評価調査結果要約表（英文）１．Outline of the ProjectCountry：Indonesia

Project title：Sulawesi Capacity Development Project

Issue/Sector：
Cooperation scheme：Technical Cooperation Project
Poverty Reduction / Regional
Development
Division in charge：Indonesia Office Total cost (as of evaluation)：JPY 409 Million(Makassar Field Office)Partner Country’s Implementing Organization：Ministry of
Supporting Department：Economic
Home Affairs (Center for Management of Overseas
Infrastructure Development Department
Cooperation), BAPPENAS (Directorate of Regional
Development), BAPPEDA in 6 Provinces in Sulawesi
Period of Cooperation(R/D signed on Supporting Organization in Japan：
7 August 2007)：
Nihon Fukushi University
16 September 2007-15 September 2010 Related Cooperation：Northeastern Indonesia Regional(3 years)Development Program
１－１ Background of the Project
Since 1999, Indonesian political system has been decentralized. Enactment of Laws No. 25 and No. 32
of 2004 regarding development planning system and regional autonomy respectively indicates thatnational development planning should be implemented by central, provincial, and district/citygovernments based on the roles and functions as prescribed in the aforesaid laws.
Under such circumstances, the role as coordinator and intermediate policy channel in a new bottom-up
policy process to district/city governments while maintaining consistency with national development
plan is required for provincial governments. For district/city governments, on the other hand, the role toexecute bottom-up regional development planning and implementation reflecting communities’ needs isrequired.
Thus, 6 provincial governments of Sulawesi requested a Technical Cooperation Project which
promotes regional development based on local governments’ initiatives. In response to this request,
Sulawesi Capacity Development Project (hereinafter referred to as CDP) which aims to establish
collaboration mechanisms among the stakeholders of regional development in 6 provinces in Sulawesi
has been implemented.
Related Technical Cooperation Projects are as follows：Empowerment of the Poor in South Sulawesi to
Support Poverty Alleviation Program (1997-2002); Regional Development Policies for Local
Government (2001-2005); Project for Human Resource Development for Local Government (HRDLG)(2002-2007); Community Empowerment Program with Civil Society (PKPM) (2004-2006).
１－２ Project Overview
CDP aims at strengthening the capacity of the stakeholders for regional development in establishingcollaboration mechanisms among the stakeholders in Sulawesi. CDP has attempted to strengthen thecapacity of the stakeholders at provincial and district levels (i.e. 1) policy makers; 2) planners; 3)community facilitators (e.g. NGO staff)) through the implementation of 1) a series of trainings; 2) pilot
activities (PA); and 3) sharing experiences.

xi

(1) Overall Goal
Regional developments in Sulawesi with local initiative under the collaboration of stakeholders arepromoted.
(2) Project Purpose
The capacity of stakeholders for regional development in Sulawesi is strengthened and themechanisms of collaboration among stakeholders are developed.
(3) Outputs
Output 1：The planning capacity of stakeholders for regional development is enhanced through theirunderstanding of its process of planning and implementation.
Output 2：The management capacity of stakeholders for regional development is developed throughexperience of pilot activities.
Output 3：Function of Provincial Implementation Commettee (PIC) to share experiences in each province
is strengthened and sharing information among 6 provinces and in other regions is promoted.
(4) Inputs (as of evaluation)
Japanese side
Long-term
ExpertTrainees
received
Equipment

111 MM
42 persons
6 vehicles

Indonesian SideCounterpart 2 in each of the 6 provinces(Head Provincial
BAPPEDAand Focal Pointof PIC)
Local Cost

Short-term
ExpertIn-Country
Training
Local cost
OfficeFacilities

28 MM
315 persons
IDR 11,400 million
1 office/province, total of 6

IDR 12,400 million (total of 6 provinces and 11 districts/cities)

２．Evaluation Team
Members of Team Leader
SASAKI Takahiro
Japanese
Evaluation Participatory
SUGAWARA SuzukaTeamdevelopment/Regional
development
Evaluation Planning 1 SUZUKI Sachiko
Evaluation Planning 2 SETO Noriko

