United Nations Development Programme...United Nations Development Programme Project Title: ... SGP...

1 | P a g e

United Nations Development Programme

Project Title: Sixth Operational Phase of the GEF Small Grants Programme in Indonesia

Country: Indonesia Implementing Partner: Yayasan Bina Usaha Lingkungan (YBUL)

Management Arrangements: NGO Implementation

UNPDF Outcome (2016-2020): Outcome 3 - By 2020, Indonesia is sustainably managing its natural resources, on land and at sea, with an increased resilience to the effects of climate change, disasters and other shocks.

UNDP Strategic Plan Output: 1.3 Solutions developed at national and sub-national levels for sustainable management of natural resources, ecosystem services, chemicals and waste. 2.5. Legal and regulatory frameworks, policies and institutions enabled to ensure the conservation, sustainable use, and access and benefit sharing of natural resources, biodiversity and ecosystems, in line with international conventions and national legislation.

UNDP Social and Environmental Screening Category: Low Risk

UNDP Gender Marker: GEN2 (a "gender mainstreamed initiative")

Atlas Project ID/Award ID number: 00094635 Atlas Output ID/Project ID number: 00098731

UNDP-GEF PIMS ID number: 5499 GEF ID number: 9086

Planned start date: 24 April 2017 Planned end date: 24 April 2021

LPAC date: 31 January 2017

Brief project description: In financing the Sixth Operational Phase of the GEF SGP in Indonesia, this project aims to enhance and maintain socio-ecological resilience of one forested and three coastal landscapes through community-based initiatives in Sulawesi, East Nusa Tenggara, and Bali, Indonesia through the generation of global environmental benefits.

FINANCING PLAN

GEF Trust Fund USD 3,561,644

UNDP TRAC resources USD 40,000

Cash co-financing to be administered by UNDP -

(1) Total Budget administered by UNDP USD 3,601,644

PARALLEL CO-FINANCING (all other co-financing that is not cash co-financing administered by UNDP)

Global ICCA Support Initiative USD 500,000

The Government of Wakatobi District (in-kind) USD 5,298,385

WWF Indonesia Programme USD 1,850,000

Rare USD 541,000

Grantee organizations (in-kind) USD 1,960,000

Grantee organizations (in cash) USD 1,560,000

(2) Total co-financing USD 11,709,385

(3) Grand-Total Project Financing (1)+(2) USD 15,311,029

SIGNATURES

Signature: Christophe Bahuet, Country Director

Agreed by UNDP

Date/Month/Year:

2 | P a g e

3 | P a g e

Table of Contents

I. Development Challenge ................................................................................................................................. 3

II. Strategy ............................................................................................................................................................ 6

III. Results and Partnerships ................................................................................................................................ 9

IV. Feasibility........................................................................................................................................................ 22

V. Project Results Framework .......................................................................................................................... 28

VI. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Plan ..................................................................................................... 34

VII. Governance and Management Arrangements ......................................................................................... 40

VIII. Financial Planning and Management ......................................................................................................... 43

IX. Total Budget and Work Plan ........................................................................................................................ 46

X. Legal Context ................................................................................................................................................. 49

XI. Annexes .......................................................................................................................................................... 52

A. Multi-year Work Plan, by landscape

B. Table B from CEO Endorsement Request

C. Terms of Reference

D. UNDP Social and Environmental Screening Protocol (SESP)

E. UNDP Project Quality Assurance Report

F. UNDP Risk Log

G. HACT Assessment (PENDING)

H. Maps

I. Leading stakeholders and roles per project site

J. SGP Operational Guidelines

K. Site descriptions

L. Knowledge Management

M. Direct Project Costs UNDP Country Office

N. GEF Tracking Tools

O. Supplemental Provisions to the Project Document: The Legal Context

I. DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGE

4 | P a g e

1. Indonesia is an archipelago country consisting of 17,504 islands (Indonesian Statistic Bureau – BPS,

2013), with a total of 13,466 small islands1 – spreading across 34 provinces. Small islands in

Indonesia have a potential for development, due to their strategic location, their exceptional

tropical ecosystems spanning ridge to reef (i.e. coral reef, seagrass, mangrove, forest, farmland) as

well as their distinctive nonrenewable resources of value for key sectors such as mining, energy,

tourism, etc. At the same time, small island landscapes in Indonesia are highly vulnerable to

degradation of their ecosystem functions and services, which affects their resilience to climate

change and other shocks and pressures.

2. Management of these small islands to enhance their resilience is quite complex. Currently, small

islands in Indonesia are isolated, lack attention from government, have limited, basic facilities and

infrastructure, are vulnerable to external threats, including climate related threats, and suffer from

increasing human pressure on ecosystem function and biodiversity. Furthermore, there is a relative

lack of information about these small islands, which makes development planning of these areas

difficult. Development planning in Indonesia instead follows a top-down approach, where the top

level of government assigns development initiatives to lower levels of government and community

groups, which are expected to adapt their own development initiatives to meet the priorities of the

top-level programs. Such problems are common among islands with low accessibility but rich

biodiversity and natural resources across Indonesia.

3. Forested landscapes across Indonesia face similar problems. Major natural resource challenges

include destruction of forest ecosystems through illegal logging, mining, large-scale monoculture

plantation (primarily palm and sugar), and unsustainable agriculture caused by a coupling of rapid

population growth and high poverty rates. The social economy in rural regions is hampered by a lack

of skilled labor, a lack of access to markets, a lack of infrastructure for processing agricultural and

fisheries products (resulting in a loss of income from potential higher-value products) and a lack of

access to sustainable development initiatives by local government and NGO actors.

4. SGP and other experience in Indonesia and elsewhere has shown that collective action by local and

indigenous communities, in partnership with civil society organizations (CSOs), offers significant

potential to maintain and strengthen the resilience of socio-ecological systems within rural

landscapes. Resilience needs to be based on climate change mitigation and adaptation and

optimization of ecosystem services through biodiversity conservation and sustainable land

management, including agro-ecosystem management and integrated water resources management,

among other things—all of which need to be pursued in the context of local sustainable

development. CSOs need to act in synergy to achieve impacts at the scale of rural landscapes,

progressively acquiring a critical mass of practitioners to reach a tipping point whereby rural

constituencies adopt more adaptive and innovative practices.

5. For collective action to be effective, indigenous and local communities (ILCs) must have the capacity

to continuously adapt to ecological, economic, and social challenges, threats and opportunities. The

1 http://www.ppk-kp3k.kkp.go.id/direktori-pulau/index.php/public_c/menu_info/1

http://www.ppk-kp3k.kkp.go.id/direktori-pulau/index.php/public_c/menu_info/1

5 | P a g e

problem to be addressed by this project is the ongoing weakness of community groups to envision

multi-functional, resilient landscapes and to plan collectively a course of action to achieve their

vision and carry it through with appropriate financial, logistical and capacity building support.

6. The above weakness is complex, multi-faceted and varies by landscape. However, in the case of

Indonesia, several typical barriers have been identified. These include the following:

• The majority of communities in landscapes across Indonesia are unfamiliar with the array of

potential alternative income-generating activities that are compatible with biodiversity

conservation and that have been tested in other venues. Business planning and management

skills are rudimentary, and there is little awareness of business opportunities for biodiversity-

friendly products. Knowledge of marketing for conservation or other niche markets is basic, and

mechanisms for adding value and transferring to market are unknown. Harvesting by local

communities is generally on a smaller scale and less capital intensive than industrial harvesting

systems. Low production is often a function of limited financial and technical capacity, wastage

from outdated or poorly maintained equipment, or conservative business goals. In most

communities, forestry takes second place to subsistence agriculture. Harvesting may occur only

during a lull in the agricultural cycle, or when extra cash income is needed, for example for a

religious festival. The rhythm of for-profit forest management may necessarily be compromised

by community traditions such as the regular rotation of management positions within a

community.

• Communities tend to be unfamiliar with aquaculture systems and practices, and capacities are

low for their development and implementation, in particular because these systems require in-

depth knowledge of species biology and management. Sustainable management of near shore

fisheries requires not only technical skills but also governance mechanisms for a community

commons. More commercially-oriented initiatives such as aquaculture also require business

planning and management skills. Community capacities to undertake all of these activities is

rudimentary at best; meanwhile, given the dynamics of these aquatic ecosystems, new practices

must be identified and developed on a nearly continuous basis, requiring testing of new

knowledge and techniques in an iterative learning process.

• Forest and coastal communities are often located in isolated areas with poor or non-existent

transport, energy or communications infrastructure. Isolation increases production and

transport costs, and limits access to markets, information and capital. The overall lack of

information within a community impedes understanding and awareness of new concepts and

issues. Participation of community organizations in sustainable coastal and marine management

is low. The centralized, government-dominated development approach that for many years was

the norm in Indonesia has inhibited community empowerment—a fact that is reflected in the

current inability of many communities to identify and reach shared goals.

• Local and indigenous communities are unable to identify and adopt sustainable use practices

and systems at scale in forest areas of high biodiversity value and in marine and freshwater

ecosystems because of limited knowledge, experience and information. Community capacities

6 | P a g e

to systematically design, implement, monitor and evaluate projects are fundamentally low, with

limited learning and adaptive management capacity. Useful information on ecosystems, types of

interventions, or lessons learned from project experience is not readily accessible to local

communities, NGOs or government institutions.

• Local and indigenous communities lack the means and/or motivation to plan, manage or

coordinate community production landscapes for conservation of biodiversity, enhanced

connectivity and increasing long-term productivity of ecosystem goods and services.

• Local and indigenous communities lack sufficient financial resources needed to enable them to

tolerate the risks associated with innovating land and resource management practices and

sustaining or scaling up successful experiences.

• Peer-to-peer training mechanisms and networks and partnership platforms for peer-to-peer

capacity building are not well developed. Sustainable forest management practices, ecotourism

alternatives and other income generating activities are underdeveloped, and most

corresponding training efforts lack a systematic methodological approach. Local producer and

community-based organizations are poorly developed, with limited opportunities for training

through systematic capacity building in sustainable resource management, even through cost-

effective peer-to-peer approaches.

• Knowledge management systems are not well developed, and best practices and lessons

learned from analysis of project experience are rarely disseminated to policy makers or other

communities, organizations and programs to enable a process of upscaling. Knowledge

management is essential for building adaptive management capacities in communities and

landscapes and beyond, and for innovation and scaling up.

• Indonesia is the sixth largest greenhouse gas emitter globally, relying heavily on forest and peat

burning for its expanding monoculture palm oil industry. Low-carbon development pathways

have remained elusive nationally due to these land-use changes. Challenges to a more

sustainable development pathway are increased by agricultural activities that increasingly rely

on foreign seeds and heavier fertilizer application, timber harvesting, slash and burn farming,

and by conventional tourism, with its associated air travel and building of coastal hotels.

II. STRATEGY

7. The fundamental rationale, or theory of change, underlying the project stems from the evidence

that the existing development trajectory in the project landscapes and forested landscape appears

to be unsustainable, and that without the formation of community-based initiatives for intervention,

natural resource degradation and loss of resilience will only be exacerbated. The current lack of

institutional governance structures and networks for effective participatory decision-making needs

to be remedied to stimulate and provide ownership to communities in each locality for sustainable

natural resource management, in particular within the context of land and sea-based production

systems and enterprises. In addition, the establishment of community-based low-emissions systems,

7 | P a g e

e.g. renewable energy and fuel-efficient stoves, will help local stakeholders play their part in

addressing the climate crisis, to which they are increasingly vulnerable.

8. To demonstrate strategies to strengthen resilience through community-based collective action,

three coastal and marine landscapes and one forested landscape have been selected. These are:

• Nusa Penida: Nusa Penida is one of a series of islands in the sub-district of Nusa Penida,

Klungkung District, Bali. The majority of the island’s inhabitants engage in subsistence

farming, seaweed cultivation, and fishing. The word 'Nusa' means island in Bahasa

Indonesia, so Nusa Penida means Penida Island. Nusa Penida is located to the southeast of

Bali. The Indian Ocean borders the island to the south, the Badung Strait to the west and

north, and the Lombok Strait to the east. Klungkung district covers 315 km2 of land and

marine area, with two-thirds located in Nusa Penida sub-district. The island of Nusa Penida

has an area of 20,284 Ha. The Nusa Penida archipelago consists of three islands: Nusa

Penida, Nusa Lembongan and Nusa Ceningan (see map, Annex K).

• Wakatobi Islands: Wakatobi District is located in the Wakatobi National Park area, an area

that spans 1.39 million hectares, of which 94% is marine (see map, Annex K). The remaining

area is made up of four main islands and over 40 smaller islands, the main ones of which

together form the acronym Wakatobi (Wangi-wangi, Kaledupa, Tomia, and Binongko). While

the majority of Wakatobi is made up of farmers and fishermen, the island of Wangi-Wangi is

home to Wanci, the district administration center, which is a commercial hub largely

dependent on dive tourism.

• Semau Island: Semau Island was selected as a coastal landscape target for the COMDEKS

Programme in Indonesia in 20132, which is implemented through partnership with the GEF

Small Grants Programme (SGP). This 265 square kilometer island is seen as representative of

the characteristics of small islands isolated from the mainland, with high vulnerability to

climate change impacts such as extreme weather, agriculture with limited freshwater supply

and a thin soil layer dominated by karst rocks. The island is administratively situated in

Kupang District, East Nusa Tenggara Province. Semau Island directly borders the Sawu Sea in

the south, west and north, and the Semau Strait, an international sea lane, to the east (see

map, Annex K). On the south of Semau Island lies Rote Island (Rote Ndao District), with

Pukuafu Strait between the two islands. Communities are predominantly subsistence-based

and made up of farmers, seaweed cultivators, and fishermen.

• Gorontalo Province: Nantu-Boliyohuto Wildlife Refuge, pending approval to become a

National Park, is located in Gorontalo Province and covers 51,639 ha (see map, Annex K).

2 The Community Development and Knowledge Management for the Satoyama Initiative (COMDEKS) Programme (2011-2016) is a unique global effort implemented by UNDP, in partnership with the Ministry of the Environment of Japan (MOEJ), the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD), and the United Nations University (UNU-IAS). Through COMDEKS, SGP Indonesia has supported community organizations and networks to formulate and implement an adaptive seascape management strategy aimed at strengthening ecological and social resilience on Semau Island, East Nusa Tengara, located in the Sawu Sea in Kupang District.

8 | P a g e

The refuge spans three districts: Gorontalo, Gorontalo Utara and the Boalemo, all of which

contain virgin forests that are home to rare and endemic flora and fauna. At about 85%

forest cover, the refuge serves as the headwaters for numerous agricultural communities

downstream.

9. Within each of the above landscapes, the project will enable community organizations and NGOs to

develop and implement adaptive landscape management strategies that build social, economic and

ecological resilience based on the production of global environmental and local sustainable

development benefits.3 To achieve the outcomes envisaged by these adaptive landscape

management strategies, community organizations will implement grant projects that will have been

reviewed and approved by Indonesia’s SGP National Steering Committee and supported by multi-

stakeholder agreements. These projects may involve local government, private sector, NGOs and

other partners. They will be evaluated according to their potential and actual contribution to

proposed landscape management outcomes and broader collective processes in which management

strategies adjust to incorporate new information, knowledge, capacities and conditions. Community

organizations and NGOs will build their capacities through learning by doing, i.e. through analysis of

their priorities and problems, global environmental issues, identification of potential innovations to

address them, and project design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of results and

performance.

10. Building resilience will be a key goal of each landscape strategy. Factors affecting sustainable

development and resilience include vulnerability to climate change, lack of freshwater supply in

conjunction with diminishing topsoil, vanishing forests, and overexploitation of resources by the

tourism industry, although the proportion in which these factors are present is unique to each

project location. Community-based institutional governance structures and networks will play an

essential role in achieving resilience goals and ensuring effective, participatory decision-making. For

this reason, the project will create new multi-stakeholder governance platforms and strengthen

existing ones to support participatory landscape planning and adaptive management in the three

coastal and marine landscapes and one forested landscape. As part of the participatory approach,

stakeholders at the community-level will develop and agree on a typology of projects to achieve

agreed landscape level outcomes identified as a result of application of Satoyama resilience

indicators. This will in turn make for more robust practical and effective knowledge systems.

11. There is an urgent need for community-based natural resource management across the selected

landscapes, which will typically be initiated with the assistance and collaboration of local NGOs and

local governments; multi-stakeholder agreements will define roles among organizations and

institutions. The project aims to improve social and ecological resilience in the project landscapes,

where communities are so heavily dependent on their natural resources for food and income. The

focus is to ensure food, water and energy security through agriculture and fisheries management

that is economically efficient as well as friendly to the global and local environment. In addition, the

3 Framework strategies have been developed based on extensive consultations undertaken during the PPG and have been used as the basis for defining proposed project activities (see Annex A, Workplan).

9 | P a g e

communities, along with other stakeholders, will adapt or develop best practices in sustainable

agricultural and fisheries management and protection. Another key aspect is providing adequate

infrastructure and technology for building local human resource capacity towards participation in

region-wide sustainable development. Finally, multi-stakeholder partnerships will help to manage

the development and implementation of low-carbon development pathways, including community-

wide renewable energy systems and the dissemination and/or production of fuel-efficient cook

stoves.

III. RESULTS AND PARTNERSHIPS

i. Expected Results:

12. The objective of the UNDP-GEF project is to maintain and enhance the socio-ecological resilience of

landscapes through community-based initiatives that pursue landscape level outcomes consistent

with global environmental values. As noted above, the project will work in three coastal and marine

landscapes and one forested landscape – 1) Nusa Penida, an island southeast of Bali; 2) Wakatobi,

an acronym of four main islands (Wangi-Wangi, Kaledupa, Tomia, and Binongko) that together form

the Wakatobi National Park; and 3) Semau, a large island in the Kupang District, East Nusa Tenggara

Province, which faces resiliency challenges that are highly representative of the region, and which

was therefore previously chosen for the COMDEKS Country Programme in Indonesia - as well as 4) a

forested landscape in and around the Nantu-Boliyohuto Wildlife Refuge, a mountainous area in

Gorontalo province on the island of Sulawesi. These target forest and coastal landscapes have been

selected after consultation with the SGP Indonesia National Steering Committee.4

13. SGP project funding will provide small grants to NGOs and community organizations to develop

landscape management strategies and implement community projects in pursuit of strategic

landscape level outcomes related to biodiversity conservation, sustainable land management,

climate change mitigation and adaptation, and integrated water resources management. Grants are

expected to be awarded to a variety of recipients, including local communities, indigenous groups,

and national and local NGOs to implement specific activities, but also to academia and other

institutions such as research and micro-financing institutions. Funding will be available for initiatives

to build the organizational capacities of specific community groups as well as landscape level

organizations to plan and manage complex initiatives and test, evaluate and disseminate

community-level innovations. Resources will also be made available through the SGP strategic grant

modality to upscale proven technologies, systems or practices based on knowledge gained from

analysis of community innovations from past experience during previous phases of the SGP

Indonesia Country Programme.

4 One of the sites proposed in the PIF, Banggai Islands, has been replaced in the current proposal with Semau Island, which has been the loction of a COMDEKS project and offers significant opportunities for upscaling.

10 | P a g e

14. Relevant indicators of project success include an increased area of sustainably managed production

landscapes, including multiple sites between 15 ha (Wak) and 50 ha (Sem) where chemical

agriculture and high-value intercropping are currently practiced. There will be at least two seaweed

processing centers (Wak, Sem), as well as environmentally friendly fishing methods across all four

islands of Wakatobi. Results will include increased biodiversity conservation planning, increased

number of producers participating in the community-based landscape planning and management,

reduced land and forest degradation and increased vegetative cover, and increased number of

communities within the landscapes that participate in capacity development activities, for example,

three separate farmer groups (Wak), 14 upscaled organic farming programs (Sem), and four new

conservation and production forest groups (Sem) will improve their social and financial

sustainability. In addition, there will be an increased number of knowledge sharing events and

instances with other SGP partners with similar projects and broader experience at national as well as

regional levels.

15. Outcomes under each component are described below, outputs are listed, examples of targeted

community grant projects are shown and strategic projects5 are described. A more complete list of

potential activities identified during stakeholder consultations by landscape, is presented in Annex

A; however, the exact distribution of grants will depend on the kinds of community-based proposals

that are ultimately developed.

COMPONENT 1: Resilient landscapes for sustainable development and global environmental

protection

16. GEF incremental funding and co-financing will be applied to overcome the barriers mentioned above

and to add value, where appropriate and possible, to existing initiatives by the government, the

private sector or CSOs in the three landscapes (Wakatobi Islands, Semau Island and Nusa Penida), as

well as in the forested landscape of Gorontalo. It will contribute to the long-term solution of

collective action and adaptive management by community organizations of important landscapes

for social, economic and ecological resilience.

17. Component 1 consists of the outcomes and outputs described below6.

Outcome 1.1: Community-based institutional governance structures and networks in place in three

coastal and marine landscapes and one forested landscape (Nusa Penida, Wakatobi Islands, Semau

Island, and Gorontalo) for effective participatory decision making to achieve landscape resiliency

18. To achieve this outcome, the project will support communities to participate in landscape

governance and thereby increase their capacities to manage their forest and coastal areas. It will

5 Targeted community grant projects will be funded up to a maximum of US$50,000. Strategic projects, valued from US$50,000-150,000, will be designed to upscale or replicate previously tested and successful technologies, systems or practices.

6 Site names have been abbreviated in parentheses as follows for landscape-specific activities: Nusa Penida (NP); Wakatobi Islands (Wak); Semau Island (Sem), and Gorontalo (Gor).

11 | P a g e

strengthen the capacity of communities to participate in planning and decision-making processes.

The project will help unorganized groups to assemble in associations that give them a voice,

promote platforms that encourage local coordination and conflict-management and assist in

participatory planning.

19. Multi-stakeholder platforms will be consolidated in each landscape; these will bring together

community organizations, local government, national agencies and Ministries, NGOs, the private

sector, university/research institutes and other relevant actors. Resulting partnerships will provide

technical assistance, strategic guidance and financial support to community organizations for

individual community initiatives, as well as to landscape level projects for upscaling and broader

adoption of successful innovations.

20. Formal partnership agreements will be agreed and signed with communities as projects are

identified and aligned with landscape level outcomes.

21. As part of this participatory process, communities will develop their own landscape maps identifying

ecosystem features, land and water uses, and identifying resource access and management

challenges. This interactive mapping exercise will underpin a spatial planning process to support

sustainable natural resource management. The involvement of, and strategic partnership with, the

local government during this mapping exercise will help to improve overall understanding of

territorial rights, locate critical local natural resources and identify who has access to these

resources. The mapping exercise will be combined with the application of the Indicators for

Resilience in Socio-Ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS), piloted by SGP

Indonesia through COMDEKS, as well as the Appreciative Inquiry and Asset Based Thinking

Approach, a conceptual model for proposal development and strategic planning with partners

aimed at capturing community perceptions of different aspects of key systems – natural/physical,

human, socio-cultural and economic assets.

22. The following outputs will be delivered under this outcome:

1.1.1 THREE COASTAL AND MARINE LANDSCAPE STRATEGIES AND ONE FORESTED LANDSCAPE STRATEGY WILL BE

DEVELOPED, WITH PARTICIPATION OF COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS.

1.1.2 MULTI-STAKEHOLDER LANDSCAPE AGREEMENTS WILL SUPPORT IMPLEMENTATION BY COMMUNITIES OF THE

LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES.

1.1.3 POLICY PLATFORMS, IN WHICH POLICY BRIEFS ARE FIRST PREPARED BY NGOS AND COMMUNITIES, WILL BE

DISCUSSED WITH THE PARTICIPATION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS.

1.1.4. PROJECT KNOWLEDGE AND LESSONS WILL BE DISSEMINATED TO ORGANIZATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS ACROSS

THE LANDSCAPE, ACROSS THE COUNTRY, AND TO THE GLOBAL SGP NETWORK.

Outcome 1.2: Ecosystem services and biodiversity within targeted landscapes are enhanced through

multi-functional production systems

12 | P a g e

23. This outcome will be achieved through a number of targeted community grant projects, and at least

one strategic project.7

24. Perhaps the most important type of ecosystem service to be enhanced through targeted community

grant projects across the project areas involves fresh water supply and management. At the

administrative level, local water resource management institutions will be developed (NP). There

will also be an effort to encourage local village government and tribal councils to protect forests on

customary and private lands. In addition, these same ruling bodies will be encouraged to establish

strict restrictions on logging and to encourage reforestation in riparian areas, possibly as a mandate

(NP). Zoning for chemical-free agriculture will be implemented, as will maritime delineation for

seaweed farming, traditional fishing grounds, and marine protection. (Wak, Sem)

25. Planting of trees in degraded areas and conservation of existing large trees will be supported, so as

to improve soil quality and water retention capabilities across the three coastal landscapes.

Trainings in water management and ecotourism will be conducted for youth and women (Gor), as

well as a variety of internships and ecological trainings around wildlife management (Gor), seed

storage of traditional staple crops (NP), and the planting of medicinal plants and natural pesticides

alongside annual crops (NP). Critically, NP will also provide training to improve knowledge in

selective fishing for economically valuable captures, with consideration to size and reproductive

cycles.

26. Under this outcome,the project will also support a strategic project for transfer of knowledge,

technology and equipment procurement as well as for facilitating fresh water distribution in Semau.


1.2.1 TARGETED COMMUNITY GRANT PROJECTS, INCLUDING STRATEGIC PROJECTS TO UPSCALE SUCCESSFUL

INNOVATIONS, TO MEET LANDSCAPE OUTCOMES AND SUPPORT INNOVATION REGARDING BIODIVERSITY

CONSERVATION AND OPTIMIZATION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Outcome 1.3: The sustainability of production systems in the target landscapes is strengthened

through integrated agro-ecological practices



29. Agro-ecological activities to be supported through targeted community grant projects across the

project landscapes are centered around food security, including revitalization of seed banks for local

crops that are no longer planted and promotion of local crop varieties that display greater resistance

to drought and extreme weather conditions. Test areas for innovative intercropping techniques that

generate high-value crops will also be employed (Wak, Sem), as will chemical-free agricultural zones

7 See Annex A for details. 8 Ibid.

13 | P a g e

(Sem). In addition, best practices for seaweed cultivation techniques that display greater resistance

to disease and pests will be disseminated.

30. SGP Indonesia will provide funding for collaborative activities among local communities to

participate in selected Forest Management Units (FMU) in Sulawesi and Bali. This strategic approach

is based on the government’s policy of establishing FMUs as the primary local ‘operators’ for

comprehensive and sustainable forest management that brings together different stakeholders from

government, communities, NGOs, and the private sector. SGP will provide much needed capacity

building support to FMUs to be effective sustainable forest managers. At the same time, SGP will

facilitate work with local governments and local legislatures to promote community initiatives to

build and manage resilient landscapes for sustainable development and global environmental

protection and also to help raise community voices at local and national level.

31. Community education and training—including regarding the advantages of organic fertilizers and

pesticides, in contrast to the damaging effects of chemical fertilizers and pesticides on soil fertility,

crop quality, groundwater and health (Gor)—will be an integral part of the support for agro-

ecological practices. Training will be underpinned by policy advocacy on organic fertilizers and

pesticides at the district and provincial level (Gor). Community-based agrofrestry training will be

initiated, with model sites to be developed and showcased at selected villages (Gor). Various studies

will be completed in Nusa Penida, including on the opportunities for agriculture, fishery and

aquaculture commodities from local markets to those in Bali (NP), a study on water supply and

demand dynamics, and on pests and plant/seaweed diseases. In addition, community members’

awareness of weather forecasting will be increased, with government-issued weather forecasts to

be more effectively disseminated to those reliant on agriculture, aquaculture, and fishing activites,

so as to minimize risks and make more informed economic decisions (NP, Gor).

32. Under this outcome, the project will also support strategic projects for: (i) transfer of knowledge and

technology in organic farming to Semau communities, and (ii) upscaling of demonstration project for

food security.


1.3.1 TARGETED COMMUNITY GRANT PROJECTS, INCLUDING STRATEGIC PROJECTS TO UPSCALE SUCCESSFUL

INNOVATIONS, WILL MEET LANDSCAPE OUTCOMES REGARDING SUSTAINABILITY OF AGRO-ECOSYSTEM

PRODUCTION.

Outcome 1.4: Livelihoods of communities in the target landscapes are improved by developing eco-

friendly small-scale community enterprises and improving market access



9 Ibid.

14 | P a g e

35. SGP Indonesia will promote local community initiatives aimed at improving livelihoods of

communities in the target landscapes by developing eco-friendly small-scale community enterprises

and improving market access. Selected community grant projects will promote local community

initiatives to establish cooperatives or similar institutions that can act as regional buyers, assuring

fair prices for agricultural and fisheries products. For example, fish and seaweed processing centers

will also be established (Wak, Sem). Enhanced links will be established to tourism markets for local

goods across all project areas, with the goal of greater economic independence for the

harvest/processing entrepreneurs in the community.

36. Training will be facilitated in the harvesting process for groups of farmers, fishermen, and seaweed

farmers (NP, Gor). SGP will focus on non-timber forest product (NTFP) activities in model forests and

coastal areas within the four landscapes, demonstrating that by increasing awareness of these

products and their management and market potential, NTFP and coastal product activities can also

complement priorities related to conservation, sustainable community development, education and

capacity building.

37. SGP Indonesia has in the past financed activities that promote access to new markets for

biodiversity friendly products, facilitating tailored SGP exit strategies for partners based on their

circumstances. An example is the online and offline free trade shop called Terasmitra

(www.terasmitra.com), an initiative from SGP to bring community partners’ products to a wider

customer base as one of the ways to sustain their production, assisting with marketing, market

research, and other relevant issues that are inaccessible to rural communities. During GEF-6,

Terasmitra will develop an e-directory of model forest and coastal products that will include NTFPs

and coastal-based products. SGP is also working to increase market access for local, small NTFP and

coastal-based product enterprises by creating a marketing hub in Bali. This pool will strengthen the

linkage between products produced by the communities and the national market.

38. Under this outcome, the project will also support a strategic project for development of traditional

hand woven products across all four target areas.


1.4.1 TARGETED COMMUNITY GRANT PROJECTS WILL BE DEVELOPED, INCLUDING STRATEGIC PROJECTS TO UPSCALE

SUCCESSFUL INNOVATIONS, IN ORDER TO MEET LANDSCAPE OUTCOMES REGARDING DEVELOPMENT OF

SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS I.E. ACTIVITIES THAT PROMOTE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS, PRODUCTION

STANDARDS, AND MARKET ACCESS, AS WELL AS MICROFINANCE OPPORTUNITIES.

COMPONENT 2: Community-based integrated low emission systems

40. Under Component 2, GEF funds will provide small grants to NGOs and community organizations to

implement community projects to pursue strategic outcomes related to the development and

management of low carbon technologies and mitigation options in the four demonstration

landscapes.

http://www.terasmitra.com/

15 | P a g e

41. As was the case for Component 1, GEF incremental funding and co-financing will be applied to

overcome the barriers and to add value, where appropriate and possible, to existing initiatives by

government, the private sector and CSOs. Grants will aim at adapting proven technologies to

community needs, using past experience with technology adoption projects as a guide. Funds will

also be available for initiatives to build the organizational capacities of specific community groups as

well as allied organizations to plan and manage complex initiatives and test and evaluate community

level innovations. Resources will also be made available—through the SGP strategic grant

modality—to upscale proven technologies, systems or practices based on knowledge gained from

analysis of community innovations from past experience during previous phases of the SGP

Indonesia Country Program.

42. Potential upscaling initiatives identified during the PPG may include: energy-efficient stoves,

efficient water resource management, energy efficiency, and solid waste management.

43. Most of the interventions proposed by SGP Indonesia will have automatic mitigation benefits and

result in GHG emissions reductions (e.g. improved stoves, mini and micro hydro projects, improved

land and Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) practices, etc.). SGP-supported projects will focus

on leveraging existing initiatives in sectors related to energy generation, transport, disaster

management and capacity building. These sectors are integrated with the development plans of

Indonesia’s National Climate Change Action Plan set by the central government.

44. SGP Indonesia will work with a strong network of experts in each selected landscape to strengthen

the capacity of civil society organizations through specific projects, providing technical assistance

and financing, as needed. Initiatives under this outcome will also be coordinated with the activities

of other development partners assisting the country in related areas (in particular with donors

providing support to UN-REDD, REDD+, MFP3, etc.) to ensure limited overlap and a high degree of

synergy.

45. During GEF-6, SGP Indonesia, together with the private sector and local government, will support

microfinance institutions (MFIs) to develop at least one simple model microfinance mechanism for

households. Three models of community-based energy efficient management will be supported

contributing to local energy policy development. Three models of managing energy for small islands

will be supported (Nusa Penida, Wakatobi, and Semau).

46. SGP will take stock of all the community initiatives in managing forest and coastal areas responding

to climate change impacts happening in their territory, as well as their efforts to avoid carbon

release in forest, peatland, and other similar areas. This documentation will be shared with relevant

stakeholders at national and international levels.

47. Component 2 consists of the outcomes and outputs described below.

Outcome 2.1. Multi-stakeholder partnerships in place for managing the development and

implementation of community-based integrated low-emission systems

48. Community-based, integrated low-emission systems will be established via partnerships and

working groups between the community and relevant stakeholders to develop adaptive strategic

16 | P a g e

management plans for broader adoption of proven energy efficiency technologies. Integral to these

plans will be a preliminary planning process to identify potential early adapters, according to both

need and capacity, together with identification of community-appropriate alternatives. These will

include the development of solar and wind power generation, and the collection of livestock manure

for both biogas (NP) and for natural fertilizer supply (Gor). Participatory platforms will be

established to support the management plans, to be facilitated at the provincial policy level. In the

case of Gorontalo, a model of environmentally friendly, low-emission animal husbandry will be

developed, in coordination with NGOs, community organizations, local government and universities.

49. The following output will be delivered under this outcome:

2.1.1. MULTI-STAKEHOLDER PARTNERSHIPS IN COMMUNITIES IN THE TARGET LANDSCAPES WILL DEVELOP AND EXECUTE

MANAGEMENT PLANS FOR ENERGY EFFICIENT SYSTEMS.

Outcome 2.2. Increased adoption (or development, demonstration and financing) of renewable and

energy efficient technologies and mitigation options at community level



51. The key to increased adoption and ownership of green technologies will be trainings, models, and

regular multi-stakeholder discussions. Trainings will emphasize practical skills, such as producing

organic fertilizers and biogas from local resources, or building and maintaining solar power

generation to help in agriculture or marine harvests (NP). Organic farming initiatives will be

extended to 14 villages in Semau, and farmer groups will be established at various model sites to

implement forest management (Wak, Sem) for conservation and production. A knowledge

management system will be developed and maintained, with links to information networks that

provide best practice technologies and information exchanges on renewable energy generation

(NP).


