Call for Proposal Collaborative Management Planning Small Grant Programme in Indonesia

ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity (ACB) telah menerima bantuan Kerjasama Keuangan Jerman dalam mendukung Program Hibah Kecil (Small Grants Programme/SGP) terhadap upaya perlindungan Taman Warisan ASEAN (ASEAN Heritage Park-AHP). Dukungan program ini ditujukan untuk melindungi keanekaragaman hayati dan memperbaiki mata pencaharian masyarakat di dalam dan sekitar kawasan Asean Heritage Park. Pada tahapan pertama, Indonesia dan Myanmar terpilih sebagai negara pertama untuk menjadi pilot SGP. AHP terpilih untuk menerima hibah di Indonesia adalah Taman Nasional Gunung Leuser dan Taman Nasional Way Kambas.

SGP bertujuan untuk mendukung pendekatan pengelolaan kolaboratif, atau pengelolaan bersama, pada lansekap kawasan lindung yang dikelola oleh pemerintah dan wilayah sekitarnya melalui pengelolaan bersama multipihak sebagai sarana untuk menjembatani pengelola kawasan konservasi dengan pemangku kepentingan setempat. Pendekatan ini menyoroti delapan bidang tematik pengelolaan kawasan konservasi; memperkenalkan konsep pembentukan kelompok kerja kawasan konservasi; dan Rencana Pengelolaan kolaboratif (Collaborative Management Planning) kawasan konservasi yang dikembangkan bersama para pemangku kepentingan.

Tahapan awal pelaksanaan SGP adalah penyusunan Collaborative Management Planning (CMP). CMP merupakan dokumen perencanaan kegiatan yang disusun untuk Taman Nasional Gunung Leuser dan Taman Nasional Way Kambas. Dokumen ini selanjutnya akan menjadi panduan dalam penyusunan proposal kegiatan oleh LSM lokal. Anggaran untuk penyusunan CMP masing-masing EURO 50.000 untuk BBTN Gunung Leuser dan EURO 50.000 untuk BTN Way Kambas yang dilaksanakan dengan durasi 1-3 bulan.

ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity (ACB), bekerja sama denganKementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan (KLHK), dengan ini mengumumkan Call for Proposaluntuk PenyusunanCollaborative Management Planning (CMP)- Small Grant Programmein Indonesia.

Project Executing Agency (PEA) dan otoritas kontrak: ASEAN Center for Biodiversity

Project Implementation Agency (PIA): Direktorat Konservasi Keanekaragaman Hayati (KKH) Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan (KLHK)

Prakualifikasi a. Nasional, lelang terbuka untuk pihak ketiga dalam penyiapan dan pelaksanaan Perencanaan Pengelolaan Kolaboratif (Collaborative Management Planning) di Taman Nasional Gunung Leuser dan Taman Nasional Way Kambas. b. Pelaksana: NGO Internasional maupun nasional yang mempunyai kerjasama dengan Balai Besar Taman Nasional Gunung Leuser dan Balai Taman Nasional Way Kambas. c. Proposal yang disampaikan mencakup proposal teknis dan pembiayaannya untuk masing-masing taman nasional.

Formulir aplikasi dan dokumen pendukung dapat dikirimkan dalam 1 berkas asli (format A4) dan 1 berkas elektronik format pdf degan subject surat elekteronik : CMP_SGP_Indonesia kepada alamat dibawah ini:

Ms. Corazon A. de Jesus Jr. SGP Project Coordinator ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity 3/F ERDB Building, UPLB Forestry Campus Los Baños, Laguna 4031 Philippines Tel. # +6349 536 2865, +6349 536 3989 [email protected]

dengan ditembuskan (electronic copy) kepada

Ratna Kusuma Sari Chair of National Working Team- SGP Direktorat Konservasi Keanekaragaman Hayati Ditjen KSDAE-Kementerian LHK Gedung Manggala Wanabakti Blok VII lantai 7 Jl. Gatot Subroto, Jakarta 10270 Tel/Fax +62 21 5720227 Email : [email protected]

Batas Waktu: 24 November 2017

Informasi lebih lanjut mengenai Kerangka Acuan Kerja (Concept Note) tersedia pada lampiran 1 dan 2. Serta dapat mengakses website http://aseanbiodiversity.org/key_programme/small-grants-programme/

ASEAN CENTRE FOR BIODIVERSITY

Small Grants Programme 1 by the ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity

(BMZ-No. 2011 66545)

SGP Indonesia First Call for Proposals:

“Collaborative management planning exercise to further define priorities and align stakeholder interests in Gunung Leuser National Park and Way Kambas National Park. Output: a collaborative management and associated financial plan”

30 October 2017

Table of Contents

1. Background ...... 1 1.1 The Small Grants Programme (SGP) for ASEAN Heritage Parks (AHPs) ...... 1 1.2 SGP Objectives and principal Thematic / Intervention Areas ...... 2 1.3 Conservation Issues / Challenges ...... 2 1.4 ACB-SGP interventions and opportunities in Indonesian AHPs ...... 3 2. SGP Indonesia – Call 1 ...... 4 2.1 Grant Authority ...... 4 2.2 Thematic Area ...... 4 2.3 Intervention Priorities Eligible for Funding under this Call ...... 5 2.4 Purpose of the Grant...... 5 2.5 Project area (Eligible protected areas / AHPs) ...... 5 2.6 Scope of the Planning Process and General Types of projects eligible for funding ...... 5 2.7 Eligible Proponents ...... 6

3. Informations for Applicants...... 6 3.1 Grant implementation period and expenditure eligibility period ...... 6 3.2 Special Requirements...... 6 3.3 Budget, Financial Proposal, and Management cost ...... 7 3.4 Eligible cost and expenditure ...... 7

4. Guidance on SGP project planning...... 8 4.1 Principles of activity planning ...... 8 4.2 Criteria for projects eligible for SGP funding ...... 8 5. Proposal Review and Grant Award ...... 9

5.1 Proposal Assessment ...... 9 5.2 Grant Award...... 9 5.3 Grant disbursement / Payment system ...... 9 6. Deadline for submitting Proposals...... 10 7. Guidance for Applicants ...... 10

7.1 Language of the proposal...... 10 7.1 Format of submission...... 10 7.2 Downloadable documents ...... 10 7.3 Form of submission ...... 10 7.4 Subject line for e-mail submission ...... 11 7.5 Full and complete submission ...... 11 8. Communications and additional information concerns...... 11 ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE CALL FOR PROPOSALS FOR THE SMALL GRANTS PROGRAMME UNDER THE GERMAN FINANCIAL COOPERATION WITH THE ASEAN CENTRE FOR BIODIVERSITY FOR THE PROGRAMME BMZ 2011 66545 “ASEAN HERITAGE PARKS SMALL GRANTS PROGRAMME”

The ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity (ACB), in cooperation with the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MOEF) of Indonesia, hereby announces the first call for proposals for the Small Grants Programme for Indonesia under a technical competition procedure for the funding of projects through a Medium Grant for the amount of EUR 100,000 1 and duration of up to 4 months. In this round, a total of one (1) Grant is available for a collaborative management planning exercise in Gunung Leuser National Park and Way Kambas National Park. The grant aims to further define priorities and align stakeholder interests and resources. The planned output / deliverable is a collaborative management and associated financial plan for each of the parks.

Deadline for submissions: 27 November 2017 17:00h (Philippine Standard Time) 16:00h Jakarta Time

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 The Small Grants Programme (SGP) for ASEAN Heritage Parks (AHPs)

The ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity has received assistance of German Financial Cooperation to support, through a Small Grants Programme (SGP), the efforts of the ASEAN Heritage Parks (AHP) to protect the biological diversity and improve livelihoods in and around (adjacent areas) their core zone. Indonesia and Myanmar were selected as the initial countries to pilot the SGP. In order to have a visible impact and with regard to efficiency considerations, KfW and ACB decided to focus the SGP’s initial phase on selected AHPs in the two countries of Myanmar and Indonesia. It is understood that this does not preclude other countries to be considered for possible further phases. The SGP aims to support a collaborative management, or co-management, approach for government- managed protected area landscapes and adjacent areas through multi-level co-management as a means to link the protected area officials with the local stakeholders. This approach highlights eight thematic fields of protected area management; introduces the concept of establishing protected area working groups; and a jointly developed, collaborative PA Management Plan, linking the core zone and the buffer zone agendas, comprising key landscape stakeholders. It is important that applicants familiarise themselves with the SGP, its approaches and Grant Making process, which is summarised in the Programme Management Manual (PMM). The PMM is available in the English language on https://aseanbiodiversity.org/key_programme/small-grantsprogramme/#downloadables

1The amount for the call for proposals is expressed in EUR, financial proposals shall be made in EUR, using the average monthly exchange rate published in the Official Journal of the European Union (in the C series), calculated for the last 6 months, where EUR 1 = 15762.75 IDR)

1 1.2 SGP Objectives and principal Thematic / Intervention Areas

The Small Grants Programme is intended for funding projects which contribute to the achievement of the following objectives: a. To improve biodiversity protection in line with the interests of the local population directly dependent on selected AHPs and adjacent areas; b. To improve the livelihood of local communities directly dependent on selected AHPs or adjacent areas In Indonesia, the SGP pursues three specific objectives, namely: Specific Objective 1 Sustainable livelihoods: Households and communities located in the priority areas benefit directly from the small grants programme, with improvements to their livelihoods Specific Objective 2 Biodiversity Conservation: Biodiversity threats to the two ASEAN Heritage Parks are reduced. Specific Objective 3 Co-management strengthened: Political and social support is increased for the integrity of AHPs and their values by District officials, government agencies and local stakeholders. In order to address identified threats and contributing to programme and specific objectives, the SGP supports interventions (Outputs) for the following thematic areas: 1. General protected area management (co-management). 2. Research and monitoring. 3. Law enforcement. 4. Habitat and species management. 5. Community outreach and conservation awareness. 6. Community Development (livelihood development). 7. (Eco)Tourism. 8. Sector Policy Development.

2 1.3 Conservation Issues / Challenges

In August 2016, the relevant stressors/threats for both parks were discussed, validated, and agreed upon (see Table 1 below) and management planning was added as an additional conservation issue. Both GLNP and WKNP have management plans that are of a good quality and the inclusion of this stressor recognises that the plans now need to be further developed to include the very progressive and positive multiplicity of stakeholder interests that is a defining feature of both NPs.

