the current CSP cycle, the Sulawesi response having marked a positive turning point in WFP’s role. Strategic outcomes: WFP’s impact is unassessable, and potential contributions may vary by activity. Capacity Strengthening: The greatest contributions of the CSP are in the individual and institutional domains, and in the two CCS pathways of stakeholder programme design, delivery, M&E and institutional effectiveness.

Sustainable Development Goals: WFP contributions are aligned and positive, even if they are not quantifiable. Qualitatively, stakeholders see WFP as contributing more significantly to food security and emergency preparedness. Gender, protection, and accountability to affected populations: WFP’s primary contribution has been in further nuancing and supporting sensitization of these issues in government activities within a CCS approach. Sustainability: Potential for sustainability is seen in the areas of technical capacity development, systems development and policy framework, and strategic integration, subject to sufficient ownership.

The evaluation faced challenges in assessing resource efficiency of the CSP. WFP’s responsiveness to emergent opportunities was generally well-received but was at times slow. Synchronizing the timing of WFP plans with government’s plans was a challenge. This misalignment affected efficiency and exposed WFP to potential reputational risk. CSP budget mechanism allows for relatively good cost flexibility, with two important exceptions: the difficulty of moving budget among the activities and the funding earmarking at the activity level.

Use of existing evidence: The CSP was informed by a 2105 strategic review, and other internal and external evidences. Resource mobilization: Despite extensive efforts by the country office, the anticipated funding from the Government has not yet materialized and the primary donors have drastically reduced their support. To adapt to the funding shortfall, the country office adjusted the direction of programming; eliminated higher level WFP positions; and kept WFP national staff on short-term service contracts. Partnerships: WFP has built a wide range of relationships with government entities, while there is a tendency to compartmentalize than to seek strategic connections across CSP activities. Senior government officials would expect WFP to play more strategic role in national policy discourse, but there is a limitation due to current predominance of projectbased resourcing. Private sector partnerships were successful in the CSP. This capacity strengthening focused CSP highlights the need for staff at all levels to have the skills to engage in policy discourse and strategic communication, but there is a lack of corporate resources for staff capacity enhancement in this area. Additional factors for consideration: Multiple parallel strategic planning processes under way, in which WFP must invest its limited staff resources. While it is synchronized with the United Nations framework cycle, the timing of the new CSP design is still out of sync with the development of the next medium-term national development plan and donor strategic plans, which has implications for future funding. WFP should engage deeply in dialogue with government agencies as they develop their frameworks.