2.2.1. TARGETED COMMUNITY GRANT PROJECTS (INCLUDING STRATEGIC PROJECTS) WILL BUILD CAPACITIES IN SELECTED

COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS TO PLAN STRATEGICALLY, OPERATE EFFICIENTLY, AND MONITOR THE USE OF RENEWABLE

ENERGY

2.2.2 KNOWLEDGE FROM INNOVATIVE PROJECT EXPERIENCE IS SHARED FOR REPLICATION AND UPSCALING OF COMMUNITY-

BASED INTEGRATED LOW-EMISSION SYSTEMS ACROSS THE LANDSCAPES, ACROSS THE COUNTRY, AND TO THE GLOBAL SGP

NETWORK

ii. Partnerships

53. The project will build on and replicate work undertaken in previous phases of SGP to further develop

existing alliances and associations among CBOs, NGOs, and research groups. GEF SGP Indonesia has

10 Ibid.

17 | P a g e

been providing funding and technical support to communities for more than a decade to help them

improve sustainable use of resources, conserve biodiversity and mitigate climate change. The

growing network and voluntary support resulting from cooperation with more than a hundred

NGOs, CBOs and indigenous people’s groups has made it possible for SGP Indonesia to reach more

vulnerable groups more efficiently (addressing gender and indigenous people’s concerns). This

network consists of scientists, practitioners in community-based entrepreneurship, project

managers, government officials, indigenous people’s groups, and decision makers.

54. During OP5, the Indonesia SGP Country Program joined the Community Development and

Knowledge Management for the Satoyama Initiative (COMDEKS) program, a unique global effort

implemented by UNDP, in partnership with the Ministry of the Environment of Japan (MOEJ), the

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD) and the United Nations University (UNU-

IAS). COMDEKS is designed to support local community initiatives that maintain and revitalize socio-

ecological production landscapes and seascapes, and to collect and disseminate knowledge and

practical experiences from successful on-the ground actions so that, if feasible, they can be

replicated or adapted by other communities in other parts of the world. COMDEKS aims to build the

capacities of community organizations to take collective action for adaptive landscape management

in pursuit of social and ecological resilience. Thus, the project proposed here for OP6 will build upon

previous GEF phases and initiatives (OP5 and COMDEKS, in particular) to consolidate efforts to

become more strategic and effective throughout OP6.

55. The present project will work closely with the Global Support Initiative for Indigenous peoples and Community Conserved Areas (ICCA-GSI) which, in pursuit of the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Aichi targets of 2020, has been attempting to gain broader recognition of ICCAs among governing structures. Its primary objective is to improve the recognition and effectiveness of biodiversity conservation, with an emphasis on resilience to climate change effects in indigenous territories and communities, as well as sustainable livelihoods. The ICCA Programme delivered through SGP will provide $500,000 in co-financing.

56. Multi-stakeholder partnership mechanisms for this project in the four targeted areas (three coastal

and marine landscapes and one forested landscape) will be established taking into account the

following elements: (1) understanding the potential core values of each actor and their resources,

such as specific technologies, practices or systems; (2) identifying potential scaling up opportunities,

analyzing and planning the scaling up process; and (3) implementing the scaling up program and

evaluating its performance and impacts as a lesson learned or case study for adaptive management,

policy discussion and potential replication of the model in other areas of the country or small island

situations in other countries. The scaling-up and replication strategy will be conducted by SGP

Indonesia through advocacy and publication of best practices targeted to relevant stakeholders.

57. To ensure the involvement of marginalized groups including women and indigenous peoples during

GEF-6, SGP Indonesia will continue to collaborate with civil society networks such as KIARA (network

of fishers), JATAM (network of NGO/CBOs in mining areas), AMAN (network of indigenous people

groups), WALHI (Indonesia Forum for Environment), WGII (Working Group on ICCAs in Indonesia),

and Solidaritas Perempuan (network of women’s groups).

18 | P a g e

58. Engagement with the private sector will be key, reaching out to companies that are buyers of non-

timber forest products or other local community products, as well as companies that have skills for

product development or market research. To attract the investment of the private sector,

engagement with financial institutions and establishment of public-private partnerships to facilitate

credit guarantee schemes is necessary. Furthermore, engagement with both private sector and

financial institutions will allow local communities to access processing technology.

iii. Stakeholder engagement

59. Annex I lists the key expected stakeholders at the level of individual landscapes.

60. The primary stakeholders of the Indonesia GEF-SGP Upgrading Country Programme are the

community-based organizations, indigenous peoples groups and local communities who will receive

grants to produce benefits to local sustainable development and the global environment. Women,

ethnic minorities and youth will be especially invited to participate in the landscape planning and

management processes, as well as to submit project proposals for specific initiatives. Primary

stakeholders are located in the rural areas of Sulawesi - a key forest landscape in Gorontalo

province, and in three coastal and marine landscapes—in the Wakatobi Islands, Semau Island, East

Nusa Tenggara, and Nusa Penida island, Bali. Stakeholder organizations have been identified based

on the experience of SGP over 20 years, supplemented by a participatory process of planning and

consultation which took place during the PPG phase and which will continue during project

implementation.

61. NGOs, whose work has been to support CBOs and communities in pursuing local sustainable

development, are also important stakeholders. These will include those NGOs who have the interest

and capacities to provide key support services to community-based projects, including technical

assistance and capacity development. These NGOs will be identified during the process of project

formulation and implementation to initiate with approval of this proposal.

62. Key supporting actors in this Upgrading Country Programme project will include Indonesia’s Ministry

of Environment and Forestry (MoEF), the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, the Ministry of

Agriculture, the Ministry for Cooperatives and Small and Medium Enterprises, Ministry of Industry,

the Creative Economy Agency, and the Ministry of Development of Disadvantaged Regions. MoEF

will provide support to the Upgrading Country Programme as part of the National Steering

Committee through the GEF Operational Focal Point, MoEF. MoEF will also support in leveraging

resources, strategically aligning the program with state priorities and government projects through

various consultations, workshops, and policy/national dialogues, as well as GEF thematic areas and

other GEF FSPs and MSPs.

63. UNDP, as Implementing Agency for the GEF Small Grants Programme, will provide support to the

Upgrading Country Programme as part of the National Steering Committee, together with

the Indonesia State Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MoEF). UNDP will also support SGP

Indonesia in leveraging opportunities and links with other UNDP-supported projects in Indonesia

and/or in the region.

19 | P a g e

64. Key stakeholders and their indicative responsibilities for the implementation of the proposed project

are outlined, as follows:

• Community organizations: Principal participants in landscape planning exercises; first-order

partners in the multistakeholder partnerships for each landscape; signatories to community

level partnership agreements; implementing agents of community and landscape level projects.

The project will favor organizations run by and for women, ethnic minorities and youth. CBOs

have been a key to successful implementation of the programme. Such informal, responsible

institutions are the outcomes of the sustained field efforts by the grantees. Their responsibilities

include effective implementation of SGP projects, building skills, and use of easy-to-handle

technologies, providing training and documentation of experiences. They will also be the

contact point for resource users for accessing markets and for outreach. This time-tested

approach will be further strengthened in the project over the next four years, showcasing

effective ways of working collaboratively. Communities will contribute significant in-kind co-

financing to the projects (land, infrastructure, time, tools, labor, and other inputs).

• Indigenous Groups, Forest Protection Committees (FPCs), Federations, Cooperatives,

Fishermen’s Associations, Women groups, Youth groups: to encourage collective action for

sustainable resource use through informal, kinship, responsive, flexible, and community based

institutions at the grassroots in the implementation of SGP Indonesia activities. As they are

locally organized around networks, in addition to being project stakeholders, they would also be

the repository of knowledge promoting peer sharing of innovative practices, and replicate and

scale up best practices and innovative methods and activities.

• Community Development Financial Institutions: play a critical role in providing access to credit

facilities at the local level through small kinship-based, women’s self-help groups, supporting

with bookkeeping, accounts trainings and capacity building activities. This access to extra funds

helps not only to build local community institutions and trust at the community and project

levels, but also to enhance the adoption of technologies and skills by the locals. Nearly 80% of

the users/beneficiaries are women. Such links are also helpful in building the skills of the locals

in project planning, implementation, training, documentation, media management, networking,

hosting workshops and business model approaches. The SGP has been seen as an innovative

mechanism by the locals and these institutions.

• NGOs: landscape level - primary participants in landscape planning exercises; first-order

partners in the multistakeholder partnerships for each landscape; implementing agents of

landscape level projects; participants in landscape level policy platforms. NGOs will provide

support to project design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. Based on their capacity,

expertise and experience, they will support CBOs and communities in pursuing local sustainable

development, providing key support services to community-based projects, including technical

assistance and capacity development. NGOs will contribute significant amounts of in-kind co-

financing and in some cases they will also contribute cash co-financing.

20 | P a g e

• SGP National Steering Committee: Functions as Project Steering Committee; reviews and

approves landscape strategies; advises regarding multistakeholder partnership composition and

TORs; approves criteria for project eligibility for each landscape based on proposals by

multistakeholder partnerships and SGP Operational Guidelines; reviews and approves projects

submitted by SGP Country Programme Manager; reviews annual project progress reports and

recommends revisions and course corrections, and as appropriate, representative participant on

policy platforms. Provides linkages with broader constituencies in the country.

• SGP Country Programme Manager (National Coordinator) and team: Responsible for the

overall implementation and operations of the SGP Indonesia Country Programme, acting as

secretary to the National Steering Committee, mobilizing cofinancing, organizing strategic

partnerships with government and non-governmental organizations, and in general managing

the successful achievement of Country Programme Objectives as described in the Project

Document.

• Local governments: Successful forest and coastal management planning requires collaboration

of all stakeholders, including the local government. Participate in baseline assessments and

landscape planning processes; partners in multistakeholder partnerships for each landscape;

signatories to community level partnership agreements; primary participant on policy platforms.

The local government will contribute significant amounts of in-kind cofinancing (infrastructure,

time).

• National agencies: Partners in multistakeholder partnerships for each landscape; selected

members of National Steering Committee; as relevant or appropriate, provide technical

assistance to community organizations for implementation of their projects; primary participant

on policy platforms

• Private sector: Partners in multistakeholder partnerships for each landscape; signatories to

community level partnership agreements, as appropriate; potential participant on policy

platforms.

• Academic/Research institutions: Assist in participatory baseline assessments and landscape

planning processes; partners in multistakeholder partnerships for each landscape; signatories to

community level partnership agreements, as appropriate; provide technical assistance to

community organizations for implementation of their projects; potential participant on policy

platforms.

iv. Mainstreaming gender

65. Successful natural resource management can only be accomplished by understanding social

differences and inequality as well as the decision-making process concerning access to, and use and

management of natural resources. Men and women, with different positions in society, have unique

perspectives about why natural resources are important and how they should be protected. A

gendered perspective on conservation looks at the power dynamics and relations between men and

women specifically. It encourages the reshaping of power relations to encourage social equity and

gender equity at all levels of conservation management. A gendered perspective helps to include

21 | P a g e

marginalized women in managing natural resource management processes and would provide a

more holistic, equitable and successful program. Gender analysis will be applied throughout the

cycle of each grant from planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation.

66. During project design, women’s roles as primary land and resource managers have been recognized.

In Nusa Penida, this comes on the heels of a successful attempt to give women the right to inherit

the estate of their parents (assuming consent of other heirs), in distinction to customary Balinese

traditions. In Wakatobi, there is now an attempt to grant tenure rights for women by creating land

ownership certificates in the name of both parties, thereby maintaining tenure for women that are

widowed instead of land returning to the family of a deceased husband.

67. Gender relations play a key role in the access to and use of biological and natural resources, in their

management in the production landscape, and in the adoption of new technologies. Mainstreaming

of biodiversity into rural landscape management will have to be balanced with the needs of

women’s daily tasks such as collecting water, wood, and other non-timber products. The project will

seek to maximize its effectiveness and efficiency by empowering women and vulnerable groups to

participate as equal partners in information sharing and generation, education and training,

technology transfer, organizational development, financial assistance, and policy development.

68. The project will target rural areas, populated mainly by poor and lower income communities. The

incidence of poverty is far greater for women, and it is linked to their limited access to resources.

Young girls are particularly vulnerable as they are marginalized and not seen as economic providers.

The reduced availability of natural resources (fuel wood, fish, pasture) has been especially hard on

women as they are often responsible for gathering firewood, among other onerous tasks. The

increasing cost of fuel and fuel wood weighs heavily on limited family budgets, foreclosing other

critical family investments in children’s education, health, and quality of life.

69. A good example of the socioeconomic and gender benefits to be generated by this project can be

found in the activities promoting energy efficiency and renewable technologies in rural areas e.g.

energy efficient stoves. The adoption of fuel-efficient cookstoves and biogas digesters by rural

households provides women with health, safety, time and income benefits saving them valuable

time otherwise spent on fuelwood collection. In addition, agroforestry initiatives and associated

promotion of non-timber forest products will directly benefit women, who are typically responsible

for gathering NTFPs.

South-South and Triangular Co-operation 70. South-south cooperation will be assured through exchanges with other SGP UCPs in nearby

countries, which will support each other through informal knowledge exchange networks.

Exchanges also take place at the global level through the global program of the UCP portfolio.

22 | P a g e

IV. FEASIBILITY

i. Cost efficiency and effectiveness:

71. SGP strives to be cost effective both at the grant and program level. At the program level, cost-

effectiveness is enhanced through four mechanisms:

i. SGP provides funding to established CSOs supporting local level work, often over the long

term. While financing may be provided to a focused community level demonstration

project, these CSOs often operate across communities in a particular region, thus lessons

from the demonstration are quickly and efficiently disseminated to a broad audience as part

of a larger CSO program of action;

ii. The Indonesia SGP Country Program, over the past two decades, has established a large

network of CSOs who have received small grants for community level initiatives. Lessons

learned from community projects are codified and disseminated throughout the SGP

network, thus promoting innovation and adoption across the country;

iii. The Indonesia SGP Country Program is in frequent contact with the UNDP Country Office,

which offers opportunities for ad hoc and more systematic engagement. The CO provides

expertise and resources, including advice on resource mobilization, government

engagement, cooperation with other projects and institutions, and communications and

knowledge management, all of which enhance the efficiency of Country Program

implementation;

iv. The SGP Country Program leverages its relationships with policy makers, private sector

entrepreneurs, and academia in order to ensure dissemination of lessons learned and

promotion of a broader adoption of successful technologies and practices. This is evidenced

by the strength of the cash co-financing from regional governments and others parties, as

well as the participation of the GEF Operational Focal Point on the National Steering

Committee, which frequently requests SGP to exhibit products from projects it supports

at government meetings. In addition, government, private sector, and academic

stakeholders participate in SGP-sponsored events, meetings, and strategy discussions. The

dialogue among these actors, stimulated by lessons and experience from SGP-

supported activities, has been significant, and there are frequent requests for collaboration

around potential new initiatives, as well as commitments of additional resources to SGP and

the organizations it supports.

72. At the community project level, cost-effectiveness is an important criterion for the approval of SGP

grants by the NSC. The budgets of project proposals are compared with those of prior similar

interventions and assessed against expected environmental and social benefits. In all cases,

communities are expected to contribute substantial in-kind co-financing (i.e., labor, infrastructure,

equipment, tools, land) and help mobilize other in-kind or cash resources from development

partners and local government. The NSC also assesses whether there may be more cost effective

23 | P a g e

alternatives to achieve the same global environmental benefits before approving SGP grants. This

ensures that GEF funds are applied in the most cost-effective manner.

73. SGP Indonesia has worked in synergy as well as in a supportive role to implement community

components of GEF full-sized projects and UNDP funded programs that needed to engage

communities and CSOs on the ground in a cost effective way by utilizing an already established cost-

effective mechanism with local presence. These partnerships have been mutually reinforcing. GEF

full-sized projects, with their larger funding and direct links to government implementation, have

access to greater resources, networks and policy influence than SGP Indonesia.

74. The efficiency of SGP Indonesia is in its performance in terms of cost management, mobilization of

co-financing, country program management, efficiency in grant delivery to the project life cycle, and

project outcomes. SGP is efficiently converting inputs to outputs both at the project and country

program levels. Since SGP project grants and program have also been effectively generating global

benefits, it is an instrument for GEF as well to constitute global environmental benefits by engaging

CBOs and NGOs.

ii. Risk Management:

75. As per standard UNDP requirements, the Project Manager will monitor risks quarterly and report on

the status of risks to the UNDP Country Office. The UNDP Country Office will record progress in the

UNDP ATLAS risk log. Risks will be reported as critical when the impact and probablity are high (i.e.

when impact is rated as 5, or when impact is rated as 4 and probability is rated at 3 or higher).

Management responses to critical risks will also be reported to the GEF in the annual PIR.

Project risks Description Type Impact &

Probability

Mitigation Measures Owner Status

Climatic unpredictability will undermine efforts to arrest biodiversity loss and land degradation.

Programmatic Climatic unpredictability may affect the level of success of the project’s Land Degradation and Biodiversity work and thereby constrain project achievements or affect their impact. Probability: 3 Impact: 2

Dealing with vulnerabilities including climate variability is a primary emphasis and objective of SGP. By working to develop capacities for appropriate landscape management, the project will enable local communities to reduce vulnerabilities and increase ecosystem resilience and the potential to sustainably manage their land. This is an underlying premise and principle across all components. Such risks, if and when encountered, will be managed by providing additional capacity building support to affected communities and their projects. Experience will be documented, analyzed and shared

Project manager

Increa-sing

24 | P a g e


Probability


with all project partners to create awareness and share lessons learned. The related technical guidelines, partnerships, platforms, workshops, exposure, contacts to learn and share knowledge with and by grantees will provide the confidence, creditability and commitment to adapt in the face of CC and deliver landscape and project outcomes.

Low capacity and awareness of local NGOs and CBOs to address global environmental problems in selected geographical areas.

Programmatic Local communities/ indigenous groups have varying levels of technical and management capacity and may fail to complete a project in time or to take advantage of opportunities for community participation in conservation initiatives Probability: 3 Impact: 2

Risks will be mitigated by consistent oversight, capacity building and monitoring of the project portfolio by the National Host Institution (NHI), MoEF and UNDP (e.g. helping grantees maintain appropriate progress in project implementation, link grantee partners in peer-to-peer learning groups, and work flexibly to respond to the strengths and comparative advantages of grantees, expose them to join other projects midterm/final evaluations by CPM/NHI team, cross exchange of ideas etc.).

Project manager

Redu-cing

Market risks -unfair competition

Programmatic Market risks -- the relative value of land use could change and increase market risks in projects with livelihood objectives because of mismatch between the value added offered by the implementation team and needs of the consumer Probability: 2 Impact: 2

The project seeks to put into place community-level processes and tools that are robust enough to accommodate changes in land-use values. Changes in market values may make it easier or more difficult, for example, to enforce restrictions on grazing, requiring an adaptive response. Livelihood projects engaging in local level value addition would be supported by SGP in identifying market needs and creation of marketing networks. Adequate precaution would be taken to ensure that the value addition offered by the project is marketable and there is consistent demand for the same. This risk can be mitigated also by optimizing and scaling-up production, and by certifying products as biodiversity friendly to capture a premium over and above the unsustainable production price.

Project manager

No change

25 | P a g e


Probability


Reluctance to change agricultural practices

Contextual Communities may be reluctant to change their practices because they may perceive livelihood activities supported under the project to be risky or as not adding significantly to income or security. Probability: 2 Impact: 2

Awareness programmes will be developed that clearly outline the benefits of participation and relate success stories to gain their interest in the project. Further, local communities will be actively involved in planning, decision making and implementation of the project through frequent consultations and links to a range of stakeholders.

Project manager

Redu-cing

(Wak, Sem) Lack of commitment to local institution building

Organizational

Local institution building will depend on effective participation by the constituents. If some of the constituents are against the institution, it would affect the process and output. Probability = 3 Impact = 4

The approach should be done in careful and thoughtful way to build trust with the community

Local/field facilitators

Antici-pated in early stage

(Gor) Natural hazards, such as floods and landslides

Environmental Probability = 2, Impact = 4

Selection of villages should consider such risks

Project and grantee

Increa-sing

(Gor) Governance issues related to sub-contracts

Operational Probability = 1, Impact = 4

Providing a strong contract and assistance to project implementer and local government

Project No change

iii. Social and environmental safeguards:

76. A Social and Environmental Screening Procedure (SESPs) was conducted during the PPG (see Annex

D).

iv. Sustainability and scaling up

77. To ensure the sustainability of community-based landscape management initiatives, the SGP

Indonesia Country Program will actively develop and maintain broad-based

relationships/partnerships that promote collaboration. For example, to ensure NTFP market access,

26 | P a g e

SGP will not only focus on local markets but also leverage the opportunity to establish market

linkages with other private sector companies that are interested in integrating local products in their

supply chain. This will be done by developing a marketing hub in Bali.

78. SGP will also provide access to finance, and technical and implementation support to local

communities/indigenous groups. Importantly, to ensure sustainability, the project implementation

schemes will respond more to the strengths rather than the weaknesses of local communities – for

example, their capacity to innovate and their potential to create value. Engagement with the private

sector will be key. Since the individual proposals are written/developed by local community

organizations based on what they want to achieve, communities are more likely to exhibit

ownership over the outcomes of the projects. Community ownership is a critical factor contributing

to the sustainability of project benefits. SGP Indonesia will involve all community members (men,

women, youth and elders) in all stages of the grant project cycle: design, implementation,

monitoring and evaluation.

79. GEF SGP Indonesia has been working extensively for more than two decades in providing technical

support and facilitating funding for communities for the sustainable use of resources, biodiversity

conservation and mitigation of climate change. The growing network of voluntary support, as a

result of cooperation with more than a hundred NGOs, CBOs and IP groups, has made it possible for

SGP Indonesia to reach out to more vulnerable groups efficiently, particularly addressing gender and

indigenous peoples’ concerns. This network consists of scientists, practitioners in community-based

entrepreneurship, project cycle development facilitators, government officials, indigenous peoples’

groups, and decision makers. Sustainability will be maintained further by aligning the program with

government policies, building the capacities of community and indigenous peoples’ groups, and

engaging the private sector, universities, and research institutes in providing services (including

financial services, if available).

80. Sustainability of landscape planning and management processes will be enhanced through the

formation of multi-stakeholder partnerships, involving local government, national agencies and

institutions, NGOs, the private sector, universities, research institutions and others at the landscape

level and the adoption of multi-stakeholder partnership agreements to pursue specific landscape

level outcomes. NGO networks will be called upon for their support to community projects and

landscape planning processes, and technical assistance will be engaged through government, NGOs,

universities, academic institutes and other institutions.

81. Scaling up of successful innovations is an essential output of this project. Scaling up has been done

successfully during previous projects and programs of the SGP Indonesia Country Program. The

principle of scaling up is that the communities adapt or replicate lessons learned from successful

innovations within their own initiatives. Therefore, as is mentioned in the grant project preparation

guidelines, the proponent will respond to a set of standard “guiding questions”, which will help the

community group to identify and elaborate scaling-up pathways and related monitoring and

evaluation indicators, targets and practices.

82. SGP Indonesia will work closely with its partners to ensure that promising innovations, successful

pilots, and best practices are replicated and scaled up through joint or coordinated planning,

27 | P a g e

financing, and implementation. Meanwhile, SGP Indonesia has already undertaken systematic

outreach activities as an effort to promote scaling-up of community practices by involving

governments, research and technical support institutions, foundations, and NGOs. Previous SGP

outreach and partnership-building activities from 2009 to 2014 include mutual peer reviews and

learning events to promote a common understanding of scaling-up concepts and issues.

83. More detailed analysis of potential scaling up will take place during the project inception phase,

leading to the development of a strategy for the use of SGP strategic project financing (up to

USD150,000 per project).

28 | P a g e

V. PROJECT RESULTS FRAMEWORK

This project will contribute to achieving the following Country Programme Outcome as defined in CPAP: 2.1 Responsible national institutions and relevant stakeholders are

more effective in managing environmental resources and addressing environmental pollution.

Country Programme Outcome Indicators: Outcome 3 - By 2020, Indonesia is sustainably managing its natural resources, on land and at sea, with an increased resilience to the

effects of climate change, disasters and other shocks.

Primary applicable Key Environment and Sustainable Development Key Result Area (same as that on the cover page, circle one): 1.3. Solutions developed at national and

sub-national levels for sustainable management of natural resources, ecosystem services, chemicals and waste.

2.5. Legal and regulatory frameworks, policies and institutions enabled to ensure the conservation, sustainable use, and access and benefit sharing of natural resources, biodiversity and

ecosystems, in line with international conventions and national legislation.

Applicable GEF Strategic Objective and Program: BD-4; CCM-2

Applicable GEF Expected Outcomes: BD Outcome 9.1; CCM Outcomes 4A

Applicable GEF Outcome Indicators: 9.1 Production landscapes that integrate biodiversity conservation and sustainable use into their management preferably demonstrated by

meeting national or international third-party certification that incorporates biodiversity considerations (e.g. FSC, MSC) or supported by other objective data. CC2 4A: Deployment of

low GHG technologies and practices

Indicator Baseline Targets

End of Project

Source of verification Risks and Assumptions

(R/A)

Project Objective11 To

enhance and maintain

socio-ecological resilience

of one forested and three

coastal landscapes

through community-based

initiatives in Sulawesi,

East Nusa Tenggara, and

Bali, Indonesia

A. Increased area of

sustainably managed

production integrating

biodiversity

conservation in one

forested and three

coastal landscapes

B. Increased number of

producers participating

in community based

adaptive landscape

planning and

management in one

forested and three

coastal landscapes

5,000 ha sustainably

managed in the one

forested and three coastal

landscapes

500 producers participating

in community based

landscape planning and

management processes

At least 47,000 ha with

sustainable activities under

implementation in the

forested and coastal

landscapes

At least 2,500 producers

participating in community

based landscape planning

and management

Use of community-

generated maps, along with

aerial photos or other

remote imaging as needed,

to create maps of land use

and forest cover to monitor

progress.

Project reports

A: Civil society networks

and government

organizations will support

community-based

organizations after project

completion to help ensure

sustainability of community

project outcomes.

A: Political Stability in four

target areas

R: Civil society

organizations maintain a

low level of technical and

management capacity to

implement grant projects.

R: Influence of climate

change will undermine

efforts to arrest biodiversity

loss and land degradation.

C. Increased number of

communities, within the

one forested and three

500 livestock producers

trained in silvopastoral

systems

At least 1,000 producers

trained in agro-ecological

practices and systems

Project Reports

APR/PIR Reports

MTE/FT Evaluations

11 Objective (Atlas output) monitored quarterly ERBM and annually in APR/PIR

29 | P a g e


End of Project


(R/A)

coastal landscapes,

participating in capacity

development activities,

to improve the social

and financial

sustainability of their

organizations.

D. Increased number of

knowledge sharing

events and products

25 CSO representatives

participating in trainings to

improve the financial and

administrative

sustainability their

community organizations

Up to 500 livestock

producers trained in

silvopastoral systems

At least 300 CSO

representatives

participating in trainings to

improve the financial and

administrative

sustainability of their

community organizations

At least 12 workshops for

knowledge sharing,

exchange of experiences

best practices, and fora in

which project participants

have participated

NC reports on the advance

of projects

M&E system of the project

keeps track of progress

towards targets.

Component 1: Resilient

landscapes for sustainable

development and global

environmental protection

Outcome 1.1

1.1. Community-based

institutional governance

structures and networks in

place in three coastal and

marine landscapes and one

forested landscape

(Gorontalo, Wakatobi

Islands, Semau Island and

Nusa Penida Island) for

effective participatory

decision making to achieve

resiliency

1.1.1 Increased number of

multistakeholder governance

platforms established and

strengthened to support

participatory landscape

planning and adaptive

management in one forested

and three coastal landscapes

1.1.2 Participatory

landscape strategies and

adaptive management plans

for the one forested and

three coastal landscapes

1.1.3 Number and typology

of community level and

strategic projects developed

and agreed by multi-

stakeholder groups (together

with eligibility criteria) as

outputs to achieve landscape

level outcomes

1.1.4 Number of case

studies on participatory

adaptive landscape

management

No multi-stakeholder

governance platforms

established in the four

landscapes

0 strategies to enhance

social and ecological

resilience of the one

forested and three coastal

landscapes

Four community-based

projects identified and

aligned with landscape

strategies, identified and

agreed by multi-

stakeholder groups during

the project lifetime and

implemented by CBOs and

NGOs in partnership with

others in the four areas

Traditional systems exist

but weakened due to

multiple factors

At least four multi-

stakeholder landscape

governance platforms in

place and functioning

Four landscape

management strategies and

plans delineating landscape

level outcomes and other

elements

At least 16 community-

based projects identified

and aligned with landscape

strategies

Four revitalized knowledge

management systems

Four case studies on

participatory adaptive

landscape management

(one per landscape)

Landscape management

plans and agreements

Key CSO stakeholders

identified and involved

Number of cooperation

agreements with

organizations and

institutions

GPS mapping and

characterization of socio-

economic and geographic

features of landscapes

Participatory appraisal that

identifies strengths,

weaknesses and lessons

learned

Documentation of the

multi-stakeholder group

conformation process

Legal document or decree

formalizing these platforms

Minutes of meetings

R: Different community

organizations maintain a

low capacity to coordinate

with each other and with

different government levels.

A: Communities across the

different Landscapes will be

willing to cooperate and

work with each other if

provided capacity building,

technical assistance and

grant financing.

30 | P a g e


End of Project


(R/A)

Outcome 1.2

Ecosystem services within

targeted landscapes are

enhanced through multi-

functional land-use systems

1.2.1 Increased area under

protection for biodiversity

conservation and sustainable

use

Four community based

project for biodiversity

conservation and

sustainability used in the

three coastal and marine

landscapes and one

forested landscape

Approximately 10,000

hectares managed as

marine and/or terrestrial

community conservation

areas

Project implementation

reports

APR/PIR

Mid Term Review

A: Community-based

organizations and their

members will contribute to

the development and

implementation of the


plans and actively

participate in their

governance structures.

A: Communities within the

landscapes are able to link

their livelihoods with global

environmental issues and

are motivated to sustain the

selected types of

interventions.

A: Key partners from civil

society and the private

sector continue supporting

immediate actions during

the occurrence of fire

emergencies.

A: New partnerships

develop between

government institutions and

local stakeholders involved

in reforestation and fire

prevention

1.2.2 Increased area under

reforestation or farmer

managed natural

regeneration

0 hectares under

reforestation or farmer

managed natural

regeneration

0 ha planted with

trees/bushes in

reforestation campaigns in

one forested and three

coastal landscapes

At least 10,000 hectares

under reforestation or

farmer managed natural

regeneration

At least 5,000 ha planted

with trees/bushes in

reforestation campaigns in

the forested and three

coastal landscapes

1.2.3 Increased area of

agricultural land under agro-

ecological practices and

systems that increase

sustainability and

productivity and/or conserve

crop genetic resources

At least 55 hectares of

agricultural land under

agro-ecological practices

and systems that increase

sustainability and

productivity and/or

conserve crop genetic

resources

At least 20,000 trees

planted in agroforestry

systems

At least 14,000 hectares of

agricultural land under

agro-ecological practices

and systems that increase

sustainability and

productivity and/or

conserve crop genetic

resources

At least 100,000 trees

planted in agroforestry

systems

At least 8,000 hectares of

silvopastoral systems

established

31 | P a g e


End of Project


(R/A)

Outcome 1.3

The sustainability of

production systems in the

target landscapes is

strengthened through

integrated agro-ecological

practices.

1.3.1 Number of multi-

stakeholder groups active in

the one forested and three

coastal landscapes with

strategies/plans for

sustainable production of

non -imber forest product,

craft and fisheries

production through

Terasmitra.

1.3.2 Number of community

based organizations

established or strengthened

in the one forested and three

coastal land landscapes

grouping individual

community producer

organizations in sustainable

production of non-timber

forest product, craft and

fisheries production through

Terasmitra.

No multi-stakeholder

groups with a focus on

landscape resilience

engaged in analysis and

planning of strategic

approaches to upscaling

successful experiences

with ecotourism or

commercial production of

key agricultural products

No strategy currently exists

in any of the landscapes to

enable and facilitate

upscaling by community

organizations of these

economic activities based

on the detailed analysis of

successful SGP supported

community experiences

and identification of

upscaling requirements and

opportunities

At least four landscapes

level multi-stakeholder

groups involved in analysis

of experience, lessons

learned and development

of strategies for sustainable

production of non-timber

forest product, craft and

fisheries production

through Terasmitra

At least 16 community

based organizations

established or

strengthened.

Project implementation

reports

A: Community

organizations will cooperate

across geographic and

administrative borders

A: Sufficient interest exists

in the landscapes to upscale

successful initiatives to

landscape level

R: Market conditions may

decline and de-incentivize

producers from participation

in the strategic projects

Outcome 1.4

Livelihoods of communities

in the target landscapes are

improved by developing

eco-friendly small-scale

community enterprises and

improving market access

1.4.1 Alternative livelihoods

and innovative products

developed through support

of activities that promote

market access as well as

microfinance opportunities

and other services.

15 projects funded in

previous operational

phases.

At least 20 additional

income generating

activities being

implemented that represent

sustainable livelihood

options

Project reports

Workshop reports

NC reports

APR/PIR

MTE/TE evaluations

R: Market conditions may

decline and de-incentivize

producers from participation

in the strategic projects


case study publications

documenting lessons learned

from SGP-supported

projects

1.4.3 Traditional knowledge

of native crop/livestock

genetic resources

documented and

disseminated

1.4.4 Farmers Rights under

One case study

publications prepared and

disseminated in previous

Operational Phases

Communication strategy

outdated

Traditional knowledge of

genetic resources relatively

poorly documented and

difficult to access for non-

academics

Farmers Rights poorly

understood

At least three case study

publications documenting

lessons learned from SGP-

supported projects

Communication strategy

under implementation

At least two publications

and other forms of

communication regarding

traditional knowledge of

native crop/livestock

genetic resources

Project reports

Workshop reports

NC reports

APR/PIR

MTE/TE evaluations

A: Training sessions,

workshops and publications

will effectively build

capacities for change in

behavior.