STRESSORS

AHP

Gunung Leusser FS 2012          TRA August 2016             

Way Kambas TRA 2016          

2 Pls. refer to attached Concept Note on Collaborative Management Planning for more details

2 Both WKNP and GLNP face a number of very pressing challenges that are summarised below: • Integration into the local administration and economic activity: integrating the NPs at the local level is cross-cutting. It effects many aspects of the parks management from encroachment through law enforcement to managing sustainable use activities. • Financing: both WKNP and GLNP face financing gaps in their budgets. The progressive approach to NGO participation is very positive but this is not integrated into a cohesive financial plan for the purposes of planning. Weaknesses in local participatory planning are a barrier to sharing costs in the buffer zones and there are very limited opportunities for revenue raising (non-tax revenues) within the protected areas. • Land conversion in the buffer zone: both parks face considerable challenges due to the conversion of habitat outside the national park, with a likely associated loss of ecosystem goods and services and increased vulnerability to future shocks (e.g. climate change, edge effect, etc.). Limitations on sustainable use opportunities restrict the options for developing sustainable use systems at the community level and will require innovative financing mechanisms (e.g. payment for ecosystem services) which, while possible, are very challenging to establish. • Species loss due to illegal activity: illegal activity inside the parks is driving species loss, in particular of a number of flagship species. This highlights some of the complexity of the challenges. It is most likely that increased financing would resolve the law enforcement issues inside the boundaries of the NPs. • Focus on flagship species: there is a clear focus on a small number of charismatic flagship species (e.g. tigers, rhinos, elephants and orang-utans). However, both WKNP and GLNP are globally important hotspots for biodiversity and it is important that the focus of management is broadened out to clearly recognise their global significance in this respect.

1.4 ACB-SGP interventions and opportunities in Indonesian AHPs

Given the issues outlined above, challenges to linking land management for conservation with sustainable livelihoods and resulting habitat conversion in the buffer zones, barriers to greater integration into the local administration, non-financial challenges to law enforcement and finance to the NPs per se, the small grants will be targeted at activities which enhance local participation, strengthen law enforcement, and link habitat management to benefits. Due to the high level of existing NGO support and the limits of NP influence on land use issues affecting change in the buffer zone or areas immediately adjacent to the NPs, it is important that the precise nature of these activities is determined and fine-tuned through the collaborative planning exercise. Therefore, ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity (ACB, the Programme Executing Agency / PEA) and Directorate of Biodiversity Conservation (KKH, the Project Implementing Agency / PIA) agree, based upon the objectives of the existing PA management plans, the understanding of the existing investment priorities, and the findings and assumptions outlined above, that in order to achieve the greatest impact the SGP shall prioritize on four thematic areas: • General park management - a collaborative management planning exercise in order to further define priorities and align stakeholder interests. While the output of this will be a collaborative management plan and associated financial plan this will be an important process to effect an adaptive and systemic change in the park management.

3 • Law enforcement - support will be given to establishing and increasing SMART patrolling in both protected areas. This will be further supported by inter-agency collaboration, awareness and capacity building with external law enforcement agencies and the judiciary. • Habitat and species management - this will involve rehabilitation of degraded areas inside the parks but concentrating mainly on areas outside the parks with a view to increasing the diversity of habitats outside the parks and the areas of semi-natural habitat in order to reverse the trend in land conversion to intensive monocultures, and also targeting specific species such as white-winged wood duck and Storm’s stork which are dependent upon vulnerable wetlands and may expand their available range. Attention should be given to activities which might provide wild resources currently illegally collected inside the park an opportunity to be produced and harvested in rehabilitated areas. • Community development - community-based habitat restoration in the buffer zone and areas immediately outside the NP will seek to catalyze additional resources from national programmes in order to restore important habitats for community use, and to protected important ecosystem services through community forestry approaches and the restoration of wetland functions. A defining principle of this approach will be to link benefits with wise management of biodiversity and ensure that costs incurred by the park are also accounted for by the enterprises and other agencies. There will be cross-cutting elements addressing the remaining four thematic areas such as: • Wildlife research and monitoring (where it applies to impact monitoring of identifying a species protection needs, etc.); • Community outreach and conservation awareness (where it applies to the specific interventions); • Ecotourism (where it provides a clear linkage between biodiversity conservation and community development, for example as a motivation), and; • Sector policy development (where it provides a positive feedback loop to mainstream experience and lessons learned or to remove barriers to ecosystem resilience and sustainable development).

2. SGP INDONESIA – CALL 1

2.1 Grant Authority

ACB as the Grant Authority will award the Grant.

2.2 Thematic Area

The ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity (ACB) and the Directorate of Biodiversity Conservation (KKH) invite eligible proponents to submit a proposal for the eligible AHPs under the Thematic Area “General Park Management :

Way Kambas National Park Gunung Leuser National Park 1. General park A collaborative management planning exercise in order to further define priorities and management align stakeholder interests. The output of this will be a collaborative management plan and associated financial plan. This will be an important process to effect an adaptive and systemic change in the park management. Details for the establishment of a 5Y Protected Area Management Plan are as per attached Concept Note, which constitutes the basis for proposal.

4 2.3 Intervention Priorities Eligible for Funding under this Call

In line with these main thematic priorities, the following table introduces examples for eligible activities and investments:

Suggested AHP Thematic area items 3 Examples of specific activities and investments stakeholders General park Senior AHP staff Facilitation of processes/capacities for encouraging management District authorities stakeholder participation Registered NGOs Travel for meetings and information exchanges CBOs Participatory management planning Zoning Participatory threat assessments Interested parties are invited to specify their specific approach and subsequent set of activities in technical and financial proposals for each of the parks.

2.4 Purpose of the Grant

The grant aims to support the planning processes in two AHPs and is therefore linked Thematic Area 1 (General Park Management). The purpose of the Grant is to: • To strengthen the existing PA Management and Zoning Plans for the two ASEAN Heritage Parks Way Kambas and Gunung Leuser National Park with full participation and ownership by key stakeholders in accordance with standing national policies; • To develop a collaborative five year management plan that integrates the existing PA Management Plans and the various, already existing commitments and activities by contributing stakeholders; • To identify priority interventions for immediate attention and potential SGP support

2.5 Project area (Eligible protected areas / AHPs)

Gunung Leuser National Park (GLNP) and Way Kambas National Park (WKNP), both located in Sumatra, are selected for grant funding under the SGP. Further, adjacent areas and identified buffer-zones to the parks are eligible for support. ACB and and KKH have agreed on the following geographic areas identified as priorities: • In WKNP, it is recommended to focus the programme on at least two villages, specifically Braja Harjosari, and the Rantau Jaya Udik II in Lampung Timur (east) District, because these are the conservation villages’ model in Way Kambas. These areas are also linked priorities for the Activities Performance Indicators (API) for the park. It is also recommended to support activities in Section I of Way Kanan and Section II of Kuala Penat. Final decision is to be taken by the stakeholders at the start of activities • In GLNP, the SGP focuses on Area III of the park because it provides a microcosm of all the issues faced by the park, and includes all the flagship species and areas. An expected outcome of the collaborative planning process in both AHPs is the confirmation of priority areas to be supported.

2.6 Scope of the Planning Process and General Types of projects eligible for funding

The planning process shall (i) develop a collaborative five year management plan that integrates the existing PA Management Plans and the various, already existing commitments and activities by

3Please note that in sites with low AHP staffing levels, some sections may be less clearly defined

5 contributing stakeholders for each park and (ii) identify priority interventions for immediate attention and eligible for SGP support. The process and its result is not limited to SGP interventions only and shall explicitly incorporate funding from national sources

2.7 Eligible Proponents

For this call, the following proponents are eligible to submit proposals: • National non-governmental organisations (NGOs) which (i) support biodiversity conservation, livelihood and community development related to AHPs and adjacent areas, (ii) operate on a non- profit basis, i.e. those whose activity is not meant to generate profit or which allocate profit for their statutory goals, (iii) registered in Indonesia with either MoEF or the respective eligible AHP and active for at least 18 months prior to the announcement date of the call for proposals. • National non-governmental organisations (NGOs), which support biodiversity conservation, livelihood and community development related to AHPs and adjacent areas in a lead function of a cooperation with national consulting companies, • International NGOs working in the field of biodiversity conservation and livelihood development which are officially registered in Indonesia or have signed MoUs with the respective governmental authorities for the implementation of proposed activities in the relevant areas. ACB and KKH encourage the applicants to submit applications in partnership or consortia. If an application is submitted in a partnership, it is necessary to append a document which confirms the establishment of the partnership, in the form of a letter of intent or a partnership agreement. Prior to the conclusion of the grant agreement, it will be required to present a signed partnership agreement. In case of a partnership, work-plans have to indicate the responsibilities taken by partners for specific and identifiable deliverables

3. INFORMATIONS FOR APPLICANTS 3.1 Grant implementation period and expenditure eligibility period

The grant period for this call is set – in consent of ACB, PIA, and AHP Management – to a period of four (4) months. The grant period starts with the date the Agreement is signed by both Grantee and Authority (Effectiveness of the Grant) 4. Due to the short-term character of the planning support, grant and expenditure eligibility period should be the same. However, for activities related finalising the assignment, eligible expenditure may be extended upon a justified request.

3.2 Special Requirements

As already mentioned, both in the programme participating AHPs differ in size, geography, key-species and composition, and pressure on the resource. The planning process needs to reflect these pronounced differences. The proponents are therefore required to submit (i) one standalone technical and financial proposal for Gunung Leusser National Park and (ii) one standalone technical and financial proposal for Way Kambas National Park.