IndonesianAuthorities
Concerned

Evaluation Analysis 1
Evaluation Analysis 2
Ms. Emiyarti

MINAGAWA Yasunori
KUMAZAWA Ken

Mr. Zamhir Islamie

xii

Deputy Director General, Southeast
Asia I & Pacific Department, JICA HQ
Senior Advisor (Poverty reduction),
JICA HQ
Project Formulation Advisor, JICA
Indonesia Office (MFO)
Researcher, Southeast Asia I & Pacific
Department, JICA HQ
System Science Consultants Inc.
Almec Corp.
Staff, Center for Overseas Cooperation
Administration, Ministry of Home
Affairs
Staff, Directorate General of Regional
Development, Ministry of Home Affairs

Periodof From June 27 to July 31, 2010
Evaluation

Type of Evaluation：Terminal

３．Results of Evaluation
３－１ Progress of the Project(1) Achievement of Project Purpose
As of terminal evaluation, no case of established collaboration mechanism has been found. However,
it is highly likely that at least 6 cases of collaboration mechanism will be established in the target
districts if CDP is extended its cooperation period for 2 years.
(2) Achievement of Outputs
1) Output 1 (3-laryered trainings)
CDP has conducted a series of trainings to 3 layers of the stakeholders of regional development,
namely Policy makers, Planners, and Community Facilitators (CFs) (the participants amount to 315), andthe concept is well understood by the participants. The number of action plans developed thoughcollaboration with other stakeholders are 16 (7 action plans are already authorized and the remaining 9
are under preparation), The number of training programs which utilizes the experiences obtained throughPA amount to 23. Development plans have been developed or revised in 38 villages in 5 districts. The
number of spontaneous activities conducted by the alumni of trainings amount to 42. Additionally,follow-up trainings have been conducted by provincial and district governments with the support of CDP(the participants amount to 1,268).
2) Output 2 (Practice：PA)
PA aims to strengthen the management capacity of the stakeholders through their collaboration. The
progress among the 29 target districts are as follows：
Preparation for authorization：9 districts
Implementation：7 districts (of 2 are in the process of institutionalization)3) Output 3 (Sharing experience)
Aside of 7 PAs, CDP conducted Good Practice Case Studies of 6 cases for analysis and sharing. In
addition, CDP has established the website, published newsletter (up until volume 8), and produced 3
documentary films. Number of inquiries from non-target regions is as follows：4 from outside of
Sulawesi, 5 from the non-target districts/citiesin Sulawesi.
３－２ Summary of Evaluation Results(1) RelevanceFor the following reasons, the relevance of the Project is considered to be very high.
In Indonesia, since the revised Local Autonomy Law No.32 and National Development Planning
Law No.25 were enacted in 2004, the decentralized system has been promoted. These laws stipulate local
government's initiatives, participatory and bottom-up approach as the requirements of planning process
for regional development. The approach of the Project is corresponding to the development policy ofIndonesia. Furthermore, the Project has close relevance to the major issues stipulated in the newly
developed Mid-Term National Development Plan (RPJMN 2010-2014) such as Agenda V of
Development Agenda：Inclusive and Equality Development. The agenda mentioned that involvement of
the community in the development process become a very important component. According to theinterviews conducted for the final evaluation, most people indicated that one of the unique advantages ofxiiithis Project's capacity development approach is to mobilize locally available resources and capacity
towards development of the community, instead of resource-input orientated approach. They gave highmarks for comprehensive approach of this Project which involves all the stakeholders in a local society,which is different from the conventional target group approach.
Japan's Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) includes "Creating a Democratic and Equitable Society" as
one of three main pillars which deals with poverty reduction as one of its approaches. Under the pillar,
the Northeastern Indonesia Regional Development Program was formulated, corresponding to the policy.
This Project is recognized as a main project in the Program since then.
Additionally, the fact that CDP has fully utilized the experiences and assets obtained through JICA’s
technical cooperation projects of the past shows the appropriateness of methodology.
Furthermore, CDP has applied the self-selection principle (i.e. each PIC selects their target districts),
which has contributed to create a sense of ownership of PIC thus contributed to relatively smoothcoordination between the provincial and district governments throughout the project period. Therefore, it
can be concluded that the selection of target areas was appropriate. Nevertheless, even though the
Project’s nature is to fully respect the initiatives of the partners, PIC (and district governments as well)should be accountable for the selection criteria (e.g. poverty rate)(2) EffectivenessFor the following reasons, the effectiveness of the Project is considered to be high.
Output 1 (trainings) and Output 2 (PA) has contributed to the changes of the stakeholders as
follows：firstly, the change of awareness (i.e. realizing eachother’s roles), secondly, the change of work
attitude (i.e. government officers began fact-based planning through on-site observation), thirdly, thechange of system (i.e. in an attempt to materialize CDP approach, provincial and district BAPPEDAs
have improved Musrenbang). Additionally, Output 3 (sharing experiences) has contributed to further
improvement of PA. Out of 29 districts in 6 provinces, follow-up activities are taking place in 26
districts (those whose PAs have been authorized by the PIC and the Project Team are 7 districts. 9
districts are in the process of preparing for their PAs. In addition, there are 13 districts whose progresses
are still at individual level.), which shows CDP approach’s effectiveness. However, even the“forerunner” 2 districts are still in the process of institutionalization and they need time for the stage of
regular operation and establishment. Consequently, even though the project purpose has not beenachieved yet, a certain degree of outputs have been achieved in capacity development, CDP approach isconsidered to be effective.
On the other hand, however, it is important to disseminate the outpus towards external parties.
Furthermore, it is equally important to further verify its effectiveness through comparison and compilinglessons learned in the course of formulating and implementing similar projects.
According to the interviews, it was confirmed that concepts which were emphasized in the threelayered trainings of the Project (namely Seminar for Policy Makers, Training for Planners, and Training
for CFs), such as bottom-up approach, participatory approach, fact-based, RON (Resources,
Organization and Norm), matches the participants' concerns and the participants' reactions were very
positive. Furthermore, the following cases were also reported：1) community, government, and NGO
make collaboration based on mutual understanding of each stakeholders’ responsibility and role (changeof perception on stakeholders' roles); 2) When a government receives a request or consultation from acommunity or NGOs, they try to visit a site and take fact-based response (change of attitude forworking); 3) BAPPEDA of local governments are considering CDP approach for the improvement ofMusrenbang which is one of planning process with bottom-up approach (change of system).