32 | P a g e


End of Project


(R/A)

the International Treaty on

Plant Genetic Resources for

Food and Agriculture

discussed and materials

disseminated

At least two knowledge

fairs or workshops

regarding genetic resources

and farmers’ rights

At least one

regional/national workshop

on Farmers’ Rights under

the International Treaty on

Plant Genetic Resources

for Food and Agriculture

Component 2. Community-

based integrated low-

emission systems

Outcome 2.1: Multi-

stakeholder partnerships in

place for managing the

development and

implementation of

community-based integrated

low-emission systems.


multi-stakeholder

partnerships for managing

the development and

implementation of


low-emission systems

2.1.2 Targeted community

grant projects (including

strategic projects) to build

the capacities of selected

community organizations to

plan strategically, operate

efficiently, and monitor the

use of renewable energy

No partnerships currently

established

No community members

with the capacity to plan

strategically, operate

efficiently or monitor the


Four partnerships

established and functioning

30 community

representatives have the

capacity to plan


efficiently and monitor the


Project reports

Workshop reports

NC reports

APR/PIR

MTE/TE evaluations

A: The communities in the

landscape confirm their

interest in renewable energy

and energy efficiently

technologies

R: Community

representatives are unwilling

or unable to transmit or

apply knowledge gained to

ground-level applications

Outcome 2.2: Increased

adoption (or development,

demonstration and

financing) of renewable and

energy efficient

technologies and mitigation

options at community level

2.2.1. Increased use of

renewable energy

technologies at a community

scale implemented in the

target landscape: i)

increased numbers of fuel

efficient stoves in use; (ii)

increased number of solar

panels dscape including:

2.2.2 Knowledge from

innovative project

experience is shared for

replication and upscaling of


low-emission systems across

the landscape, across the

country, and to the global

Limited number of solar

panel and other renewable

energy applications to

support HH needs and

farming activities:

Negligible knowledge

compiled or disseminated

At least 500 fuel efficient

stoves in use

At least 200 solar panels

installed and in use

At least five experiences

evaluated, codified, and

disseminated in appropriate

media

A model of innovative

energy management for

efficiency at selected

villages established

Project reports

Workshop reports

NC reports

APR/PIR

MTE/TE evaluations

Publications

Web posting

A: The communities in the

landscape confirm their

interest in renewable energy

and energy efficiently

technologies

R: Community

representatives are unwilling

or unable to transmit or

apply knowledge gained to

ground-level applications

33 | P a g e


End of Project


(R/A)

SGP network

Outcome 1.1. Community-based institutional governance structures and networks in place in three coastal and marine landscapes and one forested landscape (Gorontalo,

Wakatobi Islands, Semau Island, Nusa Penida Island) for effective participatory decision making to achieve landscape resiliency.

1.1.1 Three coastal landscapes strategies and one forested landscape strategy developed with the participation of community stakeholders

1.1.2 Multi-stakeholder landscape agreements to engage in and support implementation by communities of the landscape management strategies

1.1.3 Policy platforms in which policy briefs prepared by NGOs and communities are discussed with the participation of local government officials and other stakeholders

1.1.4. Dissemination of project knowledge and lessons to organizations and institutions across the coastal and marine landscapes and forested landscape, across the country, and to the

global SGP network

Outcome 1.2. Ecosystem services within targeted landscapes are enhanced through multi-functional land-use systems.

1.2.1. Targeted community grant projects (including strategic projects) to meet strategic objectives and support innovation regarding biodiversity conservation and optimization of

ecosystem services

Outcome 1.3. The sustainability of production systems in the target coastal and marine landscapes and forested landscape is strengthened through integrated agro-ecological

practices.

1.3.1 Targeted community grant projects (including strategic projects) to meet strategic objectives regarding sustainability of agro-ecosystem production, including Farmers’ Rights vis

a vis the International Treaty for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture

Outcome 1.4. Livelihoods of communities in the target coastal and marine landscapes and forested landscape are improved by developing eco-friendly small-scale community

enterprises and improving market access.

1.4.1 Targeted community grant projects (including strategic projects) to meet strategic objectives regarding development of sustainable livelihoods (i.e. activities that promote market

access as well as microfinance opportunities)

Outcome 2.1. Multi-stakeholder partnerships in place for managing the development and implementation of community-based integrated low-emission systems.

2.1.1. Multi-stakeholder partnerships in communities in the target landscapes develop and execute adaptive management plans for energy efficient systems

2.1.2 Policy platforms in which policy briefs prepared by NGOs and communities are discussed with the participation of local government officials and other stakeholders to enable

upscaling and catalyze private sector financing

Outcome 2.2 Increased adoption (or development, demonstration and financing) of renewable and energy efficient technologies and mitigation options at community level

2.2.1. Targeted community grant projects (including strategic projects) to build the capacities of selected community organizations to plan strategically, operate efficiently, and monitor

the use of renewable energy

2.2.2 Knowledge from innovative project experience is shared for replication and upscaling of community-based integrated low-emission systems across the landscape, across the

country, and to the global SGP network

34 | P a g e

VI. MONITORING AND EVALUATION (M&E) PLAN

84. Project monitoring and evaluation will be conducted in accordance with established UNDP and GEF

procedures. The Strategic Results Framework (see page 28) provides performance and results

indicators for project implementation along with their corresponding means of verification.

85. The M&E component is focused on meeting the project requirements at Country Program and

individual project levels, and also in the development of skills at local level to enable grantees to

monitor their own activities and achievements. SGP-Indonesia will apply relevant Global SGP

indicators to monitor individual projects and the national portfolio, and to report to UNDP and GEF

through the SGP Global Database and other project reports.

Portfolio of Upgraded Country Programmes (SGP UCPs) 86. The UNDP Global Coordinator for the SGP Upgrading Country Programs (UCPs) will monitor the

implementation of the portfolio of upgraded SGP Country Programmes and will promote and

support cross-fertilization and learning among Country Programmes and with the SGP Global

Program. SGP CPMT will monitor SGP Country Programmes for compliance with the Operational

Guidelines of the SGP as a GEF Corporate Program. The SGP Global UCP Coordinator will bring

together the Upgraded Country Programmes at their inception stages to review existing monitoring

and evaluation strategies and systems and propose relevant revisions to adapt them to the

requirements of the upgrading country programs and their approach to landscape planning and

management for social and ecological resilience.

87. The project will be monitored through the following M&E activities. The M&E budget is provided in

the table below.

Project start: 88. A Project Inception Workshop will be held within the first 2 months of project start with those with

assigned roles in the project organization structure: the SGP UCP Global Coordinator, the UNDP

country office SGP Focal Point, National Steering Committee members, the SGP Country Program

Manager (formerly National Coordinator).The Inception Workshop is crucial to brief all participants,

where needed, on the new SGP requirements as a GEF Full-size Project and to build ownership for

project results.

89. The Inception Workshop will carry out the following:

- Assist all partners to fully understand and take ownership of the project. Detail the roles, support services and complementary responsibilities of the SGP UCP Global Coordinator, Country Office (CO), and NHI vis-à-vis the project team and the National Steering Committee (NSC). Discuss the roles, functions and responsibilities within the project's decision-making structures, including reporting and communication lines, and conflict resolution mechanisms.

- Based on the project results framework and the relevant GEF Tracking Tool if appropriate, finalize the first annual work plan and agree on a schedule for grant approval for the GEF6 STAR allocation.

- Review and agree on the indicators, targets and their means of verification, and recheck assumptions and risks.

35 | P a g e

- Provide a detailed overview of reporting, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) requirements and roles. The Monitoring and Evaluation work plan and budget should be agreed and scheduled.

- Discuss financial reporting procedures and obligations, and audit arrangements.

90. An Inception Workshop report is a key reference document and must be prepared by the Country

Program Manager with UCP Global Coordinator review and shared with participants to formalize

various agreements and plans decided during the meeting.

Quarterly: 91. Quarterly reviews of project execution include the following tasks:

- Progress made shall be monitored in the UNDP Enhanced Results Based Management Platform.

- Based on information recorded by the NHI, UNDP will have access to updated financial information in an ongoing manner.

- Information on the grant portfolio shall be updated in the SGP Global Database using relevant indicators.

- Based on the initial risk analysis submitted, the risk log shall be regularly updated in ATLAS.

- Based on the information recorded in Atlas by the CO and the SGP Country Program Manager, Project Progress Reports (PPR) can be generated in the Executive Snapshot.

- Other ATLAS logs can be used to monitor issues, lessons learned etc. The use of these functions is a key indicator in the UNDP Executive Balanced Scorecard.

Annually: 92. Annual Project Review/Project Implementation Reports (APR/PIR): This key report is prepared to

monitor progress made since project start and in particular for the previous reporting period (1 July

to 30 June). The APR/PIR combines both UNDP and GEF reporting requirements. The Country

Program Manager will prepare the PIR with inputs and supervision from the UNDP CO SGP Focal

Point and the SGP UCP Global Coordinator.

93. The APR/PIR includes, but is not limited to, reporting on the following:

- Progress made toward project objective and project outcomes - with indicators, baseline data and end-of-project targets (cumulative).

- Project outputs delivered per project outcome (annual).

- Lesson learned/good practice.

- AWP and other expenditure reports.

- Risk and adaptive management.

- ATLAS QPR.

- Portfolio level indicators, to be developed specifically for the portfolio of UCPs, should be used on an annual basis.

- Portfolio level indicators (i.e. GEF focal area tracking tools) are used by most focal areas on an annual basis as well.

GEF Focal Area Tracking Tools:

36 | P a g e

94. The following GEF Tracking Tool(s) will be used to monitor global environmental benefit results.

95. The baseline/CEO Endorsement GEF Focal Area Tracking Tool(s) – submitted in Annex 11 to that

project document – will be updated by the Project Manager/Team and shared with the mid-term

review consultants and terminal evaluation consultants (not the evaluation consultants hired to

undertake the MTR or the TE) before the required review/evaluation missions take place. The

updated GEF Tracking Tool(s) will be submitted to the GEF along with the completed Mid-term

Review report and Terminal Evaluation report.

Independent Mid-term Review (MTR): 96. An independent mid-term review process will begin after the second PIR has been submitted to the

GEF, and the MTR report will be submitted to the GEF in the same year as the 3rd PIR. The MTR

findings and responses outlined in the management response will be incorporated as

recommendations for enhanced implementation during the final half of the project’s duration. The

terms of reference, the review process and the MTR report will follow the standard templates and

guidance prepared by the UNDP IEO for GEF-financed projects available on the UNDP Evaluation

Resource Center (ERC). As noted in this guidance, the evaluation will be ‘independent, impartial and

rigorous’. The consultants that will be hired to undertake the assignment will be independent from

organizations that were involved in designing, executing or advising on the project to be evaluated.

The GEF Operational Focal Point and other stakeholders will be involved and consulted during the

terminal evaluation process. Additional quality assurance support is available from the UNDP-GEF

Directorate. The final MTR report will be available in English and will be cleared by the UNDP

Country Office and the UCP Global Coordinator, and approved by the NSC.

97. The SGP UCP Global Coordinator may conduct joint visits with the Country Program Manager to

selected project sites as an input to PIR preparation. A Field Visit Report/BTOR will be circulated to

the project team and other relevant project stakeholders, as appropriate, no less than one month

after the visit.

End of project 98. An independent Final Evaluation will take place three months prior to the project’s expected end

date. The final evaluation will focus on the delivery of the project’s results as initially planned (and

as corrected after the mid-term evaluation, if any such correction took place). The final evaluation

will look at impact and sustainability of results, including the contribution to capacity development

and the achievement of global environmental benefits/goals. The SGP UCP Global Coordinator, in

consultation with SGP CPMT, will prepare the Terms of Reference for this evaluation. The TOR shall

be validated by the UNDP Evaluation Office.

99. Given the nature of the SGP Upgrading Country Programs, the final evaluation should also undertake

an assessment of costs and benefits of the upgrading process, summarize lessons learned, and

provide recommendations to the GEF Secretariat and to the Global SGP concerning the upgrading of

other Country Programs. The final evaluation requires a management response, which should be

uploaded to PIMS and to the UNDP Evaluation Office Evaluation Resource Center (ERC).

100. During the last three months, the project team will prepare the Project Terminal Report. This

comprehensive report will summarize the results achieved (objectives, outcomes, outputs), lessons

http://web.undp.org/evaluation/guidance.shtml#gef

http://web.undp.org/evaluation/guidance.shtml#gef

http://erc.undp.org/index.aspx?module=intra

37 | P a g e

learned, problems met and areas where results may not have been achieved. It will also lay out

recommendations for any further steps that may need to be taken to ensure sustainability and

replication of the Project’s results.

Learning and knowledge sharing 101. Particular attention will be paid to the GEF Focal Area “learning objectives” to ensure that

experiences emerging from local level implementation of technologies, approaches and policies are

fed back to the wider portfolio. Results from the project will be disseminated within and beyond the

project intervention zone through existing information sharing networks and forums.

102. The project will identify and participate, as relevant and appropriate, in scientific, policy-based

and/or any other networks, which may be of benefit to project implementation though lessons

learned. The project will identify, analyze, and share lessons learned that might be beneficial in the

design and implementation of similar future SGP projects, in particular to other SGP upgrading

countries.

103. The project team will participate in at least one workshop with other SGP upgraded countries to

share experiences. Ideally, this workshop should take place as part of the midterm evaluation. The

SGP UCP Global Coordinator in consultation with the SGP country teams and the evaluation team

will determine the detailed objective(s), venue, agenda, and timing of the workshop.

104. Finally, there will be a two-way flow of information between this project, other SGP Upgraded

Country Programs and the global GEF SGP program. Such flow of information should cover

substantive and operational information, experiences and lessons.

Individual Grant Monitoring and Evaluation 105. The following minimum standards shall be applied for individual grant M&E:

Field monitoring visits 106. Every project should be visited at least twice in its lifetime, upon receipt of the first progress

report from beneficiary organizations and during the following year. NSC members with relevant

expertise in project-related technical areas may join the NC during these visits as appropriate.

Progress reports 107. Beneficiary organizations should submit half-yearly progress reports to the Country Program

Manager along with a financial report. A forecast of resources needed in the following period should

be submitted by the grantee to the Country Program Manager as a requirement for disbursement of

next instalment.

Final report 108. Beneficiary organizations should submit a final report summarizing global benefits and other

results achieved, outputs produced, and lessons learned. The final report should also include a final

financial statement.

Final Evaluation

38 | P a g e

109. A final evaluation will be done for each project. The Country Program Manager should validate

the terms of reference for these evaluations and vet the evaluation consultant. The cost of

evaluation will be part of the grant budget.

Grant Project Audit 110. The SGP Country Program Manager will organize audits to randomly selected grantee

organization on a risk basis.

M&E Work plan and Budget 111. The SGP Project will be monitored through the following M&E activities and the indicative

budget:

Mandatory GEF M&E Requirements and M&E Budget:

GEF M&E requirements

Primary responsibility

Indicative costs to be charged to the Project

Budget12 (US$)

Time frame

GEF grant Co-financing

Inception Workshop Project Manager UNDP CO YBUL/SGP Secretarit Indonesia

10,000 Within two months of project document signature

Inception Report Project Manager and SGP Secretariat Indonesia

None None Within two weeks of inception workshop

Standard UNDP monitoring and reporting requirements as outlined in the UNDP POPP

UNDP Country Office

None None Quarterly, annually

Monitoring of indicators in project results framework

Project Manager UNDP CO

@ 4,000 per

year: =

16,000

Annually

GEF Project Implementation Report (PIR)

Project Manager and UNDP Country Office and UNDP-GEF team (SGP UCP Global Coordinator)

None None Annually

Audit as per UNDP policies UNDP CO 20,000 Annually or other frequency as per UNDP Audit policies

Lessons learned and knowledge generation

Project Manager and SGP Secretariat Indonesia

Annually

Monitoring of environmental and social risks, and corresponding

Project Manager UNDP CO

None On-going

12 Excluding project team staff time and UNDP staff time and travel expenses.

39 | P a g e

GEF M&E requirements

Primary responsibility

Indicative costs to be charged to the Project

Budget12 (US$)

Time frame

GEF grant Co-financing

management plans as relevant

Addressing environmental and social grievances

Project Manager UNDP Country Office BPPS as needed

0

Project Board meetings Project Board UNDP Country Office Project Manager

10,000 At minimum annually

Supervision missions UNDP Country Office 0 Annually

Oversight missions UNDP-GEF team 0 Troubleshooting as needed

Knowledge management Project Manager and SGP Secretariat Indonesia

35,000 On-going

GEF Secretariat learning missions/site visits

UNDP Country Office and Project Manager and UNDP-GEF team (SGP UCP Global Coordinator)

0 To be determined.

Independent Mid-term Review (MTR) and management response

UNDP Country Office and Project team and UNDP-GEF team (SGP UCP Global Coordinator)

20,000 Between 2nd and 3rd PIR.

Independent Terminal Evaluation (TE) included in UNDP evaluation plan, and management response

UNDP Country Office and Project team and UNDP-GEF team (SGP UCP Global Coordinator)

25,000 At least three months before operational closure

TOTAL indicative COST Excluding project team staff time, and UNDP staff and travel expenses

USD 136,000

Individual grant level

Type of M&E activity

Responsible Parties Budget US$ Time frame

Field monitoring visit

▪ SGP Country Program Manager and team

▪ NSC members

Indicative cost: 15,000

At least twice in the lifetime of project Additional visits on a risk basis

40 | P a g e

CPMU

Project Board – National Steering Committee

UNDP Civil Society

Government

Project Organization Structure

Grantees

Grantees

Grantees

YBUL Implementing Partner

Country Program Manager

Grantees

Monitoring of and technical support to community application of M&E methods and tools

▪ SGP Country Program Manager

▪ National consultant (preparation of training materials and training delivery in 4 SL )

▪ NSC members

Indicative cost: 15,000

Half-yearly

Progress reports ▪ Beneficiary organization


No cost Half-yearly

Final report ▪ Beneficiary organization


No cost End of project

Final evaluation ▪ National consultant


▪ Beneficiary organization

Included in project grant budget

End of project

Audit ▪ SGP Country Program Manager

▪ Beneficiary organization

5,000 At least one audit to randomly selected projects

SUB-TOTAL COST 35,000

TOTAL indicative COST of Project M&E M&E of projects. Excluding project team staff time and costs included in project grant budget

US$ 171,000

VII. GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS

41 | P a g e

112. The project will be executed under UNDP’s NGO (Non-Governmental Organization) modality

according to UNDP NGO implementation guidelines and HACT policies. The Project is co-financed with primary funding from the GEF, and UNDP acts as the GEF Implementing Agency. YBUL, which has been the NGO National Host Institution for GEF-SGP in Indonesia before its upgrading, will be the executing agency, taking over the previous execution role played by UNOPS, and will be responsible for the day-to-day management and implementation of project activities with the support of a full-time Country Program Manager (CPM) and under the leadership of the National Steering Committee (NSC). The project will be implemented with UNDP support, and UNDP will ensure that the project receives technical and managerial support, as needed, from the UNDP Country Office, and from the Global Coordinator of the SGP Upgrading Country Programs, as part of the global team responsible for SGP as a corporate program of the GEF. YBUL, as NHI, will act as Executive Secretary to the National Steering Committee as Project Board.

113. National Steering Committee (NSC): the NSC will act as the Project Board, responsible for taking appropriate management decisions to ensure that the project is implemented in line with the GEF-SGP Operational Guidelines and the agreed project design and is consistent with national and state development policies and priorities. The NSC will meet at least twice a year, and for special meetings as needed, to provide the required oversight of the project and also ensure the overall coordination of the program. The membership of the National Steering Committee - which shall be non-governmental in majority in compliance with the GEF-SGP Operational Guidelines - will be constituted by UNDP in consultation with the Implementing Partner, and others, as appropriate, with process validation to be done by the UNDP-GEF Global Coordinator for GEF-SGP Upgraded Country Programs. The Chairperson of the NSC may also invite specific technical experts or others to the NSC meetings on an ‘as-needed’ basis. The Country Program Manager shall act as the Secretary to the NSC. The NSC shall determine the strategic criteria for project eligibility within the overall framework provided by the GEF-SGP Operational Guidelines and the Project Document, and shall decide which grants to approve after receiving the reviews of all projects by the Technical Advisory Group. At the project level, it shall play a crucial role in quality assurance and accountability by ensuring adequate project monitoring and evaluation and approval of the Annual Work Plan (AWP). The NSC ensures that required resources are committed and arbitrates any conflicts related to the project or negotiates a solution to any problems with external entities. Representatives from the agencies providing co-financing to the project may also be invited to participate in the NSC meetings as appropriate.

114. In addition to approval of GEF-SGP grants, the NSC’s activities will include strategic efforts in line with the Project and GEF strategic priorities that will enable aggregation of community-driven impacts for global environmental benefits, strategic portfolio learning and capacity development, dissemination of best practices, and network building for GEF-SGP portfolio grantees. This approach will support the GEF-SGP’s and GEF’s catalytic roles by contributing to replication and up scaling of good practices.

115. Country Program Management Unit (CPMU): The CPMU will be the administrative hub for the project and will be the responsibility of YBUL as the Implementing Partner for the Small Grants Program in Indonesia. The CPMU will serve as the Secretariat to the NSC and will be responsible for the day-to-day implementation of project activities. The CPMU will be responsible for the overall coordination of the project, including operational planning, supervision, administrative and financial management and the adaptive management of the project based on inputs from the

42 | P a g e

Project Monitoring and Evaluation plan and the annual Project Implementation Review. The CPMU will be responsible for (1) managing and executing project components; (2) coordinating financial resource management and acquisitions; (3) reporting on the use of GEF resources and on results achieved; (4) preparing management reports for the NSC, and UNDP; (5) promoting institutional coordination among all involved stakeholders from government and non-governmental organizations participating in the project; and (6) monitoring, evaluating and disseminating project results. The CPMU will constitute a full time Country Programme Manager (CPM), a Project Assistant and relevant support and technical staff. The team will work under the guidance of YBUL as Implementing Partner, will be supported by the UNDP Country Office on all matters related to project implementation and will coordinate with all grantees.

116. Project Assurance and other functions: UNDP will perform the Project Assurance function by providing independent feedback (through periodic monitoring, assessment and evaluation) on progress towards project milestones and how they are managed and completed. UNDP will provide assistance in Country Program execution services and maintain project budget and project expenditures, assist in recruitments and contracting project personnel and provide technical consultant services, assist in equipment procurement, and provide any other assistance upon request of the CPM, based on the AWP approved by the NSC. The Combined Delivery Report (CDR) prepared by UNDP CO will be verified and certified by YBUL. The Implementing Partner will ensure, and UNDP Country Office will also monitor, project implementation and achievement of the project outputs, guaranteeing the proper use of GEF/UNDP funds. UNDP CO will assign a Program Officer, who will be responsible for the project assurance function. UNDP Direct Project Services: An NGO selected as an Implementing Partner, “has full control over project operations, and can use its own supply channels for recruitment and procurement, provided that the process does not contravene the principles of the Financial Regulations and Rules of UNDP and are based on “best value for money”, according to the POPP. Thus, UNDP’s costs must be recovered in full accordance with GEF-specific Bureau of Management Services (BMS) policy on Direct Project Costs (DPCs) only when UNDP is selected as Responsible Party. To comply with BMS policy, UNDP will need to ensure for the project that the DPCs for the outcomes/activities where UNDP is designated as Responsible Party are within the Project Management Cost (PMC) component of the project budget identified as Direct Project Costs. Eligible Direct Project Costs should not be charged as a flat percentage. They should be calculated on the basis of estimated actual or transaction based costs and should be charged to the direct project costs account codes: “64397 – Services to projects - CO staff’ and “74596 – Services to projects - GOE for CO”.

117. Technical support to the project: The project will solicit the support of experts and specialists in different thematic areas to extend technical support to project partners and grantees, as needed. A roster of experts will be created at the national levels who will be engaged on a periodic basis for special capacity needs of the partner agencies and grantees.

118. Audit Arrangements: The project will be audited in accordance with UNDP Financial Regulations and Rules and applicable audit policies and guidelines.

119. Use of Institucional Logos on Project Deliverables: Visibility of GEF financial support will be

ensured through application of the global GEF GEF-SGP branding to all relevant electronic and printed materials, both by the GEF-SGP country program and by GEF-SGP grantees. GEF-SGP will

43 | P a g e

also apply the following UNDP-GEF policy: “The GEF logo should appear on all relevant project publications, including amongst others, project hardware and other purchases with GEF funds. Any citation in publications regarding projects funded by GEF should also acknowledge the GEF. Logos of the Implementing Agencies and the Executing Agencies will also appear on all publications. Where other agencies and project partners have provided support (through co-financing) their logos may also appear on project publications”.

Cost-effectiveness

120. SGP strives to be cost effective both at the grant and programmatic level.

121. Grants: Cost-effectiveness is an important criterion for the approval of SGP grants by the NSC. The

budgets of project proposals are compared with those of prior similar interventions and assessed

against expected environmental and social benefits. In all cases, communities are expected to

contribute substantial in-kind co-financing (i.e., labor, infrastructure, equipment, tools, land) and

help mobilize other in-kind or cash resources from development partners and local government.

The NSC also assesses whether there may be more cost effective alternatives to achieve the same

global environmental benefits before approving SGP grants. This ensures that GEF funds are

applied in the most cost-effective manner.

122. Programme: NSC members provide vital scientific and technical inputs to the SGP that would be

expensive to obtain via consultant contracts. In addition, the Country Program Management Unit

will establish partnerships with local institutions that are carrying out development as well as

international, development agencies and GEF-funded projects. At the same time, the SGP Country

Program will strengthen a network of local organizations that will contribute to the implementation

of national environmental priority strategies.

VIII. FINANCIAL PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

123. The total cost of the project is USD 15,311,029 including parallel funding. This is financed through a

GEF grant of USD 3,561,644, USD 40,000 in cash co-financing to be administered by UNDP and USD

11,709,385 in parallel co-financing. UNDP, as the GEF Implementing Agency, is responsible for the

execution of the GEF resources and the cash co-financing transferred to UNDP bank account only.

124. Parallel co-financing: The actual realization of project co-financing will be monitored during the

mid-term review and terminal evaluation process and will be reported to the GEF. The planned

parallel co-financing will be used as follows:

Co-financing source

Co-financing type

Co-financing amount

Planned Activities/Outputs

Risks Risk Mitigation Measures

Government In-kind 5,298,385 Policy platforms, multi-stakeholder landscape

Change of government policy, personnel

Changes to government policy or personnel mitigated by long history of SGP in country, presence of GoI on NSC,

44 | P a g e

group participation, co-finance grant projects

ongoing dialogue between UNDP and GOI; as well as SGP modus operandi regarding SGP management by NSC.

UNDP – ICCA GSI

In-cash 500,000 Establish ICCAs; support to workshops, reports, communications

None apparent

UNDP In-cash 40,000 Policy platforms, multi-stakeholder landscape group participation, project assurance activities.

Changes to corporate TRAC allocation

Adjust UNDP contribution and report in the relevant reports. SGP will also seek any potential parallel funding from other sources.

RARE In-kind 541,000 Support to workshops, reports, communications

None apparent

-----

Grantee Organizations

In-kind 1,560,000 Grant project financing

None apparent

-----

In cash 1,960,000 Grant project financing

Community members may have difficulties in identifying cash cofinancing

SGP Country team (Country Program Manager, PA, and NSC) will pursue resource mobilization to offset any potential shortfall from communities unable to generate cash cofinancing

WWF-SESS In-kind 1,850,000 Grant project cofinancing; workshops; KM

None apparent

125. Budget Revision and Tolerance: As per UNDP requirements outlined in the UNDP POPP, the

project board will agree on a budget tolerance level for each plan under the overall annual work

plan allowing the project manager to expend up to the tolerance level beyond the approved project

budget amount for the year without requiring a revision from the Project Board. Should the

following deviations occur, the Project Manager and UNDP Country Office will seek the approval of

the UNDP-GEF team as these are considered major amendments by the GEF:

a) Budget re-allocations among components in the project with amounts involving 10% of the

total project grant or more;

45 | P a g e

b) Introduction of new budget items/or components that exceed 5% of original GEF allocation.

126. Any over expenditure incurred beyond the available GEF grant amount will be absorbed by non-

GEF resources (e.g. UNDP TRAC or cash co-financing).

127. Refund to Donor: Should a refund of unspent funds to the GEF be necessary, this will be

managed directly by the UNDP-GEF Unit in New York.

128. Project Closure: Project closure will be conducted as per UNDP requirements outlined in the

UNDP POPP. On an exceptional basis only, a no-cost extension beyond the initial duration of the

project will be sought from in-country UNDP colleagues and then the UNDP-GEF Executive

Coordinator.

129. Operational completion: The project will be operationally completed when the last UNDP-

financed inputs have been provided and the related activities have been completed. This includes

the final clearance of the Terminal Evaluation Report (that will be available in English) and the

corresponding management response, and the end-of-project review Project Board meeting. The

Implementing Partner, through a Project Board decision, will notify the UNDP Country Office when

operational closure has been completed. At that time, the relevant parties will have already agreed

and confirmed in writing all arrangements for the disposal of any equipment that is still the property

of UNDP.

130. Financial completion: The project will be financially closed when the following conditions have

been met:

a) The project is operationally completed or has been cancelled;

b) The Implementing Partner has reported all financial transactions to UNDP;

c) UNDP has closed the accounts for the project;

d) UNDP and the Implementing Partner have certified a final Combined Delivery Report (which

serves as final budget revision).

131. The project will be financially completed within 12 months of operational closure or after the

date of cancellation. Between operational and financial closure, the implementing partner will

identify and settle all financial obligations and prepare a final expenditure report. The UNDP Country

Office will send the final signed closure documents including confirmation of final cumulative

expenditure and unspent balance to the UNDP-GEF Unit for confirmation before the project will be

financially closed in Atlas by the UNDP Country Office.

46 | P a g e

IX. TOTAL BUDGET AND WORK PLAN

Total Budget and Work Plan

Atlas Proposal or Award ID: 00094635 Atlas Primary Output Project ID: 00098731

Atlas Proposal or Award Title: Sixth OP of the GEF SGP in Indonesia

Atlas Business Unit IDN10

Atlas Primary Output Project

Title Sixth OP of the GEF SGP

UNDP-GEF PIMS No. 5499

Implementing Partner YBUL

GEF component / Atlas activity

Implementing agent

Fund ID Donor Name

Atlas Budgetary

Account Code ATLAS Budget Description

Total (USD)

Year 1 (USD)

Year 2 (USD)

Year 3 (USD)

Year 4 (USD)

Budget note

Component 1 - Resilient rural landscapes for sustainable development and global environmental protection

1. Resilient Rural Landscapes and Seascapes for sustainable development and global environmental protection

YBUL 62000 GEF

61100 Personnel $620,000 $140,000 $160,000 $160,000 $160,000 1

71200 International Consultants $40,000 $0 $15,000 $0 $25,000 2

71600 Travel $95,000 $20,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 3

72600 Grants to Institutions $1,650,000 $390,000 $450,000 $510,000 $300,000 4

74200 Printed and audiovisual material

$55,000 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $25,000 5

74500 Miscellaneous Expenses $4,032 $1,000 $1,000 $1,032 $1,000 6

75700 Training, workshops & conferences

$80,000 $25,000 $25,000 $5,000 $25,000 7

TOTAL COMPONENT 1 $2,544,032 $581,000 $686,000 $716,032 $561,000

Component 2 - Community-based integrated low-emission systems

2. Community-based integrated low-emission systems

YBUL 62000 GEF

61100 Personnel $164,010 $40,000 $42,000 $42,010 $40,000 1

71200 International Consultants $25,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $15,000 2

71600 Travel $40,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 3

47 | P a g e

72600 Grants to Institutions $525,000 $100,000 $125,000 $175,000 $125,000 4

74200 Printed and audio-visual material

$30,000 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 5

74500 Miscellaneous Expenses $4,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 6

75700 Training, workshops & conferences

$60,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 7

TOTAL COMPONENT 2 $848,010 $173,500 $210,500 $250,510 $213,500

Project management

Project management YBUL 62000 GEF

61100 Personnel $60,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 8

73300 Rental & maintenance of information technology equip

$16,000 $6,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 9

73100 Premises $62,342 $7,810 $16,681 $17,481 $20,370 10

74500 Misc. $3,200 $800 $800 $1,000 $600 11

74596 Services to Projects $28,060 $14,390 $5,519 $5,519 $2,632 12

TOTAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT $169,602 $44,000 $38,000 $44,000 $43,602

TOTAL PROJECT $3,561,644 $798,500 $934,500 $1,010,542 $818,102

Summary of

Funds:

Amount

Year 1

Amount

Year 2

Amount

Year 3

Amount

Year 4 Total (USD)

GEF 798,500 934,500 1,010,542 818,102 3,561,644

UNDP 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 $40,000

UNDP-ICCA GSI 150,000 175,000 150,000 25,000 500,000

Government of Indonesia 1,324,596 1,324,596 1,324,596 1,324,597 5,298,385

RARE 125,000 200,000 175,000 41,000 541,000

CSO Grantee Organizations 490,000 700,000 500,000 270,000 1,960,000

CSO Grantee Organizations 390,000 600,000 400,000 170,000 1,560,000

SESS-WWF 500,000 700,000 500,000 150,000 1,850,000

Total 3,788,096 4,644,096 4,070,138 2,808,699 15,311,029

48 | P a g e

Budget notes

1

Local consultants support for technical inputs, monitoring, evaluation and auditing of grantee projects, providing technical

assistance to grantees, reporting on project progress and results, and developing related knowledge products. Support

from the National Coordinator (Country Programme Manager) and the Programme Assistant for the formulation and

delivery of grant initiatives by local communities.

2 Mid-term and final evaluation, and audit consultants

3 Ex-ante project site visits, field monitoring visits, technical assistance travel for the application by grantees of M&E

methods

4 Financial resources for CBO/NGO grants

5 Production, layout, translation, printing and dissemination of SGP knowledge products and communication materials

including audio-visuals (e.g. factsheets, reports, case studies, etc.)