4 Please see PMM Section 8.5 Grant Award and Effectiveness for details

6 The total amount may not exceed the allocated EUR 100,000 (one hundred thousand EUR), i.e. successful applicants are requested to develop necessary and sufficient activities per park and to support them through a comprehensive as well as comprehensible financial plan. Contents and structure of the plan need to be homogenous, thus Grant Authority and PIA wish to award the planning grant to one organization, i.e. both planning processes will be supported by one grantee only. Further, Grant Authority and PIA expect to the planning activities to be executed in parallel. To this end, the grantee will make available and field two planning teams. In order to arriving at the desired homogenous product, these teams should be coordinated by one experienced team leader, who is also in charge of the final products, i.e. the draft collaborative management plans. The attached Concept Note displays the intervention’s expected three outputs, namely 1. Stakeholder commitment on effective management of the AHPs WKNP and GNLNP increased; 2. Collaborative management and financing plans for the AHPs WKNP & GLNP are developed; 3. Community awareness on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and community- based livelihood development as well as governance enhanced. Please note that at least 3 quantifiable and time-bound performance indicators have to be presented as part of the AHP specific proposals. Technical proposals shall be submitted in ACB’s standard proposal format.

3.3 Budget, Financial Proposal, and Management cost

The monies made available in the call for proposals come from funds of the German Financial Cooperation with the ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity (KfW Ref.: BMZ 2011 66545). The amounts indicated below and throughout this document are given in EUR. Under this call, the collaborative management planning activity in the two AHPs shall be supported with a total amount of EUR 100,000. Against the requirements stated in Para 3.2 above, applicants are required to establish a detailed activity based financial / cost proposal and breakdown per AHP as part of the proposal. Cost proposals are to be submitted using ACB’s standard Activity-Cost-Milestone format. The proposals submitted must identify the significant differences in size, geography and task status between the two parks. These distinctions must be reflected in the cost estimates through distinguishable activities, their costs and milestones. Project management costs cannot exceed 10% of the total eligible costs of the project.

3.4 Eligible cost and expenditure

Direct and indirect costs are ruled by Chapter 7 of the Programme Management Manual (PMM) 5. ACB's methodology for calculating indirect costs is based on the Indirect Cost Policy by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Expenses are considered eligible if in line with PMM Section 10.5 (Eligible Expenses). Detailed conditions for the settlement of direct costs shall be specified by ACB as the Grant Authority in the project contract/agreement.

5 PMM Chapter 7: Cost Policy for Project Grants and Contracts for Applicant Organisations

7 4. GUIDANCE ON SGP PROJECT PLANNING

4.1 Principles of activity planning

Neither for Grant Authority nor PIA it would be acceptable to try circumventing the AHP authorities in the planning or implementation process. Projects are only eligible for funding if: (i) Related to or based on official AHP Management Plans, objectives and priorities therein. (ii) Related or based on official buffer zone development plans, or – in the absence of an official buffer zone – socio-economic development plans for areas adjacent to the parks. (iii) Developed in cooperation with and explicitly approved by the AHP-Management. Proponents need to consider that appointed Park Managements should take ownership of the activities in the long-term, which in turn will enhance policy formation by the conservation agency at the national level. The same stipulation holds for the Collaborative Management Plans, which are a key outcome of the process.

4.2 Criteria for projects eligible for SGP funding

Eligible SGP activities and investments address both biodiversity and livelihood aspects in the two AHPs and their adjacent areas / buffer zones. They include, inter alia, activities for conservation management, small equipment and investments for park and wildlife management, planning exercises and processes for stakeholder participation, livelihood alternatives and improvements as well as small, localized studies, awareness campaigns and conservation training. As a rule, SGP gives preference to projects that are the closest fit to the SGP and demonstrates a leading role for local civil society organizations. Priority will be given to grant projects which meet the following criteria: • Demonstrate a direct and clear relationship between the grant project and the overall programme goal; • Clearly state project objectives, deliverables, biodiversity conservation, and livelihood interventions and investments; • Contribute to conservation whilst addressing social issues (poverty, livelihood vulnerability) amongst resource users; • Planned and implemented jointly between 2 or more groups of stakeholders; • Use collaborative management/participatory approaches in innovative ways to address conservation problems; • Demonstrate a clear implementation and technical monitoring concept (“hand-holding”) with adequate technical specifications and clearly defined roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders; • Clearly mitigate main threats to the habitats and biodiversity of the protected area; • Demonstrate direct impacts on AHP bio-diversity and long term ecological sustainability; • Target villages which are located in areas of high biodiversity or with good accessibility to the protected area. These may include (i) villages situated inside a protected area, (ii) villages with overlapping land and natural resource rights with the protected area; (iii) villages with lands adjoining protected areas. Villages with no land adjoining the protected areas are lower priority. • Demonstrate best practice in the implementation of activities and model approaches which have potential to be scaled up;

8 • Demonstrate a clear strategy for the sustainability of funded items, such as maintenance and management concept; financial and social sustainability; • Establish appropriate costs for grant activities; • Clear, logical relationship between the problem statement, the objective of the project, and the conservation and livelihood activities proposed. Activities and investments that cannot be funded under the SGP comprise, among others, large park infrastructure (roads, large buildings), introduction of non-native species into protected areas, weapons and ammunition, displacement or re-settlement of people and communities, travel costs which are not directly part of a project, conference travel, regular staff salaries and recurrent costs.

5. PROPOSAL REVIEW AND GRANT AWARD 5.1 Proposal Assessment

Proposals are assessed in two stages, the Administrative and Substantive Review. Administrative Review is done by the Consultant and the SGP Project Coordinator. Only projects that meet all formal criteria shall be subject to substantive assessment. Substantive Review is carried out by ACB through its Technical Working Group (TWG), the Consultant in cooperation with the National Working Team Indonesia. The TWG makes use of criteria (please see PMM Section 8.4 Evaluation Criteria) to evaluate and score the proposals. Proposals that obtain less than 70% of points possible to be obtained in the substantive assessment, including at least 1 point under each assessment criteria, shall not be considered. Detailed project selection criteria (formal and substantive), along with the number of points awarded for each criterion, are included in the Programme Management Manual. The proposal with the highest technical score will be selected for award. 5.2 Grant Award

The Grant will be awarded by ACB as the Grant Authority through communications with the grantee in both, paper and electronic form. To this end, ACB will issue a Grant Agreement (see details in PMM Chapter 8 and Template in ANNEX 08)6.

7 5.3 Grant disbursement / Payment system

Please note that the PMM rules the entire financial management and reporting of SGP. Funding will be provided within a system of advance payments which depends on (i) size of the grant and (ii) its duration. This grant is categorised as a Medium grant; the payment schedule forsees an advance payment up to the level of 40% at award and 40% after successfully reaching set milestones. The advance payment is paid to the Grantee on the basis of the costed work-plan (Activity-Cost-Milestone), which becomes an integral part of the concluded Grant Agreement. The remaining 20% shall be paid after final acceptance of deliverables and approval of the final technical and financial report.

6 Details in PMM Chapter 8 and Template in ANNEX 08 7 Information on the disbursement schedules and financial management of grants that may be implemented under the Small Grant Scheme are included in the PM Manual.

9 6. DEADLINE FOR SUBMITTING PROPOSALS The call for proposals under the Small Grant Scheme is held in the period from 03 November2017 to 27 November 2017 until 17:00h (Philippine Standard Time) / 16:00h Jakarta Time.

7. GUIDANCE FOR APPLICANTS

7.1 Language of the proposal

The application form and any necessary annexes can only be submitted in English, regardless of whether the project is submitted by a national body or in collaboration with an international partner.

7.1 Format of submission

The proposal will be prepared using only the forms available on the ASEAN Biodiversity Centre website (https://aseanbiodiversity.org/key_programme/small-grants-programme/#downloadables). Please submit proposals signed by an authorised person together with the required annexes in electronic version (by e-mail, as PDF file). The PDF comprises signed scans of all the required documents. The submitted proposals in their electronic version must be identical with the original version which are kept at the proponents’ offices and available upon request by the Grant Authority. The application in the electronic version must be in the PDF file format serviced by e.g. Adobe Reader (pdf). ACB and KKH shall will not accept submissions in any other format and therefore dismiss the proposal at Administrative Review.

7.2 Downloadable documents

Please use for developing proposals and submissions the following forms and documents: • Document Set 1: Information forms concerning the proposing organization • Technical Proposal Format; • Financial Proposal (Activity-Cost-Milestone) Format • Small Grants Programme - Programme Management Manual • Project selection criteria; • Evaluation Roster • For Indonesia: Memorandum of Understanding on implementation of the ASEAN Heritage Parks Small Grants Programme between the ACB and the MOEF; • Mission Report 1 by Francis Hurst (Specialist on Collaborative, Community-Based Conservation); All documents are available for download at https://aseanbiodiversity.org/key_programme/small- grantsprogramme/#downloadables

7.3 Form of submission

Please submit your proposal only by e-mail. The required documents (entire proposal) together with the required annexes shall be send electronically to the following addresses:

Ms. Corazon A. de Jesus Jr. Ms Ratna Kusuma Sari Mr Guenther Meyer SGP Project Coordinator Chair, National SGP Working Team SGP SGP Chief Technical Advisor at ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity Domingo M. Lantican Avenue, Kehutanan Domingo M. Lantican Avenue, UpLos Banos – College GEDUNG MANGGALA WANABHAKTI UpLos Banos – College Los Baños, Laguna 4031 Blok 1 LT.8 Los Baños, Laguna 4031 Philippines Jl. Gatot Subroto, Jakarta 10270 Philippines Tel. +6349 536 2865, +6349 536 3989 Indonesia Tel. +63 91 521 522 91; +49 221 29 203 [email protected] [email protected] 601 [email protected]

10 7.4 Subject line for e-mail submission

Please indicate on your submissions clearly and visible in the English language the following subject-line:

SGP 1 IND – Proposal for Call 1: Collaborative Management Planning

7.5 Full and complete submission

Please note that in order to pass the Administrative Review submissions ought to contain the following: 1) Cover letter indicating clearly the following: Statement of submission of a proposal for project funding under the SGP “ASEAN Heritage Parks”, BMZ2011 66545; Project title. Full name of the applicant; Address of the applicant; 2) Document Set 1: Information concerning the proponent organization 3) Technical Proposal in the prescribed format 4) Financial Proposal in the prescribed format (Activity Cost Milestone)

8. COMMUNICATIONS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONCERNS All inquiries concerning the call for proposals should be directed to any of the following persons: Ms. Corazon A. de Jesus Jr. Mr Guenther Meyer SGP Project Coordinator SGP Chief Technical Advisor at ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity Domingo M. Lantican Avenue, Domingo M. Lantican Avenue, UpLos Banos – College UpLos Banos – College Los Baños, Laguna 4031 Los Baños, Laguna 4031 Philippines Philippines Tel. # +6349 536 2865, +6349 536 3989 Tel. +63 49 536 2865, +63 91 521 522 91; [email protected] +49 221 29 203 601 [email protected]

11 Call for Proposal Collaborative Management Planning Small Grant Programme in Indonesia

ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity (ACB) telah menerima bantuan Kerjasama Keuangan Jerman dalam mendukung Program Hibah Kecil (Small Grants Programme/SGP) terhadap upaya perlindungan Taman Warisan ASEAN (ASEAN Heritage Park/AHP). Dukungan program ini ditujukan untuk melindungi keanekaragaman hayati dan memperbaiki mata pencaharian masyarakat di dalam dan sekitar kawasan Asean Heritage Park. Pada tahapan pertama, Indonesia dan Myanmar terpilih sebagai negara pertama untuk menjadi pilot SGP.AHP terpilih untuk menerima hibah di Indonesia adalah Taman Nasional Gunung Leuser dan Taman Nasional Way Kambas.

