Annual Review - Summary Sheet
This Summary Sheet captures the headlines on programme performance, agreed actions and learning over the
course of the review period. It should be attached to all subsequent reviews to build a complete picture of actions
and learning throughout the life of the programme.
Title: Rapid Response Facility on Climate Change
Programme Value: £950,000
Programme Code: 202833
Review Date: August 2014
Start Date: Aug 2011
Summary of Programme Performance
2012
2013
Year
A
A+
Programme Score
low
low
Risk Rating
End Date: March 2015
2014a
A
low
Summary of progress and lessons learnt since last review, and recommendations for the
next year
The Rapid Response Facility for Climate Change (RRF) was designed to enhance the ability of
UKCCU to respond quickly to opportunities and build networks and relationships with key
partners and counterparts. It has proved to be a very useful in this role. It has been able to
respond quickly and efficiently to requests for support. It has delivered a broad range of
initiatives related to climate change that have directly facilitated the UKCCU’s relationships in
Indonesia. It has sought to find a balance between light-touch processes for application and
reporting, while ensuring sound oversight and management.
The 8-month period covered by this review has been low-key, in part owing to the disruptive
impact of the two national elections on our key GOI counterparts. A number of projects are
planned for the final period before programme completion, which will ensure that the budget is
fully utilised.
Financial spend is a little slow (68% of the funds have been spent or committed). However, a
number of larger initiatives have been planned and will start shortly. At this stage the entire
budget is expected to be used by the time the project ends in seven months.
A. Introduction and Context (1 page)
DevTracker Link to Business Case:
DevTracker Link to Log frame:
http://devtracker.dfid.gov.uk/projects/GB-1-202833/documents/
http://devtracker.dfid.gov.uk/projects/GB-1-202833/documents/
Outline of the programme
1. The RRF was approved in August 2011 with a budget of £500,000 and an end date of March
2013. In March 2013, it was extended to March 2015 and the budget increased by a further
£450,000.
2. The purpose of RRF is to enable the UK Climate Change Unit (UKCCU) to be able to
respond rapidly to requests for short-term, strategic support from partners in the Government of
1
Indonesia (GoI) and other relevant stakeholders responsible for formulating and implementing
Indonesia’s climate change policies and actions. With staff from the Department for International
Development (DFID) and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), the UKCCU assists
Indonesia to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.
3. To date, RRF has been used to initiate 22 sub-projects. Twenty projects have been
completed. As at August 2014, £606,000 has been spent. A further £37,000 is committed and
the remaining £307,000 has been allocated for activities before the programme ends in March
2015.
4. Through this programme the UKCCU will:
• directly contribute to strategic policy discussions, enabling Indonesia to draw on high-quality
analysis, expertise and experience as it implements its climate change strategy; and use the
results to inform longer term programming; and
• consolidate relationships with key and important stakeholders and institutions, providing an
excellent basis for UK and Indonesia to deepen and broaden government to government
relationship on climate change.
5. The UKCCU’s provision of rapid and strategic support to Indonesian partners will enable
them to improve climate change policy and climate change action, leading ultimately to
Indonesia meeting its targets for low carbon sustainable development.
6. These results contribute to the UK’s overall objectives on climate change in Indonesia and
the UK’s aims for high-level partnership relationships with G20 countries. They are fully
consistent with the “Joint Statement on Closer Cooperation between the UK and the Indonesia.”
This was launched in April 2012 by UK Prime Minister David Cameron and the Indonesian
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and identified climate change and energy as one of four
strategic areas for cooperation.
Context
7. Indonesia is the world’s fourth most populous country, a continent-sized archipelago of
17,000 islands. It is a major emerging economy and one of the world’s largest emitters of
greenhouse gases. It holds the third-largest area of tropical forest and 70% of the world’s deep
tropical peat soils (which sequester massive reserves of carbon).
8. Although land use change, forestry and agriculture have dominated greenhouse gas
emissions in Indonesia to date, energy-related emissions (from transport and power generation)
are set to pass these by about 2025 unless Indonesia moves onto a low carbon growth path.