6 Miscellaneous costs such as car insurance

7 Meetings of SGP’s National Steering Committee for the review and approval CBO/NGO grants. Grantee experience

exchange, carried out annually. Training workshops with Grantees. Inception Workshop

8

Country programme management inputs, with costs reflecting the proportion of time to be dedicated by each staff:

a) National Coordinator (Country Programme Manager): Overall project management, administration, finances, reporting,

and resources mobilization

b) Programme Assistant: Overall project technical support, financial management and budget control, disbursements to

grantees, record keeping, administrative support and procurement

c) Secretary: Secretarial support including archiving, inventories, office and equipment maintenance, supplies, minutes

taking, workshop preparation and logistics, and database update support

9 Purchase, rental and maintenance of equipment (replacement of computers and printers, rental of audiovisual equipment

for workshops and training activities)

10 Rental and maintenance of SGP premises, utility costs, communications

11 Miscellaneous expenses

12 Direct Project Costs UNDP CO (see Annex M, below)

49

X. LEGAL CONTEXT

132. The project document shall be the instrument envisaged and defined in the Supplemental Provisions to the Project Document, attached

hereto and forming an integral part hereof, as “the Project Document”.

133. This project will be implemented by Yayasan Bina Usaha Lingkungan (YBUL) (“Implementing Partner”) in accordance with its financial

regulations, rules, practices and procedures only to the extent that they do not contravene the principles of the Financial Regulations and

Rules of UNDP. Where the financial governance of an Implementing Partner does not provide the required guidance to ensure best value for

money, fairness, integrity, transparency, and effective international competition, the financial governance of UNDP shall apply.

134. Any designations on maps or other references employed in this project document do not imply the expression of any opinion

whatsoever on the part of UNDP concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or its authorities, or concerning the

delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

XI. RISK MANAGEMENT

135. Consistent with the Article III of the Supplemental Provisions to the Project Document, the responsibility for the safety and security of

the Implementing Partner and its personnel and property, and of UNDP’s property in the Implementing Partner’s custody, rests with the

Implementing Partner. To this end, the Implementing Partner shall:

a) put in place an appropriate security plan and maintain the security plan, taking into account the security situation in the country where

the project is being carried;

b) assume all risks and liabilities related to the Implementing Partner’s security, and the full implementation of the security plan.

136. UNDP reserves the right to verify whether such a plan is in place, and to suggest modifications to the plan when necessary. Failure to

maintain and implement an appropriate security plan as required hereunder shall be deemed a breach of the Implementing Partner’s

obligations under this Project Document and the Project Cooperation Agreement between UNDP and the Implementing Partner .

137. The Implementing Partner agrees to undertake all reasonable efforts to ensure that no UNDP funds received pursuant to the Project

Document are used to provide support to individuals or entities associated with terrorism and that the recipients of any amounts provided

by UNDP hereunder do not appear on the list maintained by the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1267 (1999).

The list can be accessed via http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/aq_sanctions_list.shtml.

50

138. Social and environmental sustainability will be enhanced through application of the UNDP Social and Environmental Standards

(http://www.undp.org/ses) and related Accountability Mechanism (http://www.undp.org/secu-srm).

139. The Implementing Partner shall: (a) conduct project and programme-related activities in a manner consistent with the UNDP Social and

Environmental Standards, (b) implement any management or mitigation plan prepared for the project or programme to comply with such

standards, and (c) engage in a constructive and timely manner to address any concerns and complaints raised through the Accountability

Mechanism. UNDP will seek to ensure that communities and other project stakeholders are informed of and have access to the

Accountability Mechanism.

140. All signatories to the Project Document shall cooperate in good faith with any exercise to evaluate any programme or project-related

commitments or compliance with the UNDP Social and Environmental Standards. This includes providing access to project sites, relevant

personnel, information, and documentation.

141. The Implementing Partner will take appropriate steps to prevent misuse of funds, fraud or corruption, by its officials, consultants,

responsible parties, subcontractors and sub-recipients in implementing the project or using the UNDP funds. The Implementing Partner will

ensure that its financial management, anti-corruption and anti-fraud policies are in place and enforced for all funding received from or

through UNDP.

142. The requirements of the following documents, then in force at the time of signature of the Project Document, apply to the Implementing

Partner: (a) UNDP Policy on Fraud and other Corrupt Practices and (b) UNDP Office of Audit and Investigations Investigation Guidelines. The

Implementing Partner agrees to the requirements of the above documents, which are an integral part of this Project Document and are

available online at www.undp.org.

143. In the event that an investigation is required, UNDP has the obligation to conduct investigations relating to any aspect of UNDP

programmes and projects. The Implementing Partner shall provide its full cooperation, including making available personnel, relevant

documentation, and granting access to the Implementing Partner’s (and its consultants’, responsible parties’, subcontractors‘ and sub-

recipients’) premises, for such purposes at reasonable times and on reasonable conditions as may be required for the purpose of an

investigation. Should there be a limitation in meeting this obligation, UNDP shall consult with the Implementing Partner to find a solution.

144. The Implementing Partner will promptly inform UNDP in case of any incidence of inappropriate use of funds, or credible allegation of

fraud or corruption with due confidentiality.

Where the Implementing Partner becomes aware that a UNDP project or activity, in whole or in part, is the focus of investigation for alleged

fraud/corruption, the Implementing Partner will inform the UNDP Resident Representative/Head of Office, who will promptly inform UNDP’s

51

Office of Audit and Investigations (OAI). The Implementing Partner shall provide regular updates to the head of UNDP in the country and OAI

of the status of, and actions relating to, such investigation.

145. UNDP shall be entitled to a refund from the Implementing Partner of any funds provided that have been used inappropriately, including

through fraud or corruption, or otherwise paid other than in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Project Document. Such

amount may be deducted by UNDP from any payment due to the Implementing Partner under this or any other agreement. Recovery of

such amount by UNDP shall not diminish or curtail the Implementing Partner’s obligations under this Project Document.

Where such funds have not been refunded to UNDP, the Implementing Partner agrees that donors to UNDP (including the Government)

whose funding is the source, in whole or in part, of the funds for the activities under this Project Document, may seek recourse to the

Implementing Partner for the recovery of any funds determined by UNDP to have been used inappropriately, including through fraud or

corruption, or otherwise paid other than in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Project Document.

Note: The term “Project Document” as used in this clause shall be deemed to include any relevant subsidiary agreement further to the

Project Document, including those with the Implementing Partner, responsible parties, subcontractors and sub-recipients.

146. Each contract issued by the Implementing Partner in connection with this Project Document shall include a provision representing that

no fees, gratuities, rebates, gifts, commissions or other payments, other than those shown in the proposal, have been given, received, or

promised in connection with the selection process or in contract execution, and that the recipient of funds from the Implementing Partner

shall cooperate with any and all investigations and post-payment audits.

147. Should UNDP refer to the relevant national authorities for appropriate legal action any alleged wrongdoing relating to the project, the

Government will ensure that the relevant national authorities shall actively investigate the same and take appropriate legal action against all

individuals found to have participated in the wrongdoing, recover and return any recovered funds to UNDP.

148. The Implementing Partner shall ensure that all of its obligations set forth under this section entitled “Risk Management Standard

Clauses” are passed on to each responsible party, subcontractor and sub-recipient and that all the clauses under this section entitled “Risk

Management” are included, mutatis mutandis, in all sub-contracts or sub-agreements entered into further to this Project Document.

52

XII. ANNEXES

A. Multi-year Work Plan, by landscape

B. Table B from CEO Endorsement document

C. Terms of Reference

D. UNDP Social and Environmental Screening Protocol (SESP)

E. UNDP Project Quality Assurance Report

F. UNDP Risk Log

G. HACT Assessment (PENDING)

H. Maps

I. Leading stakeholders and roles per project site

J. SGP Operational Guidelines

K. Site descriptions

L. Knowledge Management

M. Direct Project Costs UNDP Country Office

53

XIII. ANNEX A: MULTI YEAR WORK PLAN, BY LANDSCAPE 13

A. Nusa Penida

Outcome Output Activity / Task Responsible Party

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

1.1. Community-based institutional governance structures and networks in place in four key landscapes (Gorontalo, Wakatobi Islands, Semau Island and Nusa Penida Island) for effective participatory decision making to achieve landscape resiliency

1.1.1 One forested and three coastal landscape strategies developed with the participation of community stakeholders

Develop a participatory landscapes strategy with community and related stakeholders


Develop a village-level and inter-village level agreement to support the implementation of the strategy


Develop community-based policy platforms on natural resources management with the community, local government and other related stakeholders

13 Please note that the activities listed under each outcome and landscape are indicative of priorities identified by community consultations during project preparation. These may vary depending on further community design of grant projects. The time table represents an idealized scenario.

54



Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

1.1.4. Dissemination of project knowledge and lessons to organizations and institutions across the landscape, across the country, and to the global SGP network

Develop a practical knowledge system at the grassroots level that would connect groups to facilitate well-documented information dissemination, including lessons learned among other groups or communities. For example, this network could share knowledge related to local folk songs, dancing, or other elements of traditional culture

1.2. Ecosystem services within targeted landscapes are enhanced through multi-functional land-use systems

1.2.1. Targeted community grant projects (including strategic projects) to meet strategic objectives and support innovation regarding biodiversity conservation and optimization of ecosystem services

Technical assistance to community organizations for grant project design; Grants provided to community organizations; potential activities and priorities identified during project preparation consultations may include the following:

• Conduct training on the hydrological cycle leading to increased skill in storing rainwater in Penida’s karst layer with the aim of conserving and maintaining water resources

• Facilitate the establishment of local water resource management institutions that have the capacity to conserve and manage water resources in the form of springs and ponds for the common good

• Lobby and assist village government and indigenous/traditional leaders to establish local regulations for protecting the forest that remains on customary and private land

• Lobby and assist village government and indigenous/traditional leaders to establish local regulations detailing strict logging restrictions and enabling the replanting of large trees, especially near water sources, and to encourage the idea of replanting trees as an administrative requirements of citizenship and as part of the customary system of fines

• Facilitate the planting of large trees that would be important to Penida’s ecology and food security

55



Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

• Provide training and facilitate the revitalization and preparation of local seeds for staple foods and/or supplementary food based on local soil conditions

• Collect more information about plants with potential use for human medicinal and natural pesticide purposes; and

• Provide training and assist the preparation of local seeds and the implementation of planting medicinal plants and natural pesticides along with annual crops

1.3. The sustainability of production systems in the target landscapes is strengthened through integrated agro-ecological practices

1.3.1 Targeted community grant projects (including strategic projects) to meet strategic objectives regarding sustainability of agro-ecosystem production


• Revitalize local seeds that are no longer planted, such as upland rice

• Introduce and facilitate the deployment of land-use models for local staple crops and other local crop varieties that display greater resistance to drought and extreme weather

• Introduce and facilitate the deployment of good practices for seaweed cultivation methods that display greater resistance to disease and pests

• Provide community education about the long-term impact of the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides on soil fertility, crop quality, groundwater and health

• Provide training and facilitate the production and use of organic fertilizers and pesticides by community groups

• Conduct a comparative study and provide regular technical assistance on agricultural and fishing activities in cooperation with Agriculture and Fisheries Counselors from the District Government and other experts as needed

• Provide an introduction to the benefits of

56



Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

weather forecasts and climate information for agriculture and aquaculture, as well as fishing activities

• Disseminate weather forecasts and climate information from BMKG (the Indonesian Agency for Meteorology, Climatology and Geophysics) to the public in order to facilitate agriculture, aquaculture and fishing decisions that minimize risk and save energy

• Introduce and provide innovative examples of chemical-free land cultivation and/or the application of agricultural mechanization

• Provide training and introduce techniques for processing and packaging agriculture and aquaculture products, as well as seed storage methods

• Conduct a study on the opportunities for agriculture, fishery and aquaculture commodities from Penida Island in the Denpasar market and in markets in Bali

• Conduct a study on the ideal land cover area (environmental carrying capacity) of Penida Island

• Conduct a study on water supply and demand on Penida Island

• Conduct a study on pests and plant/seaweed diseases on Penida Island

• Conduct a workshop on Farmers’ Rights vis IT-PGRFA

1.4. Livelihoods of communities in the target landscapes are improved by developing eco-friendly small-scale community enterprises and improving market access

1.4.1 Targeted community grant projects (including strategic projects) to meet strategic objectives regarding development of sustainable livelihoods (i.e. activities that


• Provide training and facilitate the harvesting process for groups of farmers, fishermen, seaweed farmers, and the village government in order to enable community control to get the

57



Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

promote market access as well as microfinance opportunities

highest value benefit from the products

• Cooperate with tourism businesses and related agencies to develop innovative products that are unique and exclusive products of Nusa Penida

• Develop strategies with Teras Mitra (GEF SGP facility for channeling community products to broader market) for the establishment of domestic, national, and international marketing networks to develop innovative agriculture, aquaculture and fishery products

• Provide training and facilitate training conducted by Teras Mitra or other potential GEF SGP partners on developing professional community management of after-harvest products

• Develop local multi-business institutions to initiate economic independence for harvest processing entrepreneurs in the community

2.1. Multi-stakeholder partnerships in place for managing the development and implementation of community-based integrated low-emission systems


• Establish partnerships between the community and related stakeholders to develop an adaptive strategic management plan for energy efficiency including: the development of solar and wind power generation, organic farming, and the production of biogas livestock waste

• Develop participatory policy platforms to support the adaptive strategy described above

2.1.2 Policy platforms in which policy briefs prepared by NGOs and communities are discussed with the participation of local government officials and other stakeholders to enable upscaling and catalyze private sector financing

• Development of policy briefs

• Consultations to refine and agree on policy briefs

• Outreach to encourage upscaling and financing

58



Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2.2. Increased adoption (or development, demonstration and financing) of renewable and energy efficient technologies and mitigation options at community level

2.2.1. Targeted community grant projects (including strategic projects) to build the capacities of selected community organizations to plan strategically, operate efficiently, and monitor the use of renewable energy

• Technical assistance to community organizations for grant project design;

• Grants provided to community organizations; potential activities and priorities identified during project preparation consultations may include the following:

• Provide training on practical skills for producing organic fertilizers and biogas within existing conditions

• Provide training on building and maintaining solar power generation to help in agricultural and marine harvest production processes (for cassava, nuts, seaweed, fish, cashew nuts, etc.)

• Develop a simple knowledge management system for renewable energy technologies

• Develop links with information networks that provide best practice technologies and information exchange on renewable energy generation in landscapes

2.2.2 Knowledge from innovative project experience is shared for replication and upscaling of community-based integrated low-emission systems across the landscape, across the country, and to the global SGP network

Develop a communication strategy aimed at different audiences, highlighting distinct goals, appropriate media and channels of communication

B. Wakatobi Islands

Outcome Output Activity / Task Responsible Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

59

Party Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

1.1. Community-based institutional governance structures and networks in place in four key landscapes (Gorontalo, Wakatobi Islands, Semau Island, Nusa Penida Island) for effective participatory decision making to achieve landscape resiliency

1.1.1 One forested and three coastal landscape strategies developed with the participation of community stakeholders

Establishment of three local multistakeholder landscape level institutions of agricultural and marine resource management in Binongko, Tomia and Kaledupa


Develop a village-level and inter-village level agreement to support the implementation of the strategy


Establishment of an inter-island community discussion forum facilitated by the district

Discussion forum co-ordinates development of policy briefs


Develop a practical knowledge system at the grassroots level that would connect groups to facilitate well-documented information dissemination, including lessons learned among other groups or communities. For example, this network could share knowledge related to local folk songs, dancing, or other elements of traditional culture


1.2.1. Targeted community grant projects (including strategic projects) to meet strategic


60



Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

objectives and support innovation regarding biodiversity conservation and optimization of ecosystem services

• Establishment of three local institutions of agricultural and marine resource management in Binongko, Tomia and Kaledupa

• Establishment of one institution of processed products at Wangi Wangi

• Support organic agricultural practices on 15 ha in Binongko, Tomia and Kaledupa.

• Maintenance of one water source in each island by keeping the surrounding big trees

• Marine management zonation is set for seaweed farming, traditional fishing grounds and marine protection.




• Revitalization of local tubers for family’s food security

• Innovation of planting intercropping systems that can generate high economic value crops

• Introduce innovative methods for sustainable seaweed farming in Kaledupa island

• Innovations to fishing methods that are environmentally friendly in 4 islands

• Workshop on Farmers’ Rights vis IT-PGRFA


1.4.1 Targeted community grant projects (including strategic projects) to meet strategic objectives regarding development of sustainable livelihoods (i.e. activities that promote market access as well as


• Establish cooperative or other local institution to be local buyer of agricultural and fisheries harvest products with fair price

• Establish at least four fish processing home industries in the four islands

• Establish two seaweed processing home-

61



Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

microfinance opportunities

industries in Kaledupa and Wangi-Wangi

• Develop local market in tourism chain (e.g. restaurants, hotels) as end costumers to absorb community products as well as extended market such as Bau-Bau, Kendari and Makassar



Establish working group of multi-stakeholders in district and island level to support the implementation of community-based integrated low-emission systems




• Provide training on building and maintaining solar power generation to help in agricultural and marine harvest production processes

• Develop a simple knowledge management system for renewable energy technologies

• Develop links with information networks that provide best practice technologies and information exchange on renewable energy generation in landscapes

2.2.2 Knowledge from innovative project experience is shared for replication and upscaling of community-based integrated low-emission systems across the landscape, across the country,

Extend project-level activities island-wide

62



Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

and to the global SGP network

C. Semau Island



Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4


1.1.1 One forested and three coastal landscape strategies developed with the participation of community stakeholder

Establish a minimum of 4 local institutions of agricultural and marine resource management in 4 villages in Semau island, joint work between village government, church and indigenous institution The establishment of inter-island community discussions forum facilitated by the district government


Establish 4 village level institutions that manage fresh water Establish 2 institutions of processed products at Semau island: 1 in each sub-district.


Four village heads or clan leaders establish regulations to maintain the clan forest cover in Semau Island.

1.1.4. Dissemination of project knowledge and lessons to

63



Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

organizations and institutions across the landscape, across the country, and to the global SGP network




• Establish / extend organic farming practices on Semau island.

• Maintain 1 water source in each sub district by keeping the big trees in surrounding area

• Expand the catchment area by planting trees on abandoned lands

• Marine management zonation is set for seaweed farming, traditional fishing grounds and marine protection.




• Revitalize local crops for family’s food security (local onions, local buckwheat, local chilies, etc.)

• Extension of chemical-free agricultural practices to villages in Semau island

• Innovate planting intercropping systems that can generate high economic value crops

• Innovate sustainable seaweed farming and environmentally friendly fish farming in 4 villages in Semau


1.4. Livelihoods of communities in the target landscapes are improved by developing eco-

1.4.1 Targeted community grant projects (including strategic projects) to

Technical assistance to community organizations for grant project design; Grants provided to community organizations; potential activities and priorities identified during project

64



Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

friendly small-scale community enterprises and improving market access

meet strategic objectives regarding development of sustainable livelihoods (i.e. activities that promote market access as well as microfinance opportunities

preparation consultations include the following:

• Establish Cooperative or other local institution to be local buyer of agricultural and fisheries harvest products with fair price, cooperating with KOTAK

• Establish two seaweed processing home-industries in Semau island: 1 in each sub-district

• Develop local market in tourism chain (e.g. restaurants, hotels) as end costumers to absorb community products as well as extended market such as Kupang



Establish working group of multi-stakeholders in district and sub-district level to support the implementation of community-based integrated low-emission systems

Establishment of livestock forum to collect livestock manure as natural fertilizer supply




• Upscale and extend of initiative programs on organic farming of farmer groups at 14 villages in the island to implement organic farming

2.2.2 Knowledge from innovative project experience is shared for replication and upscaling of community-based

• Upscale and initiate 4 new conservation and production forest groups

65



Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

integrated low-emission systems across the landscape, across the country, and to the global SGP network

D. Gorontalo



Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4


1.1.1 One forested and three coastal landscape strategies developed with the participation of community stakeholder

Trainings on institutional management (social entrepreneurship). A training to help a community/NGO to build their organization and networks.


Develop a network of agroforestry farmer and women groups

Facilitate farmer and women groups network

Develop networks on youth eco-tourist network

Develop organic farmer network

1.1.3 Policy platforms in which policy briefs prepared by NGOs and communities are discussed with the participation of local government officials and other

Regular discussion/meeting on develop a participatory landscapes strategy with community and related stakeholders

Regular discussion/meeting on developing a village-level and inter-villages level agreement to support the implementation of the strategy;

66



Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

stakeholders


Regular discussion/meeting to develop community-based policy platforms on natural resources management with the community, local government and other related stakeholders;




• Establish internship on participatory wildlife refuge management and ecosystem services and on micro-hydro development for target person representing groups

• Assistance to the development of ecosystem services organizations and network

• Establish and training and internship on ecotourism management and marketing for youth and women

• Develop ecotourism at selected villages

• Training and development of water management

• Lobby and advocacy on policy at district level related to conserving ecosystem services for target villages

• Developing models on multi-functional land use system

1.3. The sustainability of production systems in the target landscapes is strengthened through

1.3.1 Targeted community grant projects (including strategic projects) to

Technical assistance to community organizations for grant project design; Grants provided to community organizations; potential activities and priorities identified during project

67



Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

integrated agro-ecological practices

meet strategic objectives regarding sustainability of agro-ecosystem production

preparation consultations may include the following:

• Identify and develop of village nursery for local ‘original’ seeds for staple foods, supplementary food, medical plants and natural pesticides;

• Revitalize local seeds that are no longer planted, such as upland rice;

• Introduce and facilitate the deployment of land-use models for local staple crops and other local crop varieties that display greater resistance to drought and extreme weather;

• Establish training on community based agroforestry including terassering development for target groups

• Establish training and development of demonstration plot of the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides on soil fertility, crop quality, groundwater and health;

• Establish training on organic pesticide and organic fertilizer for target groups

• Establish internship on development of organic farming for target person representing groups

• Develop agroforestry model at selected villages

• Develop organic farming at selected villages

• Develop production, use and marketing of organic fertilizers and pesticides by community groups;

• Policy advocacy on organic fertilizers and pesticides at district and provincial level

68



Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

• Conduct mass and social media campaign on organic fertilizers and pesticides at district and provincial level

• Provide an introduction to the benefits of weather forecasts and climate information for agriculture and aquaculture, as well as fishing activities;

• Dissemination of weather forecasts and climate information from BMKG (the Indonesian Agency for Meteorology, Climatology and Geophysics) to the public in order to facilitate agriculture policy decisions that minimize risk and save energy



1.4.1 Targeted community grant projects (including strategic projects) to meet strategic objectives regarding development of sustainable livelihoods (i.e. activities that promote market access as well as microfinance opportunities


• Establish training and assistance on people livelihood by assisting on production and marketing of organic farming products

• Provide an assistance marketing for groups of farmers and the village government in order to enable community control to get the highest value benefit from the products;

• Cooperate with tourism businesses and related agencies to develop and to market Nantu-Boliyohuto ecotourism. It can allow local community to participate

• Provide and facilitate training conducted by Teras Mitra or other potential GEF SGP partners on developing professional community management of after-harvest products

• Develop village enterprises to initiate economic and marketing activities

69



Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4



Develop low-emission strategies at village level Develop a model of low emissions animal husbandry by involving NGO, CBOs, local government, and experts from local Universities.

Conduct regular multi-stakeholder discussions at landscape policy platforms on integrated low-emission systems, project experiences, policies

Facilitate provincial policy discussions on community based integrated low emission systems




• Develop renewable energy models for selected villages (micro hydro model and solar cell for agriculture)

2.2.2 Knowledge from innovative project experience is shared for replication and upscaling of community-based integrated low-emission systems across the landscape, across the country, and to the global SGP network

• Conduct regular multi-stakeholder discussions at landscape policy platforms on integrated low-emission systems, project experiences, policies

• Produce a provincial policy proposal on community based integrated low emission systems

70

Annex B: Table B from CEO Endorsement Document

Project Objective: To enhance and maintain socio-ecological resilience of coastal and forested landscapes

through community-based initiatives in Sulawesi, East Nusa Tenggara and Bali, Indonesia

Project Component

Financing Type

Project Outcomes

Project Outputs Trust Fund

(in $)

GEF Project

Financing

Co-financing

1. Resilient Rural

Landscapes and

Seascapes for

sustainable

development and

global

environmental

protection

TA 1.1. Community-

based

institutional

governance

structures and

networks in

place in four

key landscapes

(Gorontalo,

Wakatobi

Islands, Semau

Island and Nusa

Penida Island)

for effective

participatory

decision making

to achieve

landscape

resiliency

1.1.1 One forested and

three coastal landscape

strategies developed

with the participation of

community stakeholders

GEFT

F

65,000 182,700

1.1.2 Multi-stakeholder

landscape agreements to

engage in and support

implementation by

communities of the


strategies

50,000 138,500

1.1.3 Policy platforms

in which policy briefs

prepared by NGOs and

communities are

discussed with the

participation of local

government officials

and other stakeholders

63,000 174,100

1.1.4. Dissemination of

project knowledge and

lessons to organizations

and institutions across

the landscape, across

the country, and to the

global SGP network

45,508 190,700

1.2. Ecosystem

services within

targeted

landscapes are

enhanced

through multi-

functional land-

use systems.

1.2.1. Targeted

community grant

projects (including

strategic projects) to

meet strategic

objectives and support

innovation regarding

biodiversity

conservation and

optimization of

773,508 2,754,000

71

ecosystem services

1.3. The

sustainability of

production

systems in the

target landscapes

is strengthened

through

integrated agro-

ecological

practices.

1.3.1 Targeted

community grant

projects (including


meet strategic

objectives regarding

sustainability of agro-

ecosystem production

773,508 2,754,000

1.4. Livelihoods

of communities

in the target

landscapes are

improved by

developing

small-scale eco-

friendly

community

enterprises and

improving

market access.

1.4.1 Targeted

community grant

projects (including


meet strategic

objectives regarding

development of

sustainable livelihoods

(i.e. activities that

promote market access

as well as microfinance

opportunities

773,508 2,754,000

2. Community-

based integrated

low-emission

systems

TA 2.1. Multi-

stakeholder

partnerships in

place for

managing the

development and

implementation

of community-

based integrated

low-emission

systems.

2.1.1. Multi-stakeholder

partnerships in

communities in the

target landscapes

develop and execute

adaptive management

plans for energy

efficient systems

75,000 199,000

2.1.2 Policy platforms

in which policy briefs

prepared by NGOs and

communities are

discussed with the

participation of local

government officials

and other stakeholders

to enable upscaling and

catalyze private sector

financing

86,505 230,000

72

2.2. Increased

adoption (or

development,

demonstration

and financing) of

renewable and

energy efficient

technologies and

mitigation

options at

community

level.

2.2.1. Targeted

community grant

projects (including


build the capacities of

selected community

organizations to plan


efficiently, and monitor

the use of renewable

energy

525,000 1,450,390

2.2.2 Knowledge from

innovative project

experience is shared for

replication and

upscaling of

community-based

integrated low-emission

systems across the

landscape, across the

country, and to the

global SGP network

161,505 362,500

Subtotal 3,392,042 11,189,890

Project Management Cost (PMC) GEF 169,602 559,495

Total Project Cost 3,561,644 11,749,385

Annex C: Terms of Reference

Terms of Reference of the Country Program Manager

% of time

Key Results Expected / Major Functions

20% 1. Managerial Functions

• Supervise the national SGP team members and provide necessary guidance and coaching;

• Promote and maintain a suitable environment for teamwork with the SGP team, the National Steering Committee (NSC), and the UNDP CO team:

• Prepare annual work plans, including strategic and /or innovative initiatives to be undertaken/explored, and set delivery and co –financing targets;

• Set annual performance parameters and learning objectives for the SGP team, assess their performance and provide feedback;

• Build and maintain an effective relationship with key partners and stakeholders, and keep the NSC, UNDP/GEF, and UNDP CO informed as appropriate.

50% 2. Program/portfolio Development and Management

• Keep abreast of national environmental and sustainable development concerns

73

and priorities as well as the socio-economic conditions and trends as they relate to the GEF-SGP and its focal areas, and assess their impact on the SGP’s work and program.

• Contribute to the formulation of the Upgrading Country Program Project Document and its annual Project Implementation Reviews;

• Exercise quality control over the development of a portfolio of project ideas and concepts, and closely monitor the program’s implementation progress and results;

• Organize periodic stakeholder workshops and project development sessions for NGOs, Community Based Organizations (CBO) and local communities, and other stakeholders to explain the SGP and to assist potential applicants in making the link between local environment and development problems and global concerns of the GEF focal areas;

• Work closely with NGOs and CBOs in preparation of project concepts and proposals to ensure that individual projects fit the strategic framework of the Project Document;

• Authorize and manage project planning grants, as required.

• Conduct periodic program monitoring visits to the field and provide technical and operational support and guidance to the SGP grantees as required;

• Work closely with and support the National Steering Committee and its deliberations during project proposal selection and approval, especially the initial appraisal of proposals and assessment of eligibility.

• Foster operational and policy linkages between the GEF-SGP and the large or medium-sized GEF projects, planned or underway in the country, as well as those of other donors and development partners.

• Manage annual work plan and budgeting (administrative and grants), maintain the financial integrity of the program, ensure most effective use of the SGP resources;

• Report periodically to the UNDP/GEF Global Coordinator of the Upgrading Country Programs on program implementation status, including financial reporting, and update relevant global SGP databases.

20% 3. Resource Mobilization

• Establish and maintain close working relationships with stakeholders, advocate SGP policies, comparative advantages and initiatives, and ensure visibility.

• Assess program interest and priorities of key donors and other development partners, develop SGP advocacy campaigns and develop/update the SGP Country Program resource mobilization strategy;

• Identify opportunities and areas eligible for GEF-SGP support, and mobilize resources from the Government, donors and other partners to best leverage the SGP resources.

10% 4. Knowledge Management

• Assist in the preparation of the SGP project/program evaluation and the Annual Monitoring Review;

• Document lessons learned and best practices in SGP program/project development, implementation, and oversight;

• Raise awareness of SGP Country Program Team on corporate strategic issues,

74

plans and initiatives to maximize highest impact and effectiveness;

• Access UNDPs world-wide and regional knowledge, distill best practices and facilitate their dissemination within the CO and to counterparts and partners;

• Access global best practices, share them with other local and international stakeholders and ensure their incorporation into the SGP portfolio and project design process.

Terms of Reference of the Program Assistant

Background

Effective day-to-day substantive, administrative and financial support to the national SGP team and the

National Steering Committee (NSC) to ensure the smooth operation and management of the GEF-SGP

(Global Environment Facility – Small Grants Program) program portfolio, timely and efficient response to

queries from different grantees and stakeholders, closely monitoring the achievement of annual SGP

delivery and co-financing targets, and updating of relevant databases. General responsibilities Under the direct supervision of the Country Program Manager of the Upgrading Small Grants Program, provide support in management related processes, particularly, program administration, record keeping, communications with the parties, logistical support, and document management.

Support to Program Implementation (40%):

• Contribute to day-to-day support to program/project implementation and ensure conformity

with expected results, outputs, objectives and work-plans;

• Assist the Country Program Manager (CPM) in prescreening project concepts and project

proposals, and evaluate the financial part of the project proposals;

• Assist the CPM in development and amendment of application forms and other management

tools and requirements of the program and other SGP documents;

• Advise potential grantees on technical project preparation issues, and report to CPM and NSC

on project development activities, as required;

• Provide day-to-day support to new and already approved projects and the grantees, as required;

• Assist the CPM in project implementation and monitoring, including participation in field visits;

• Organize the SGP advocacy events, workshops, round-tables, missions for CPM and other SGP

events;

• Maintain working-level contacts with NGOs, governmental institutions, donors, other SGP

stakeholders, and participate at events for SGP information dissemination purposes;

• Draft progress reports and other reporting material to the Global Coordinator of the Upgrading

Country Programs, and UNDP CO, and assist CPM in preparation of semi-annual and bi-annual

progress reports;

• Draft articles, publications, speeches, letters, memos and other documents on behalf of CPM,

and respond to queries on SGP program matters;

• Create and maintain the SGP project database and the SGP stakeholder database;

• Maintain and update the SGP website, the SGP Global database and UNDP CO website with the

75

SGP information;

• Support and assist CPM with other ad hoc duties as and when needed

Financial Management (30%):

• Review and process payment requests from grantees and vendors by obtaining necessary

clearances and authorizations and ensuring payments are effected promptly;

• Maintain financial integrity of the Country Program, implement and monitor accounting system

and databases of the SGP Country Program budget;

• Prepare and maintain the grant disbursement table and calendar;

• Review financial reports submitted by grantees and advise the CPM, as required;

• Draft administrative budget proposals;

• Enter, extract, transfer data from ATLAS and the SGP database and produce reports as required;

• Provide other financial reports as required

Administrative Functions (20%):

• Procure office equipment and furniture (including communication and audio equipment,

supplies etc.);

• Manage and organize everyday office work;

• Establish a proper filing system and maintain files and documentation in good order;

• Draft routine correspondence and communications;

• Prepare background information and documentation, update data relevant to the program

areas and compile background material for the CPM and NSC;

• Ensure flow of information and dissemination of materials with all concerned;

• Follow up on travel arrangements and DSA payments for the CPM and NSC members;

• Maintain personnel files, performance evaluation reports, leave records, and other pertinent

personnel/consultant records;

• Ensure all reporting and/or submission deadlines from UNDP-GEF (HQ) are met;

• Provide logistical and other support to the local SGP team and visiting missions, as required

Knowledge Management (10%):

• Actively support the SGP and NSC teams in their efforts towards knowledge management and

knowledge networking.

Competencies Corporate Competencies: • Demonstrates commitment to UN’s mission, vision and values; • Displays cultural, gender, religion, race, nationality and age sensitivity and adaptability Functional Competencies: • Good communications and interpersonal skills essential; • Excellent drafting and analytical skills required; • Good knowledge of budget control and financial management. Qualification and Skill Requirements

76

Education: • University degree, preferably in Business Administration or an environmental science field.

Experience: • At least 3-5 years of relevant experience in office management, including financial reporting;

Previous working experience with a UN agency an asset. Skills: • Good communications and interpersonal skills essential; • Excellent drafting and analytical skills required. • Good knowledge of budget control and financial management. Language requirements: • Fluency in English and relevant local language(s)

IT skills:

• Excellent knowledge of MS Office, database and Internet use. User knowledge of ATLAS is an asset.

77

Terms of Reference of the National Steering Committee

NSC Functions and Duties The SGP National Steering Committee (NSC) composition and operation will conform to the relevant sections of the GEF-SGP Operational Guidelines. The principal functions and duties of the NSC include:

• participation in the development and periodic revision of the Country Program Project Document in line with the global guidance from UNDP-GEF and national environmental priorities, and oversee its implementation;

• provide overall strategic guidance and direction to the Country Program and contribute to development and implementation of strategies for Country Program sustainability;

• review and approve project proposals, submitted to the SGP by NGOs/CBOs and pre-screened by the Country Program Manager, in accordance with established criteria and procedures;

• ensure transparency and impartiality of NSC activities striving to avoid appearance of conflict of interest or undue influence.