Tahap awal pelaksanaan SGP adalah penyusunan Collaborative Management Planning (CMP). CMP merupakan dokumen perencanaan kegiatan yang disusun untuk Taman Nasional Gunung Leuser dan Taman Nasional Way Kambas. Dokumen ini selanjutnya akan menjadi panduan dalam penyusunan proposal kegiatan oleh LSM lokal. Anggaran untuk penyusunan CMP masing-masing EURO 50.000 untuk BBTN Gunung Leuser dan EURO 50.000 untuk BTN Way Kambas yang dilaksanakan dengan durasi 1-3 bulan.

ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity (ACB), bekerja sama dengan Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan (KLHK), dengan ini mengumumkan Call for Proposal untuk Penyusunan Collaborative Management Planning (CMP)-Small Grant Programme inIndonesia.

Project Executing Agency (PEA) dan otoritas kontrak: ASEAN Center for Biodiversity

Project Implementation Agency (PIA): Direktorat Konservasi Keanekaragaman Hayati (KKH) Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan (KLHK)

Batas Waktu: 27 November 2017

Informasi lebih lanjut mengenai Kerangka Acuan Kerja (Concept Note) tersedia pada lampiran 1.

Concept Note for Collaborative Management Planning

1. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY RELEVANT TO COLLABORATIVE MANAGEMENT PLANNING Project Activity Developing Collaborative Management of Way Kambas and Leuser National Park Participatory Management Planning for targeted ASEAN Heritage Parks Background The ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity (ACB) has received assistance of German Financial Cooperation to support, through a Small Grants Programme (SGP), the AHPs’ efforts to protect the biological diversity and improve livelihoods in and around (adjacent areas) their core zone. Further, the SGP at all times works to build capacity of local partners and to support collaboration of all governmental, non-governmental, academic and private sector organizations related to the programme. Based on Feasibility Studies (FS) of 2011 and 2012, Indonesia, Vietnam, Lao PDR and Myanmar are regarded the initial countries to pilot the SGP. KfW and ACB decided to focus the SGP’s initial phase on selected AHPs in the two countries of Myanmar and Indonesia. ASEAN member states have declared certain national parks and reserves as ASEAN Heritage Parks (AHPs) based on their uniqueness, diversity and outstanding values, in order for their importance as conservation areas to be appreciated regionally and internationally. AHPs are defined within the ASEAN context as “Protected areas of high conservation importance, preserving in total a complete spectrum of representative ecosystems of the ASEAN region”. There is now a total of 38i AHPs in the system; the AHP network is motivated by recognition of the high biodiversity values of SE Asia and the need to address common threats. Major Categories of AHPs include natural parks, natural reserves, cultural sites, prehistoric sites and Peace Parks. For biodiversity, Indonesia counts internationally among the most important countries in the world: it is home to 7 major biogeographic regions, centred on the major islands and their surrounding seas. Indonesia ranks as one of the 17 “megadiverse” countries: 2 of the world’s 25 “hotspots”, 18 WWF “Global 200” ecoregions, and 24 of Bird Life International’s “Endemic Bird Areas”ii. Indonesia is home to 8,157 species of vertebrate fauna (mammals, birds, herpetofauna, and fish), of which 270 mammals, 386 birds, 328 reptiles, 204 amphibians, and 280 fishiii are endemic. About 10% of the world's (1,900 species) butterflies are found here as well as some 1,500 species of algae, 80,000 species of spores plant, 595 species of lichen, 2,197 species of ferns and ca. 16 % of plant seed flora (30,000-40,000 species). There are as much as 6,000 species of flora and fauna are used daily for food, medicines, cosmetics, dyes and other purposes; genetic diversity translates into stable livelihoods and income opportunity. The Government of Indonesia has undertaken significant efforts to protect its biodiversity through the establishment of a protected area network comprising round about 27.5 million ha in 558 management unitsiv of various denomination: 220 nature reserves, 77 wildlife reserves, 51 national parks, 123 nature recreational parks, 27 grand forest parks, and 11 hunting parks. Gunung Leuser, Lorenz, Kerinci Seblat, and Way Kambas are the national parks designated ASEAN Heritage Parks. These AHPs are key biodiversity areas, amongst the 37 top-priority sites for action, and are assigned as core areas of the ASEAN Heritage Park programme with the primary purpose to promote and demonstrate a balanced relationship between conservation and livelihood efforts. AHP SGP in AHPs and the contained biodiversity are, with little exception, not immune against the Indonesia common problems of any protected area, e.g. rapid population expansion, fast economic growth and persistent poverty weak laws and enforcement, land use intensification and urbanisation, land tenure and resource use rights conflicts with local communities and loss of habitat. As any other PA and more often than not, AHPs remain alien to populations living in adjacent areas and are regarded as imminent threat to livelihoods. This holds for Kerinci Seblat National Park (KSBP), Way Kambas National Park (WKNP) as well as for Gunung Leusser National Park (GLNP); all are located in Sumatra, key biodiversity areas, amongst the national 37 top-priority sites for action and designated AHPs. Sumatra, among other designations, contains 13 Important Bird Areas, and the UNESCO World Heritage Site’s Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra (covering the national parks of Gunung Leuser, Kerinci Seblat and Bukit Barisan Selatan). The protected area (PA) network for Sumatra covers 4.52 million ha and includes with Gunung Leuser National Park (1.01 million ha) one of Asia’s largest protected areas as well as the much smaller Way Kambas National Park (0.125 million ha). A reportedly significant lower deforestation rates against comparable areas outside of the network can be seen as the common denominator for the PA system. WKNP and GLNP have been selected for participation in the ACB SGP. Both parks are well established, with strategic and subsequent management plans as well as Zonation (core, buffer zones) Plans in place. Zone boundaries, however, are occasionally contradicted by actual utilization of lands, e.g. at WKNP village’s boundaries are sitting directly on WKNP’s core area. This means to revisit and re-negotita zone boundaries as one means to enhance the park’s conservation effort. The four flagship species of the Gunung Leuser NP are Elephant, Orangutan, Tiger and Rhino, thus stabilising and increasing the population are the objectives set. Some of the problems and issues of the parks relate to environmental fees for the local community management and ecotourism activities. The Park Management hopes activities under the SGP will support the sustainable utilization of natural resources through better collaboration of the NP with local government and local communities. Further, the management flagged the need for habitat restoration for and improved information about the flagship species as important for success as the local communities’ involvement in the management of the national park. The development of nature tourism could provide income opportunities, which would reduce the pressure on the park’s resources. The five flagship species of the Way Kambas AHP are Tapir, Elephant, Tiger, Sun bear and Rhino. The Park Management works towards a performance indicator for a 10% increase of the flagship species over 5 years. Important issues in the area are human- elephant conflicts, forest fire, illegal logging and illegal hunting. The park management sees as potential activities to be included in the SGP ecotourism, habitat conservation and activities for involvement of the local community. The latter should aim at stabilising and improving the income situation. Causes of forest fire in Way Kambas were reported a mixture of natural cause during the dry season and accidental fires caused by illegal hunters. Collaborative Fortress approach versus collaborative approach Management During the last four decades, there has been a rapid development of protected area management approaches, resulting in two alternative approaches. The ‘‘fortress conservation’’ approach, focuses investments on protection measures and largely excludes the economic and development aspirations of the local people vvi. However, these enforcement investments are relatively costly, requiring fairly intensive, long- term funding commitments - with no social benefits. They may also lead to social conﬂict and non-compliance with conservation-related regulations viiviii, and lose both local political and social support. In the absence of social fencing, notable declines in targeted large mammals have occurred from commercial poachingix . The alternative approach takes account of the needs of communities and stakeholders within the broader social-ecological landscape, through buffer zone managementxxi, integrated conservation and developmentxii and collaborative managementxiii; all focus on local communities while aiming to preserve biodiversity within reserves. However, a number of reviews of integrated conservation and development projects (ICDPs) suggest that have largely failed to reconcile conservation and development agendas xiv,xv,xvi,xvii,xviii. Co-management Collaborative management, or co-management, has been promoted as a means to bridge the gap between the protected area and local stakeholders. It has been defined in different ways, e.g. ‘the sharing of power and responsibility between the government and local resource users’xix, or ‘governance systems that combine state control with local, decentralized decision making and accountability and which, ideally, combine the strengths and mitigate the weaknesses of each’xx. Co-management is a continuous problem-solving process, rather than a fixed state, involving extensive deliberation, negotiation and joint learning within problem-solving networksxxi. This presumption implies that co-management research should focus on how different management tasks are organized and distributed concentrating on the function, rather than the structure, of the system. Such an approach has the effect of highlighting that power sharing is the result, and not the starting point, of the process. Carlsson and Berkes (2005) recommend that the co-management approach should include (1) defining the social-ecological system under focus; (2) mapping the essential management tasks and problems to be solved; (3) clarifying the participants in the problem-solving processes; (4) analyzing linkages in the system, in particular across levels of organization and across geographical space; (5) evaluating capacity-building needs for enhancing the skills and capabilities of people and institutions at various levels; and (6) prescribing ways to improve policy making and problem-solving. Bloomquist (2009) proposes that multiple and polycentric institutional arrangements operating (imperfectly) may offer prospects for improved sustainable management of natural resourcesxxii. Berkes (2002) suggests there is a need to design and support management institutions at more than one level, with attention to interactions across scale from the local level upxxiii. Multi-level co-management in Asia In 2013, Parr et al. described an approach for managing government-managed protected area landscapes through multi-level co-management, as a means to link the protected area officials with the local stakeholders, including village and district representativesxxiv. This approach tentatively made some notable recommendations: it highlighted the need to recognize seven fields of protected area management, introduced the concept of establishing protected area working groups and proposed a bridging supervisory body be established linking the core zone and the buffer zone agendas, comprising key landscape stakeholders. However, the multi-level co- management system was mooted based upon an unconnected assortment of management examples from four protected areas in Lao P.D.R. and Vietnam. A subsequent review of the multi-level co-management system in Periyar Tiger Reserve, a Learning Centre of Excellence in Southern India (India Eco-development Project 2004), demonstrated that this well-financed government protected area also established three landscape protected area bodies, recognized six specialized fields of protected area management, established protected area working groups in research, law enforcement, habitat management, community development and ecotourism (Parr, in press). A review of the management system in Mount Kitanglad Range Natural Park revealed that the ASEAN Heritage Park established a Protected Area Management Board, under which no less than 10 working groups functioned. Elsewhere, in Southeast Asia, Thailand has established multi-stakeholder Protected Area Committees in all its national parks and wildlife sanctuaries, though these bodies are largely ineffective due to the lack of incentives for local stakeholder involvement. Laos has some of the most promising co-management systems, particularly at Nakai Nam Then and Hin Nam No National Protected Area. In Indonesia, some well cited co- management models include Bunaken Marine National Park xxv. Purpose of the The results gap analysis of the first SGP-ACB mission to both parks has identified a lack Concept Note of integration of the programs and activities of stakeholders in support of AHP and a shortfall in zoning. This is remarkable, given the remarkably high level of NGO collaboration in both WKNP and GLNP already existing, it is important that this is both coordinated and broadened out to include other non-state partners (e.g. District Government and local communities). Furthermore, although there are existing ten-year strategic plans already in place, there is an opportunity to include these key players in the planning process in a coordinated manner and with management objectives which are more broadly shared between stakeholders. The benefits of this process are: • A common vision for the future of the AHPs shared by all parties; • Alignment of interests in different sectors and different agencies; • Greater coordination of resources within the AHP; • Identification of resources, skills, and activities gaps; • The ability to affect land use in the buffer zones for the benefit of biodiversity conservation and the maintenance of a flow of ecosystem goods and services; • Integration of the AHPs into the local development frameworks, and; • More effective communication between different parties involved in land management. Before the SGP can be operationalized it is necessary to develop a collaborative management planning framework to “direct the traffic”. The initial “trigger” for the SGPs therefore, should be a collaborative management plan to achieve the long term vision of the management plan which includes: • State • Local government, • Non-state stakeholders (NGOs and local communities) • Activities arranged into discrete Management Actions which will contribute to achieving a management objective • Management objectives organized into thematic areas which correspond to work programmes (e.g. general park management, species and habitat conservation, wildlife research and monitoring, ) Critically, the national parks are unlikely to achieve their objectives on the state subvention alone. Financial support from the non-state sources is vital to the park achieving the objectives of the management plan. Therefore it is also necessary to develop a financial plan to support the collaborative management plan which includes the full financial investment required to implement the plan, the sources of funding (e.g. NP, SGP, local government, donor, NGO, etc.), available funds and the funding gaps. Financial planning needs to take account of all the financial resources available to the park (state, non-state and donor funds). The financial planning needs to be organized so that key work programmes or thematic areas (e.g. general park management and administration, law enforcement, etc.) can be disaggregated from others (e.g. awareness and education, community development, etc.) in order that spending on the thematic areas (work programmes) is visible and funding gaps can be easily identified and addressed. In this way, the SGP will contribute to removing some of the most critical barriers preventing the achievement of results (e.g. partnership coordination, integration of park and district development plans, linkages between conservation benefits and costs, an ability to affect conservation management outside the NPs boundaries), the SGP is results-based and can easily be demonstrated to be contributing to the NPs KPIs (Annex 11, 14 & 15), the SGP will be used to finance an individual management action under a Thematic Area or work programme and these activities will be clearly linked to an objective necessary to reach the long-term vision of the management plan. The purpose of the collaborative management plan is to align the interests of all the stakeholders towards a common vision which includes the conservation of biodiversity and the maintenance of ecosystem goods and service both inside the AHP and immediately outside its boundaries. Policy and The GOI policy and environmental regulation, particularly on sustainable forest environmental conservation, have the main regulations, such as follows: regulation at the 1. Law Number 5/1990 concerning the Conservation of Biological Natural Resources government of and the Ecosystem mentioned that conservation area and biosphere reserve Indonesia (GOI) should be protects and preserve for the purpose of research and education. 