9. Reducing emissions and moving onto a low carbon growth path is a high priority for the GoI.
In 2009, Indonesia announced ambitious plans to tackle the growth of emissions and called for
international support to help it achieve even greater reductions. Driven by mutual interest in
tackling issues of climate change and sustainable growth, the UK has committed to working with
Indonesia to help it move to a low carbon based economy, to meet its national emissions
targets and for both countries to achieve an ambitious global deal through international
negotiations.
10. Weak capacity is hampering Indonesia’s ability to achieve its climate change objectives.
Government institutions, communities, NGOs and the private sector lack knowledge and
resources to develop green alternatives to the current high carbon growth model. Without
2
concerted and coordinated international support, the prospects for Indonesia achieving its
climate change objectives do not look promising.
11. Government institutions generally struggle to formulate evidence-based policy, due partially
to Indonesia’s weak knowledge sector which is unable to provide timely evidence-based inputs
to government decision-makers. In addition, a complex array of political and institutional
relationships, that are complicated by central-local government splits in responsibility generally
inhibit successful policy implementation. Budgetary mechanisms and bureaucracy often do not
enable GoI officials to deploy resources to support short-term urgent technical advice needs or
to support dialogue. This means that opportunities for key officials from Indonesia to benefit
from international advice or to engage in dialogue with international partners can be missed.
12. Responsibility for climate change is diffuse and it is clear that as a result, for the UK to have
an influence on policy formulation and implementation, it is necessary for considerable
investment in relationship building and networking. In addition, the GOI's institutional structures
for meeting its climate change commitments, and the engagement of individual ministries,
continues to develop over time, so this picture is still changing. Supporting champions for
change will be vital in this process.
13. In such a complex institutional environment, relationships with key officials from institutions
responsible for climate change is essential for UK officials to understand how institutions work,
the importance of political alliances and how power and influence is distributed. In turn that
knowledge is crucial to enabling the UK to support Indonesia in meetings its climate change
targets. Such relationships depend upon trust and investment of time and resources.
14. In March 2013, this context was reviewed and RRF extended because, the programme:

provides an opportunity to support and work with key partners with whom we do not have
major programmes – for example the President’s Delivery Unit, the Ministry of Energy, and
Ministry of Foreign Affairs;

can continue to fill knowledge gaps – information and analysis on the growth of emissions,
deforestation rates, progress on meeting renewables targets, economic linkages between
growth and emissions etc all remain vital to improving the quality of policy in Indonesia and
demonstrating the support and expertise of the UK in interactions with partners in Indonesia
and in UK-Indonesia government to government dialogue; and

has the ability to mobilise quickly in the face of urgent requests for support – few if any other
donors can mobilise at the speed that is sometimes required. Such responses are really
appreciated by partners.
3
B: PERFORMANCE AND CONCLUSIONS (1-2 pages)
Annual outcome assessment
The period covered by this review (January-August 2014) has been a relatively quiet one for
RRF activity. However, the programme as a whole continues to be deployed in a strategic
manner and has produced impressive results. Senior management in UKCCU remain highly
supportive of the programme and encourage its use to fill knowledge gaps and promote
partnerships and relationships. The UKCCU will continue to monitor results and management of
risk, to ensure the programme remains on-track.
Overall Output Score and Description: A (Outputs met expectation)
Key lessons
Following the recommendations of an earlier Annual Review, UKCCU has reduced the number
of on-going sub-projects and tried to increase the size of each sub-project, this reducing the
administrative burden of managing the RRF.
During the first seven months of 2014 Indonesia has had both Parliamentary and Presidential
elections. This has led to a relatively quiet period in terms of UKCCU’s policy engagement with
GOI. The remaining RRF projects will continue, and we are confident that key GOI counterparts
at official level will remain in place. However, it remains to be seen whether the incoming
President retains the same focus on climate change as his predecessor. This will have major
implications for any successor programme, should there be one, so UKCCU should keep this
under active review.
Key actions
The logical framework includes reference to an independent review in the summer of 2014.
However, there is only seven months remaining in a 3.5 year programme. Given that the
programme’s entire budget is either spent, committed or allocated to identified sub-projects, the
usefulness and value for money of an independent review at this point seems limited. It would
be more useful to seek independent input to the Project Completion Report next year, ensuring
that any lessons learned feed into RRF-type activities in UKCCU’s work programme from 2015
onwards. This recomnedation has been accepted by Mark George, acting Head of UKCCU
(August 2014).