xiv

(3) Efficiency
For the following reasons, the efficiency of the Project is considered to be high.
The outputs of Output 1(three layered trainings) and Output 3 (sharing information) have beenachieved as planned. As for Output 2 (PA), though activities for forming PA were carried out in almost
target districts, the progress varied widely.
1) Contributing factorsa) CDP’s concept, including bottom-up approach emphasized in the three-layered trainings matchedwith the needs of the development of individual, organizational, and societal levels in time of regional
autonomy in Indonesia.
b) The consistency of attitude not to provide funding for their activities has contributed to raise thestrong sense of ownership of the stakeholders.
c) The experience, know-how, and asset of past Technical Cooperation Project were fully utilized.
2) Interference factorsa) The activities of some of the training alumni remained at individual level due to personnel transfer
in relation to the elections of heads of local governments.
b) The planned budget for PAs was cut and allocated to the activities related to the elections of headsof local governments.
(4) Impact
For the following reasons, the impact of the Project is considered to be large.
If it will be going as present, it is expected that the number of development projects/programs utilizing
local resources and characteristics will be increased. On the other hand, for target districts with small
progress in designing and implementing PA, an organization needs to be established which will be able
to implement additional trainings and provide necessary facilitation in place of the CD Project Team.
Additional trainings organized by local governments were implemented in eight (8) districts in two (2)provinces (North Sulawesi and Gorontalo) and the number of participants was 1,268 persons in total.
Since the number of participants in trainings by CD Project is 315 persons in total, four time theparticipants of basic trainings by the Project became beneficiaries of that of local governments.
Influence to other donors' projects/programs was also confirmed in the interviews that the participantsof CF trainings organized by the Project as well as by local governments' initiative are working as
facilitators for those projects/programs.
Post-training activities were identified in 26 districts out of 29, both authorized and not authorized as
PAs, meaning that the project has benefited 90% of the target districts.
(5) Sustainability
For the following reasons, the sustainability of the Project is considered to be medium.
1) Policies and systems
Each provincial government is planning to continue training programs introduced by CDP, including
the trainings for planners and CFs. In addition, they plan to conduct dissemination of CDP activities
through BAPPEDA forum, and consultation to non active target districts. Furthermore, provincial
governments have their own development plans and are considering the application of CDP approach in
implementing those programs. However, provincial governments’ capacity is not enough to conduct
those activities by themselves, thus the support from CDP is still required.