NSC members are also encouraged to actively participate in site visits and ongoing monitoring and evaluation activities associated with the SGP and its projects, and to provide technical assistance and advice to the SGP projects and NGO/CBO project proponents. Travel to project site visits is paid for by the SGP. The NSC may wish to elaborate a set of project selection criteria based on the Country Program strategy as elaborated in the Project Document to help guide decisions and provide additional consistency to project selection. The NSC shall decide whether it will consider and approve project concepts and planning grants or will rather leave these tasks to the Country Program Manager. In the case of the latter, the CPM will keep the NSC informed of concepts received and approved and planning grants awarded. NSC Terms of Office and Appointment

• Members of the NSC serve on a voluntary basis and without financial compensation. Reimbursement of reasonable and necessary expenses such as long-distance travel to project sites and NSC meetings will be provided. Reimbursement of expenses such as travel should be approved prior to the actual expenditure and follow standard the SGP procedures.

• The NSC should consist of between six and twelve members, with the majority of members from civil society. Efforts should be made to ensure gender and ethnic diversity in the committee.

• Members of the NSC are appointed by the UNDP Resident Representative in consultation with the CPM. Appointments to the NSC are subject to endorsement by the Global Coordinator of

78

the Upgrading Country Programs. Members may also be removed from the NSC by the UNDP Resident Representative for cause.

• The UNDP Resident Representative, or his/her delegate, represents the UNDP on the NSC.

• The SGP Country Program Manager serves ex officio on the NSC, participating in deliberations, but not voting in the project selection process. The CPM also serves as Secretariat to the NSC.

• The term of office of each NSC member is for a period of three years. Ideally the NSC would have a three-year rolling membership with members serving staggered terms. In the event that a member fails to complete a full term of office, a new member shall be appointed by the UNDP Resident Representative. NSC members may be reappointed to serve additional two terms based on service and commitment to the Country Program and the principles of the GEF-SGP overall.

NSC Meetings and Rules of Order The NSC meets on a biannual basis (or as determined by the NSC) to provide strategic guidance to the Country Program, review and approve grant proposals and to conduct other activities within its terms of reference. The NSC nominates a Chair from among its regular members, preferably by consensus. Neither the UNDP Resident Representative (nor his/her delegate) nor the SGP Country Program Manager may serve as the Chair. The Chair presides at NSC meetings in accordance with the rules of order which have been adopted and facilitates the process of consensus-building in NSC deliberations. The position of Chair is not permanent and rotates every year. Where possible, the NSC operates on the basis of consensus rather than formal voting. Specific procedures and rules of order for NSC deliberations, including voting procedures and quorum requirements, should be proposed by the Country Program Manager and NSC members and adopted by the NSC prior to any substantive deliberations or determinations. Regular meetings of the NSC ordinarily include the following agenda items:

• Report on status and progress of the Country Program;

• Status reports and updates on projects and activities under implementation;

• Financial report on execution of grant allocations;

• Presentation of project proposals for consideration

NSC minutes concerning meetings in which projects are approved should be as detailed and specific as possible, listing each project considered and including all NSC recommendations or observations about each project. The NSC decision about each project should be clearly noted, including any reformulations required before final approval. The list of approved projects should include the budget amount approved. The minutes should be signed by all NSC members present.

• The NSC should review and sign-off on project proposals that are reformulated or adjusted after being provisionally approved by the NSC, prior to submitting them to the UNDP Resident

79

Representative for MOA signature. A formal meeting is not required, and the review may be done on a no-objection basis.

• Upon accepting appointment to the NSC, members commit themselves to ensuring the complete objectivity and transparency of the NSC, both in fact and in appearance. The NSC must avoid the appearance of self-dealing, conflict of interest, or undue influence. NSC members cannot benefit directly from the SGP grants. No member of the NSC shall participate in the review or approval of any project in which that member, or an organization with which that member is associated, has an interest. In such cases, the member shall be excused from both the discussion and decision on the project.

As a matter of principle, the NSC (and the SGP as a whole) must operate in as transparent a manner as possible. The CPM should maintain an official record of each NSC meeting, which is available to the public. However, to protect NSC members from external pressures, neither the identities of NSC members, nor the attributed statements of NSC members during deliberations, shall be disclosed. Country Program Manager Responsibilities:

• The CPM is the Secretariat for the NSC, and is responsible for managing communication between and among NSC members, for sending out notices of meetings, and for maintaining substantive records of all meetings and actions taken. In addition, the CPM shall present to the NSC substantive reports on the status and progress of the SGP and its activities, as well as project proposals for consideration.

• Meetings of the NSC shall be convened by the CPM. Notice is to be given at least fifteen days in advance of the meetings, except in the case of special or emergency meetings, for which the notice requirement may be waived. Notice shall include the agenda for the meeting, a list of all projects to be considered at the meeting, and copies of all relevant documents and proposals.

• The CPM shall prepare and present meeting minutes for review and signature by the NSC after every meeting. Once signed by the NSC members involved, the original should be filed in the SGP office and a copy sent to the UNDP SGP focal point.

80 | P a g e

Annex D: Social and Environmental Screening Protocol

A. SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING TEMPLATE

The completed template, which constitutes the Social and Environmental Screening Report, must be included as an annex to the

Project Document. Please refer to the Social and Environmental Screening Procedure for guidance on how to answer the 6

questions.]

Project Information

Project Information

1. Project Title Sixth Operational Phase of the GEF Small Grants Programme in Indonesia

2. Project Number 5499

3. Location (Global/Region/Country) Indonesia

Part A. Integrating Overarching Principles to Strengthen Social and Environmental Sustainability

QUESTION 1: How Does the Project Integrate the Overarching Principles in order to Strengthen Social and Environmental

Sustainability?

Briefly describe in the space below how the Project mainstreams the human-rights based approach

The GEF Small Grants Programme provides up to USD 50,000 in funding and technical assistance to community level organizations for design and implementation of projects of

their choosing within an overall strategic landscape management framework. Community organizations receive training on implementation and monitoring and adaptive

management methods and skills. The SGP Country Programme focuses preferentially on providing funding and technical support to poor and marginalized groups in the

landscapes it works in. The four areas (one forested and three coastal landscapes) selected for focused work in this project encompass a large number of rural communities in the

Nusa Penida islands, Bali; and Gorontalo, Wakatobi islands and Semau island. These communities will be involved in the design of landscape strategies and management plans and

will design and choose the projects they wish to implement as part of those strategies. These communities will also participate in landscape governance initiatives aimed at

empowering them to take collective action in regulating resource us with the aim of achieving social and ecological resilience.

Briefly describe in the space below how the Project is likely to improve gender equality and women’s empowerment

http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/operations1/undp-social-and-environmental-screening-procedure.html

81

Gender will be considered throughout this project’s design and implementation. The project will prioritize work with women’s groups, particularly indigenous women, as well as

girls’ groups. The Country Programme team, as part of project preparation, will formulate a specific strategy to engage women/girls groups as primary actors in landscape and

resource management and micro and small enterprise development.

During project preparation, consultations with community groups and NGOs during landscape strategy formulation will take place in ways that ensure women’s comfortable

participation, depending on their preference for mixed or separate groups.

The Country Programme team will work with the gender focal point on the National Steering Committee to identify potential project ideas for initial discussions with women’s and

girls’ groups. Gender-sensitive NGOs will be engaged to support women/girls groups in defining grant project objectives and designing grant project activities, as needed.

Women/girls groups will evaluate their projects’ performance to identify lessons and knowledge for adaptive management as well as gender specific policy recommendations.

Briefly describe in the space below how the Project mainstreams environmental sustainability

The premise of the GEF Small Grants Programme is that communities will adopt environmentally sustainable practices if they do not imply additional costs or risks to their current

production and livelihood systems. The SGP finances community organizations to design and implement sustainable development projects that also produce global environmental

benefits.

Part B. Identifying and Managing Social and Environmental Risks

QUESTION 2: What are the

Potential Social and

Environmental Risks? Note: Describe briefly potential social

and environmental risks identified in

Attachment 1 – Risk Screening Checklist

(based on any “Yes” responses). If no

risks have been identified in Attachment 1

then note “No Risks Identified” and skip

to Question 4 and Select “Low Risk”.

Questions 5 and 6 not required for Low

Risk Projects

QUESTION 3: What is the level of

significance of the potential social and

environmental risks? Note: Respond to Questions 4 and 5 below before proceeding to

Question 6

QUESTION 6: What social and

environmental assessment and management

measures have been conducted and/or are

required to address potential risks (for

Risks with Moderate and High

Significance)?

Risk Description Impact and

Probability

(1-5)

Significance

(Low,

Moderate,

High)

Comments Description of assessment and management measures as

reflected in the Project design. If ESIA or SESA is required

note that the assessment should consider all potential

impacts and risks.

Risk 1: Project may potentially reproduce

discriminations against women based on

gender

I = 4

P = 1 Moderate Project will prioritize work with women’s groups, particularly

indigenous women, as well as girls’ groups; team will

formulate strategy to engage women/girls groups as primary

actors in landscape and resource management and micro and

small enterprise development. All GEF SGP proposals are

82

reviewed and approved by a National Steering Committee

comprised of experts in different fields, including a gender and

development expert.

Risk 2: Project activities within or adjacent

to critical habitats and/or environmentally

sensitive areas

I = 1

P = 1 Low Note: the scale of GEF Small

Grants projects is small with the

average funding around USD

22,000. A small number of

projects taking place within or

adjacent to critical habitats or

sensitive areas will be designed

and implemented based on

successful experience and

lessons learned from previous

SGP phases.

All GEF SGP proposals are reviewed and approved by a

National Steering Committee comprised of experts in different

fields, including biodiversity conservation, ecosystem service,

sustainable resource management, and others. Project

implementation is monitored by the National Coordination

team, as well as NSC members who often accompany

monitoring visits. Expert NGOs may be contracted to provide

an additional layer of technical assistance and support.

Risk 3: harvesting of natural forests,

plantation development, or reforestation

I = 2





sustainable forest management

projects will be financed based

on successful experience and


SGP phases.









Risk 4: Production and/or harvesting of fish

populations or other aquatic species?

I = 1





aquaculture projects will be

financed based on successful

experience and lessons learned

from previous SGP phases.









Risk 5: Significant extraction, diversion or

containment of surface or ground water

I = 1




22,000. A small number of land

and water management projects

will be designed and

implemented based on

successful experience and


SGP phases.









Risk 6: Utilization of genetic resources (e.g.

collection and/or harvesting, commercial

development)

I = 1







83

22,000. A small number of plant

genetic resources projects will

be designed and implemented

based on successful experience

and lessons learned from

previous SGP phases.






Risk 7: A progressively drier and warmer

climate may enhance the possibility of

catastrophic fires in the dry forest as well as

the frequency and intensity of rainfall in

mountain ecosystems, the timing of frosts

and glacial melt.

I = 3

P = 2 Low The risk of climate change is one of several reasons that the

project has chosen to emphasize landscape-level management

and coordination in productive landscapes. The project will

promote a variety of no-regrets adaptive biodiversity and land

resource planning and management actions in forests, pastures

and other agroecosystems.

Risk 8: Indigenous peoples present in project

areas and project may affect rights, lands,

natural resources, traditional livelihoods and

cultural heritage

I = 4

P =3 Moderate Moderate risk due to potential

effects on IP rights, lands,

territories and traditional

livelihoods (Q 6.3)

As part of project preparation, consistency of activities with

indigenous peoples’ standards will be ensured. Indigenous

communities will design and carry out their own activities.

The National Steering Committee has demonstrated over the

past two decades of SGP work in Indonesia that indigenous

people’s rights, livelihood, culture and resources are

fundamental concerns when assessing grant project proposals

for approval for financing. [add additional rows as needed]

QUESTION 4: What is the overall Project risk categorization?

Select one (see SESP for guidance) Comments

Low Risk

Moderate Risk X Project categorized as Moderate Risk based on risk screening,

including potential effects on indigenous peoples rights, lands,

territories and/or traditional livelihoods

High Risk ☐

QUESTION 5: Based on the identified risks

and risk categorization, what requirements

of the SES are relevant?

Check all that apply Comments

Principle 1: Human Rights ☐

Principle 2: Gender Equality and Women’s

Empowerment X See the second section under Question 1.

1. Biodiversity Conservation and Natural Resource

Management X

The SGP expressly finances projects to conserve and use

biodiversity sustainably. As part of project preparation,

consistency of activities with biodiversity standard will be

http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/operations1/undp-social-and-environmental-screening-procedure.html

84

ensured. The SGP National Steering Committee possesses

high level biodiversity conservation expertise in its

membership; the NSC reviews all proposals for eligibility and

then approves for funding if found eligible or approves

funding to improve project design

2. Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation

X

Project promotes adaptive biodiversity and landscape-level

resource planning/management to counter potential effects of

climate change

3. Community Health, Safety and Working Conditions ☐

4. Cultural Heritage ☐

5. Displacement and Resettlement ☐

6. Indigenous Peoples

X

Effects on livelihoods of indigenous peoples anticipated to be

positive. As part of project preparation, consistency of

activities with indigenous peoples standard will be ensured

7. Pollution Prevention and Resource Efficiency ☐ .

Final Sign Off

Signature Date Description

QA Assessor – 3/13/2015

(PIF)

UNDP staff member responsible for the Project, typically a UNDP Programme Officer. Final signature confirms they

have “checked” to ensure that the SESP is adequately conducted.

QA Approver – UNDP senior manager, typically the UNDP Deputy Country Director (DCD), Country Director (CD), Deputy

Resident Representative (DRR), or Resident Representative (RR). The QA Approver cannot also be the QA Assessor.

Final signature confirms they have “cleared” the SESP prior to submittal to the PAC.

PAC Chair UNDP chair of the PAC. In some cases PAC Chair may also be the QA Approver. Final signature confirms that the

SESP was considered as part of the project appraisal and considered in recommendations of the PAC.

85

SESP Attachment 1. Social and Environmental Risk Screening Checklist

Checklist Potential Social and Environmental Risks

Principles 1: Human Rights Answer

(Yes/No)

1. Could the Project lead to adverse impacts on enjoyment of the human rights (civil, political, economic,

social or cultural) of the affected population and particularly of marginalized groups?

No

2. Is there a likelihood that the Project would have inequitable or discriminatory adverse impacts on affected

populations, particularly people living in poverty or marginalized or excluded individuals or groups? 14

No

3. Could the Project potentially restrict availability, quality of and access to resources or basic services, in

particular to marginalized individuals or groups?

No

4. Is there a likelihood that the Project would exclude any potentially affected stakeholders, in particular

marginalized groups, from fully participating in decisions that may affect them?

No

5. Is there a risk that duty-bearers do not have the capacity to meet their obligations in the Project? No

6. Is there a risk that rights-holders do not have the capacity to claim their rights? No

7. Have local communities or individuals, given the opportunity, raised human rights concerns regarding the

Project during the stakeholder engagement process?

No

8. Is there a risk that the Project would exacerbate conflicts among and/or the risk of violence to project-

affected communities and individuals?

No

Principle 2: Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment

1. Is there a likelihood that the proposed Project would have adverse impacts on gender equality and/or the

situation of women and girls?

No

2. Would the Project potentially reproduce discriminations against women based on gender, especially

regarding participation in design and implementation or access to opportunities and benefits?

No

3. Have women’s groups/leaders raised gender equality concerns regarding the Project during the stakeholder

engagement process and has this been included in the overall Project proposal and in the risk assessment?

No

4. Would the Project potentially limit women’s ability to use, develop and protect natural resources, taking into No

14 Prohibited grounds of discrimination include race, ethnicity, gender, age, language, disability, sexual orientation, religion, political or other opinion, national or social or

geographical origin, property, birth or other status including as an indigenous person or as a member of a minority. References to “women and men” or similar is understood to

include women and men, boys and girls, and other groups discriminated against based on their gender identities, such as transgender people and transsexuals.

86

account different roles and positions of women and men in accessing environmental goods and services?

For example, activities that could lead to natural resources degradation or depletion in communities who

depend on these resources for their livelihoods and well being

Principle 3: Environmental Sustainability: Screening questions regarding environmental risks are encompassed

by the specific Standard-related questions below

Standard 1: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Natural Resource Management

1.1 Would the Project potentially cause adverse impacts to habitats (e.g. modified, natural, and critical habitats)

and/or ecosystems and ecosystem services?

For example, through habitat loss, conversion or degradation, fragmentation, hydrological changes

No

1.2 Are any Project activities proposed within or adjacent to critical habitats and/or environmentally sensitive

areas, including legally protected areas (e.g. nature reserve, national park), areas proposed for protection, or

recognized as such by authoritative sources and/or indigenous peoples or local communities?

Yes

1.3 Does the Project involve changes to the use of lands and resources that may have adverse impacts on

habitats, ecosystems, and/or livelihoods? (Note: if restrictions and/or limitations of access to lands would

apply, refer to Standard 5)

No

1.4 Would Project activities pose risks to endangered species? No

1.5 Would the Project pose a risk of introducing invasive alien species? No

1.6 Does the Project involve harvesting of natural forests, plantation development, or reforestation? Yes

1.7 Does the Project involve the production and/or harvesting of fish populations or other aquatic species? Yes

1.8 Does the Project involve significant extraction, diversion or containment of surface or ground water?

For example, construction of dams, reservoirs, river basin developments, groundwater extraction

No

1.9 Does the Project involve utilization of genetic resources? (e.g. collection and/or harvesting, commercial

development)

Yes

1.10 Would the Project generate potential adverse transboundary or global environmental concerns? No

1.11 Would the Project result in secondary or consequential development activities which could lead to adverse

social and environmental effects, or would it generate cumulative impacts with other known existing or

planned activities in the area?

For example, a new road through forested lands will generate direct environmental and social impacts (e.g.

felling of trees, earthworks, potential relocation of inhabitants). The new road may also facilitate

encroachment on lands by illegal settlers or generate unplanned commercial development along the route,

potentially in sensitive areas. These are indirect, secondary, or induced impacts that need to be considered.

Also, if similar developments in the same forested area are planned, then cumulative impacts of multiple

No

87

activities (even if not part of the same Project) need to be considered.

Standard 2: Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation

2.1 Will the proposed Project result in significant15 greenhouse gas emissions or may exacerbate climate

change?

No

2.2 Would the potential outcomes of the Project be sensitive or vulnerable to potential impacts of climate

change?

Yes

2.3 Is the proposed Project likely to directly or indirectly increase social and environmental vulnerability to

climate change now or in the future (also known as maladaptive practices)?

For example, changes to land use planning may encourage further development of floodplains, potentially

increasing the population’s vulnerability to climate change, specifically flooding

No

Standard 3: Community Health, Safety and Working Conditions

3.1 Would elements of Project construction, operation, or decommissioning pose potential safety risks to local

communities?

No

3.2 Would the Project pose potential risks to community health and safety due to the transport, storage, and use

and/or disposal of hazardous or dangerous materials (e.g. explosives, fuel and other chemicals during

construction and operation)?

No

3.3 Does the Project involve large-scale infrastructure development (e.g. dams, roads, buildings)? No

3.4 Would failure of structural elements of the Project pose risks to communities? (e.g. collapse of buildings or

infrastructure)

No

3.5 Would the proposed Project be susceptible to or lead to increased vulnerability to earthquakes, subsidence,

landslides, erosion, flooding or extreme climatic conditions?

No

3.6 Would the Project result in potential increased health risks (e.g. from water-borne or other vector-borne

diseases or communicable infections such as HIV/AIDS)?

No

3.7 Does the Project pose potential risks and vulnerabilities related to occupational health and safety due to

physical, chemical, biological, and radiological hazards during Project construction, operation, or

decommissioning?

No

3.8 Does the Project involve support for employment or livelihoods that may fail to comply with national and

international labor standards (i.e. principles and standards of ILO fundamental conventions)?

No

15

In regards to CO2, ‘significant emissions’ corresponds generally to more than 25,000 tons per year (from both direct and indirect sources). [The Guidance Note on Climate

Change Mitigation and Adaptation provides additional information on GHG emissions.]

88

3.9 Does the Project engage security personnel that may pose a potential risk to health and safety of

communities and/or individuals (e.g. due to a lack of adequate training or accountability)?

No

Standard 4: Cultural Heritage

4.1 Will the proposed Project result in interventions that would potentially adversely impact sites, structures, or

objects with historical, cultural, artistic, traditional or religious values or intangible forms of culture (e.g.

knowledge, innovations, practices)? (Note: Projects intended to protect and conserve Cultural Heritage may

also have inadvertent adverse impacts)

No

4.2 Does the Project propose utilizing tangible and/or intangible forms of cultural heritage for commercial or

other purposes?

No

Standard 5: Displacement and Resettlement

5.1 Would the Project potentially involve temporary or permanent and full or partial physical displacement? No

5.2 Would the Project possibly result in economic displacement (e.g. loss of assets or access to resources due to

land acquisition or access restrictions – even in the absence of physical relocation)?

No

5.3 Is there a risk that the Project would lead to forced evictions?16 No

5.4 Would the proposed Project possibly affect land tenure arrangements and/or community based property

rights/customary rights to land, territories and/or resources?

No

Standard 6: Indigenous Peoples

6.1 Are indigenous peoples present in the Project area (including Project area of influence)? Yes

6.2 Is it likely that the Project or portions of the Project will be located on lands and territories claimed by

indigenous peoples?

Yes

6.3 Would the proposed Project potentially affect the human rights, lands, natural resources, territories, and

traditional livelihoods of indigenous peoples (regardless of whether indigenous peoples possess the legal

titles to such areas, whether the Project is located within or outside of the lands and territories inhabited by

the affected peoples, or whether the indigenous peoples are recognized as indigenous peoples by the country

in question)?

If the answer to the screening question 6.3 is “yes” the potential risk impacts are considered potentially

severe and/or critical and the Project would be categorized as either Moderate or High Risk.

Yes

16 Forced evictions include acts and/or omissions involving the coerced or involuntary displacement of individuals, groups, or communities from homes and/or lands and common

property resources that were occupied or depended upon, thus eliminating the ability of an individual, group, or community to reside or work in a particular dwelling, residence, or

location without the provision of, and access to, appropriate forms of legal or other protections.

89

6.4 Has there been an absence of culturally appropriate consultations carried out with the objective of achieving

FPIC on matters that may affect the rights and interests, lands, resources, territories and traditional

livelihoods of the indigenous peoples concerned?

No

6.5 Does the proposed Project involve the utilization and/or commercial development of natural resources on

lands and territories claimed by indigenous peoples?

No

6.6 Is there a potential for forced eviction or the whole or partial physical or economic displacement of

indigenous peoples, including through access restrictions to lands, territories, and resources?

No

6.7 Would the Project adversely affect the development priorities of indigenous peoples as defined by them? No

6.8 Would the Project potentially affect the physical and cultural survival of indigenous peoples? No

6.9 Would the Project potentially affect the Cultural Heritage of indigenous peoples, including through the

commercialization or use of their traditional knowledge and practices?

Yes

Standard 7: Pollution Prevention and Resource Efficiency

7.1 Would the Project potentially result in the release of pollutants to the environment due to routine or non-

routine circumstances with the potential for adverse local, regional, and/or transboundary impacts?

No

7.2 Would the proposed Project potentially result in the generation of waste (both hazardous and non-

hazardous)?

No

7.3 Will the proposed Project potentially involve the manufacture, trade, release, and/or use of hazardous

chemicals and/or materials? Does the Project propose use of chemicals or materials subject to international

bans or phase-outs?

For example, DDT, PCBs and other chemicals listed in international conventions such as the Stockholm

Conventions on Persistent Organic Pollutants or the Montreal Protocol

No

7.4 Will the proposed Project involve the application of pesticides that may have a negative effect on the

environment or human health?

No

7.5 Does the Project include activities that require significant consumption of raw materials, energy, and/or

water?

No

UNDP Environmental Finance Services

Annex E: UNDP Project Quality Assurance Report

PROJECT MONITORING QA ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE

OVERALL PROJECT

EXEMPLARY (5)

HIGH (4)

SATISFACTORY (3)

NEEDS IMPROVEMENT

(2)

INADEQUATE (1)

At least three criteria

are rated Exemplary,

and all criteria are rated

High or Exemplary.

All criteria are rated

Satisfactory or higher, and at

least three criteria are rated

High or Exemplary.

At least six criteria are

rated Satisfactory or

higher, and only one

may be rated Needs

Improvement. The

SES criterion must be

rated Satisfactory or

above.

At least three criteria

are rated Satisfactory or

higher, and only four

criteria may be rated

Needs Improvement.

One or more criteria

are rated Inadequate, or

five or more criteria are

rated Needs

Improvement.

DECISION

• APPROVE – the project is of sufficient quality to continue as planned. Any management actions must be addressed in a timely

manner.

• APPROVE WITH QUALIFICATIONS – the project has issues that must be addressed before the project document can be

approved. Any management actions must be addressed in a timely manner.

• DISAPPROVE – the project has significant issues that should prevent the project from being approved as drafted.

RATING CRITERIA

STRATEGIC

1. Does the project’s Theory of Change specify how it will contribute to higher level change? (Select the option from

0-4 that best reflects the project):

• 4: The project has a theory of change backed by credible evidence specifying how the project will contribute to

higher level change through the programme outcome’s theory of change. The project document clearly describes

why the project’s strategy is the best approach at this point in time.

• 3: The project has a theory of change, specifying how the project will contribute to higher level change through the

programme outcome’s theory of change, but this backed by relatively limited evidence. The project document

clearly describes why the project’s strategy is the best approach at this point in time.

• 2: The project has a theory of change describing how the project intends to contribute to development results, but it

is not supported by evidence nor linked to higher level results through the programme outcome’s theory of change.

There is some discussion in the project document that describes why the project’s strategy is the best approach at

this point in time.

• 1: The project does not have a theory of change, but the project document describes in generic terms how the

project will contribute to development results. It does not make an explicit link to the programme outcome’s

theory of change. The project document does not clearly specify why the project’s strategy is the best approach at

this point in time.

• 0: The project does not have a theory of change, and the project document does not specify how the project will

contribute to higher level change, or why the project’s strategy is the best approach at this point in time.

*Note: Management Action or strong management justification must be given for scores of 0 or 1

Rating

Score

3

Evidence

The project document outlines how the project strategy, e.g., the extensive learning-by-doing, projects, adaptive collaborative

management approach to implementation, and demonstrating innovative methods, will facilitate larger scale and long-term changes. In

the GEF theory of change framework, broader adoption of the outcomes achieved by GEF projects is critical for the GEF to achieve long-

term global environmental benefits. However, the SGP by design focuses on local scale operations. Thus, the SGP cannot be held

accountable for achieving global environmental benefits through broader adoption of grant-level results. Nonetheless, outcomes achieved

under the SGP can extend beyond the individual grant level by scaling up and using successful projects as demonstrations sites to extend


lessons learned to other communities and inform policy dialogue.

The evidence supporting this “theory of change” is embedded in the GEF programming framework for the SGP, the COMDEKS

approach, UNDP’s strategic programming on low-emission and climate resilient development strategies, the emerging work on green

growth indicators and the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals.

2. Is the project is aligned with the UNDP

Strategic Plan? (select the option from 0-4 that best reflects the project):

• 4: The project responds to one of the three areas of development work (1. Sustainable development pathways; 2.

Inclusive and effective democratic governance; 3. Resilience building) as specified in the Strategic Plan; it

addresses at least one of the proposed new and emerging areas (sustainable production technologies, access to

modern energy services and energy efficiency, natural resources management, extractive industries, urbanization,

citizen security, social protection, and risk management for resilience); an issues-based analysis has been

incorporated into the project design; And the project’s RRF includes at least one SP output indicator.


Inclusive and effective democratic governance; 3. Resilience building) as specified in the Strategic Plan; an issues-

based analysis has been incorporated into the project design; and the project’s RRF includes at least one SP output

indicator.


Inclusive and effective democratic governance; 3. Resilience building) as specified in the Strategic Plan. The

project’s RRF includes at least one SP output indicator, if relevant.

• 1: While the project responds to one of the three areas of development work (1. Sustainable development

pathways; 2. Inclusive and effective democratic governance; 3. Resilience building) as specified in the Strategic

Plan, none of the relevant SP indicators are included in the RRF.

• 0: The project does not respond to one of the three areas of development work (1. Sustainable development

pathways; 2. Inclusive and effective democratic governance; 3. Resilience building) as specified in the Strategic

Plan

Rating

Score

4

Evidence

This project responds to all three areas of development work per the UNDP Strategic Plan. The evidence for this is through the various

project activities that will integrate global environmental criteria and indicators in sustainable development planning frameworks, and

enhance communities and landscape resilience while building governance capacities. The project addresses sustainable production

technologies, natural resources management, and social protection.

RELEVANT

3. Does the project have strategies to effectively identify and engage targeted groups/areas? (select the option from

0-4 that best reflects this project):

• 4: The target groups/areas are appropriately specified. The project has an explicit strategy to identify and engage

specified target groups/areas throughout the project. Beneficiaries will be identified through a rigorous process

based on evidence (if applicable.) The project plans to solicit feedback from targeted groups regularly through

project monitoring. Representatives of the target group/area will be included in the project’s governance

mechanism (i.e., project board.)

• 3: The target groups/areas are appropriately specified. The project has an explicit strategy to identify and engage

the target groups/areas throughout the project. Beneficiaries will be identified through a rigorous process based on

evidence (if applicable.) The project plans to solicit feedback from targeted groups through project monitoring.

Representatives of the target group, will contribute to the project’s decision making, but will not play a role in the

project’s formal governance mechanism.

• 2: The target groups/areas are appropriately specified and engaged in project design. The project document is clear

how beneficiaries will be identified and engaged throughout the project. Collecting feedback from targeted groups

has been incorporated into the project’s RRF/monitoring system, but representatives of the target group will not be

involved in the project’s decision making.

• 1: The target groups/areas are specified, but the project does not have a written strategy to identify or engage the

target groups/areas throughout the project.

• 0: The project has not specified any target

group/area that is the intended beneficiary of the project’s results.

*Note: Management Action must be taken for scores of 0 or 1

Rating

Score

4

Evidence

Targeted groups are clearly identified in the project document and background site reports. A questionnaire was used to gather


information from stakeholders and responses from in-depth interviews were incorporated into the project document. The GEF 2020

Strategy emphasizes the requirement that stakeholder representatives actively engage in the full project life cycle in order to facilitate the

strategic adaptation of project activities in keeping with project objectives. This project proposes to carry out participatory, multi-

stakeholder, landscape management in three key areas. Periodic monitoring of implementation progress will be undertaken by the

UNDP/CO. Furthermore, specific meetings may be scheduled between the National Steering Committee, the UNDP/CO and other

pertinent stakeholders as deemed appropriate and relevant.

4. Have knowledge, good practices, and past lessons learned of UNDP and others informed the project design?

(select the option from 0-4 that best reflects this project):

• 4: Knowledge and lessons learned backed by credible evidence from evaluation, analysis and monitoring have

been explicitly used, with appropriate referencing, to develop the project’s theory of change and justify the

approach used by the project over alternatives.

• 3: The project design references knowledge and lessons learned backed by credible evidence from evaluation,

analysis, monitoring and/or other sources, but these references have not been explicitly used to develop the

project’s theory of change or justify the approach used by the project over alternatives.

• 2: The project design mentions knowledge and lessons learned backed by relatively limited evidence/sources, but

these references have not been explicitly used to develop the project’s theory of change or justify the approach

used by the project over alternatives.

• 1: There is only scant mention of knowledge and lessons learned informing the project design. These references

are not backed by evidence.

• 0: There is no evidence that knowledge and

lessons learned have informed the project design.


Rating

Score

4

Evidence

The GEF Small Grants Programme in Indonesia was launched in 1997. During five GEF operational phases the Indonesia SGP Country

Programme has funded over one hundred community led initiatives. In each phase, the Country Programme Strategy was adapted based

on the outcomes of the previous phase, lessons learned and new information. The project is designed to coordinate its efforts with, and

build upon other initiatives in the area, including the COMDEKS approach. This project will use the knowledge, best practices, and

lessons learned from other projects to inform project activities and outcomes, and to improve the overall project. See Section B.2.b.

5. Does the project use gender analysis in the project design and includes special measures/ outputs and indicators

to address gender inequities and empower women?

• 4: Gender analysis has been conducted on the differential impact of the project’s development situation on gender

relations, women and men, with constraints identified and clearly addressed in the design of gender-specific

measures/outputs and indicators, where appropriate

• 3: Gender analysis has been conducted on the differential impact of the project’s development situation on gender

relations, women and men, with constraints identified but only partially addressed in the design of gender-specific

measures/ outputs and indicators, where appropriate

• 2: Partial gender analysis has been conducted on the differential impact of the project’s development situation on

gender relations, women and men with constraints identified, but these have not been explicitly addressed in the

design of gender-specific measure/outputs and indicators.

• 1: The project design mentions information and/or data on the differential impact of the project’s development

situation on gender relations, women and men but the constraints have not been identified and gender-specific

intervention has not been considered.

• 0: No gender analysis has been conducted on the differential impact of the project’s development situation on

gender relations, women and men.

Rating

Score

3

Evidence

A gender analysis has been conducted at the level of individual sites, with implications / finding taken into account in the project design..

There are specific indicators to address the identified gender issues, while others are expected to be identified and monitored during

project implementation. See section B.13.c.

6. Does UNDP have a clear advantage to engage in the role envisioned by the project vis-à-vis national partners,

other development partners, and other actors? (select from options 0-4 that best reflects this project):

• 4: An analysis has been conducted on the role of other partners in the area that the project intends to work, and

credible evidence supports the proposed engagement of UNDP and partners through the project. Options for

south-south and triangular cooperation have been considered, as appropriate.

Rating

Score

4


• 3: An analysis has been conducted on the role of other partners in the area that the project intends to work, and

relatively limited evidence supports the proposed engagement of UNDP and partners through the project. Options

for south-south and triangular cooperation have been considered, as appropriate.

• 2: Some analysis has been conducted on the role of other partners in the area that the project intends to work, and

relatively limited evidence supports the proposed engagement of UNDP and partners through the project. Options

for south-south and triangular cooperation have not been explicitly considered.

• 1: No clear analysis has been conducted on the role of other partners in the area that the project intends to work,

and relatively limited evidence supports the proposed engagement of UNDP and partners through the project.

Options for south-south and triangular cooperation have not been considered.

• 0: No analysis has been conducted on the role of other partners in the area that the project intends to work to

inform the design of the role envisioned by UNDP and other partners through the project.