2. Law No 5/1994 regarding Ratification of Convention on Biological Diversity; 3. Government Regulation No 28/2011 regarding KPA (Nature Protected Area) and KSA (Nature Reserve Area), mentioned that national park as a conservation areas is managed by zoning system and there are 3 (three) principles of conservation, namely protection, preservation and sustainable use of natural resources; 4. Government Regulation Number 26 Year 2008 regarding National Spatial Planning; 5. Regulation of the Minister of Forestry No. p.49 / Menhut-II / 2011 on National Forest Plan (RKTN) Year 2011-2030; 6. Regulation of the Minister of Environment and Forestry Number P.39/Menlhk- Setjen/2015 on the Strategic Plan of the Ministry of Environment and Forestry in 2015-2019; 7. Regulation of the Director General of Ecosystem and Natural Resource Conservation Year 2015-2019 Number: P.7/KSDAE-SET/2015 of the Strategic Plan of the Directorate General of Ecosystem and Natural Resource Conservation Year 2015 to 2019; 8. Management Plan and Strategic Plan of WKNP and GLNP; In regard of international regulation on environmental and conservation area issue, then the proposed project has also take into account of International policy and regulation such as follows: 1) Declaration of UNESCO year 1981 regarding Gunung Leuser Biosphere Natural Reserve; 2) Strategy Seville on UNESCO Document 28C/Resolution 2.4 of the 28th UNESCO General on November 1995; 3) Madrid Declaration on Program the Man and the Biosphere (MAB) UNESCO in 2008; 4) Declaration of UNESCO on GLNP area as a Natural World Heritage Site; 5) Declaration of ASEAN Heritage Park Committee V on GLNP and WKNP as ASEAN Heritage Park; Location for the The Collaborative Management Planning will take place at the two nominated AHPs: Planning Process • Gunung Leuser National Park – Area 3 and its buffer zone • Way Kambas National Park – entire park and adjacent areas Planned Outcome Outcome: Draft and final/ approved Five Years Management Plan for implementation of and Duration of conservation and livelihood interventions for the AHPs Gunung Leuser and Way action Kambas. The validity of the MP follows GOI regulations,  5 years (60 months). Overall duration of Management Plan preparation: 4 month of which 1) Preparation, methodology, work-planning, mobilisation: two weeks 2) Preparatory works for draft documents: three months 3) Review and draft final: two months 4) Approval process Key Stakeholders National Park Management, MoEF, KKH, Local Government, NGOs, Local Communities Objectives of the To strengthen the existing PA Management and Zoning Plans for the two ASEAN action Heritage Parks Way Kambas and Gunung Leuser National Park with full participation and ownership by key stakeholders in accordance with standing national policies; To develop a collaborative five year management plan that integrates the existing PA Management Plans and the various, already existing commitments and activities by contributing stakeholders; Justification Protected areas governance and participation in planning and management. Both GLNP and WKNP have a remarkably high level of collaboration with the non- governmental (NGO) sector; with NGOs providing both technical and financial resources to support key areas of the national park. This collaboration, between NP and NGOs is clearly an important component of conservation in Indonesia and is widely accepted and acknowledged by the NPs. Despite this close relationship there is no formalised structure to allow NGOs to participate in the planning and management except on an ad hoc basis for specific interventions. While this approach to NGO involvement is very positive it needs to be strengthened and formalised through a participatory structure that allows regular review of plans to ensure interventions remain adaptive and is firmly embedded in the management planning and subsequent management plan. Without this formal structure, possibly an advisory committee or similar forum with clear roles and responsibilities, opportunities for greater synergies and efficiencies in the allocation of financial, material and technical resources may be lost. The protected area management plan is the central policy document for the national park and the management authority. “The preparation of the plan is the first opportunity for the authority to carefully consider the longer term priorities for the park and engage all the relevant partners and stakeholders in this process”xxvi. Essentially the management plan is not only a technical plan for the national park, it must also describe the means of governing the protected area. Ultimately the management plans’ primary function is to ensure that the ecosystem(s) contained within the national park are resilient to the pressures and challenges in the future that might otherwise destroy its natural values. “Governance is the means for achieving direction, control, and coordination that determines the effectiveness of management” xxvii. While there is no doubt that the state, through the management unit, remains the highest authority in the national park, “resilience is determined not only by a systems ability to buffer or absorb shocks, but also by its capacity for learning and self-organisation to adapt to change”xxviii. Therefore, a governance system that enables a broader participation in planning and management should arguably be more resilient (effective for biodiversity conservation purposes) than one which restricts participation of stakeholders or ignores opposing views. Each park presently has a management plan; this is a ten-year strategic plan largely based upon the national strategic objectives. These objectives need to be aligned with local level interests both within the park and the buffer zone. Therefore, a prerequisite for the SGP should be the development of management plans which provide a structured approach to stakeholder participation and collaboration in the planning process and subsequent management; collaborative management plans. As was found to be the case in Myanmar, a management plan is a prerequisite for directing the SGPs, which are by their very nature, financial interventions. However, in the case of WKNP and GLNP these plans will likely be more sophisticated due to previous planning experience and their second generation status. Expected outputs 1. Stakeholder commitment an effective management of the AHPs WKNP and Please note: GNLNP increased Indicators for Indicators: Outputs 1 – 3 need a) to be set in the b) proposal c) Clarification : Lack of commitment by relevant stakeholders, e.g. local/district governments, PA managers, and communities to conservation is often deep-rooted in their sectoral view and respective interests as well as in the absence of communication. A limited understanding of benefits a coordinated and mutual re-enforcing approach to conservation and socio-economic development interventions can often be observed. . Through intensive dialogue and consultation with local government, supported by training workshops for decision makers involved as well as for local communities, understanding of role and functions of PAs and the sub-set AHPs should improve. For effective management planning, a clarification of interests and obligations needs to be part of the exchange. With an improved understanding of options and potential benefits commitment for an improved AHP management seems to be more obtainable. 2. Collaborative management and financing plan for AHPs WKNP & GLNP developed Indicators: a) b) c) Clarification: As established above, both AHPs The collaborative planning process will commence with a series of stakeholder dialogues series to introduce integrated natural resource conservation and sustainable development participated by stakeholders such as KKH, district governments, Forestry Provincial Office, the Head Office of WKNP & GLNP, scientists from research institutions and universities, NGO, private sector, local communities, and other users and/or beneficiaries of biological resources in the area. Then, border zone of AHPs should be agreed by stakeholders. In the meantime the capacity of officials of the National Park as key actors in management planning of protected area need still to be increased. Therefore formulations of the plans have been set based on these steps as mention in indicators for output 2. 3. Community awareness on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and community-based livelihood development as well as governance enhanced. Indicators: a) b) c) Potential To achieve of the project objective, the following approaches and methods are Approaches and suggested : Methods: (1) Consultative and participatory methods as the preferred main approach to ensure involvement and enhancing ownership during the planning process and beyond; (2) The Planning Support Team (PST) will work collaboratively with all the primary stakeholders at the national, provincial and district levels in view of gaining the support and increasing ownership on the project dealing with managing of AHPs WKNP &GLNP. (3) Expert meeting/discussion and stakeholders’ consultation both National and Regional for information sharing and dissemination of AHPs WKNP & GLNP. (4) Joint review of existing PA Management and Financing Plans as well as current technical and financial support by other stakeholders; (5) Stakeholders meetings at different levels on collaborative AHP’s management carried out for sharing information and experience; (6) Joint formulating of the draft collaborative management and financing plan; (7) Identifying/re-negotiating/re-confirming zone boundaries (core / buffer) of AHPs WKNP & GLNP; (8) Identifying and agreeing on utilisation levels withing the buffer zones of AHPs WKNP & GLNP; (9) Involve local NGOs in project activities to facilitate communication between the government (local government and the national park authority and local communities). Main activities The main activities will be include: Pls. note: Activities for Output 1: Activities have to Activity 1.1 Coordination and consultation meeting amongst key stakeholders for the be further effective AHPs WKNP & GLNP collaborative management planning process developed as part Activity 1.2 of the technical Activity 1.3 and financial Activities for Output 2: proposals Activity 2.1 Asses the existing conflict of interests in implementing integrated conservation natural resource and development. Activity 2.2 Collecting data and information on design and zonation border of AHPs WKNP & GLNP. Activity 2.3 Activities for Output 3: Activity 3.1 Activity 3.2 . Activity 3.3 Expertise and Personnel and organisation of registered national and international NGOs operating in operational Indonesia have a wealth of experience in project management in various locations and capacity: contexts, particularly in regard of conservation efforts. Planning Support The planning support will be executed by qualified national specialists. Grant Authority Team and PIA expect the planning activities to be executed in both parks in parallel. To this end, the grantee will make available and field two planning teams. In order to arriving at the desired homogenous product, these teams should be coordinated by one experienced teamleader, who is also in charge of developing the final products, i.e. the draft collaborative management plans. The foreseen teams comprise at the minimum of the following specialists: 1. PA Management and facilitation specialist (team-leader, rapporteur, and responsible for overall delivery) with proven experience in Collaborative Management Planning (for both parks); 2. Community livelihood and conflict resolution specialists (co-rapporteur); 3. Policy analysis specialists 4. Documentation specialists 5. GIS specialists 6. To be determined by the proposer and justified as per proposal Deliverables of the (1) Detailed workplan two weeks after mobilisation; Planning Support (2) Capacity building and awareness training necessary for the planning process Team per AHP (3) Clarified institutional arrangements supporting collaborative AHP’s management and forest law enforcement; (4) A draft collaborative AHP’s management and financing plan developed with and communicated to primary stakeholders; (5) Boundaries of AHP’s core area and buffer zones identified and mapped; (6) Agreed interventions/utilisation levels within the buffer zone; (7) Initiated approval process for management plan and zoning; (8) An agreed priority list for SGP Interventions in accordance to set Thematic Areas (9) A proposal for a series of technical trainings for improving capacity and skills on conservation and community based livelihoods for selected stakeholders; Partners Executing Agency and partners The Executing Agency of the project will be the managements of WKNP and GLNP which will assume all the responsible for its coordination and implementing of the activities. The WKNP & GLNP is a unit under the Directorate General of Ecosystem and Natural Resource Conservation of the Ministry of Environment and Forestry, has capabilities, expertise to manage the NP as core zone of the AHPs. It will responsible for managing of the implementation of activities and the ACB SGP fund. WKNP & GLNP has also experience in manage grant from ACB-SGP for the project of Biodiversity Conservation and Livelihood Development Management Investment Program.