xv2) Organizational and financial aspects
The function of PIC such as the promotion of participatory approach, coordination with district
governments, and monitoring and evaluation of activities in CDP are needed to be internalized into thefunction of BAPPEDA. PICs have action plans to sustain CDP approach and their ownership is verystrong.
3) Technical aspect
The contents of 3-layered-training is well-accepted by the Indonesian side, with revisions dependingon the needs. On the other hand, the function played by POs in each province (e.g. training resource
person, consultation) is significant and how to ensure that function needs to be considered.
4) Others
Regarding training lecturers, for Planners Training, the number of participants to JICA's PLSD
Training in Japan has been increasing steadily in Indonesia. For CF Training, some capable CFs havebeen trained in the CDP and a training guideline for TOT for master facilitators has been secured by the
CDP. An organizational set-up will be required in order to ensure sustainability and expansion of the
training activities in the future. Additionally, finding a breakthrough for introducing CDP approach toother regions or programs is required as a measure to replicate CDP approach.
３－３ Factors that promoted realization of effects(1) Factors concerning to Planning
1) CDP approach which matched with local needs
The concept emphasized in the 3-layered trainings, including bottom-up approach, participatory
approach, fact-based, and RON (Resource-Organization-Norm), and so on, was fit to the needs ofdeveloping individual, organizational, and societal system capacity in the process of consolidating
regional autonomy in Indonesia.
2) Utilization of experience, know-how, and asset of similar Technical Cooperation Projects (TCP)The full utilization of the assets (human resources, training modules, human network) and its
experiences and lessons learned from the 4 TCPs mentioned in 1-1. Has contributed to smooth
implementation of the project operation.
(2) Factors concerning to the Implementation Process
1) Consultation through the establishment of PICs and staffing of POs
The establishment of PICs in each province, endorsed by governors’ instruction as well as the staffingof POs in each province for ensuring good coordination between the CDP team and PICs is considereda contributing factor for facilitating project activities as a whole. In addition, the employment of anational expert (expert for community development) as a peer of Japanese experts has contributed to asmooth communication between PICs and POs and timely consultation to target districts. This allows
consistent activities among the CDP team, provincial PICs, and target districts.
３－４ Factors that impeded realization of effects(1) Factors concerning to Planning
1) Protracted PA formulation process
Prior to the implementation of a PA, in flow of Training => Action Plan Development => PA, the planxvi

is required an authorization from PIC and the CDP team. Especially, it took fairly long time to acquire
activity budget from local governments. This means that the implementation of all the PAs were possible
only after year 2009. As a result, it turned out to be difficult to complete the CDP process within theplanned project period of 3 years.
2) Limited number of CFs
The number of training participants for CFs was 1 per district (cf. 5 for planners training) and this
could be the bottleneck of formulating PAs. However, in some districts, they tried to increase the numberof CFs by conducting additional CF trainings of their own.
3) Insufficient strategy on training management in the future
Regarding training lecturers, for Planners Training, the number of participants to JICA's PLSD
Training in Japan has been increasing steadily in Indonesia. For CF Training, some capable CFs havebeen trained in the CDP and a training guideline for TOT for master facilitators has been secured by the
CDP. An organizational set-up will be required in order to ensure sustainability and expansion of the
training activities in the future. Nevertheless, it has not been considered thoroughly as of terminal
evaluation.
4)Insufficient involvement of the central government from the planning stage
Central government should have been properly involved from the planning stage in order to make areplication process to other regions easier. However, the Project has not built partnership with central
government other than regular reporting by the experts.
On top of all above issues, the following should be noted.
5)Unclear project purpose
Due to the nature of the Project i.e fully respect counterparts’ initiatives hence it can be hard to predict
or control the post-training activities. Nevertheless, the state of things as to “who” and “what” become“how” mean achieving project purpose was unclear to the third party.
(2) Factors concerning to the Implementation Process
1) Influence of personnel reshuffle due to elections of local heads of government and appropriate
selection of training participants
In some target districts, the planned activities were interrupted caused by transfer of trained personnel
or their superiors to other positions due to the elections of local heads of government which resulted in
the distraction of human network which shares CDP approach.
In addition to ①the following should be noted：②Limited seats were available for relevant Dinas other than BAPPEDA;③lack of promptness of technical support in PA in some cases;④as for non-responsive districts, in addition to the distraction of human network due tothe influence of local elections mentioned 1), those districts became politically instable
for a few years prior to and after the elections; and 5)the support from JICA’s
headquarter (Economic Infrastructure Developmet Department) was limited.
３－５ Conclusion
The evaluation results by 5 criteria is as follows:(1) Relevance
It is considered very high from all aspects (needs, policy priority, appropriateness of methodology,