Evidence

UNDP’s mandate, relationship with government, and long-standing engagement in the area gives it a comparative advantage in

facilitating government partnerships especially for GEF grant financed projects. For example, the UNDP has played critical role in the

SGP OP5. In addition to these projects, the UNDP has also supported the government in numerous other projects.

MANAGEMENT & MONITORING

7. Does the project have a strong results framework? (select from options 0-4 that best reflects this project):

• 4: The project’s selection of outputs and activities are an appropriate level and relate in a clear way to the project’s

theory of change. Outputs are accompanied by SMART, results-oriented indicators that measure all of the key

expected changes identified in the theory of change, each with credible data sources, and populated baselines and

targets, including gender sensitive, sex-disaggregated indicators where appropriate.

• 3: The project’s selection of outputs and activities are an appropriate level and are consistent with the project’s

theory of change. Outputs are accompanied by SMART, results-oriented indicators, with specified data sources.

Most baselines and targets populated. Some use of gender sensitive, sex-disaggregated indicators.

• 2: The project’s selection of outputs and activities are at an appropriate level, but do not reference the project’s

theory of change. Outputs are accompanied by SMART, results-oriented indicators, but baselines, targets and data

sources are not fully specified. Some use of gender sensitive, sex-disaggregated indicators.

• 1: The project’s selection of outputs and activities are not at an appropriate level. Outputs are not accompanied by

SMART, results-oriented indicators that measure the expected change, and have not been populated with baselines

and targets. Data sources are not specified. No gender sensitive, sex-disaggregation of indicators is used.

• 0: The project’s selection of outputs and activities are not accompanied by appropriate indicators that measure the

expected change.


Rating

Score

3

Evidence

Project outcomes will be measured through a set of output, process, and performance indicators that have been constructed using SMART

design criteria. These indicators were developed to coincide with each major project activity. A few gender sensitive indicators are

included in the project.

8. Is there a comprehensive and costed M&E plan with specified data collection sources and methods to support

evidence-based management and monitoring of the project? Yes

9. Is the project’s governance mechanism clearly defined in the project document, including planned composition of

the project board?

• 4: The project’s governance mechanism is fully defined in the project composition. Individuals have been

specified for each position in the governance mechanism (esp. all members of the project board), and full terms of

reference of the project board has been attached to the project document. A conversation has been held with each

board member on their role and responsibilities, and all members agree on the terms of reference.

• 3: The project’s governance mechanism is almost fully defined in the project document. Individuals have been

specified for each position in the governance mechanism (esp. all members of the project board). While full terms

of reference of the project board may not be attached, the project document describes the responsibilities of the

project board, project director/manager and quality assurance roles.

• 2: The project’s governance mechanism is partially defined in the project document; specific institutions are noted

as holding key governance roles, but individuals have not yet been specified. The project document lists the most

Rating

Score

4


important responsibilities of the project board, project director/manager and quality assurance roles, but full terms

of reference are not included.

• 1: The project’s governance mechanism is loosely defined in the project document, only mentioning key roles that

will need to be filled at a later date. No information on the responsibilities of key positions in the governance

mechanism.

• 0: The governance mechanism is not clearly defined in the project document


Evidence

The governance mechanism is fully defined in the project document. A terms of reference is included in Annex C. The project document

describes the responsibilities of the National Steering Committee.

10. Have the project risks been identified with clear plans stated to manage and mitigate each risk? (select from

options 0-4 that best reflects this project):

• 4: Project risks fully described in the project risk log, based on comprehensive analysis that references key

assumptions made in the project’s theory of change. Clear and complete plan in place to manage and mitigate each

risk.

• 3: Project risks identified in the project risk log. Clear plan in place to manage and mitigate risks.

• 2: Some risks identified in the initial project risk log. While some general mitigation measures have been

identified, they do not adequately and fully address all the identified risks.

• 1: Some risks identified in the initial project risk log, but no clear risk mitigation measures identified.

• 0: Risks not clearly identified. No initial

project risk log included with the project document.

*Note: Management Action must be taken for scores of 0 or 1

Rating

Score

3

Evidence

An in-depth assessment of risks based on an extensive set of consultations and review of the background documentation

has been completed. Risks and assumptions have been fully identified in the project. Measures to mitigate the risk have

been considered and addressed in the project document. See section B.8.c and Annex 3.

EFFICIENT

11. Have specific measures for ensuring cost-efficient use of resources been explicitly mentioned as part of the

project design? This can include using the theory of change analysis to explore different options of achieving the

maximum results with the resources available.

Yes

12. Are plans in place to ensure the project links up with other relevant on-going projects and initiatives, whether

led by UNDP, national or other partners, to achieve more efficient results (including, for example, through

sharing resources or coordinating delivery?)

Yes

13. Is the budget justified and supported with valid estimates? Yes

14. Is the Country Office fully recovering its costs involved with project implementation? Yes

EFFECTIVE

15. Is the chosen implementation modality most appropriate? (select from options 0-4 that best reflects this

project):

• 4: The required implementing partner assessments (capacity assessment, HACT micro assessment) have been

conducted, and there is evidence that options for implementation modalities have been thoroughly considered.

There is a strong justification for choosing the selected modality, based on the development context.

• 3: The required IP assessments (capacity assessment, HACT micro assessment) have been conducted, and there is

evidence that options for implementation modalities have been considered. There is justification for choosing the

selected modality, based on the development context.

• 2: The capacity of the IP has been assessed, but the HACT micro assessment has not been done due to external

factors outside of UNDP’s control. There is evidence that options for implementation modalities have been

considered. There is justification for choosing the selected modality, based on the development context.

• 1: The required assessments have not been conducted, but there is evidence that options for implementation

Rating

Score

2


modalities have been considered.

• 0: The required assessments have not been

conducted, and there is no evidence that options for implementation modalities have been considered.


Evidence

This project will be executing through the Direct Implementation Modality (DIM) through UNOPS execution. The choice of modality is

based on an agreement between the Government of Sri Lanka, UNOPS, and UNDP.

16. Have targeted groups, including marginalized populations that will be affected by the project, been engaged in

the design of the project? Yes

17. Does the project have explicit plans for evaluation or other lesson learning, timed to inform course corrections if

needed during project implementation? Yes

18. The project budget at the output level reflects adequate financial investments contributing to the advancement

of gender equality. This can include outputs that have adequately mainstreamed gender (GEN2), and/or outputs for

gender specific or stand-alone intervention (GEN3).

• 4: The project budget reflects outstanding financial investments contributing to gender equality as evidenced by

100% of the project budget at the output level with the gender marker score GEN2+GEN3.

• 3: The project budget reflects adequate financial investments contributing to gender equality as evidenced by at

least 75% of the project budget at the output level with the gender marker score GEN2+GEN3.

• 2: The project budget reflects partial investments contributing to gender equality as evidenced by at least 50% of

the project budget at the output level with the gender marker score GEN2+GEN3.

• 1: The project budget reflects limited financial investments contributing to gender equality as evidenced by at least

25% of the project budget at the output level with the gender marker score GEN2+GEN3.

• 0: The project budget reflects no financial investments contributing to gender equality


Rating

Score

0

Evidence

There is no budget allocation made to specifically address gender equality.

19. Is there a realistic multi-year work plan and budget to ensure outputs are delivered on time and within allotted

resources? (select from options 0-4 that best reflects this project):

• 4: The project has a realistic multi-year work plan and multi- year budget at the activity level to ensure outputs are

delivered on time and within the allotted resources.

• 3: The project has a multi-year work plan at the activity level and multi-year budget at the output level.

• 2: The project has a multi-year work plan and a multi-year budget at the output level.

• 1: The project has an output level multi-year work plan, but not a multi-year budget

• 0: The project does not yet have a multi-year work plan.

Rating

Score

3

Evidence

The project has a detailed multi-year work plan at the activity level and multi-year output budget.

SOCIAL & ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS

20. Has the project ensured that both women and men have equitable access to project resources and comparable

social and environmental benefits? (select from options 0-4 that best reflects this project):

• 4: Credible evidence that the project fully reflects a consistent strategy that provides equitable access to and control

over project resources and social and environmental benefits (e.g., security, health, water, and culture) through

project rationale, strategies and results framework.

Rating

Score


• 3: Credible evidence that the project partially reflects a strategy that provides equitable access to and control over

project resources and social and environmental benefits (e.g., security, health, water, and culture) through project

strategies and the results framework.

• 2: Credible evidence that the project design includes a set of activities that provide equitable access to and control

over project resources and social and environmental benefits (e.g., security, health, water, and culture) although

project activities are not part of a consistent strategy.

• 1: Credible evidence that the project design includes some scattered activities that provide equitable access to and

control over project resources and social and environmental benefits (e.g., security, health, water, and culture)

• 0: The project has no interventions to ensure a fair share of opportunities and benefits for women and men or

reduce gender inequalities in access to and control over resources and social and environmental benefits (e.g.,

security, health, water, and culture)


3

Evidence

Gender sensitivity and gender considerations have been taken into account in the formulation of the project. Every effort

will be made to incorporate gender issues in the implementation of this project. Roles of men and women to participate in

activities of the project will be equally assigned without any discrimination. The project also includes several validation

measures and gender sensitive indicators to help ensure equal access and benefits.

21. Did the project apply a human rights based approach?

• 4: Credible evidence that opportunities to integrate human rights in the project and prioritize the principles of

accountability, meaningful participation, and non-discrimination were fully considered. Any potential adverse

impacts on enjoyment of human rights were rigorously assessed and identified with appropriate mitigation and

management measures incorporated into project design and budget.

• 3: Partial evidence that opportunities to integrate human rights in the project and the principles of accountability,

meaningful participation, and non-discrimination were considered. Potential adverse impacts on enjoyment of

human rights were assessed and identified and appropriate mitigation and management measures incorporated into

the project design and budget.

• 2: Limited evidence that opportunities to integrate human rights in the project and the principles of accountability,

meaningful participation and non-discrimination were considered. Potential adverse impacts on enjoyment of

human rights were assessed and identified and appropriate mitigation and management measures incorporated into

the project design and budget.

• 1: No evidence that opportunities to integrate human rights in the project and the principles of accountability,

meaningful participation and non-discrimination were considered. Limited evidence that potential adverse impacts

on enjoyment of human rights were considered.

• 0: No evidence that opportunities to integrate human rights in the project were considered. No evidence that the

potential adverse impact on the enjoyment of human rights have been considered.

*Note: Management action or strong management justification must be given for scores of 0 or 1

Rating

Score

4

Evidence

The project supports the meaningful participation and inclusion of all stakeholders, during the design, implementation,

monitoring, and adaptive collaborative management of the project. During the project formulation phase, consultation

sessions and meetings were undertaken with a diverse group of stakeholders in order to construct as holistic as possible an

understanding of the challenges and barriers related to the management of natural resources in the selected sites. The

project design makes the assumption that the extensive consultations during project formulation strengthens the

transparency and legitimacy of the proposed project activities, notwithstanding that during project implementation,

activities can and should be adapted to ensure that the human rights of stakeholders are preserved and/or reinforced. The

extensive stakeholder consultations, learning-by-doing activities, and demonstration sites and knowledge exchanges are

intended to engage as many people as possible in order to reduce the risks of marginalizing stakeholders and incorporating

their diverse perspectives in as many project activities as possible. For each grant, any potential adverse impacts on the

enjoyment of human rights will be rigorously assessed and identified with appropriate mitigation and management

measures incorporated into project design and budget.

22. Did the project consider potential environmental opportunities and adverse impacts, applying a precautionary

approach?

• 4: Credible evidence that opportunities to enhance environmental sustainability and integrate poverty-environment

linkages were fully considered. Identified opportunities fully integrated in project strategy and design. Credible

evidence that potential adverse environmental impacts identified and rigorously assessed with appropriate

management and mitigation measures incorporated into project design and budget.

• 3: Limited evidence that opportunities to enhance environmental sustainability and poverty-environment linkages

Rating

Score

3


were considered. Credible evidence that potential adverse environmental impacts identified and assessed and

appropriate management and mitigation measures incorporated into project design and budget.

• 2: No evidence that opportunities to strengthen environmental sustainability and poverty-environment linkages

were considered. Credible evidence that potential adverse environmental impacts assessed and appropriate

management and mitigation measures incorporated into project design and budget.

• 1: No evidence that opportunities to strengthen environmental sustainability and poverty-environment linkages

were considered. Limited evidence that potential adverse environmental impacts were adequately considered.

• 0: No evidence that potential adverse environmental impacts have been considered.

Note: Management action or strong management justification must be given for scores of 0 or 1

Evidence This project is consistent with Indonesia’s current United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF), and relates to national

initiatives to achieve the sustainable management of the environment and natural resources. This project will pursue projects to achieve

environmental sustainability by strengthening the linkages between global environmental and national socio-economic priorities. Socio-

economic benefits would be demonstrated in the medium-term through improved livelihoods and planning decisions being made that will

enhance more environmentally-friendly and sustainable development. The vast majority, if not all, of small grant projects financed by the

project proposed here will help achieve global environmental benefits as a result of activities that also produce local economic benefits.

For each grant, potential adverse environmental impacts will be identified and rigorously assessed with appropriate management and

mitigation measures incorporated into project design and budget.

23. If the project is worth $500,000 or more, has the Social and Environmental Screening Procedure (SESP) been

conducted to identify potential social and environmental impacts and risks?

Yes

N/A

SUSTAINABILITY & NATIONAL OWNERSHIP

24. Have national partners led, or proactively engaged in, the design of the project? (select from options 0-4 that

best reflects this project):

• 4: National partners have full ownership of the project and led the process of the development of the project.

• 3: The project has been developed jointly by UNDP and national partners, with equal effort.

• 2: The project has been developed by UNDP in close consultation with national partners.

• 1: The project has been developed by UNDP with limited engagement with national partners.

• 0: The project has been developed by UNDP with no engagement with national partners.

Rating

Score

3

Evidence

The priorities and focal areas of the SGP Country Programme have been determined through a consultative process

involving community-based partner organizations, the National Steering Committee and others such as NGOs and

academia that have expertise in local sustainable development and the GEF focal areas. In selecting grantee projects, the

criteria for consideration include their fit with the GEF focal areas to ensure that global environmental benefits are

generated while sustaining local level development benefits, especially enhanced incomes, food security and disaster risk

reduction. In addition, proposed activities needed to be aligned with and/or contribute to national priorities as outlined in

national policy documents.

25. Are key institutions and systems identified, and is there a strategy for strengthening specific/ comprehensive

capacities based on capacity assessments conducted? (select from options 0-4 that best reflects this project):

• 4: The project has a comprehensive strategy for strengthening specific capacities of national institutions based on a

systematic and detailed capacity assessment that has been completed.

• 3: A capacity assessment has been completed, although it is not systematic or detailed. The project document has

identified activities that will be undertaken to strengthen capacity of national institutions, but these activities are

not part of a comprehensive strategy.

• 2: A capacity assessment is planned after the start of the project. There are plans to develop a strategy to

strengthen specific capacities of national institutions based on the results of the capacity assessment.

• 1: There is mention in the project document of capacities of national institutions to be strengthened through the

project, but no capacity assessments or specific strategy developments are planned.

• 0: Capacity assessments have not been carried out and are not foreseen. There is no strategy for strengthening

specific capacities of national institutions.

Rating

Score

3


Evidence

The comprehensive capacity assessment for this project is rooted in previous SGP projects, and is supported by subsequent assessments

(See Section B.2.b). Notwithstanding, this project calls for comprehensive socio-ecological baseline assessments at the beginning of the

project. The analyses will examine the current governance frameworks, institutional programmes and projects, and the presence and

availability of strategic partnerships. Each landscape will have its own analysis, and a fourth analysis will reconcile the four analyses into

one synthesized report.

Project activities are designed to increase the capacity of key institutions and communities. Through a learning-by-doing and adaptive

collaborative management approach, the project will strengthen targeted institutional and technical capacities. This project will enable

community-based organizations in Sri Lanka to take collective action for adaptive landscape management for socio-ecological resilience

through design, implementation, and evaluation of grant projects for global environmental benefits and sustainable development in three

ecologically sensitive landscapes.

26. Is there is a clear plan for how the project will use national systems, and national systems will be used to the

extent possible? Yes

No

(0)

27. Is there a clear transition arrangement/ phase-out plan developed with key stakeholders in order to sustain or

scale up results (including resource mobilization strategy)? Yes

No

(0)


Annex F: UNDP Risk Log

Identified risk Impact &

Probability

Risk rating Mitigation Measures Risk category

Climatic unpredictability will undermine efforts to arrest biodiversity loss and land degradation.

Climatic unpredictability may affect the level of success of the project’s Land Degradation and Biodiversity work and thereby constrain project achievements or affect their impact.

Probability: 3 Impact: 2

Dealing with vulnerabilities including climate variability is a primary emphasis and objective of SGP. By working to develop capacities for appropriate landscape management, the project will enable local communities to reduce vulnerabilities and increase ecosystem resilience and the potential to sustainably manage their land. This is an underlying premise and principle across all components. Such risks, if and when encountered, will be managed by providing additional capacity building support to affected communities and their projects. Experience will be documented, analyzed and shared with all project partners to create awareness and share lessons learned. The related technical guidelines, partnerships, platforms, workshops, exposure, contacts to learn and share knowledge with and by grantees will provide the confidence, creditability and commitment to adapt in the face of CC and deliver landscape and project outcomes.

Programmatic

Low capacity and awareness of local NGOs and CBOs to address global environmental problems in selected geographical areas.

Local communities/ indigenous groups have varying levels of technical and management capacity and may fail to complete a project in time or to take advantage of opportunities for community participation in conservation initiatives


Risks will be mitigated by consistent oversight, capacity building and monitoring of the project portfolio by the National Host Institution (NHI), MoEF and UNDP (e.g. helping grantees maintain appropriate progress in project implementation, link grantee partners in peer-to-peer learning groups, and work flexibly to respond to the strengths and comparative advantages of grantees, expose them to join other projects midterm/final evaluations by CPM/NHI team, cross exchange of ideas etc.).

Programmatic

Market risks -unfair

Market risks -- the relative value


The project seeks to put into place community-level processes and tools

Programmatic



Probability


competition of land use could change and increase market risks in projects with livelihood objectives because of mismatch between the value added offered by the implementation team and needs of the consumer

that are robust enough to accommodate changes in land-use values. Changes in market values may make it easier or more difficult, for example, to enforce restrictions on grazing, requiring an adaptive response. Livelihood projects engaging in local level value addition would be supported by SGP in identifying market needs and creation of marketing networks. Adequate precaution would be taken to ensure that the value addition offered by the project is marketable and there is consistent demand for the same. This risk can be mitigated also by optimizing and scaling-up production, and by certifying products as biodiversity friendly to capture a premium over and above the unsustainable production price.

Reluctance to change agricultural practices

Communities may be reluctant to change their practices because they may perceive livelihood activities supported under the project to be risky or as not adding significantly to income or security.


Awareness programmes will be developed that clearly outline the benefits of participation and relate success stories to gain their interest in the project. Further, local communities will be actively involved in planning, decision making and implementation of the project through frequent consultations and links to a range of stakeholders.

Contextual

(Wak, Sem) Lack of commitment to local institution building

Local institution building will depend on effective participation by the constituents. If some of the constituents are against the institution, it would affect the process and

Probability = 3 Impact = 4

The approach should be done in careful and thoughtful way to build trust with the community

Organizational



Probability


output.

(Gor) Natural hazards

floods and landslides

Probability = 2, Impact = 4

Selection of villages should consider such risks

Environmental

(Gor) Governance issues

related to sub-contracts

Probability = 1, Impact = 4

Providing a strong contract and assistance to project implementer and local government

Operational


Annex G: Results of the capacity assessment of the project implementing partner and HACT micro assessment

PENDING (To be completed prior to project signature).


Annex H: Maps of the Project Regions

A. Nusa Penida

Figure 1: Kecamatan Nusa Penida dalam Angka 2015


B. Wakatobi:

Figure 2: Wakatobi District


C. Gorontalo:

Figure 3: Map of Nantu-Boliyohuto Nature Refuge Zoning, Gorontalo Province (BKSDA, 2014)


D. Semau Island:

Figure 4: Map of Semau Island


Annex I: Leading stakeholders and roles by project site

Site Stakeholder Existing Roles

Nusa Penida Leader of Banjar

District Government (including associated agencies)

Government Districts

Central Government

Civil Society Institutions

Ministry of Agriculture Play a role in facilitating the introduction of appropriate technology for overcoming the hard limestone Karst of Penida to cultivate agricultural land and crops.

Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries

Coral Triangle Center (NGO) Collaborates with the MMAF and the Local Government in establishing a Marine Conservation Area (MCA) in the waters of Nusa Penida;

Friends of the National Park Foundation (NGO)

Supports the breeding of the Balinese Starling in Ped village, Penida

Wakatobi Elected Head of District After inauguration in June, the new Head of District will lead the government team in developing RPJMD (District Plan on Medium-term Program)

Bappeda Bappeda develops the first draft of RPJMD

Agriculture Agency The agency provides inputs on agricultural program in RPJMD

Marine and Fisheries Agency The agency provides inputs on marine and fisheries program in RPJMD

WWF and TNC These international NGOs had been working for more than a decade in Wakatobi. Both are interested in implementing sustainable natural resources management through local traditional wisdoms and the governance of traditional ‘adat’ regulations coordinated with local government.

Head of Villages Submit inputs on village program after village meetings.



Respected traditional Elders Provide inputs in village meetings and important party to be involved in developing program.

Farmer group The key actor in village program

Fisher group The key actor in village program

Women group The key actor in village program

Village facilitator (to be recruited by the Ministry of Village, Development of Disadvantage Regions and Transmigration

Facilitating village in developing village program

Semau Elected Head of District After inauguration in June, the new Head of District will lead the government team in developing RPJMD (District Plan on Medium-term Program)

Bappeda Bappeda develops the first draft of RPJMD

Agriculture Extension The agency provides technical assistance for agriculture activities

Agriculture Agency The agency provides inputs on agricultural program in RPJMD

Marine and Fisheries Agency The agency provides inputs on marine and fisheries program in RPJMD

PAMSIMAS Working together with local NGO to provide the sanitation and water supply in the island

COMDEKS Consortium It consists of PIKUL, GMI, CIS Timor and KOTAK who have been worked in Semau since 2014. These NGOs are the most potential organizations to implement future program of GEF SGP.

Head of Villages Provide inputs on village program after village meetings.

Church Encourage community participation in the program

Respected traditional Elders Provide inputs in village meetings and important party to be involved in developing program.

Farmer group The key actor in village program

Fisher group The key actor in village program

Seaweed farmer group The key actor in village program

Women group The key actor in village program

Village facilitator (to be recruited by the Ministry of Village, Development of Disadvantage Regions and

Facilitating village in developing village program


Site Stakeholder Existing Roles Transmigration

Gorontalo Yayasan Adudu Nantu Internasional (YANI)

To work with community on biodiversity conservation; community development at Saritani/Tamilo, campaign on Nantu Boliyohuto, law enforcement

JAPESDA Gorontalo To develop social forestry approach, watershed management and agroforestry, community organization and empowerment, policy advocacy, and media campaign

KOPESDA Gorontalo To work on community development and livelihoods, forest conservation

Forum Komunitas Hijau To work on conservation of tree and land, sustainable agriculture, green campaign.

LSM Mutiara Hijau Community mapping, community assistance on forest and watershed management

WIRE G Rural women empowerment, budget analysis on women issues, economic development and environment

Agroforestry (ICRAF & CIFOR) Agroforestry development, farmer and women group assistance, watershed research

Burung Indonesia Ecosystem restoration and bird habitat, community empowerment.

Program Pembangunan dan Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Desa (P3MD)

National Government Program on economic development and rural infrastructure development.

Balai Konservasi Sumberdaya Alam Wilayah Konservasi II Sulawesi Utara di Gorontalo

Authority to manage the Nantu-Boliyohuto Wildlife refugee, law enforcement

Provincial Government Policy and central government program and budget on forestry, mining and energy, agriculture and livestock, as well as environment and research. Potential for co-financing partner

District Government District Government of Gorontalo and Boalemo will play a pivotal role in relation to the local community and village organizations/groups especially in the buffer zone area of Nantu Boliyohuto. Some organizations that under district government are the sub-district and village governments, Extension Agency, Village Community Empowerment Agency, and Environmental Agency, economic bureau, cooperation bureau, law bureau, and the others. Potential for cofinancing partner



Village Organization Existing farmer and women groups are important to become stakeholder in the first step. The Head of Villages are strategic on determining the important decisions in the village

Private Company They have associated with local community and possible to become source of cofinancing partners


Annex J: GEF SGP Operational Guidelines

GEF SMALL GRANTS PROGRAMME (SGP) OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES Purpose of this Document These Operational Guidelines are intended to assist GEF SGP National Coordinators/Sub-Regional Coordinators (NCs/SRCs), National Steering Committees (NSCs), Sub-regional Steering Committees (SRSCs), National Focal Groups (NFGs), UNDP Country Offices and National Host Institution (NHI) staff as well as the SGP Central Programme Management Team (CPMT) and the Global Coordinator of the SGP Upgrading Country Programmes in programme implementation. They are based on the experience and knowledge gained both at the country and global levels through years of GEF SGP programme implementation. They provide the basic framework for operations in relation to the structure, implementation, and administration of the programme. They also address the project cycle and grant disbursement. Programme and project monitoring, evaluation, and reporting are covered in the GEF SGP Monitoring and Evaluation Framework. The guidelines and models set forth herein are meant to apply generally to all GEF SGP Country Programmes. It is recognized, however, that different contexts and situations will require different responses and adaptations. Any questions about the application of particular provisions of the guidelines or need for adaptation should be referred to the GEF SGP Global Manager and Central Programme Management Team (CPMT) or the Global Coordinator of the SGP Upgrading Country Programmes. On administrative and financial matters, questions may be answered by the UNOPS SGP Standard Operating Procedures and, if necessary, to the respective UNOPS SGP Portfolio Manager.


List of Acronyms BAC Budget Account Classification Code CBO Community-based Organization CCF Country Cooperation Framework CO Country Office COA Chart of Account (ATLAS) COB Country Operating Budget CPMT Central Programme Management Team CPS Country Programme Strategy GEF Global Environment Facility IOV Inter-office Voucher M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MOA Memorandum of Agreement MOD Miscellaneous Obligation Document NC National Coordinator NFP National Focal Person NFG National Focal Group NGO Non-governmental Organization NHI National Host Institution NPFE GEF National Portfolio Formulation Exercise NSC National Steering Committee OP Operational Programme PA Programme Assistant PO Purchase Order (ATLAS) REQ Requisition (ATLAS) SBAA Standard Basic Assistance Agreement SGP GEF Small Grants Programme SOPs Standard Operating Procedures SRC Sub-Regional Coordinator SRSC Sub-Regional Steering Committee SPS Sub-Regional Programme Strategy TOR Terms of Reference UCP Upgrading Country Programme UNCBD United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNOPS United Nations Office for Project Services UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change


PART I: GEF SGP PROGRAMME STRUCTURE 1. The structure of the GEF Small Grants Programme (SGP), implemented by UNDP, is decentralized and country-

driven. Within the parameters established by the GEF Council and reflected in the Project Document for an Operational Phase, the programme seeks to provide for maximum country and community-level ownership and initiative. This decentralization is balanced against the need for programme consistency and accountability across the participating countries for the achievement of the GEF’s global environmental objectives, and the SGP’s particular benchmarks as stated in the Project Document for each Operational Phase.

2. The SGP is a global and multi-focal area GEF project, approved for funding by the GEF Council on a rolling replenishment, implemented by UNDP on behalf of the GEF partnership, and executed by UNOPS. In the case of Upgraded Country Programmes, UNOPS execution is the recommended option although a country-specific execution modality utilizing a national non-governmental organization or a consortium of non-governmental organizations, selected by UNDP through a competitive process, can be utilized17. Within the UNDP framework, the SGP, as a global programme, is handled differently from UNDP core national or regional programmes.18

3. The GEF Council approves SGP Project Information Form (PIF), GEF CEO Endorsement request, and SGP Project

Document for the SGP Global Programme as well as for all Upgrading Country Programmes for each GEF Operational Phase. The SGP Project Document, whether for the global program or upgrading country programmes, provides the framework for SGP operations in accordance with the GEF mandate, including specific benchmarks for project achievements. It also sets forth many of the programme and financial reporting requirements for which UNDP has legal responsibility.

4. Globally, the SGP brings together country programmes of participating countries across all world regions. The key

eligibility criteria for countries to participate in SGP are:

✓ Existence of environmental needs and threats in GEF focal or thematic areas; ✓ Ratification of at least one of the global environmental conventions including the United Nations Convention on

Biological Diversity (CBD); the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC); the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants; and United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD);

✓ Government commitment in the participating country and support for the programme’s implementation modality according to the operational guidelines;

✓ Potential for strong government-NGO relations and positive support for local Civil Society Organizations;19 ✓ Commitment to resource mobilization: the UNDP/CO and government share available funding for SGP delivery

from both GEF and non-GEF sources, and support efforts to attract other co-funding sources; ✓ Positive enabling environment.

SGP Headquarters Structure

17 As per policy approved by the GEF Council Meeting (November 10-12, 2009, Washington DC) based on GEF/C.36/4 Small Grants Programme: Execution Arrangements and Upgrading Policy for GEF-5 (see para 19 and paras 52 - 53). This has been reaffirmed through the approval of the GEF Council Paper GEF/C.46/13 of April 30, 2014 “GEF Small Grants Programme: Implementation Arrangements for GEF-6. 18 For more information about global programming, please see the UNDP Programming Manual, especially Section 8.3. The Programming Manual is available in UNDP Country Offices and at the following website: http://www.undp.org/osg/pm/index.htm

19 For the purpose of the SGP and its grant making, CSOs refer to national and local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) with priority on community-based organizations (CBOs), indigenous peoples, farmers, scientific community, women’s groups, and youth and children organizations.

http://www.undp.org/osg/pm/index.htm


5. A UNDP/GEF Unit at UNDP Headquarters in New York provides fiduciary oversight for all of its GEF activities, including the SGP. Key UNDP Headquarters staff include the UNDP GEF Executive Coordinator, and his/her Deputy, who are legally accountable to UNDP and to the GEF Council for the utilisation of GEF resources.

6. Overall management of the SGP Global Programme, including operational guidance and support to the country programmes, as well as the identification and establishment of SGP Country Programmes in new countries, are conducted by the SGP Central Programme Management Team (CPMT). The CPMT is composed of a Global Manager and Deputy Global Manager; Programme Specialists responsible for matrixed country support and focal area guidance, knowledge management, and monitoring & evaluation; Programme Associates; as well as external consultants, as needed. The SGP Upgrading Country Programmes (UCPs), given their financing modality as GEF Full-Size Projects, are managed by a UNDP-GEF UCP Global Coordinator, who provides technical assistance, strategic advice, and resource mobilization support and promotes substantive and strategic alignment and coordination of the UCPs with the Global SGP Programme.

7. The United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS) provides programme execution services including

administrative, financial, legal, operational, procurement and project management for the SGP as described in detail in the UNOPS SGP Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs).20 The UNOPS SGP Cluster Coordinator and his/her team work closely with the SGP Deputy Global Manager and CPMT staff, as well as with the SGP UCP Global Coordinator.

8. The SGP Global Manager and his/her alternate, the SGP Deputy Global Manager, are ultimately responsible for the overall management, strategic direction, policy development and resource mobilization efforts of the SGP Global Programme. The Programme Specialists are primarily responsible for guidance on GEF focal areas and thematic directions, Country Programme support, regional coordination responsibilities, knowledge sharing, partnership development and networking. As necessary, the Global Manager and Deputy Global Manager may delegate certain functions to the Programme Specialists.

9. SGP regional teams, composed of at least one staff member from CPMT and from UNOPS, as well as the regional senior SGP National Coordinator as needed, may provide a range of technical advice, operational, management and administrative support to country programmes in each of the six SGP world regions,21 divided as follows: a. ✓ Africa ✓ Arab States ✓ Asia ✓ Europe & CIS ✓ Pacific ✓ Latin America & the Caribbean b.

10. While for the Global Programme, the CPMT regional focal point focuses primarily on GEF technical and programmatic matters, and the UNOPS regional focal point is responsible for administrative and financial issues, the SGP regional team works collaboratively in advising country programmes with regard to all substantive and operational matters. The regional teams also review the annual SGP country staff performance and recommend ratings for review by the Deputy Global Manager, and his/her counterpart in UNOPS, prior to endorsement and finalisation by the Global Manager.

20https://intrafed.unops.org/ORGANIGRAMME/NAO/SGP/SGP_MANUAL/Pages/default.aspx 21 For a full list of participating SGP countries see:

http://www.sgp.undp.org//index.cfm?module=ActiveWeb&page=WebPage&s=contry_profile

https://intrafed.unops.org/ORGANIGRAMME/NAO/SGP/SGP_MANUAL/Pages/default.aspx

http://www.sgp.undp.org/index.cfm?module=ActiveWeb&page=WebPage&s=contry_profile


11. For the Upgrading Country Programmes, the division of labour between the SGP UCP Global Coordinator and UNOPS

is similar to those above, as are the collaborative arrangements between UNDP-GEF and UNOPS.

12. SGP Programme Associates are responsible for daily administration, filing and archive management; financial record-keeping and reporting to donors; human resources support; external communications; organisation of meetings; and responses to routine requests for information. The Programme Associates monitor completion of SGP work-plans, and assist in CPMT activities, correspondence, and other assigned tasks.

SGP Country Programme Structure c. 13. The SGP operates in a decentralized and country-driven manner through a National Coordinator or Sub-regional

Coordinator (both hereafter to be referred as NC) and National Steering Committee or National Focal Group for those in sub-regional programme modality (both hereafter abbreviated to NSC) in each participating country, with some modification in the case of countries in a sub-regional programme modality22, with financial and administrative support provided by the UNDP Country Office (CO). In some countries, a National Host Institution (NHI) or host NGO23 is responsible for programme implementation in conjunction with the NC and NSC. At the country level, the SGP operates under the overall UNDP SBAA agreement, although the SGP Global Programme is not considered a part of the CCF or UNDP core functions at the country level.

d. 14. The NSC is composed of voluntary members from NGOs, academic and scientific institutions, other civil society

organizations, the UNDP CO, and government, with a majority of members coming from the non-governmental sector. The NSC provides overall guidance and direction to the Country Programme, and contributes to developing and implementing strategies for Country Programme sustainability. e.