Executing Agency will work together with some experts/consultants, local district Planning Department (BPDA), forestry service of districts level, communities group, local NGO, university or other relevant institution to implement some activities in the field. If necessary, the other activities will be implemented through sub-contracts with local NGO for efficiency. Training activities will involve local communities and local government in District. In the implementation of the activities will involve local NGOs to facilitate communication between the government (local government and the national park authority) and local communities. Key project personnel in the implementation of the project provided by Executing Agency briefly presented with their main roles and responsibilities. At the field level, the institutional bodies and partners for landscape protected area management are recognized as follow : 1. District (local government) 2. Park Management and senior management team (core team) 3. Community-based organizations 4. NGOs 5. Priority villages in the buffer zone 6. To be determined as part of the process

MANAGEMENT PLANNING - INTERVENTION LOGIC Examples Impact Increased understanding of park conservation Pre- and post-project attitudes of , park staff, community-based measures and optimal co-management organizations and villagers lead to increased interventions among all key stakeholders support to protect the park. involved with two ASEAN Heritage Park landscapes in Indonesia. Outcomes Sustainable livelihoods: Well-balanced Participatory threat analysis meetings held allocation of limited funds to target livelihood amongst different groups of stakeholders and interventions in each AHP prescribed in plan identification of priority mitigation grant packages

Livelihood grants provided by SGP and other organisations to buffer communities which directly mitigate specific threats and linked to conservation agreements Biodiversity conservation: Improved protection of biodiversity values in each AHP Improved enforcement effort based on the agreed Management Plan and arrests as well as improvement in biodiversity values (vegetation cover and populations of key Co-management: Strengthened collaboration species and rare species) among key partners involved with AHP protected area landscapes Regular three-monthly meetings of the Township Environment and Conservation Committees, with Minutes of Meetings

Establishment and functioning of community- based organizations related to protected area issues Objectives and Overall development objective Indicators To produce a five year collaborative By , 5-year Management plans management plan for Gunung Leuser’s Area 3 produced with process clearly described inside and Way Kambas NP with full participation and the document. ownership by key stakeholders by , and subsequently implement it. Final evaluation report on participatory planning process.

Immediate objectives 1. To promote participatory planning and co- By , community-based organizations in management in two ASEAN Heritage Parks in community development, outreach and/or Indonesia involving small grants delivery. ecotourism delivering programmes in the buffer zones (and core zones, if applicable) of 2. To strengthen participation involvement of the AESEAN Heritage Parks local communities in PA management planning through promoting the delivery of small grants By , community-based organizations into buffer zone communities to mitigate and priority villages are promoting the threats to four ASEAN Heritage Parks delivery of small grants and reduced threat mitigation in targeted ASEAN Heritage Parks. 3. To strengthen biodiversity conservation interventions through PA management planning By , international and national in four ASEAN Heritage Parks conservation NGOs are promoting biodiversity conservation co-management and participatory management planning in four ASEAN Heritage Parks. Output and Preparatory Phase Output Indicators  Summary monthly reports produced on *All outputs are written documents for Please elaborate protected area management activities contributing to the management plan so no  A report produced on baseline surveys indicators are required relevant to each AHP  Minutes of Meetings produced for all meetings  Orientation study tour reports to other PAs in Indonesia with an Collaborative Management Plan  Participatory threat analysis reports for each stakeholder group  Biodiversity assessments reports  Socio-economic reports on priority villages produced for each ASEAN Heritage Site Management Planning Process  Draft management plan sections prepared by core management planning team (Park Directors and senior staff) to allocate responsibilities and drafting of sections  Minutes of meeting of regular meetings of working groups and community based organizations to develop five year work programmes  Involve villages through community based organizations  Minutes of Meeting for special meetings to review management plan progress  Draft zoning scheme prepared  Final draft management plan prepared Plan Review and approval  Summary reports and photographs of public hearings in villages  Minutes of meeting of review and approval process by respective GoI entities  Minutes of meeting of review and approval by KKH

II. Relevance of the Interventions The main threats to the key biodiversity features in the two targeted ASEAN Heritage Sites are identified below. In August 2016, the for both parks relevant stressors/threats were discussed, validated, and agreed upon (see Table 1 below) and management planning was added as an additional conservation issue. Both GLNP and WKNP have management plans that are of a good quality and the inclusion of this stressor recognises that the plans now need to be further developed to include the very progressive and positive multiplicity of stakeholder interests that is a defining feature of both NPs. Table 1 Stressors

STRESSORS

fire

pollution capacity agriculture geothermal local mining construction forest products industrial mining / management unit's traditional livestock herding and grazing small-scale fuelwoodlogging / extraction road / infrastructure traditional agriculturesmall -farmer oriented claims, encroachment settlements / enclaves management planning wildlife-human conflict invasive exotic species market-oriented logging over / destructive fishing recrational / touristic use AHP exploitation of wildlife and boundary conflicts & land