xviiselection of target areas).
(2 )Effectiveness
The Outputs have not been sufficient to achieve the project purpose; however, the Outputs havecontributed to the capacity development of the counterparts to a certain degree. Consequently, its
effectiveness is considered high.
(3) Efficiency
Although the achievement of Output 2 (PA) varies from district to district, Output 1 (trainings) and
Output 3 (sharing experiences) have been achieved as planned. In addition, the ratio of the cost borne by
the counterparts is high and the assets of JICA’s cooperation in the past have been fully utilized.
Consequently, its efficiency is considered high.
(4) Impact
As currently ongoing PAs progress, the number of regional development programs initiated by theregions is expected to increase. Additionally, the multiplier-effect is large as shown by the fact that the
total number of people benefited from the training programs replicated by regional governments is 4
times the number of people originally trained by CDP. Consequently, its impact is considered to be large.
(5) Sustainability
There are points of concerns from all the aspects of policies and systems, organizational and financial,technical, and replicability. Consequently, its sustainability is considered to be medium.
Based on the above evaluation results, although CDP has made substantial progress with numerous
positive impacts which were unforeseen at the beginning of CDP, CDP has not yet completely achieved
the project purpose. In addition, the GoI requested the Team to replicate CDP to other regions. Moreover,there is a concern regarding the sustainability due to lack of organizational set-up which can play thefunction CDP has been playing so far. Consequently, the team recommends extending the duration ofcooperation for 2 years. The following points should be taken into consideration during the extension
period.
- There will be remarkable outputs and certain amount of PA to be realized within next 3years. The
CDP shall provide proper consultation to each PA. While PA will be implemented properly, the CDP
should show tangible results to promote the CDP concept efficiently.
- To provide qualified training is one of the key for sustainability of the CDP. The proper institution to
hold CDP approach will be considered during extension period.
- The lessons learned from experience of the “forerunner” targeted districts will be documented anddisseminated to the other districts.
- There is demand for application of the CDP approach developed in Sulawesi. The replicability of the
CDP will be considered as trial cases at the extension period.
３－６ Recommendations
Following the conclusion which ends with a proposal for the extension of the project for two more
years, the team presents a series of recommendation considering smooth project termination in 2 years
time, especially in terms of effectiveness, sustainability, and impacts.
(1) Inclusion of new tasks in CDP which should be carried out during the extension period：‘Glocalization’ of Sulawesi CDP
1)Positioning of the extension period：Not only aiming at the achievement of the project purpose, but it
also aims to implement the project through further utilization of human and institutional resources inxviii

Indonesia (Localization of CDP operation) and dissemination of CDP approach (Globalization ofmarket for the CDP approach).
2)New Tasks during the extension period:- Preparation of strategy for creating enabling organizational set-ups. This includes consideration of a
possibility and feasibility to establish ‘CD Resource Bank’ (a tentative name) which will play a corerole in providing training and consultation services on the CDP approach.
- Drawing of lessons learned on the CDP processes and experiences with identification of promoting
and inhibiting factors. These lessons will provide valuable inputs for similar projects in future.
- Identification of measures for replication of the project outputs in six provinces in Sulawesi andother regions- Attempt for introducing the CDP approach to other regions outside Sulawesi and/or in othercommunity/regional development or sectoral programs/projects.
(2) Implementation of more effective and efficient CDP (all towards CDP except 8)1) Implementation of TOT on CF trainings and PLSD trainings by CDP
2) Selection of appropriate personnel for the trainings
3) Provision of trainings to Dinas and Community Empwerment Board personnel
4) Timely and appropriate technical support to PA
5) Considering changing target districts
6) Better utilization of ICT for monitoring, evaluation and consultation
7) Consideration of poverty rates as one of the criteria for selection of CF activity village as a part ofPA8) Change of supporting department at JICA HQ：Economic Infrastructure Development Dept →Public Policy Dept.
(3) Exit strategy which ensures sustainability and replication
1) Institutionalization of planners training and CF training conducted at provincial level (toprovincial government)2) Cost sharing by provincial government for hiring resource persons for those trainings(to provincial
government)
3) Provincial government’s facilitation to ensure district governments’ commitment (to PIC)
4) Conduct OJT (exposure) at village level to young staff members of regional governments (toprovincial/district governments)
5) Internalization and establishment of organizational set-up of PIC function after dissolution of PIC(to provincial BAPPEDA)
6) Strengthening the relationship between CDP and central government institutions (to PIC)
(4) Replication and expansion of CDP approach to other regions
1) More systematic documentation of CDP experience and presentation of a quasi-policy paper to thecentral level (to PIC, CDP)
2) Preparation of strategies for the establishment of ‘CD Resource Bank’ (tentatively named) by the
project (to CDP)
3) Sharing experiences and dissemination of CDP approach through utilization of social network
services or provision of on-line training (to CDP)
4) Expansion of the role of JICA-experts for collaboration with central government and donor
institutions(5) Enhancement of collaboration with other programs for further verification of the effectivenessof CDP approach and dissemination (to CDP)

xix

1)
2)
3)
4)