Has the logframe been updated since the last review?
No
4
C: DETAILED OUTPUT SCORING (1 page per output)
Output Title
Advice and analysis on climate policy or action prepared that is relevant and useful to
partners.
Output Score
Output number per LF
1
A
Risk:
Low
Impact weighting (%):
34%
Risk revised since last AR?
N
Impact weighting % revised
since last AR?
N
Indicator(s)
The number of briefs prepared
from the work of RRF for senior
Indonesian officials, ministers
and stakeholders.
Invitations to RRF-funded experts
to present at dissemination and
communication events.
Milestones
Progress
Key Points
Progress against expected results:
Since the last Annual Review the programme has continued to generate high quality advice and
analysis, including:
•
A handbook with detailed information on over 40 potential energy efficiency investments, in
support of the Government of Indonesia’s proposed Energy Efficiency Revolving Fund. This work
has been requested by the Director for Energy Efficiency in the Ministry of Energy and Mineral
Resource, and fits closely with UKKCU’s objectives to support GOI’s efforts to accelerate low
carbon development.
•
A training session run by the UN Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO) for the Ministry of
Energy and Mineral Resources on improving energy efficiency in industry. This was held
alongside a major sustainable energy conference and exhibition in Jakarta so was able to attract
very well targeted audience.
•
A collaboration on marine energy between Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen, UK the
Ministry of Research and Technology and the Indonesian Marine Energy Association. The
Indonesian Government has identified marine energy as a key sector for development and this
has a very good match with UK capability. This project is ongoing but early outputs are very
promising, have already led to a formal collaboration between RGU and an Indonesian university
and are likely to lead to further nationally-led work.
Summary of responses to issues raised in previous annual reviews (where relevant)
N/A
Recommendations
For its remaining duration the programme should continue to provide responsive, policy-focussed
support to strategic units within GoI.
5
Output Title
Increase in exposure of Indonesian partners to national and international climate
change learning and networks
Output Score
Output number per LF
2
A
Risk:
Low
Impact weighting (%):
33%
Risk revised since last AR?
N
Impact weighting % revised
since last AR?
N
Indicator(s)
Inward and outward visits to
workshops, seminars, learning
events
Milestones
Progress
Key Points
This indicator is trying to measure the extent to which the UK is being asked to contribute to policy
discussions in Indonesia and use UK government climate change expertise or knowledge products from
RRF to help shape policy.
Since the last Annual Review, the following events have been supported under RRF:
•
A training workshop hosted by the Ministry of Energy on industrial energy efficiency;
•
A workshop hosted by the National Energy Council on Marine Energy.
In addition the Office of the Governor of Jakarta has recently requested support for a follow-up study to
develop recommendations for new regulations to encourage waste cooking oil to be recycled into
biodiesel. This is in the pipeline for RRF support over the periof September 2014-March 2015.
These events have maintained the profile of UK and Indonesian interaction on climate change, have
offered access to key policy makers, and have exposed key stakeholders to knowledge and analysis that
is directly relevant to Indonesia’s efforts to move to a low carbon trajectory. RRF has certainly
contributed to the reputation that the UK now has a serious and committed partner working on climate
change and sustainable energy issues.
Summary of responses to issues raised in previous annual reviews (where relevant)
n/a
Recommendations
Supporting specific events allows the UK to gain profile whilst also allowing a focus on key issues.
Future events should remain as policy-focused as possible and we should ensure that the right
Indonesian stakeholders are involved. The UKCCU should continue to use these events to sustain highlevel UK-Indonesian political interactions (eg with the Ministry of Energy).
6
Output Title
Strategic studies prepared to feed into UK and other donor programmes
Output number per LF
3
Output Score
A
Risk:
Low
Impact weighting (%):
33%
Risk revised since last AR?
N
Impact weighting % revised
since last AR?
N
Indicator(s)
Number of studies for the period
covered by this Annual Review
Milestones
Progress
Key Points
Progress against expected results is on track. Work funded under the RRF has delivered the
following studies:•
A major report (300+ pages) on energy efficiency investment opportunities synthesised
from existing energy audit reports. Completed in June 2014.
