United Nations Development Programme
Project Document
Project title: Sixth Operational Phase of the GEF Small Grants Programme in Thailand
Country: Thailand Implementing Partner: United Nations Management Arrangements: Office for Project Services - UNOPS Agency-implemented
UNDAF/Country Programme Outcome: Promoting inclusive Green Growth, creating fairness and reducing inequality in the society for sustainable development
UNDP Strategic Plan Output: 1.3 - Solutions developed at national and sub-national levels for sustainable management of natural resources, ecosystem services, chemicals and waste.
UNDP Social and Environmental Screening Category: UNDP Gender Marker: GEN 2 Low risk
Atlas Project ID (formerly Award ID): Atlas Output ID (formerly Project ID):
UNDP-GEF PIMS ID number: 5530 GEF ID number: 9558
Planned start date: December 2018 Planned end date: December 2021
LPAC meeting date: October 2018
Brief project description:
The project will enable community organizations in four diverse regions of Thailand to take collective action for adaptive landscape and seascape management for socio-ecological resilience - through design, implementation and evaluation of small grant projects for global environmental benefits and sustainable development. The project will provide financing to the Upgraded Country Programme of the GEF Small Grants Programme.
FINANCING PLAN
GEF Trust Fund or LDCF or SCCF USD 2,381,620
UNDP TRAC resources USD 0
Cash co-financing to be administered by UNDP USD 0
(1) Total Budget administered by UNDP USD 2,381,620
PARALLEL CO-FINANCING (all other co-financing that is not cash co-financing administered by UNDP)
1 | P a g e
UNDP – In Kind USD 147,000
Government – LDD in cash USD 1,910,000
Government – RFD in cash USD 1,500,000
IUCN in cash USD 352,000
Grantee in cash USD 200,000
Grantee in kind USD 1,300,000
(2) Total co-financing USD 5,409,000
(3) Grand-Total Project Financing (1)+(2) USD 7,790,620
SIGNATURES
Signature: Agreed by Date/Month/Year: Government of Thailand
Signature: Agreed by Date/Month/Year: Implementing Mr. Kirk Bayabos Partner Manager, UNDG Cluster, ECR United Nations Office for Project Services
Signature: Agreed by UNDP Date/Month/Year: xxxx Resident Representative, United Nations Development Programme
2 | P a g e
I. TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Table of Contents ...... 3 II. Development Challenge ...... 5 III. Strategy ...... 18 IV. Results and Partnerships...... 24 V. Project Management…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..36 VI. Project Results Framework ...... 38 VII. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Plan ...... 47 VIII. Governance and Management Arrangements ...... 52 IX. Financial Planning and Management ...... 56 X. Total Budget and Work Plan ...... 58 XI. Legal Context ...... 59 XII. Risk Management ...... 59 XIII. Mandatory Annexes ...... 61 Annex A: Multi Year Work Plan ...... 62 Annex B: Terms of Reference ...... 67 Annex C: UNDP Social and Environmental Screening Procedure and plans as needed ...... 74 Annex D: Stakeholder Engagement Plan ...... 84 Annex E: Gender Analysis and Action Plan ...... 94 Annex F: UNDP Risk Log ...... 112 Annex G: UNDP Project Quality Assurance Report ...... 115 Annex H: SGP Operational Guidelines ...... 126 Annex I: Co-financing letters (attached) ...... 142 Annex J: Carbon mitigation calculations ...... 143 Annex K: Project Budget…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..148 Annex L: GEF Core Indicators Template……………………………………………………………………………………………………………151 Annex M: Standard Basic Assistance Agreement (SBAA)…………………………………………………………………………………156
3 | P a g e
ACRONYMS
CBO Community-based Organizations CMDC Centrally Managed Direct Costs COMDEKS Community Development and Knowledge Management for the Satoyama Initiative
COMPACT Community Management of Protected Areas Conservation CPM Country Programme Manager CSO Civil Society Organizations GEB Global Environmental Benefits GEF Global Environment Facility IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature NSC National Steering Committee NYDF New York Declaration on Forests OFP Operational Focal Point OP SGP Operational Phase PIR Project Implementation Review PPG Project Preparation Grant SBAA Standard Basic Assistance Agreement
4 | P a g e
II. DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGE
Global environmental values and management challenges of the proposed project landscapes and seascapes