Active involvement to decentralization donors’ working group
Collaboration with other provincial programs
Collaboration with National Program, PNPM among others
Collaboration with other JICA-assisted projects

３－７ Lessons Learned
The characteristics of CDP, and the points of consideration in the process of formulation andimplementation of similar projects are as follows:(1)Characteristics of CDP：”Project which does not bring in project”
It is considered that the Project employs the philosophy of “Project which does not bring in project”
and put emphasis on the following:1)Consultation rather than physical input of resources
The Project made a considerable effort in trainings and consultation for establishing social
preparedness before and during inputing resources in order that the resources are utilized in timely,
efficient, and effective manner. To this end, the Project intentionally made it a precondition for theIndonesian side to bear necessary resources for implementing PAs.
2)Self-help rather than aid
CDP put emphasis on self-help at all levels – community, district, and province. Upon fulfillment ofsuch a condition, then only can PA be implemented.
3)Capacity development rather than provision of incentives
CDP was designed based on the assumption that although the laws and regulations for bottom-up
planning and implemention has been established, including Musrenbang, they are not functioning welland the bottleneck is a lack of capacity of stakeholder in promoting participatory regional development.
Bsed on the assumption, capacity development was considered important rather than provision of
incentives.
4)Comprehensive minded rather than sector oriented
CF trainings and activities were designed for CFs to facilitate a community to understand themselves
comprehensively from their viewpoint which allows them to identify their own capacity and priority
issues to be tackled and a solution towards those issues.
5)Empirical approach rather than “blue-print” approach
CDP aims to develop the stakeholders’ capacity to flexibly handle changing situations or issues in thereal world in addition to the capacity to deal with their routines.
(2)Lessons Learned and Points of Consideration
CDP with above-mentioned characteristics has promoted the ownership, self-help, and resource input
from the different levels of the counterparts. In addition, it also has created impacts beyond target
districts, although it varies from province to province. However, it is still unknown whether theapplication of similar approach can bring similar effects or impacts to other regions or other programs.
Therefore, a consideration on the following points will urgently and thoroughly be required.
1) Clarification of designated goal and exit strategy：The Project fully respects the initiatives ofcounterparts hence the development of the post-training activities is up to the initiatives ofcounterparts. However, designated goal by the end of the cooperation period and JICA’s exit
strategy should be clarified at the latest by the time of mid-term evaluation if it is hard to do soas of ex-ante evaluation.

xx

2)

Importance of central government’s involvement from the planning stage：Although the Projecttargets at the capacity development of a certain region, the involvement of related institutionsof central government from the planning stage would be required in order to ensure thesustainability and replication to other regions.

3)

Better utilization of ICT：In case of a capacity development project which covers large regions,
it is important to utilize mobile equipment which has been spreading out at among developing
countries at an increasing speed, to make training modules available on-line or in digitalformat, or even fulfilling the broad range of training needs through the market.

4)

Identifying the social context which CDP approach proves effective：It is considered that the
specific social conditions and the demands for such an approach would be the precondition inorder that CDP approach works well. It is important to provide the means of verification of thefeasibility of similar approach to other regions by analyzing CDP approach and the conditionsin Indonesia or in Sulawesi.

5)

Relative verification of CDP approach and re-verification of its effectiveness：CDP, whose
principle is not to provide funding for the activities planned by the counterparts, takes the
opposite approach of common ‘block grant’ provision approach of projects. From CDP point ofview, it can be effective way of promoting the ownership, self-help, hence ensuring
sustainability. However, its effectiveness and replicability should be verified in a relative
manner together with ‘block grant’ provision approach projects as to comparative advantagesof each approach and specific type of projects or social conditions which is desirable to applythat approach. To this end, conducting a comparative study by the third party and the analyticalframework and the indicators as the preconditions for conducting it should urgently beconsidered.

xxi