15. The technical capacity of the individual NSC members is an important criterion in determining its composition, and to the maximum extent possible the NSC membership should include experts in the relevant GEF focal areas of biodiversity; climate change mitigation; international waters; sustainable land management; sustainable forest management and REDD; persistent organic pollutants/ chemicals; as well as capacity development. The inclusion of the government GEF Operational Focal Point (OFP) or relevant Convention Focal Point in the NSC is also recommended. f.

16. The NSC is responsible for the review, selection and approval of projects, and for ensuring their technical and substantive quality as regards the strategic objectives of the SGP. In collaboration with the NC, the NSC contributes to the development of the Country Programme Strategy (CPS)24 in accordance with the relevant GEF Project Document for the Operational Phase and national environmental priorities, and oversees its implementation. NSC members are expected to support the Country Programme in resource mobilization and in mainstreaming SGP lessons learned and successes in national development planning and policy-making. NSC members are encouraged to participate in pre-selection project site visits and in project monitoring and evaluation.

22In the case of SGP Sub-regional Programmes, the Sub-Regional Coordinator (SRC) may manage the programme, while projects are reviewed and

approved by a voluntary National Focal Group (NFG) with part-time facilitation by a National Focal Person (NFP). Some countries, with substantial grant making, may decide to shift to a Country Programme modality still linked to the subregional group with a full-time NC or a Community Program Officer and the SRC providing subregional coordination and technical support.

23 National Host Institution or NHI and host NGO are used interchangeably in this document because SGP Country Programmes commonly employ both terms. 24 An Upgrading Country Programme is not required to produce a Country Programme Strategy since it produces a Project Document for the Full Size Project financing their Country Programme for the relevant Operational Phase.


g. 17. The NSC may also constitute a Technical Advisory Groups (TAG) with a pool of voluntary experts on call to serve as a

technical sub-committee, for review of proposals and in relation to specific areas of programming and partnership development. The TAG can also be tasked by the NSC to provide specific technical guidance in specialised areas of work, such as carbon measurement, payments for ecosystem services, marketing and certification of products, transboundary diagnostic analysis, and other relevant fields. In addition, the TAG may also be formed in response to donor and co-financing requirements mobilised for the SGP country programme. h.

18. The SGP NC has lead responsibility for managing the development and implementation of the country or sub-regional programme, for ensuring that grants and projects meet GEF and SGP criteria, and for planning and implementation of upscaling strategies. The NC’s primary functions include inter alia: (i) assisting CSOs in the formulation of project proposals; (ii) serving as the ex officio secretariat for the NSC; (iii) ensuring sound programme monitoring and evaluation, including periodic project site visits; (iv) resource mobilization; (v) communication and dissemination of SGP information; and (v) global reporting to CPMT, UNOPS, responding to audits, and other tasks as stipulated in their ToR.25

19. The UNDP CO provides management support to the SGP Country Programme as outlined in this document. The UNDP Resident Representative/Resident Coordinator (hereafter abbreviated to UNDP RR) in each UNDP CO assigns a senior staff person (typically the Environment Focal Point or head of the Sustainable Development Cluster) to serve as the SGP focal point. The UNDP RR participates in the NSC or may designate the focal point as his/her delegate in the NSC. Each UNDP CO also contributes to monitoring programme activities – usually through broad oversight by the designated focal point as part of NSC responsibilities - facilitates interaction with the host government, and develops links with other in-country financial and technical resources.

20. The UNDP CO is also responsible for providing operational support – the RR signature of grant project MOAs (on behalf of UNOPS); appointment letters of NSC members (on behalf of CPMT); local grant disbursements; HR administration; as well as assisting in audit exercises for the programme. The detailed steps for each operational aspect are described in the UNOPS SGP SOPs. The UNDP CO also plays a fundamental role in launching a new SGP Country Programme in terms of endorsement of the government application to be a participating SGP country and in helping CPMT organize the start-up mission. The UNDP CO also plays a critical role in the proper closing of an SGP Country Programme.

PART II IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF SGP COUNTRY PROGRAMMES In-country institutional arrangements 21. The SGP operates at the country level under the overall UNDP SBAA agreement, however, the SGP Global

Programme remains the responsibility of the CPMT/UNOPS SGP Cluster at Headquarters and, like the Upgrading Country Programmes, is accountable to UNDP-GEF in New York, and ultimately, the GEF Council. There are two basic modalities for SGP hosting arrangements for the country programme that, in consultation with country stakeholders, will be decided by CPMT or the UCP Global Coordinator. In most countries, the programme is hosted by the UNDP CO, although this may also mean that the SGP office is physically located outside CO premises. Where there are issues of accessibility and based on consultations with stakeholders, the programme could be hosted in a National Host Institution (NHI), which may be an NGO or academic institution.

25See full-length version of SGP NC ToRs.


22. In case of NHI hosting, UNOPS issues and administers a sub-contract with the NHI that outlines the technical support and administrative services to be provided, as well as the applicable operating budget. In all cases, the UNDP CO provides needed support for SGP in-country operations in coordination with the CPMT or UCP Global Coordinator and UNOPS. Whatever the hosting arrangements, all Country Programmes respond equally to the relevant Operational Phase Project Document (global or national upgrading) and the global SGP Operational Guidelines.

23. As noted above, NCs of Country Programmes in the Global SGP Programme are guided by CPMT regional focal points for the majority of operational and technical matters, whilst reporting ultimately to the SGP Global Manager. NCs of Upgrading Country Programmes are guided by the Global UCP Coordinator. NCs are also accountable to the UNDP RR for country-level programme expenditures and on matters regarding meeting the ethical and professional standards of the UNDP. The UNDP RR, in consultation with members of the NSC, is responsible for preparing the annual evaluation of NC performance and recommendation concerning contractual status for review by either CPMT or the Global UCP Coordinator, and UNOPS.

24. In keeping with the spirit and mandate of the SGP to develop and foster the capacities of CSOs in participating countries, it is expected that as individual Country Programmes mature it will be possible to transfer the hosting arrangements from the UNDP CO to NHIs. Any decision for transfer should be based on a full consultative process and analysis of key factors, and must be approved by the CPMT or Global UCP Coordinator in consultation with the UNDP RR. In certain cases, where the selected NHI does not fully meet performance expectations, and upon consultation with country stakeholders, the contract may be terminated by the CPMT or Global Coordinator, and UNOPS, and hosting will be transferred either to the UNDP CO or to another NHI.

25. The relationship with an NHI may range from the provision of physical office space, with the NC and NSC carrying full responsibility for programme management; one in which the NHI is responsible for providing specifically agreed services, such as technical advice and support; through to one where the NHI carries full responsibility for managing the SGP programme. The extent of responsibility will be clearly defined in the contract for services signed by UNOPS and the NHI and may evolve over time.

26. The identification of a pool of suitable NHIs may be carried out through a process of competitive bidding, or by gradually accumulating a list of available and interested organizations in consultation with key stakeholders. Local representation of international NGOs would not normally be eligible. The legitimacy and neutrality of potential NHIs within the national NGO community are essential qualifications to carry out SGP grant-making activities. Once a pool of organizations has been established, the following factors will be considered by the CPMT or Global UCP Coordinator, and UNDP CO to select the best candidate:

✓ National stature and credibility; ✓ Good working relationships with other CSOs, including participation in environment/ development

networks; ✓ Demonstrated compatibility with the procedures, objectives, and grant-making functions of the SGP, GEF,

and UNDP; ✓ Significant experience in community-based, participatory environment and development; ✓ Substantial involvement and technical expertise in environmental issues related to the GEF focal areas and

the Rio conventions; ✓ Proven programme management and administrative capacity with systems in place.

27. The NC is normally an employee of UNOPS whereas the contract is administered locally by the UNDP CO on behalf of

UNOPS. In some cases, the NC contract administration can be covered under the terms of the contract with the NHI. The selection of the NC is done through a publicly advertised and competitive selection process. As a general rule, the recruitment process for the NC is managed on behalf of UNOPS by the UNDP CO under the overall supervision of


the UNDP RR. This is ordinarily the case even if the NC will be placed in an NHI; however, the NHI, as appropriate and upon approval of CPMT, may manage the NC recruitment. The selection panel submits three of the top applicants to the SGP Global Manager for final selection and decision. The recruitment process and related guidelines are described in more detail in the UNOPS SGP Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs).

28. Typically, NHIs do not normally administer grant funds. As Country Programmes evolve and/or upgrade, however, it may become desirable to include direct grants administration as part of NHI responsibilities under UNOPS-issued contracts or other mechanisms, thereby increasing the level of country ownership of, and civil society participation in, the programme. Administrative procedures will need to be devised to ensure that the administration of grant allocations and their transferral to grant recipients remain transparent, accountable and fluid. NHIs cannot be awarded nor use SGP grant funds.

SGP country staff roles and responsibilities 29. The NC is responsible for the overall functioning of the SGP in each participating country, and for the achievement of

the benchmarks established for Country Programme implementation in the CPS (Global Programme) or Project Document (UCP) for the relevant Operational Phase. The NC is expected to have full-time dedication to the SGP.26 The NC is responsible for ensuring sound programme and project monitoring and evaluation, and laying the foundation for programme upscaling and sustainability. In project development, the NC may work directly to assist the proponent CSO to access needed support, including the recommendation of support through planning grants. The NC, jointly with the UNDP CO, bear direct responsibility for all local programme expenditures. A critical aspect of the NC job performance is to carefully monitor and supervise these expenditures under the overall supervision of UNOPS and to ensure accountability and transparency.

30. The NC usually represents the SGP in local and national meetings, workshops, and other events, and may be accompanied by members of the NSC. However, for legal and financial purposes, only the UNDP RR or his/her Officer in Charge (OIC) may represent the SGP in-country (on behalf of UNOPS). Only the UNDP RR or his/her Officer in Charge (OIC) can sign SGP grant Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs) and for signing any co-financing arrangements on behalf of SGP. While the NC may initiate and undertake co-financing and other negotiations for the programme, s/he should never officially sign such agreements. The NC, however, may sign non-binding collaborative agreements between SGP and other projects and programs. The NC should consult the CPMT or the Global UCP Coordinator, and the UNOPS SGP Cluster if there is any doubt on signing rules and procedures.

31. The performance of NCs is evaluated annually. The evaluation is undertaken through an online Performance and Results Assessment (PRA) in two parts: a self-assessment by the NC, and a performance evaluation with NSC inputs under the charge of the UNDP RR. These two parts of the evaluation should be completed shortly after the completion of the reporting period. The completed and signed evaluations are submitted to the CPMT or the Global UCP Coordinator. The PRA evaluations are reviewed by the CPMT or Global UCP Coordinator, with UNOPS inputs, and final decisions are then taken for the Global Programme Country Programmes by the SGP Global Manager and Deputy Global Manager on contract renewal, or by the Global UCP Coordinator, as well as other actions that might need to be taken.

32. In most countries, the NC works with a Programme Assistant/Associate (PA). On behalf of UNOPS, the UNDP CO may hire a PA with technical and/or administrative skills and functions depending on local needs. The NC shall be involved in the selection process and the panel recommendation will be forwarded to CPMT and UNOPS for final approval. The NC will be in charge of the supervision and PRA for the PA. In certain cases, consultants with a

26The NC should not accept any other functions unless a cost-sharing arrangement can be negotiated with the UNDP CO or host NGO and validated by CPMT/UNOPS.


technical background, especially in the GEF focal areas, may be recruited to contribute to project design, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation, and can be delegated by the NC to provide these services to CSOs and SGP projects as necessary. The recruitment process and related guidelines are highlighted in detail in the UNOPS SGP SOPs.

National Steering Committee procedures

33. The NSC is a central element of the SGP and provides the primary substantive contribution and oversight to the programme, in coordination with the NC. While staffing and operational management of the SGP is undertaken through UNDP/UNOPS structures, no SGP project may be undertaken at the country level without the approval of the NSC. As such, the NSC must do its best to ensure the technical and substantive quality of SGP grants, and the administrative and financial capacity, either actual or potential, of the CSO grant recipients. The UNDP RR, or his/her delegate, as well as other members of the NSC, are encouraged to provide any relevant information about these concerns, especially the financial and organizational integrity of CSOs. Operationally, the decisions of the NSC are considered final provided they are consistent with these operational guidelines, the SGP Project Document for the GEF Operational Phase and the Country Programme Strategy (or UCP Project Document). However, neither the NSC nor its individual members as programme volunteers, hold any legal or fiduciary responsibility for the SGP or its activities.

34. The selection of NSC members is normally done by the NC in consultation with the UNDP RR. For new country programmes, the NSC is often established as a result of a preparatory mission or in the initial stages of launching the programme. NSC members should have an abiding interest and commitment to working with communities and share a vision of what sustainable development and "thinking globally, acting locally" might mean in terms of linking the GEF focal areas with community needs and concerns. NSC non-governmental members must have high credibility and wide experience working with local communities and CSOs in the country and thus can represent their needs and interests in committee discussions. Strong, experienced, and technically competent civil society representation on the NSC is crucial as a means of keeping the SGP responsive to its mandate to work with CSOs, CBOs and indigenous peoples. These members must also have the requisite knowledge of GEF Focal Areas and/or specific themes such as gender, sustainable livelihoods, and knowledge management. Governmental and donor agency members should hold positions relevant to the work of the SGP and at a level where they could make decisions on behalf of their agencies, particularly when assessing proposals which they are being asked to fund. NSC members on the whole must be able and willing to discuss constructively and develop consensus decisions. The NSC, with the NC, are responsible for ensuring participatory, democratic, impartial, and transparent procedures for project review and approval, as well as all other aspects of programme implementation at the country level in accordance with the SGP Project Document for the relevant Operational Phase.

35. The composition of a newly established NSC is subject to ratification by the SGP Global Manager or the Global UCP Coordinator while subsequent appointments can be ratified by the responsible CPMT Regional Focal Point for global programme countries and by the Global UCP Coordinator for upgrading country programmes. In general, only one government representative on the NSC is required. However, depending on the circumstances, country programmes can have additional government representatives such as Convention focal points, although whatever the case, the majority of members must be non-governmental. The UNDP RR provides the appointment letters on behalf of the SGP.

36. NSC members usually serve for a period of three years. Each country or sub-regional programme must decide whether this term is renewable, and how eligibility for renewal is determined. In general, periodically inviting new members is a sound and healthy policy that brings new ideas and expertise to programme implementation, and roughly one quarter of NSC members may rotate in any given year. Changing the entire membership at any one time should be avoided.


37. Participation in the NSC is without monetary compensation. Travel expenses for project site visits or to NSC

meetings can be covered by the SGP country operational budget.

38. NSCs adopt decisions under the principle of consensus and rarely resort to voting to determine whether a project is approved or a particular course of action is taken. To facilitate meetings, the NSC may decide to select its Chairperson(s) in the following way: (i) one of the most committed expert members to Chair for a particular period of time; (ii) members to chair meetings on a rotating basis to enhance each member’s participation; and (iii) on a co-chair approach with government and non-government representation to promote civil society leadership and CSO-government collaboration which are institutional objectives of the programme.

39. The NC serves ex officio on the NSC, participating in deliberations, but not in decisions in the project selection process. The NC usually convenes the NSC and functions as its secretariat, including preparing minutes of meetings and maintaining a historical record of programme decisions and implementation. A copy of NSC minutes, signed by the members, and other pertinent material should be filed at the UNDP CO.

40. In as wide a consultation as possible with country stakeholders, the NC shall prepare a long list of possible volunteers to the NSC. From this, the NC in consultation with the UNDP RR prepares the list of NSC members to be nominated for approval by the SGP Global Manager by considering both the expertise and qualifications of the individual candidates, and the overall composition and balance of the committee. While certain institutions (the UNDP, and appropriate governmental ministry or agencies, the NHI) must be represented in the NSC, members should also be chosen who as individuals, including from the private sector and donor community, would contribute significantly to the committee and the programme’s various expertise needs (e.g. on GEF focal areas, sustainable livelihoods, gender considerations, communications, resource mobilization, capacity development). The NC, after due consultation with other NSC members of good standing and the UNDP RR, may recommend changes in the composition of the committee to CPMT if it becomes clear that a particular member's participation is not contributing to the programme.

41. The objectivity, transparency and credibility of the NSC is of paramount importance to the success of the Country Programme, and to maintaining good relations among stakeholders. As a general rule, Country Programmes cannot consider proposals associated with organizations of sitting NSC members. A CSO may nonetheless submit proposals when its representative has finished the term of service and is no longer on the Committee. On an exceptional basis, and under specified conditions pre-approved by CPMT or the UCP Global Coordinator, CSOs with members in the NSC can submit proposals.

Country Programme Strategy

42. Before any grant-making or other programme activities may take place, each SGP participating country must have an approved Country Programme Strategy or Sub-regional Programme Strategy (abbreviated here to CPS). The development/revision of the CPS is designed to ensure congruence with the SGP Project Document for the relevant Operational Phase; the strategic planning frameworks associated with the relevant Rio Conventions;27 as well as with the GEF National Portfolio Formulation Exercise (NPFE) where relevant.

27 These include the GEF National Capacity Self-Assessment (NCSA) process; the CBD National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs); the UNFCCC National Communications; the UNCCD National Actions Programmes (NAPs); and the Stockholm Convention National Implementation Plans (NIPs).


43. For Upgrading Country Programmes, a standard UNDP-GEF Project Document is produced that reflects the Country Program strategy that is broadly coherent with the SGP Global strategic initiatives announced at the commencement of each Operational Phase. The Project Document is formulated after approval of the corresponding PIF and is approved by UNDP and the GEF CEO as per standard GEF and UNDP procedures. In the development of the Project Document, the same multistakeholder, participatory approach is followed as that of Country Program Strategy development.

44. For new SGP Country Programmes, the development of a CPS is one of the first tasks to be undertaken by the NC and newly-formed NSC. In both new and continuing SGP Country Programmes, it is important to involve key stakeholders in the CPS revision/elaboration process, and to fully engage and involve the NSC. In this regard, the CPS may be considered a living document, and shall be revised or updated in every operational phase of SGP, or as deemed necessary by the NSC, to align country programme priorities with GEF policies and priorities, and those included in the relevant SGP Project Document.

45. As described in the CPS Guidance framework, the development or revision of the CPS serves several broad purposes to:

✓ Identify the national circumstances and priorities of the country vis-à-vis the Project Document for the relevant Operational Phase;

✓ Provide stakeholders with a framework document to understand the priorities for SGP funding for strengthened country relevance and ownership;

✓ Provide a strategic framework for allocating resources, especially selection of SGP projects, through a bio-geographic and/or thematic focus;

✓ Serve as the framework for Country Programme operations and guiding programme implementation; ✓ Constitute the basis for the assessment of country programme achievements and impact.

46. The development/revision of the CPS (or UCP Project Document) should be undertaken as a participatory process

that engages the full range of non-governmental and government stakeholders in the country. The CPS preparation should be seen not only as a document to satisfy global programmatic requirements, but as a country-led process which has value in its own right. The key players in the process are the NC (who facilitates the process, and is responsible for the majority of the drafting), and the NSC (which provides input and guidance throughout the process, and endorses the end product).

47. The CPS should contain: (a) background situation of the country which the SGP country programme has to consider; (b) key objectives vis-a-vis the country situation and the objectives of the global SGP Prodoc for the operational phase; (c) geographic (with maps) and/or thematic focal areas; (d) priority activities to be supported by grantmaking; and (e) expected outcomes, indicators, and M&E plan. For formulation of a UCP Project Document (ProDoc), the standard UNDP-GEF format is followed.

48. Recommended steps to developing the CPS or ProDoc are as follows:

✓ NC prepares an initial CPS or ProDoc draft for consultation with the NSC based on the current SGP Project Document or the approved PIF in the case of UCPs;

✓ Wide stakeholder consultations held with key CSO, government, academic and other concerned parties to discuss relevant issues (where possible, these consultations to be linked to the National Portfolio Formulation Exercise (NPFE) of the GEF in the country);

✓ Incorporation of stakeholder inputs into the draft CPS or ProDoc by the NC, and initial approval of the document by the NSC;

✓ Submission of the draft CPS to the CPMT Regional Focal Point for comment and review; draft ProDoc submitted to the UCP Global Coordinator for comment and review;


✓ Further CPS or ProDoc revision as necessary based on comments and recommendations by the CPMT or UCP Global Coordinator, respectively;

✓ Submission of the revised CPS or ProDoc by the NC for formal endorsement by the NSC; ✓ Final approval of the endorsed CPS by the SGP Global Manager, or delegated CPMT Regional Focal Point;

final approval of the endorsed ProDoc by the UCP Global Coordinator and submission to the GEF for CEO Endorsement and to UNDP for approval;

✓ Posting and circulation of the final version of the CPS as a public document; posting of ProDoc on GEF Website.

Country Operating Budget 49. The Country Operating Budget or Sub-regional Operating Budget (abbreviated here to COB) is the financial provision

for country, or sub-regional, programme implementation. The COB is prepared by the NC, and reviewed and approved by the CPMT and UNOPS. The COB should allow the effective operation of the country or sub-regional programme in implementing activities in support of the objectives of the Project Document, as well as to be responsive to specific country circumstances and needs, as reflected in the CPS. In countries where a NHI hosts the SGP, the COB is generally covered by the terms of the contract for services between the organization and UNOPS. The COB process and related guidelines are highlighted in detail in the UNOPS SGP SOPs.

50. The budget for operations of Upscaling Country Programmes is approved as part of the Project Document and is subject to revision on an annual basis along with approval of Annual Work Plans and requests for annual Authorized Spending Limits. UNOPS, as executing agency, manages the budget in direct contact with the National Coordinator and in collaboration with the relevant UNDP Country Office. i.

PART III IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF SGP GRANTS SGP grants and project cycle 51. Each SGP Country Programme should, after adopting or revising its CPS or Project Document, prepare and issue an

SGP programme announcement. Information in the call for proposals should clearly state that the SGP makes grants to eligible CSOs28, or to individuals, as in the case of fellowships, with priority for the poor and vulnerable in the GEF focal areas, with a maximum grant amount for a project of US$50,00029. The subsequent process of developing an SGP grant project should then take place in a transparent manner covering the: (i) project preparation guidelines setting forth the eligibility criteria; (ii) application/proposal review process and calendar; (iii) formats for project concept and proposal development, and; (iv) co-financing requirements in cash and/or in-kind.

52. Project concepts from eligible CSOs may be screened by the NC or jointly with the NSC. Each country programme should determine which screening modality it will follow, and periodically review this decision to make sure that the modality chosen is working well. In both cases, project concept selection should be done on the basis of established

28 The term civil society organization (CSO) herein refers to the definition of major groups agreed by Governments at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in 1992 to include non-governmental organizations (NGOs), farmers, women, the scientific and technological community, youth and children, indigenous peoples and their communities, business and industry, workers and trade unions and local authorities. For SGP, their eligibility for grants follows the practice of the GEF (for the purpose of CSOs attending/observing Council meetings) which defines them as ‘non-profit organizations”. Local authorities shall include traditional or indigenous governance units and their proposals to be eligible should refer to meeting the needs of communities under their jurisdiction. Furthermore, international NGOs and for-profit business and industry groups are not directly eligible for SGP support, but may co-finance the Programme’s grant projects. Priority grant-making should also be directed at grassroots groups such as community-based organizations (CBOs), indigenous peoples, farmers, women, youth and children, and workers. Those that are especially vulnerable because of poverty, social exclusion, or disability should also be provided priority. 29 The SGP Country Programme could provide grants above this maximum amount for “Strategic Grants” that can be up to $150,000 under a special provision for this category of grants and following guidance from CPMT or the Global UCP Coordinator as relevant.


eligibility and selection criteria in accordance with the CPS or UCP Project Document At the very least, project concepts should be relevant to one or several of the GEF focal areas and reflect the needs of the community or communities and/or stakeholders that would be involved. Once the concepts have been selected, the proponent organizations will be notified of this decision and asked to develop complete project proposals.

53. It is critical for all project proposals to meet the GEF and SGP criteria. While it is an important part of the NC responsibilities to assist CSOs in proposal development, sometimes additional assistance is nonetheless required. In such cases, two options may be considered: (i) a local consultant may be hired or a capable “assisting NGO” may be contacted to help the CSO/CBO/communities according to terms of reference that the NC elaborates in coordination with the proponent organization; and (ii) the SGP planning grant modality may be used.

54. In support of regional or global scaling up, mainstreaming, replication, and broader adoption of SGP successes and lessons learned, as well as to leverage resources and utilize strategic opportunities at these levels, grants for regional or global initiatives30 can be provided. For the Global SGP, guidance for proactive or responsive modalities as well as procedures for this will come from the SGP CPMT in consultation with involved SGP Country Programmes and/or relevant Programme stakeholders and partners.

Planning Grants

55. The NC or NSC may authorize planning grants31 once project concepts have been selected. CSOs such as CBOs, indigenous peoples’ organisations and communities with little experience in project design and management receive priority to benefit from this assistance. Hence, the planning grant has an important capacity-building function which in itself is an important SGP objective. The NC makes recommendations to the NSC about which proponent organizations would require a planning grant.

56. A planning grant can be used by an eligible CSO to organize stakeholder workshops or meetings to design the project in a participatory manner. The planning grant can be used to contract an experienced NGO or local consultant to work with the project proponents to elaborate the project, to undertake baseline assessments, develop a business plan (for projects with strong sustainable livelihood elements), and through learning-by-doing, build capacity in proposal design including the development of indicators and a monitoring and evaluation plan.

57. Administratively, a planning grant is a grant like any other SGP grant, and therefore can only be made to eligible CSOs. The project document for the planning grant specifies the activities to be undertaken, and the responsibilities of the parties concerned. The NSC generally approves the planning grant, although the NSC can in certain instances also delegate approval to the NC for certain exceptional cases (e.g. time-sensitive activities, smaller amounts). The process follows the modus operandi of SGP facilitative grant-making and is explained in detail in the UNOPS SGP SOPs.

Project proposals

58. SGP provides grants to support activities that help achieve the programme objectives outlined in the CPS and the

global SGP project document or the UCP Project Document for the Operational Phase. In terms of helping achieve global environmental benefits, the SGP’s starting point is to ensure that each project proposal fits the GEF criteria

30 The allocated funds for this should not exceed 10% of the available GEF global core grant allocation for an operational phase.

31 Planning grants are usually in the range of $2,000 to $5,000 depending on the capacity of the proponent and additional work that has to be done. The NSC should decide how to make the provision of planning grants in the most facilitative way such as allowing the NC to make planning grant decisions and reporting on these in NSC meetings.


and that each proposal clearly articulates how project objectives and activities would have a positive effect in the relevant GEF focal areas. To create sustainability and impact beyond the project, SGP projects can combine demonstration, capacity-building, network building, awareness raising, and dissemination of lessons learned as integral components. Given this comprehensive approach, while a logical framework is not formally required, it would be advisable to include a Monitoring and Evaluation work plan in each proposal (see SGP M&E Framework).

59. As a demand-driven programme, SGP projects endeavour to address both the GEF criteria, as well as community needs and initiatives. The SGP usually works with communities and localities that confront a multitude of social and economic development problems that impact on concerns related to global environmental conventions. For SGP interventions to have relevance and utility at the community level, these non-GEF circumstances are taken into account in project design. A key guiding philosophy of the programme has been to reach the marginalized poor and vulnerable communities, especially when there are no other donors present, and where development baseline conditions have not been met. Typically, the SGP will therefore need to mobilize additional resources to help provide the co-financing, technical assistance, capacity-building, gender training, income-generation component, or whatever non-GEF element may be necessary for a project’s success. These project components are vital to achieving local acceptance, ownership, and sustainability of SGP interventions.

Funds disbursement

60. The maximum amount for an SGP grant is $50,000 per project.32 In special cases, grants for “strategic projects” that consolidate efforts of several communities and CSOs could be provided at a maximum of $150,000. SGP grants generally only cover a portion of project costs, with other components provided by the CSO partner, the community itself, or by other donors. Since SGP grants fund activities that are directly relevant to the GEF criteria, co-financing must be sought for community baseline or sustainable development needs. However, since it would be unrealistic to require a baseline/incremental cost exercise for each individual project, each country should instead endeavour to mobilize enough funding in cash or in kind to “match” the GEF country grant allocation33.

61. Once the NSC has approved a project for SGP funding support, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is signed on behalf of UNOPS between the grantee and the UNDP CO. SGP projects normally have a duration of between one and three years. The amounts and schedules may differ, contingent upon the nature and length of project activities, but in no case should the first disbursement be more than 50% of the total project grant amount (except when justified and prior approval from UNOPS has been received). The MOA and grant disbursement process, the applicable templates, and all related guidelines are found in detail in the UNOPS SGP SOPs.

62. A grantee may submit another proposal upon successful completion of an initial project but no grantee can receive funds exceeding US$50,000 in a given operational phase. Any grantee which has received the maximum $50,000 in one Operational Phase, may however submit another funding request in the following Operational Phase if the evaluation of project outcomes are positive. .

PART IV REPORTING AND COMMUNICATIONS

63. The NC has lead responsibility for communications between the Country Programme and the CPMT or UCP Global

Coordinator. In general, the NC reports on substantive and technical matters to the CPMT or UCP Global Coordinator, and on administrative and financial issues to the UNOPS portfolio manager. The NC should keep the

32 In many cases, it may however be advisable to provide smaller initial amounts when the grantee-partners have lower implementation capacity.

33The matching of GEF funds with co-financing is finally reckoned at the global programme level so as not to disadvantage new country programmes or those in difficult situations.


UNDP CO informed of progress in programme implementation, usually through the RR and SGP focal point in the UNDP CO. In particular, the NC and PA are expected to maintain a close working relationship with the UNDP CO regarding the COB and grants disbursements which serves to keep the UNDP abreast of SGP developments.34 The NC should also endeavour to share relevant SGP reports with the GEF Operational and Political Focal Points as well as global environmental convention focal points.

64. Communications among Country Programmes are facilitated through the global, regional, and sub-regional list servers, the SGP global database and workspace, and the SGP website. Recurring global reporting requirements, such as annual reports, are complemented by periodic requests by the CPMT, UCP Global Coordinator and/or UNOPS for information on specific subjects, such as reports under preparation for the GEF Council, or for the relevant global environmental conventions. Full guidance on all project and programme reporting is provided in the SGP Monitoring & Evaluation Framework.

65. SGP country teams are responsible for entering detailed information for all prior and current Operational Phases into the SGP database, including the upload of grant project MOAs. Since the database is the foundation for all reporting and communications at the global level, it is imperative that NCs and PAs input the database as soon as projects are approved by the NSC, and keep it regularly updated on the progress of projects. The SGP database and website also includes visual documentation of SGP projects and Country Programmes, accounts of lessons learned, and case studies. Project briefs should be stored in the files of every project for easy use and sharing.

66. The NC is required to report on technical and substantive project and programme progress through the Annual Country Report (GEF Project Implementation Review for UCPs). The ACR complements the information that is entered in the SGP database and should cover progress in meeting the year’s deliverables as well as other important information including: (i) assessment of the overall progress for the country programme portfolio; (ii) results of project monitoring and evaluation; (iii) key outcomes of SGP-sponsored events; (iv) progress in strengthening working relationships with CSOs, as well as with government agencies and donors; (v) results of resource mobilization efforts; (vi) development of SGP visibility as a GEF programme and activities to share lessons learned and influence policy; and (vii) any special challenges and difficulties faced.

67. The NC shall take all necessary measures to ensure the visibility of the GEF financing. Such measures shall be in accordance with the need to give adequate publicity to the action being implemented as well as to the support from the GEF. A communication and visibility plan shall be outlined in each project document. This should include, inter alia, the compulsory use of the GEF logo on all material, publications, leaflets, brochures and newsletters, websites, business cards, signage, vehicles, supplies and equipment, display panels, commemorative plaques, banners, promotional items, photographs, audiovisual productions, public events and visits and information campaigns. The plan should also include press releases, press conferences and press visits to project sites.

68. The Programme Review is an overall assessment of the Country Programme performance to be undertaken by the NC and the NSC, in consultation with SGP grantees and other stakeholders, at the completion of an SGP Operational Phase. The purpose of the Programme Review is to assess the cumulative progress of the Country Programme in a particular Operational Phase and provide strategic recommendations on the direction for the programme in the next Operational Phase. Once finalized, the Programme Review should be shared by the SGP country team with the country GEF Operational and Political Focal Points and also the relevant Rio Convention focal points.

34 SGP Country Programmes are required to monitor the funds (grants and COB amounts) and expenditures allocated to them. Reporting tools and relevant guidelines are provided by the UNOPS SGP SOPs.


69. Audits of SGP Country Programmes will be conducted in accordance with the internationally accepted auditing standards, and applicable financial rules and regulations. The SGP audit exercises are designed to improve the transparency, accountability and quality of SGP country and global operations. The audits will cover management, financial, and administrative issues as they relate to the country programme as a whole, and will not normally include provisions for project-level inspection. The principles and processes governing SGP audit operations can be found in the UNOPS SGP SOPs.