Gunung Leusser FS 2012          TRA August 2016             

Way Kambas TRA 2016          

Both WKNP and GLNP face a number of very pressing challenges that are summarised below: • Integration into the local administration and economic activity: integrating the NPs at the local level is cross-cutting. It effects many aspects of the parks management from encroachment through law enforcement to managing sustainable use activities. For instance, sustainable use options such as ecotourism, which might offer mechanisms to link conservation management with local economic livelihood development are proving hard to regulate effectively due to institutional and agency separation of responsibilities (e.g. tourist guides in GLNP are licensed by the District and not the NP making it hard to enforce rules and regulations). • Financing: both WKNP and GLNP face considerable financing gaps in their budgets. The progressive approach to NGO participation is very positive but this is not integrated into a cohesive financial plan for the purposes of planning. Weaknesses in local participatory planning are a barrier to sharing costs in the buffer zones and there are very limited opportunities for revenue raising (non-tax revenues) within the protected areas. • Land conversion in the buffer zone: both parks face considerable challenges due to the conversion of habitat outside the national park, with a likely associated loss of ecosystem goods and services and increased vulnerability to future shocks (e.g. climate change, edge effect, etc.) is worrying. Economy and ecosystem are probably more resilient if they are diverse. However, there has been a steady decline in the areas of semi-natural or natural forest around both parks in favor of intensive cash crop and plantation farming that is both structurally and genetically homogenous. The impact on both of the protected areas, long term, is an uncertainty and we cannot be precisely sure what this might be. However, a precautionary approach might be to intervene in land use in the immediate areas around the NPs (the buffer zones) and try to reverse the trend of land conversion from one of high diversity to one of little diversity to support the NPs aims and objectives. Limitations on sustainable use opportunities restrict the options for developing sustainable use systems at the community level and will require innovative financing mechanisms (e.g. payment for ecosystem services [PES]) which, while possible, are very challenging to establish. • Species loss due to illegal activity: illegal activity inside the parks is driving species loss, in particular of a number of flagship species. This highlights some of the complexity of the challenges. It is most likely that increased financing would resolve the law enforcement issues inside the boundaries of the NPs. However, there is a pressing need to integrate law enforcement interventions with external agencies such as the police and judiciary in order to provide a more measured response to criminal activity and gain the support the police and courts. • Focus on flagship species: there is a clear focus on a small number of charismatic flagship species (e.g. tigers, rhinos, elephants and orang-utans). However, both WKNP and GLNP are globally important hotspots for biodiversity and it is important that the focus of management is broadened out to clearly recognise their global significance in this respect. For instance, both NPs are recognised as Important Bird Areas (IBAs) and important centres for plant diversity. While there is no doubting the importance of these two parks for their flagship species and the efforts and investments thus far, a more holistic approach is critical for a conservation approach, for expanding the opportunities of financing and as a means to expand conservation land management outside of the national park boundaries (large charismatic flagship species are difficult to manage outside of protected areas).

Further, the WKNP management office added river pollution as a threat to the park. The pollution is caused by intensive agricultural activities at Raja Basa Lama I, specifically by the National Tropical Fruit Cooperation (PT NTF). Pesticides used in cultivation as well as the cow faeces are disposed directly and untreated trough a dumpster leak to the river. The pollution source is near the upstream of Way Kapuk Bawah which is located on the boundary of the park. This river connects runs through Way Kambas and poses a serious threat to the wildlife in the park.

Threat Mitigation through the Small Grants Programme The planned management interventions should address the above stressors and identified threats: • At Area 3 of Gunung Leuser National Park, the interventions should reduce . It may also resolve solutions for mining issues. • At Way Kambas National Park: the interventions should reduce . Participatory threat analysis and developing mitigation packages Participatory threat analysis workshops should be held with four priority target audiences, these being the (i) the relevant district authorities; (ii) the ASEAN Heritage Park staff (the senior staff being the core management planning team); (iii) the community-based organizations and the local/regional NGOs and (iv) the villages themselves. The participants are requested to list the threats to each ASEAN Heritage Park. They are then requested to rank the threats according to whether they consider them (a) high (b) medium or (c) low levels of threat. Then against each level of threat they are requested to consider development interventions most suited to mitigate the threats.

III. Linking Management Plan and SGP as Methodology for Sustainability: For the purpose of linking the MP with developing grant interventions for Indonesia, four thematic areas were identified which should lead to the achievement of the expected outcomes/objectives. Therefore, the ACB, based upon the objectives of the existing PA management plans and the understanding of the existing investment priorities and the findings and assumptions outlined in previous sections recommends that in order to achieve the greatest impact the SGP should focus on four thematic areas: • General park management; • Law enforcement; • Habitat and species management, and; • Community development. However, there will be cross-cutting elements addressing the remaining four thematic areas such as: • Wildlife research and monitoring (where it applies to impact monitoring of identifying a species protection needs, etc.); • Community outreach and conservation awareness (where it applies to the specific interventions); • Ecotourism (where it provides a clear linkage between biodiversity conservation and community development, for example as a motivation), and; • Sector policy development (where it provides a positive feedback loop to mainstream experience and lessons learned or to remove barriers to ecosystem resilience and sustainable development). The priority thematic areas can be further defined as: • General park management: a collaborative management planning exercise in order to further define priorities and align stakeholder interests. While the output of this will be a collaborative management plan and associated financial plan this will be an important process to effect an adaptive and systemic change in the park management. • Law enforcement: support will be given to establishing and increasing SMART patrolling in both protected areas. This will be further supported by inter-agency collaboration, awareness and capacity building with external law enforcement agencies and the judiciary. • Crosscutting: Community development and ecotourism: community-based habitat restoration in the buffer zone and areas immediately outside the NP. This will seek to catalyze additional resources from national programmes in order to restore important habitats for community use and to protected important ecosystem services through community forestry approaches and the restoration of wetland functions. Support to livelihood development based upon habitat restoration and sustainable use of biodiversity. This will focus on enhancing the buffer zone and areas immediately outside the NP and will involve support to community-based enterprises and enterprises based in the local communities in order to build capacity, strengthen the communities’ internal governance and ensure an equitable distribution of costs and benefits from activities such as eco-tourism development. A defining principle of this approach will be to link benefits with wise management of biodiversity and ensure that costs incurred by the park are also accounted for by the enterprises and other agencies. Table 1: Thematic Areas for SGP Intervention in Indonesia Suggested AHP counterparts Area of management for (note that in sites with low AHP Specific activities and investments grant items staffing levels, some sections may be less clearly defined) Main Focus of SGP General park management Senior AHP staff Facilitation of processes/capacities for encouraging stakeholder participation Travel for meetings and information exchanges Participatory management planning Zoning PES (including REDD) Study tours Law enforcement Law enforcement section Patrolling in protected areas Patrolling in buffer zones Boundary monitoring Informants networks Travel for meetings and information exchanges GPS and digital cameras Law enforcement training Habitat and species Habitat and species Reforestation (native trees) management management staff Habitat rehabilitation Forest fire management Wetland restoration Ecosystem restoration Community development Community-based organizations Village land-use planning on community development Travel for meetings and information exchanges Farming Community forestry Small-scale animal husbandry; fish farms Agroforestry, nurseries Fruit trees, timber trees, NTFPs, Small economic activities; women empowerment Water harvesting Participatory boundary demarcation Community capacity building Cross-cutting Community outreach and Community-based organization Community conservation meetings conservation awareness on Community outreach Student and teacher conservation activities Problem households engagement Enforcement agency awareness raising Media (local radio, videos, multimedia, exhibición) Wildlife research and Wildlife research staff Wildlife monitoring equipment (camera traps, binoculars) monitoring Participatory research (natural resource use groups) Data management information systems Survey training Ecotourism Community-based organization Community-based ecotourism on ecotourism Village guides Entrance fee sharing Sector policy development KKH, Park Management, Where it provides a positive feedback loop to mainstream experience and lessons learned or to remove barriers to ecosystem resilience and sustainable development). Table 2: AHP Management plan objectives and activities Park GLNP WKNP Objective 1. Planning documents availability (Management Plan, Zoning, Block) 1. Integrity region as a whole maintained intact and the existence of & activities neighbourhood appreciated by the public. 2. Insolubility the ecosystems degradation in GLNP area 2. Ensuring the sustainability of ecosystems that can support the realization of priority wildlife habitat in WKNP. 3. Village conservation development at buffer zone in GLNP 3. Decrease the level of disruption to the ecosystem and biodiversity of up to 50% of the disorder in 2015. 4. Increasing the population endangered species 4. Plants and animals and their ecosystems recorded properly for the sake of tourism and the economy. 5. Increasing the PNBP on environmental services activity 5. Involve communities around the area to be more active in supporting the management WKNP region. 6. Increasing the ecotourism business development 6. Increase the utilization of leading attractions and develop new tourist attraction. 7. Operation the water environmental services business 7. The realization of the management of nature in the utilization zone to guarantee the preservation of the object-oriented, participation and welfare of the community, as a source of income, and the satisfaction of visitors to materialize so that non-tax revenues increased. 8. Development Nature Conservation Group (KKA), Nature Lovers 8. The realization of an independent management area at resort level Group (KPA), Local Community Group through research-based management (RBM). 9. Decrease the hotspot at GLNP area 9. Achieve sound management organizations and resilient, supported by intelligent human resources, quality and quantity sufficient 10. Decrease the fire area 10. Realizing WKNP as a location for research or reliable natural laboratory are supported by adequate infrastructure. 11. Improving the human resources capacity of the Forest Fire (Dalkarhut) 12. Completion case the poaching, trading, wildlife trade, illegal hunting, fire forest, and degradation area. 13. Safeguard conservation area on the threats 14. Fulfillment the facilities standards of the forest safeguard infrastructure on GLNP 15. Improving the human resources safeguards on GLNP 16. Availability the performance achievement institutional on GLNP Table 3 provides the Thematic Areas (colour-coded) the management objectives and the API from the 10-year strategic plan to demonstrate the synergies between management plan objective, API and Thematic Area (and subsequent SGP intervention).