•
A major report on marine energy, covering marine energy resource and technology
surveys, a survey of human resources and an assessment of relevant business conditions and
infrastructure. Near completion.
A further RRF study is nearly completed. It will present empirical analysis on linkages between
natural resources and wider economic growth (the World Bank is the partner). It has already
been partially disseminated through the June 2014 Quarterly Economic Report (the major
source of reporting on the economy undertaken by the World Bank in Indonesia) and has
directly fed into the World Bank’s important work with GOI on the forthcoming five year plan
2015-2019. A high-level conference on the work will be delivered before the end of 2014.
Summary of responses to issues raised in previous annual reviews (where relevant)
n/a
Recommendations
It is expected that there will be three more studies prepared before the end of the programme
(on green investment; on accelerating the uptake of compressed natural gas in public transport,
and on regulations to support waste oil conversion to biodiesel). Dissemination and
communication of the findings of these studies should be properly incorporated into activities to
ensure opportunities for building knowledge and impacting on policy are maximised.
7
D: VALUE FOR MONEY & FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE (1 page)
Key cost drivers and performance
The scale and number of initiatives is the main driver of costs. Within these initiatives the cost of
technical expertise is the largest single component of costs. Most initiatives are subjected to
competitive tender or are directly negotiated as accountable grants using pre-agreed terms
VfM performance compared to the original VfM proposition in the business case
The VFM for this programme rests on an assessment of whether small discrete amounts of
expenditure can help improve the content of climate policy and the implementation of climate
action or the breadth and depth of UK relationships in Indonesia. Advisers prepare a pro-forma
for each activity supported under the programme and are required to identify the expected
outcome and impact of each proposal. The Head of Office screens all proposals for activities
under the programme and determines whether they offer results that justify costs.
The RRF programme is delivering very much as anticipated in the BC, and therefore vfm is
unchanged.
Assessment of whether the programme continues to represent value for money
Yes
Quality of financial management
RRF Financial spend is a little slow (68% of the funds have been spent or committed). However,
a number of larger initiatives have been planned and will start shortly. At this stage the entire
budget is expected to be used by the time the project ends in seven months.
RRF is delivered through a series of comparatively small sub-projects, typically in the range
£10,000 - £100,000. Each is managed through a separate contarct or accountable grant, and is
subject to oversight both by the lead adviser and UKCCU’s finance team.
Date of last narrative financial report
Date of last audited annual statement
n/a
n/a
8
E: RISK (½ page)
Overall risk rating: Low
The risk is low. Each activity is subject to its own approvals process. Activities are short-term
and fully costed in advance. Activities are only undertaken if there is clear and strong support
from partners or a specific knowledge gap has been identified and is crucial for UK and or wider
donor partner work on climate change
Risk of funds not being used as intended
Low. Each activity under the programme is subject to a specific contract/grant agreement that is
then overseen by the relevant UKCCU adviser with support from the UKCCU’s contract/
procurement specialist.
Climate and Environment Risk
Low. This programme has a strong emphasis upon climate change and the environment and so
is regarded as being low risk in terms of negative environmental impact.
Outstanding actions from risk assessment
n/a
F: COMMERCIAL CONSIDERATIONS (½ page)
Delivery against planned timeframe
The programme is entirely managed in-house and has no overhead consultancy or
management costs. Each activity is either tendered or subject to negotiation to achieve at least
bench-marked costs from similar activities undertaken in Indonesia. The UKCCU’s contract/
procurement specialist has extensive knowledge and training to deliver low cost contracts for
the UKCCU.
Performance of partnership (s)
n/a
Asset monitoring and control
n/a
9
G: CONDITIONALITY (½ page)
Update on partnership principles (if relevant)
n/a
H: MONITORING & EVALUATION (½ page)
Evidence and evaluation
There has been no change in evidence underpinning the programme since the last AR.
The logical framework includes reference to an independent review in the summer of 2014.
However, there is only seven months remaining in a 3.5 year programme. Given that the
programme’s entire budget is either spent, committed or allocated to identified sub-projects, the
usefulness and value for money of an independent review at this point seems limited. It would
be more useful to seek independent input to the Project Completion Report next year, ensuring
that any lessons learned feed into RRF-type activities in UKCCU’s work programme from 2015
onwards.
No evaluation is currently planned for the programme.