ANNEX K: SITE DESCRIPTIONS Background: Indonesia is an archipelago country consisting of 17,504 islands (Indonesian Statistic Bureau – BPS, 2013), with a total of 13,466 small islands35 – spreading across 34 provinces. Small islands in Indonesia have a potential for development, due to their strategic location, their exceptional tropical ecosystems spanning ridge to reef (i.e. coral reef, seagrass, mangrove, forest, farmland) as well as their distinctive nonrenewable resources of value for key sectors such as mining, energy, tourism, etc. At the same time, the small island landscape in Indonesia is highly vulnerable to degradation of its ecosystem functions and services. Management of these small islands to enhance their resilience is quite complex. Currently, small islands in Indonesia are isolated, lack government attention, have limited, basic facilities and infrastructure, are vulnerable to external threats, including climate related threats, and suffer from increasing human pressure on ecosystem function and biodiversity. Furthermore, there is a relative lack of information on these small islands, which causes development planning of these areas to be difficult. In fact, most of the development in Indonesia follows a top-down approach, where the top level of government assigns development initiatives to lower levels of government and community groups, which are expected to adapt their own development initiatives to meet the top-level programs. Nusa Penida Island, Bali Bali is Indonesia’s most popular tourist destination. This small island constitutes only 0.3% of Indonesia’s landmass, yet is home to 1.4% of Indonesia’s population - 80% of who rely on income generated by the tourism industry. The pace of development in Bali has been rapid, and increasing incomes from emerging sectors have lured Balinese away from the relative self-sufficiency of a traditional agrarian way of life. Uncontrolled development has caused the loss of forest and of agricultural land. The rate of agriculture land conversion in Bali over the last five years is about 400 thousand hectares per year threatening Bali’s food security. Bali’s forests cover about 25 percent of the total island and are being degraded and converted through illegal logging for development purposes. Lack of law enforcement and economic pressures facilitate the worsening of the forest’s condition. Coral reefs are a valuable source of income for Bali, supporting a large marine-based tourism industry as well as extractive activities such as fishing. Bali’s coastline is approximately 430km long but about 86km is badly eroded as new developments contribute to worsening coastal erosion. There appears to be limited awareness of the importance of mangroves and other coastal ecosystems, which provide nursery areas for important fish stocks and coastal commodities that provide economic benefits for the locals. Mangroves also prevent erosion and saltwater intrusion. Currently, twelve per cent of Bali's coastline is vulnerable to erosion as a result of uncontrolled development, sea level rise, storm surges and flooding. Bali’s environment is facing serious degradation due to over-exploitation by the tourist industry. Garbage, water scarcity, massive land conversions and traffic jams have increased due to the island’s inability to manage tourism. Bali has also lost half of its water resources, as 200 out of 400 water courses on the island have dried up. According to research conducted by the Japan International Cooperation Agency, the southern part of Bali is facing a water shortage by 2015 due to aggressive groundwater use. The water shortage is the result of massive development, especially the development of new tourist and residential areas. Nusa Penida is an island southeast of Bali. Administratively, the island is a district of Klungkung regency, with a population of 45,178 people according to the 2010 census, covering 19,126 ha with 46 coastal and inland villages, a 20 km long x 16.5km wide island bordered by Lombok Strait and the Indian Ocean There are two small islands nearby - Nusa Lembongan and Nusa Ceningan - which are included within the district (kecamatan). The people of Nusa Penida are descendants of political convicts exiled four centuries ago from Bali and are now well known for their strong traditional culture and the practice of black magic. Isolated as political exiles from Bali during the Klungkung dynasty, the local people of Nusa Penida (also known as ‘Black Magic’ island) evolved a unique cultural

35 Source: http://www.ppk-kp3k.kkp.go.id/direktori-pulau/index.php/public_c/menu_info/1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bali

http://www.ppk-kp3k.kkp.go.id/direktori-pulau/index.php/public_c/menu_info/1


identity, including Balinese Hindu traditions, temples, handicrafts, mythologies and magic, on a natural landscape of dramatic coastlines, ecosystems and new wildlife sanctuaries. Nusa Penida’s dry, arid climate (with a long dry season spanning 6-9 months) – caused by geographic conditions of the Lombok Strait and a landscape previously cleared of forest cover – brings daily development challenges for the local subsistence farmers living in hot, dry, hilly interiors, struggling with the availability of fresh food and water shortages and limited arable land for crops. The main income sources on the island at present derive from seaweed farms, fishing, subsistence agriculture and an emerging ecotourism profile. Fishing boats and seaweed farms line the coast – competing with fishermen and tourist boats for beach access to the main villages of Ped and Sampalan. Additionally, encroaching seawater has affected the quality of ground water, forcing locals to buy packaged mineral water from the main island of Bali for drinking. In the Nusa Penida district, the island’s environmental quality is worsening, as evidenced by declining land fertility due to erosion and unsustainable land management. Nusa Penida’s coastal biodiversity is facing threats from human activities, with agricultural land being converted to villas and hotels. Destructive fishing (poison and bomb fishing) and overfishing pose a serious threat to the reef ecosystems and sustainable fisheries of the Nusa Penida Islands. The lack of a clear marine zoning system and regulation of resource use in Nusa Penida’s coastal and marine areas can potentially create conflicts between marine tourism, seaweed farming and fisheries activities. Nusa Penida (“Penida”) is one of a series of islands in the sub-district of Nusa Penida, Klungkung District, Bali. The word 'Nusa' means island in Bahasa Indonesia, so Nusa Penida means Penida Island. Nusa Penida is located to the southeast of Bali. The Indonesian Ocean borders the island to the south, the Badung Strait to the west and north, and the Lombok Strait to the east. Klungkung district covers 315 km2 of land and marine area, with two-thirds located in Nusa Penida sub-district. The island of Nusa Penida has an area of 20.284 Ha. The Nusa Penida archipelago consists of 3 islands: Nusa Penida, Nusa Lembongan and Nusa Ceningan. It takes only 45 minutes by speedboat to reach Nusa Penida from Sanur, crossing the Badung Strait. Currently, a variety of transportation services companies organize regular crossings from Sanur to Nusa Penida twice per day, to and from Bali. The Penida Islands can also be reached by ferry via Padang Bay or by boat via Kusamba. Penida is an island with varied topography. The land is flat in the north (0-3% slope, while further south, the land is typically hilly with sharp slopes. Penida’s highest point is 524 meters above sea level. Fishing communities generally live along the northern coast and farmers inhabit the flat inland areas until the hills begin in the south. Nusa Penida’s soil is a layer limestone karst with a thin layer of topsoil and hard limestone rock formations dominate the land in the southern part of Nusa Penida. Combined with a rainy season of only 3-4 months and extreme gradient of the land in the north, these formations make agriculture a challenge. Nusa Penida’s waters became a Marine Conservation Area through Decree No. 24/2014 of the Minister of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (MMF). The area covers 2,057 Ha and is managed as a Marine Tourism Park. Mola-mola fish (sun fish), manta rays, dolphins, sharks, and whales are commonly found in Nusa Penida waters, constituting the main attraction for marine tourism in Nusa Penida. Other potential resources for fisheries and tourism include the coral reef ecosystem, which covers 1,419 hectares, mangrove forests, which cover 230 hectares, and 108 hectares of seagrass (TNC 2010 in Welly et al.: 7, 2011). Based on the data obtained during the field assessment, community activities on Penida broadly include land (farms and plantations), coastal (seaweed cultivation) and water (fishing) resources. Fishermen generally go out on fishing expeditions in the waters of Nusa Penida, the Badung Strait, or the Lombok Strait on a daily basis. This limited range is due to their low-power (15 horsepower) boat engines and traditional nets and fishing rods. Moreover, Penida fishermen have a strong attachment to the traditional rituals in their respective family and Banjar,36 according to I Wayan Somayana (chairman of the Forum of Nusa Penida Fishermen). As a result, Penida fishermen do not leave home for long

36 Banjar is the traditional community unit in Bali


unless they intend to go abroad and work on large ships. As the tourism industry starts to develop on Penida, as it has Lembongan and Ceningan, the tourism-related jobs are increasingly available. Penida’s coastal communities have more varied employment options, although almost all development is concentrated near the beach. For farming communities that rely solely on rainfall, there are few job opportunities in the dry season. Consequently, it is common for male farmers to become construction workers during the dry season. Houses in Nusa Penida are usually equipped with a “cubang,” a water tank shaped like a well. These cubang hold rainwater channeled through gutters. Sometimes the water in a cubang is sufficient to last through the dry season. Privately owned cubang are also often placed near public roads. Nusa Penida has been selected as one of the sites for implementation of GEF SGP phase 6 because of the focus on the management of small islands. Though Nusa Penida is located in Bali, the government’s development program barely influences the community directly, particularly in the island’s agricultural areas. GEF SGP itself has several partners in Bali, which provided information and facilitation in the PPG process and helped ensure UNDP and GEF SGP could carry out the field assessment activities in Nusa Penida smoothly. For coastal and marine issues, the CTC (Coral Triangle Center) has been working on Penida for several years in cooperation with MMF and Klungkung District Government. In the future, GEF SGP will work with institutions already working on issues that intersect with the focal area of the GEF SGP. The “ease of access” factor of Nusa Penida will simplify the GEF SGP secretariat’s monitoring and evaluation process. Gorontalo, Sulawesi Sulawesi is Indonesia’s third-largest island and the world’s eleventh largest island. It has a remarkable diversity of terrestrial flora and fauna and rich coastal marine life as it lies in the northwest part of the Wallacea bioregion, a transitional region with species from Asia and Australia. The island faces a disproportionate risk from climate change and extreme weather. The largest environmental issue in Sulawesi is deforestation. In 2007, scientists found that 80 percent of Sulawesi's forest had been lost or degraded, especially in the lowlands and in the mangroves. Forests have been felled for logging and large agricultural projects. Loss of forest has resulted in many of Sulawesi's endemic species becoming endangered. In addition, 99 percent of Sulawesi's wetlands have been lost or damaged. Forest loss is due primarily to logging and conversion. Over 95 percent of Sulawesi's mangrove forests and lowland forests are disturbed. In less than a decade—between the mid-1980s and 1993—Sulawesi mangroves have decreased by over 60 percent in part due to aquaculture for seafood such as shrimp. Gorontalo province became independent from North Sulawesi province in December 2000. It is located in the northern part of Sulawesi with an area of 12,435 km². As a new province Gorontalo is facing several development challenges. The forest area of Gorontalo province is degraded due to illegal logging and palm oil expansion, furthermore endangering endemic species. According to several NGO reports, 6,000 hectares out of its 13,000 hectares of mangrove forest in Gorontalo have been cleared for fish ponds. In 2012, all regencies in Gorontalo were approached by palm oil companies. In 2016, there have been 9 companies get concessionn in Gorontalo. Similarly, Nantu wildlife reserve is threatened by illegal hunting of babi rusa (babyrousa), anoa (Bubalus or midget buffalo) and illegal gold mining. Even though some of the communities reject the development of palm oil development, a letter of declaration of the Forestry Minister has created land conflicts. The communities living around the forest and conservation area are becoming a threat, due to lack of knowledge and livelihoods providing an alternative to current destructive practices. Nantu Wildlife Reserve is located in three districts: Gorontalo, North Gorontalo and Boalemo. Nantu is a place for some endemic species in Sulawesi, namely babirousa, anoa, tarsius, and macaca. It has plotted as wildlife sanctuary with total area of 51,638.17 ha of forest because it has the distinctiveness and uniqueness of wildlife and diversity of wildlife. Nantu was proposed as Wildlife Reserve through Minister of Forestry decree No. 573/Kpts-II/1999 on July 27, 1999, with total area of 31,215 hectares. Through Minister of Forestry Decree No. 3029/Menhut-II/KUH/2014 on April 17, 2014, it increased to 51,639.17 hectares by add some areas surrounding Mount Boliyohuto. Nantu was managed by Natural Resources Conservation Agency of North Sulawesi (BKSDA Sulut), which has a branch (Regional Conservation Section II) in Gorontalo District. According to BKSDA (2014), there are four reasons why Nantu become a nature reserve:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallacea


1. Habitat of rare and endangered species; 2. Has a high biodiversity of flora and fauna 3. As a place for some migratory species. 4. Having a sufficient area for habitat of wildlife species. The main benefit for local community, which are not listed above is that Nantu Wildlife Reserve has provide water for people in the mid and down sream. Nantu become buffer zone of 7 rivers in 3 districts namely Paguyaman, Nantu, Tangga, Bantulana, Botutombana, Danta and Hutadaliau, which Paguyaman is the bigest one. In Paguyaman itself, the river has a big dam, which consider to be one of the biggest one in Gorontalo Province. Paguyaman dam has been supporting around 6,880 ha rice fields in the midstream area of 2 districts, Kabupaten Gorontalo and Kabupaten Boalemo. Nantu is surrounded by 20 villages spread into 6 sub-districts, eventhough there are still some more villages get direct benefits from the other rivers with headwatered in Nantu. Total population of the 20 villges is 25,625 persons. The population density range from 10 to 295 person/km2 with average 77 person/km2. Most of them are mainly farmers with main commodity are rice, corn, coconut, chilly, and sugarcane, cacao, banana, cassava, and the other horticulture crops. Level of education of most of population is elemntary school graduate. Development of Nantu and surrounded areas has begun with a transmigration program of government on 1950-an. A group of people from Java was migrated by government for pinoeering agriculture in the area. They were given 2 hectares land and a small house per household. When the family group grew up, they then mingled with some local Gorontalonese in the area to open forest for more agriculture land, including those perform to hunt endangered animals. The development then followed by some logging concessions companies in 1980s. Gorontalo has 6 logging companies at the moment including PT. Taiwi Unit III in Nantu area (Taiwi is a Barito Group companies owned by Prajogo Pangestu, a big logging company group during Seoharto era). In 1990, a sugarcane plantation start to buy land in this area for their operation in that area. Some of farmers, including tranmigrants from Java, were pushed to sell their lands for those companies. They then move to search for a new land close to the border of Nantu Wildlife Reserve. After fall of Soeharto 1998, autonomy era has a significant impact to the forest landscape. The decentralization of forest, especially production forest, was given to the district level as an autonomous region. Bupati, a haed of district, can give permit to mining and oil palm companies in production forest and the other uses one. Exploitation of forest even legitimised for the local mining companies in protected forest. It also increase number of illegal logging and collusion of forest officials and illegal loggers. Some of the farmers who lost their land become a labour for sugarcane plantation, go out to find new jobs in the surrounding cities and/or work for traditional mining. In 2010, 3 oil palm plantation companies (PT. Agro Artha Surya, PT. Agro Palma Katulistiwa & PT. Umekah Makmur) came to the area, which contribute more on land and forest degradation. Total land consession for those 3 companies is 66,457.90 hectares. Climate change also have significant shift for farmers in the area. During our field visit, some of them complaining unpredicted rain especially when they should prepare for plantig crops. They said that last year 2015, their corn plants dried because limited of rain in the months of October, which usually rainiy season in Gorontalo. In contrary, Agency for Disaster Management in Gorontalo District annouce that all 19 sub-districts in Gorontalo experiencing drought at that moment. Some rivers less water and some agricultural land especially rice field do not get enough water. Some of farmers who has planted corn also fail because of the dry. Agriculture Agency of Gorontalo District predicted that about 3,000 ha rice field and 4,000 ha of corn were affected by dry season. It was also affected to the women, in which in some villages, they have walk about 3-5 kilometers to find water. In summary, lost of biodiversity, land/forest degradation as well as decrease of endangered species in Nantu Wildlife Reserve increase from year by year. Illegal logging, logging concession companies, and gold mining were the main causes of the lost of forest and enviromental problems in Nantu, as a result of inconsistency of government policy to support agricultural sector. In addition, sugarcane and oil palm plantation companies have pushed farmer to move to the area nearby to the Nantu Wildife Reserve, which give opportunity for more disturbance of forest. Community, including women group, also have to face a situation an unpredicted rainy season, which enforce them to search source of livelihoods within or outside the village. Wakatobi Archipelago, South East Sulawesi


Sulawesi is Indonesia’s third-largest island and the world’s eleventh largest island. It has a remarkable diversity of terrestrial flora and fauna and rich coastal marine life as it lies in the northwest part of the Wallacea bioregion, a transitional region with species from Asia and Australia. The island faces a disproportionate risk from climate change and extreme weather. The largest environmental issue in Sulawesi is deforestation. In 2007, scientists found that 80 percent of Sulawesi's forest had been lost or degraded, especially in the lowlands and in the mangroves. Forests have been felled for logging and large agricultural projects. Loss of forest has resulted in many of Sulawesi's endemic species becoming endangered. In addition, 99 percent of Sulawesi's wetlands have been lost or damaged. Forest loss is due primarily to logging and conversion. Over 95 percent of Sulawesi's mangrove forests and lowland forests are disturbed. In less than a decade—between the mid-1980s and 1993—Sulawesi mangroves have decreased by over 60 percent in part due to aquaculture for seafood such as shrimp. Located in Southeast Sulawesi province, Wakatobi was established as a National Park in 1996 which covers 1.390 million hectares.. The name of Wakatobi is an acronym of the names of the four main islands that form the archipelago: Wangi-wangi Island, Kaledupa, Tomia, and Binongko. In recent years, tourism in the Wakatobi islands tourism has increased dramatically, as Wakatobi is known as one of the “the world’s best dive sites” in Indonesia, creating pressures on the islands’s ecosystems. Other potential threats are overfishing and destructive fishing practices. Wakatobi District was established in the National Park area in 2004. It includes no less than 40 coral islands and 25 coral reef, which 94 percent is water inhabited by approximately 100,000 people. Spread over nine islands, four of which are the main islands, Wakatobi community is divided into three different speaking ethnics which are Kaumbeda, Ciacia, and Bajo), with four dialects and ten sub-dialects. Wakatobi archipelago is a cluster of coral islands which are mostly, or about 70% of them have flat to slope topography. The same typical of topographic model can be found mainly in the southern part of Wangi-Wangi island, northern and southern parts of Kaledupa island, western and eastern parts of Tomia island Tomia, as well as the southern part of Binongko island, with altitude ranging between 3-20 meters above sea level. The shape of the hilly topography is in the middle of the island with a height ranging between 20-350 m. Generally Wakatobi has no river that flows throughout the year. Springs generally come from ground water (on the hills and karst caves which the locals called "Tofa / Loba / Lia". Springs are only existed in Wangi-Wangi and Kaledupa. In other islands people have to dig wells and make water tank to collect rain water. In this context, the role of forest vegetation is very important especially in the conservation of groundwater. The water surface in karst caves and community wells are heavily influenced by the rise and fall of sea level, provides strong indication of the importance of coastal protection from the effects of abrasion. Based on the geological map of Tukang Besi (other name of Wakatobi) islands with the scale of 1: 25,000 in 1994 showed that in general, Wakatobi geological formation is clustered in group Qpl by type of dominant material of coral limestone. The formation of land stones with coral limestone material, dominated by podzolic soil, in general indicates poor soil fertility due to low pH and organic material (source: http://wakatobikab.go.id) According to Schmidt-Fergusson classification, the climate in Wakatobi including type C, with two seasons, dry season (East monsoon season: April-August) and rainy season (West monsoon season: September-April). West monsoon season lasts from December to March is indicated by frequent rains. Eastern monsoon lasts from June until September. Transitional season occurs in October-November and April-May. (source: http://wakatobikab.go.id) The structure of coral islands in Wakatobi developed varying characteristics of the four different islands. Kaledupa known as the island with most fertile soil, and become a supplier of vegetables and tubers to the other islands. Binongko is the island with the dominant rocks which are difficult to cultivate. Tomia and Wangi Wangi are quite the same, although theya are rocky, but not as severe as in Binongko. The four islands has mangrove with good condition. In Binongko and Kaledupa, the old mangrove trees grew very high, it formed the forest landscape. In Wakatobi there are some group of rocks separated from the mainland, among others: 1. Kaledupa Reef (the Tomians call it Tomia Reef) 2. Kapota Reef 3. Koromaha Reef 4. Kokko Reef 5. Kentiolo Reef

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallacea

http://wakatobikab.go.id/


6. Cowo-Cowo Reef These reefs are basically the fishing grounds for all fishers in Wakatobi. With its typical land, Wakatobi has the type of dry land cultivation. The development plan focused more on dry land for food crops (cassava, maize, sweet potatoes, and peanuts). This area reaches an area of 4056.3 hectares or 6.09 percent of the total cultivated area and 4.93 percent of total area Wakatobi's land area. Meanwhile, for the type of horticulture, fertile land for vegetables, onion and various types of other annual crops, dominated by Kaledupa. The government’s development plan was focusing dry land for food crops (cassava, maize, sweet potatoes, and peanuts). On fertilized soil they grow horticultural crops. Agricultural products recorded in the information issued by the Government of Wakatobi are: cassava, sweet potatoes, corn, peanuts, and vegetables.


ANNEX L: KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT 149. Each SGP grant project is designed to produce three things: global environmental and local sustainable

development benefits (impacts); organizational capacities (technical, analytical, etc.) from learning by doing; and

knowledge from evaluation of the innovation experience.

150. In the case of knowledge, each grant project will have as a primary product a case study or summary of lessons

learned based on evaluation of implementation results and their contributions to GEB, local development objectives

and landscape level outcomes, including the development of social capital. This knowledge will be further

systematized and codified for dissemination at the landscape level through policy dialogue platforms, community

landscape management networks and multi-stakeholder partnerships, and knowledge fairs and other exchanges; at

the national level through the National Steering Committee, strategic partnerships and their networks, and national

knowledge fairs where appropriate; and globally through the SGP global network of SGP Country Programs and

UNDP’s knowledge management system. The individual grant project case studies will be anticipated at project

design and based on a participatory methodology, so that the production of the case studies strengthen the

community organization’s capacities for reflection and action through learning-by-doing. Development of the case

studies will require external support, with costs covered under the respective project budget. These are not

expected to exceed 500 per project. Production of these case studies will occur at the end of each grant project’s

implementation i.e. there will be a continuous flow of case studies throughout the life of the FSP.

151. At the broader landscape level, the Indonesia Country Program will produce a case study of the landscape

planning and management experience in each of the four selected landscapes (three marine and one terrestrial).

These four case studies will highlight the processes of stakeholder participation, as well as the progress toward the

targets selected during landscape planning, using the Satoyama Resilience Indicators37. A detailed analysis will be

produced of the successes and failures in each landscape in regard to the generation of synergies between individual

community projects around landscape level outcomes, lessons learned, and future efforts to strengthen the

landscape planning and management processes. These case studies will be developed in the third quarter of the last

year of implementation and will require expert guidance and input. While the pro bono assistance of SGP’s

academic and government partners will be anticipated, it is expected that the costs of these case studies will not

exceed USD 2,000 – 2,500 per study. The results of these studies will be published and disseminated throughout the

country through print and digital media and SGP’s institutional partners, NGOs, SGP-supported CSO networks,

universities and others.

152. Project funding has been set aside for potential “strategic projects”, in line with SGP’s global guidelines.

Strategic projects aim to bring broader adoption of specific successful SGP-supported technologies, practices or

systems to a tipping point in each landscape through engagement of potential financial partners, policy makers and

their national/subnational advisors and institutions, as well as the private sector. These projects will be defined in

the first year of FSP implementation, as feasible, and may focus on such things as improving the production and

marketing of marine or agricultural products, ecotourism, or improving the production and marketing of

37 UNU-IAS, Bioversity International, IGES and UNDP. 2014. Toolkit for the Indicators of Resilience in Socio-ecological

Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS).


underutilized or endangered crop genetic resources. Each of these strategic projects will produce a case study

highlighting the process, obstacles to and opportunities for upscaling. Each case study will be produced at the end

of implementation of the strategic project, with the costs of external experts and participatory analysis workshops

incorporated into each strategic project’s budget.

153. The project will create a knowledge management platform to facilitate links among communities, promote

information sharing, and provide access to knowledge resources that are relevant to their individual projects. The

knowledge obtained from project experiences and lessons learned will be socialized through SGP’s well-established

national network of stakeholders and SGP’s global platform, and it will be used in upscaling successful initiatives.

The increased capacity of community-level stakeholders to generate, access and use information and knowledge is

expected to increase the sustainability of project activities beyond the life of the grant funding. Knowledge sharing

and replication will help ensure that the impacts of the project are sustained and expanded, generating additional

environmental benefits over the longer-term.

154. Project experiences will be systematized and knowledge generated for discussion and dissemination to local

policy makers and national/subnational advisors, as well as landscape level organizations, NGOs and other networks.

SGP will also provide funding to formulate community-based forest and coastal management policy papers distilling

lessons from community experience, to raise the profile of community experiences at the national level and

influence policy and planning. These policy papers will act as a reference for local government institutions (Forest

Management Units and Community Coastal Management Units) to intervene in policy processes at the national level

related to sustainable forestry and REDD and its consequences for communities; adaptation of the agriculture sector

to climate change impacts; community-based initiatives for forest and coastal resources; community market product

development; and the empowerment of women’s groups.


ANNEX M

Direct Project Costs UNDP Country Office

No. Type of Activity/Service Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Total

1 Payment Process 38.79

4,848.75

4,848.75

4,848.75

1,939.50

16,485.75

2 Vendor profile 29.71

3,713.75

148.55

148.55

148.55

4,159.40

3 Consultant recruitment 98.55

197.10

197.10

197.10

197.10

788.40

4 Procurement process not involving local CAP (contracting/issue PO

55.86

5,586.00

279.30

279.30

279.30

6,423.90

5 Disposal of equipment 21.57 -

- -

21.57

21.57

6 AR Management Process (issue/Apply Deposit only)

22.41

44.82

44.82

44.82

44.82

179.28

TOTAL

14,390.42

5,518.52

5,518.52

2,630.84

28,058.30


ANNEX N: GEF Tracking Tools

(Attached)


ANNEX O

Supplemental Provisions to the Project Document38: The Legal Context

General responsibilities of the Government, UNDP and the executing agency

1. All phases and aspects of UNDP assistance to this project shall be governed by and carried out in accordance with the relevant and applicable resolutions and decisions of the competent United Nations organs and in accordance with UNDP's policies and procedures for such projects, and subject to the requirements of the UNDP Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting System.

2. The Government shall remain responsible for this UNDP-assisted development project and the realization of its objectives as described in this Project Document.

3. Assistance under this Project Document being provided for the benefit of the Government and the people of (the particular country or territory), the Government shall bear all risks of operations in respect of this project.

4. The Government shall provide to the project the national counterpart personnel, training facilities, land, buildings, equipment and other required services and facilities. It shall designate the Government Co-operating Agency named in the cover page of this document (hereinafter referred to as the "Co-operating Agency"), which shall be directly responsible for the implementation of the Government contribution to the project.

5. The UNDP undertakes to complement and supplement the Government participation and will provide through the Executing Agency the required expert services, training, equipment and other services within the funds available to the project.

6. Upon commencement of the project the Executing Agency shall assume primary responsibility for project execution and shall have the status of an independent contractor for this purpose. However, that primary responsibility shall be exercised in consultation with UNDP and in agreement with the Co-operating Agency. Arrangements to this effect shall be stipulated in the Project Document as well as for the transfer of this responsibility to the Government or to an entity designated by the Government during the execution of the project.

7. Part of the Government's participation may take the form of a cash contribution to UNDP. In such cases, the Executing Agency will provide the related services and facilities and will account annually to the UNDP and to the Government for the expenditure incurred.

(a) Participation of the Government

1. The Government shall provide to the project the services, equipment and facilities in the quantities and at the time specified in the Project Document. Budgetary provision, either in kind or in cash, for the Government's participation so specified shall be set forth in the Project Budgets.

2. The Co-operating Agency shall, as appropriate and in consultation with the Executing Agency, assign a director for the project on a full-time basis. He shall carry out such responsibilities in the project as are assigned to him by the Co-operating Agency.

38 Standard annex to project documents for use in countries which are not parties to the Standard Basic Assistance Agreement

(SBAA).


3. The estimated cost of items included in the Government contribution, as detailed in the Project Budget, shall be based on the best information available at the time of drafting the project proposal. It is understood that price fluctuations during the period of execution of the project may necessitate an adjustment of said contribution in monetary terms; the latter shall at all times be determined by the value of the services, equipment and facilities required for the proper execution of the project.

4. Within the given number of man-months of personnel services described in the Project Document, minor adjustments of individual assignments of project personnel provided by the Government may be made by the Government in consultation with the Executing Agency, if this is found to be in the best interest of the project. UNDP shall be so informed in all instances where such minor adjustments involve financial implications.

5. The Government shall continue to pay the local salaries and appropriate allowances of national counterpart personnel during the period of their absence from the project while on UNDP fellowships.

6. The Government shall defray any customs duties and other charges related to the clearance of project equipment, its transportation, handling, storage and related expenses within the country. It shall be responsible for its installation and maintenance, insurance, and replacement, if necessary, after delivery to the project site.

7. The Government shall make available to the project - subject to existing security provisions - any published and unpublished reports, maps, records and other data which are considered necessary to the implementation of the project.

8. Patent rights, copyright rights and other similar rights to any discoveries or work resulting from UNDP assistance in respect of this project shall belong to the UNDP. Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties in each case, however, the Government shall have the right to use any such discoveries or work within the country free of royalty and any charge of similar nature.

9. The Government shall assist all project personnel in finding suitable housing accommodation at reasonable rents.

10. The services and facilities specified in the Project Document which are to be provided to the project by the Government by means of a contribution in cash shall be set forth in the Project Budget. Payment of this amount shall be made to the UNDP in accordance with the Schedule of Payments by the Government.

11. Payment of the above-mentioned contribution to the UNDP on or before the dates specified in the Schedule of Payments by the Government is a prerequisite to commencement or continuation of project operations.

(b) Participation of the UNDP and the executing agency

1. The UNDP shall provide to the project through the Executing Agency the services, equipment and facilities described in the Project Document. Budgetary provision for the UNDP contribution as specified shall be set forth in the Project Budget.

2. The Executing Agency shall consult with the Government and UNDP on the candidature of the Project Manager39 who, under the direction of the Executing Agency, will be responsible in the country for the Executing Agency's participation in the project. The Project Manager shall supervise the experts and other agency personnel assigned to the project, and the on-the-job training of national counterpart personnel. He shall be responsible for the management and efficient utilization of all UNDP-financed inputs, including equipment provided to the project.

39 May also be designated Project Co-ordinator or Chief Technical Adviser, as appropriate.


3. The Executing Agency, in consultation with the Government and UNDP, shall assign international staff and other personnel to the project as specified in the Project Document, select candidates for fellowships and determine standards for the training of national counterpart personnel.

4. Fellowships shall be administered in accordance with the fellowships regulations of the Executing Agency.

5. The Executing Agency may, in agreement with the Government and UNDP, execute part or all of the project by subcontract. The selection of subcontractors shall be made, after consultation with the Government and UNDP, in accordance with the Executing Agency's procedures.

6. All material, equipment and supplies which are purchased from UNDP resources will be used exclusively for the execution of the project, and will remain the property of the UNDP in whose name it will be held by the Executing Agency. Equipment supplied by the UNDP shall be marked with the insignia of the UNDP and of the Executing Agency.

7. Arrangements may be made, if necessary, for a temporary transfer of custody of equipment to local authorities during the life of the project, without prejudice to the final transfer.

8. Prior to completion of UNDP assistance to the project, the Government, the UNDP and the Executing Agency shall consult as to the disposition of all project equipment provided by the UNDP. Title to such equipment shall normally be transferred to the Government, or to an entity nominated by the Government, when it is required for continued operation of the project or for activities following directly therefrom. The UNDP may, however, at its discretion, retain title to part or all of such equipment.

9. At an agreed time after the completion of UNDP assistance to the project, the Government and the UNDP, and if necessary the Executing Agency, shall review the activities continuing from or consequent upon the project with a view to evaluating its results.

10. UNDP may release information relating to any investment oriented project to potential investors, unless and until the Government has requested the UNDP in writing to restrict the release of information relating to such project.

Rights, Facilities, Privileges and Immunities

1. In accordance with the Agreement concluded by the United Nations (UNDP) and the Government concerning the provision of assistance by UNDP, the personnel of UNDP and other United Nations organizations associated with the project shall be accorded rights, facilities, privileges and immunities specified in said Agreement.

2. The Government shall grant UN volunteers, if such services are requested by the Government, the same rights, facilities, privileges and immunities as are granted to the personnel of UNDP.

3. The Executing Agency's contractors and their personnel (except nationals of the host country employed locally) shall:

(a) Be immune from legal process in respect of all acts performed by them in their official capacity in the execution of the project;

(b) Be immune from national service obligations;

(c) Be immune together with their spouses and relatives dependent on them from immigration restrictions;

(d) Be accorded the privileges of bringing into the country reasonable amounts of foreign currency for the purposes of the project or for personal use of such personnel, and of withdrawing any such amounts


brought into the country, or in accordance with the relevant foreign exchange regulations, such amounts as may be earned therein by such personnel in the execution of the project;

(e) Be accorded together with their spouses and relatives dependent on them the same repatriation facilities in the event of international crisis as diplomatic envoys.

4. All personnel of the Executing Agency's contractors shall enjoy inviolability for all papers and documents relating to the project.

5. The Government shall either exempt from or bear the cost of any taxes, duties, fees or levies which it may impose on any firm or organization which may be retained by the Executing Agency and on the personnel of any such firm or organization, except for nationals of the host country employed locally, in respect of:

(a) The salaries or wages earned by such personnel in the execution of the project;

(b) Any equipment, materials and supplies brought into the country for the purposes of the project or which, after having been brought into the country, may be subsequently withdrawn therefrom;

(c) Any substantial quantities of equipment, materials and supplies obtained locally for the execution of the project, such as, for example, petrol and spare parts for the operation and maintenance of equipment mentioned under (b), above, with the provision that the types and approximate quantities to be exempted and relevant procedures to be followed shall be agreed upon with the Government and, as appropriate, recorded in the Project Document; and

(d) As in the case of concessions currently granted to UNDP and Executing Agency's personnel, any property brought, including one privately owned automobile per employee, by the firm or organization or its personnel for their personal use or consumption or which after having been brought into the country, may subsequently be withdrawn therefrom upon departure of such personnel.

6. The Government shall ensure:

(a) prompt clearance of experts and other persons performing services in respect of this project; and

(b) the prompt release from customs of:

(i) equipment, materials and supplies required in connection with this project; and

(ii) property belonging to and intended for the personal use or consumption of the personnel of the UNDP, its Executing Agencies, or other persons performing services on their behalf in respect of this project, except for locally recruited personnel.

7. The privileges and immunities referred to in the paragraphs above, to which such firm or organization and its personnel may be entitled, may be waived by the Executing Agency where, in its opinion or in the opinion of the UNDP, the immunity would impede the course of justice and can be waived without prejudice to the successful completion of the project or to the interest of the UNDP or the Executing Agency.

8. The Executing Agency shall provide the Government through the resident representative with the list of personnel to whom the privileges and immunities enumerated above shall apply.

9. Nothing in this Project Document or Annex shall be construed to limit the rights, facilities, privileges or immunities


conferred in any other instrument upon any person, natural or juridical, referred to hereunder.

Suspension or termination of assistance

1. The UNDP may by written notice to the Government and to the Executing Agency concerned suspend its assistance to any project if in the judgement of the UNDP any circumstance arises which interferes with or threatens to interfere with the successful completion of the project or the accomplishment of its purposes. The UNDP may, in the same or a subsequent written notice, indicate the conditions under which it is prepared to resume its assistance to the project. Any such suspension shall continue until such time as such conditions are accepted by the Government and as the UNDP shall give written notice to the Government and the Executing Agency that it is prepared to resume its assistance.

2. If any situation referred to in paragraph 1, above, shall continue for a period of fourteen days after notice thereof and of suspension shall have been given by the UNDP to the Government and the Executing Agency, then at any time thereafter during the continuance thereof, the UNDP may by written notice to the Government and the Executing Agency terminate the project.

3. The provisions of this paragraph shall be without prejudice to any other rights or remedies the UNDP may have in the circumstances, whether under general principles of law or otherwise.

United Nations Development Programme...United Nations Development Programme Project Title: ... SGP...

Documents

Transcript of United Nations Development Programme...United Nations Development Programme Project Title: ... SGP...