Thailand’s geographic location is the meeting point for several important forest complexes and watersheds, with a number of major rivers that flow to the Gulf of Thailand. The country has a long history as a trading hub, with highly productive agricultural land, fisheries and forest resources. Thailand is one of the most biodiverse countries in the world containing over 15,000 species of plants and 4,722 species of vertebrates. Many of these species are, however, threatened with over 555 species of vertebrates listed as endangered domestically and 231 classified as endangered by IUCN. These species and the diversity they represent are under threat from on-going urban, agricultural and infrastructure development that is resulting in extensive habitat destruction or degradation from unsustainable use driven by increasing demand for natural resources. The natural habitat remaining is estimated at about 40%, with unavoidable loss of several native species. Five decades of public promotion of monocultures as a primary policy to increase GDP has resulted in widespread habitat conversion and resource degradation. The percentage of altered land cover by watershed ranges between 41-60 %. Promotion of two paddy crops a year, or three every two years, regardless of rainfall or irrigation systems, is the primary cause. Other cash crops and tree species currently promoted include corn, cassava, rubber and oil palm. These agricultural and natural resource activities are common to the four regions of the country that are the focus of this project – Northern, Northeaster, Southern and Western. Thailand’s forests are also globally important repositories of carbon. According to Thailand’s Second National Communication to the UNFCCC (2011), the country’s main options to reduce GHG emission include addressing land use change and the forestry sector. Thailand has also consistently expanded forest areas and protected existing natural forests to enhance their role as carbon sinks. Since 2000, substantial efforts to expand forest areas have been carried out in the form of conservation forests, restoration and rehabilitation of deforested areas, and expansion of community and commercial forests. Reforested areas in Thailand have increased, and the forestry sector has become a net sink of carbon. Carbon sequestration through sustainable forest management has the potential to play a significant role in ameliorating atmospheric accumulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and the corresponding climate change, which affects social and economic development as well as human health. Reducing greenhouse gases through carbon sequestration, and food production and energy use choices can result in improved health, particularly through reduced air pollution. Community forest management supports local level climate change adaptation by enhancing resilience in multiple ways: supporting livelihoods and income, increasing food security, leveraging social capital and knowledge, reducing disaster risks, mitigating health risks and regulating microclimates. Community members are highly motivated and interested in the protection of trees and other woody biomass because they are well aware that their livelihoods and well-being are under threat from depleting forests. In term of energy use, the four regions forming the focus of this project are currently heavily dependent on imported fossil fuels and electricity for their energy supply. Around 56% of total energy demand is met from imported fossil fuel resources. Electricity is mainly generated from natural gas (64%), coal/lignite (28%), renewable energy (7%) and fuel oil/diesel (2%). Compared to its ASEAN neighbors, power generation in Thailand is relatively more dependent on natural gas. As per data from the Office of the Energy Regulatory Commission in 2013, 99% of the Thai population have access to the grid. In urban areas, access to the grid stands at 100%. In remote provinces in the northern region in particular, regular brown-and-black outs occur in the rainy and dry seasons. The Ministry of Energy estimates that there are still 229,670 households without access to electricity in these four regions of Thailand. Of these, around 92,000 households will be served by the grid in the future via grid extensions. The remaining 138,000 households cannot be connected to the grid and will need to be served from other sources of electricity. Targets for electricity generation from renewable energy sources have been laid down in the Renewable Energy Development Plan (REDP) since 2009, and a target of 20% renewable energy for 2022 has been set. Alternative energy such as fuel-efficient biomass stoves and hydro plants can be seen in off-grid communities.