Table 3: Thematic Areas, Management Objectives, API Management Plans 2015 – 2019 Objectives & activities Key Performance Indicators (Annex 1 and 2)

SGP Thematic Area GLNP (Balai Besar) WKNP (Balai Kecil) GLNP WKNP

1 General park management 1, 5, 11, 14, 15, 16 1, (7), 9 1, 5, 7, 14, 15, 16 1, 2, 4, 5, 6

2 Wildlife research and monitoring (4), (13) 4, 8, 10 3, 11

3 Law enforcement 12 2 12, 13

4 Habitat and species management 2, 4, 7, 9, 10, 13 (2), 3, 7 2, 4, 9, 10, 11 7, 9, 10, 12

5 Community outreach and conservation 8 (1), 5 8 awareness 6 Community development / Ecotourism 3, 6 (5), 6, (7) 3, 6 8, 13

7 Sector Policy Development

The main implementing partners will be the Park Management, district and villages as well as registered NGOs and CBOs. The beneficiaries will be the priority villagers and households living in the adjacent areas (buffer zones). The project is of sufficient duration (five years) that relationships will be strengthened. The development of a five years management plan may assist sustainability in the medium-term. As the debriefing in Way Kambas and Medan as well as the wrap-up meeting with MoEF / KKH indicates, Park Managements and the involved NGOs feel that landscape protected area management is a valuable approach. One of the key features of the initiative is that it respects both sustainable development and environmental preservation principles, which is absent in fortress approaches to biodiversity conservation. If successful, the project may well have multiplier effects within the protected area network of Indonesia; it may also have international impacts through promotion by the ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity.

ENDNOTES i As of 2016 with Bai Tu Long National Park in Viet Nam as the most recently declared AHP ii https://www.cbd.int/countries/profile/default.shtml?country=id#facts. iii Kekinian Keanekaragaman Hayati Indonesia 2014/ Elizabeth A. Widjaja, Yayuk Rahayuningsih, Joeni Setijo Rahajoe, Rosichon Ubaidillah, Ibnu Maryanto, Eko Baroto Walujo dan Gono Semiadi–Jakarta: LIPI Press, 2014. iv Statistik Direktorat Jenderal KSDAE. 2015. Kementerian lingkungan hidup dan Kehutanan, Ditjen KSDAE, Jakarta. v Sanderson, S.E. and Redford, K. 2003. Contested relationships between biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation. Oryx. 37: 389–390. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S003060530300070X vi Terborgh, J., van Schaik, C., Davenport, L. and Rao, M. 2002. Making parks work: Strategies for preserving tropical nature. Washington, DC: Island Pres. vii Romero, C. and Andrade, G. 2004. International conservation organisations and the fate of local tropical forest conservation initiatives. Conservation Biology.18: 578–580 viii Robbins, P., McSweeney, K., Waite, T. and Rice, J. 2006. Even conservation rules are made to be broken: Implications for biodiversity. Environmental Management.37: 162–169 ix Corbett, R.T. 2007. The impact of hunting of the mammalian fauna of tropical Asian forests. Biotropica. 39: 292–303. DOI:10.1111/j.17447429.2007.00271.x x Wells, M., Brandon, K.E. and Hannah, L. 1992. People and Parks: Linking Protected Area Management with Local Communities. Washington DC: World Bank, WWF, USAID. xi Ebregt, A and De Greve, P. 2000. Buffer zones and the management, policy and best practices for terrestrial ecosystems in developing countries. Theme Studies Series 5; Forests, Forestry & Biological Diversity Support Group, National Reference Centre for Nature Management: Wageningen, the Netherlands: International Agricultural Centre. xii Hughes, R. and Flintan, F. 2001. Integrating Conservation and Development Experience: A Review and Bibliography of the ICDP Literature. London: International Institute for Environment and Developmen xiii Borrini Feyerabend, G., Kothari, A. and Oviedo, G. 2004. Indigenous and Local Communities and Protected Areas: Towards Equity and Enhanced Conservation. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN xiv Idem Well et al 1992. xv Wells, M., Guggenheim, S., Khan, A., Wardojo, W. and Jepson, P. 1999. Investing in Biodiversity. A Review of Indonesia’s Integrated Conservation and Development Projects. The World Bank, Washington, DC. xvi Agrawal, A. and Gibson, C.C. 1999. Enchantment and disenchantment: The role of community in natural resource management. World Development. 27: 629–649. xvii Idem Hughes, 2001. xviii Sandker, M., Campbell, B.M., Nzooh, Z., Sunderland, T.C.H., Amougou, V., Defo, L. and Sayer, J.A. 2009. Exploring the effectiveness of integrated conservation and development interventions in a Central African forest landscape. Biodiversity Conservation. 18 (11): 2875–2892. DOI: 10.1007/s10531009-9613-7

xix Berkes, F., George, P. and Preston, R. 1991. Co-management: The evolution of the theory and practice of joint administration of living resources. Alternatives. 18 (2): 12–18 xx Singleton, S. 1998. Constructing Cooperation: the Evolution of Institutions of Comanagement. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. p.7. xxi Carlsson, L and Berkes, F, 2005. Co-management: concepts and methodological implications. Journal of Environmental Management. 75: 65-67. xxii Bloomquist, W. 2009. Multi-level Governance and Natural Resource Management: The Challenges of Complexity, Diversity, and Uncertainty. In: V. Beckmann and M. Padmanabhan (eds.) Institutions and Sustainability, pp.109-126, Springer Science and Business Media xxiii Berkes, F. 2002. Cross-scale institutional linkages: Perspectives from the bottom up. In: The Drama of the Commons (E. Ostrom, T. Dietz, N. Dolsak, P.C. Stern, S. Stonich and E.U. Weber, eds.) National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp. 293-321. [Online] http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10287.html xxiv Parr, J. W.K., Hoang Van Lam, Hoang Van Tue, Nguyen Bich Ha, Nguyen Van Lam, Insua-Cao, P., Nguyen Ngoc Quang, P., Nguyen The Cuong and Crudge, B. 2013. Multi-level Co-management in Government-designated Protected Areas – opportunities to learn from models in Mainland Southeast Asia. PARKS. 19 (2): 59–74. xxv Erdman, MV., Merrill, PR. Mongdong, M., Arsyad, I., Harahap, Z., Pangalila, R., Elverawatim R, and Baworo, P. 2004. Building Effective Management Systems for Decentralized Protected Areas Management in Indonesia: Bunaken National Park Case Study. Natural Resources Management Program xxvi New Forest Protected National Park, Management Plan, UK. xxvii Eagles, P. F. J. 2008. Governance Models for Parks, Recreation and Tourism. In K. S. Hanna, D. A. Clark and D. S. Slocombe (Eds.), Transforming Parks: Protected Area Policy and Management in a Changing World. (pp. 39-61). London, UK: Routledge. xxviii Gunderson, L. H., and C. S. Holling, editors. 2002. Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

ASEAN CENTRE FOR BIODIVERSITY

Small Grants Programme by the ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity (BMZ-No. 2011 66545)

Proposal Format

31 July 2015

Small Grants Programme of the ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity Proposal Format

I. Project Key Information

Project title:

Country:

Project Start: (DD/MM/YYYY) Project End: (DD/MM/YYYY)

Core Area: 1) Biodiversity Conservation↓ (Drop down menu)

Thematic Focus: 1) General protected area management↓(Drop down menu)

Project Type: Information/knowledge management↓(Drop down menu)

Contract Amount: EUR (max. 50.000 EUR)

Proponent:

Name of Institution/Organization:

Contact Person: (Name and Position)

Mailing Address:

Telephone:

Physical Address:

Implementing Partner Institution (if any):

Name of Institution/Organization:

Contact Person: (Name and Position)

Mailing Address:

Telephone:

Physical Address:

II. Introduction

Project summary

Short summary of the project: description of the project context, proposed approach, relevance of the project to the Objectives of the ACB-SGP. Max. 2000 characters

Organizational Background

Give information about the organization to demonstrate that the proposing organization has the experience, capacity and commitment to successfully implement the proposed project. Max. 1000 characters.

III. Project concept

Context

Short description on the present status regarding the project area including the core problem which the project is addressing (problem statement or challenges the project intends to address). Max. 1000 characters.

Rationale

Indicate importance of proposed project to the ACB-SGP. Please reflect the relationship of the project to other relevant programmes and how it is integrated into country strategy (sectors, projects). Max. 1000 characters.

Target group

Target group is the population or other stakeholders, including government and communities living within the adjacent areas, identified as the intended direct or indirect recipient of the intervention. Max. 1000 characters.

IV. Strategy

Overall Objectives

Define the overall objective of the proposed project. Please be reminded that the objectives have to be formulated in a measurable way. Max. 500 characters.

Specific Objectives

Define the specific objectives of the proposed project. Please be reminded that the objectives have to be formulated in a measurable way. Max. 500 characters.

Results / Outcomes

State the desired outputs and direct benefits addressing the identified needs and problems. The expected results are the measurable changes which occurred by the end of the project as a result of the planned intervention. Max. 500 characters.

Key indicator

Include key indicators for each of the outcomes. Max. 1000 characters.

Key Personnel

List the key personnel who will be responsible for completion of the project, as well as other personnel involved in the project.

Support to the ASEAN Heritage Parks Programme

Please describe how the project is relevant for the ASEAN Heritage Parks Programme and the CBD Aichi Targets (e.g. Promoting cooperation and sustainability, addresses conservation targets, sharing of lessons learnt). Max. 1000 characters.

Gender

Please give a brief description how the project considers gender aspects in its activities. Max. 1000 characters. (www.oecd.org/dac/gender and http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/14/27/42310124.pdf)

Risk to Successful Implementation

Identify and list the major risk factors that could arise in the project and could jeopardise the expected result. Please also propose risk mitigation measures to address potential risks. Max. 1500 characters.

Knowledge Management, Communication and Replication of Project Results

How do you plan to capture and share the knowledge, lessons learnt and good practices gained through the implementation of the project, also with respect to ACB’s role. How will results of the project be communicated within AMS? Max. 1500 chracters

Sustainability

Please formulate how the use of the project results can be ensured also after the project’s conclusion (e.g. which methods, approaches, instruments or concepts will be used on a sustained base by the Target Group or other actors). Max. 1500 characters.

V. Activities and Finances

Activities

Provide details of what will actually be done to accomplish the project objectives, in a logical framework. Specific activity description in packages, each one belonging to one of the indicators (please use bullet points). Max. 1500 characters.

Activity Cost Milestone Plan

Please provide a work and financial plan (use Activity Cost Milestone template ). Max. 1000 Characters.

VI. Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring and Evaluation

Please describe the methods and procedures to pursue and assess project progress during the implementation (e.g. reporting schemes and schedules, field assessment/quality control) All projects may be audited upon request by ACB.. Max. 1500 Characters