5 | P a g e
The Sixth Operational Phase of the GEF Small Grants Programme in Thailand has been conceived to engage community organizations in four diverse regions of Thailand to take collective action for adaptive landscape and seascape management for socio-ecological resilience - through design, implementation and evaluation of grant projects for global environmental benefits and sustainable development. It will promote sustainable land management through the strengthening of viable agro-forestry and sustainable agriculture practices and systems that improve soil and water conservation, increase the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and enhance the innovative use of renewable energy. The GEF-6 project proposed here will be carried out in specific landscapes and seascapes of the Northern, Northeastern, Western and Southern regions of Thailand. These four regions have been selected in consultation with government and civil society partners based on Thailand’s geographic diversity and the consolidation of experiences and lessons learned from the on-going and previous supported community initiatives of GEF 4 and 5 for forthcoming replication, upscaling and mainstreaming. The identification of precise landscapes – geographic boundaries, potential community organizations, composition of multi-stakeholder partnerships, etc. – was advanced during the project preparation period. Elements that were analyzed and confirmed, through the application of the landscape management approach for social and ecological resilience, included social and natural capital, biodiversity value, impact of climate change on human health, land use trends and patterns, opportunities for application of renewable energy technologies, previous SGP supported initiatives, poverty and inequality levels, disposition of communities and local authorities, potential partnerships with CSOs, the private sector and others, as well as other factors. The pilot landscapes/seascapes to be addressed by this project have been assessed and defined more precisely during the GEF-6 project preparation phase through consultations and expert input: 1) Mae Lao Watershed in the Northern Region 1.1) Geographical background The major portion of this region is mountainous and forested with comparatively limited flat land for cultivation. Watersheds of four main rivers drain to the Central Region before emptying into the Gulf of Thailand/South China Sea. There are five forest complexes and 34 protected areas in the region. Deforestation is one of the most serious threats to biodiversity in northern Thailand. Thailand's forest cover was about 53% in 1950 but had been reduced by half by the late 1990s (22.8% or 111,010 km2). The loss of forest cover is the most significant concern, as it leads to floods, soil erosion, watershed degradation and wildlife habitat destruction. Monoculture, the practice of growing a single crop over a wide area, is also a matter of social and environmental concern. Current maize farming practices in northern Thailand have caused several problems for rural communities as well as village dwellers: the excessive use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides has caused soil deterioration and contaminated water sources; widespread clearing of forestlands for agriculture has led to flooding and landslides resulting in road accidents and crop damage; burning of maize residue (after harvest) has caused smoke and haze affecting health. Accidental forest and grass fires during the hot, dry season are among the primary sources of smoke, leading to biodiversity loss, land degradation, climate change, and health problems. The particular landscape selected in northern region is Mae Lao Watershed which is one of the four main tributaries of Mae Kok Watershed, which ranks as the third longest among major watersheds in the North. Mae Lao watershed covers an area of 2,798.42 km², or about 38.33% of the Mae Kok watershed. It originates in Phee Pan Nam Range in Wiang Pa Pao district, Chiang Rai Province, flowing northward to Mae Suay district, northeastward to Muang Chiangrai district where it meets with Mae Kok River at Patong Village. Mae Lao river is 210 kms long, with the average slope at 1:1,000. The slopes at the upstream, mid-stream and downstream are 1:500, 1:1000, and 1:2,000 respectively. According to the Department of Water Resource, the overall quality of water in Mae Lao river is relatively good with low contamination. Yet, in the rainy season, water quality is affected by soil erosion. Mae Lao Watershed landscape is found between two Protected Areas, i.e. Khun Jae and Doi Luang National Parks. Mae Lao river originates from Doi Nang Kaew and flows through Khun Lao village into Mae Kha Chan sub-district, Wiang Pa Pao district, and then into Mae Suay district. Important resources/landmarks in each of these locations are listed in Table 1. Table 1: Important resources/landmarks in Mae Lao Watershed
Location Important resource
6 | P a g e
Khun Lao Village 4,000 rai of agriculture land; Mae Chang Khao reservoir; hot springs; Doi Ngoo dam; and Phra Chao Lai hill. Mae Kha Chan subdistrict Wiang Ga Long archaeological site; Wiang Ga Long community forest; Doi Luang National Park Wiang Pa Pao district Community forests, (800 rai in villages #9-10, 80 rai in village #5 and 1,500 rai in Dong Luang village); Mon Nang Liew and Toong Ha temples; and four streams flowing to Mae Lao river Mae Suay district Approx. 32,000 population of nine ethnic groups; two streams running into Mae Lao river; Mae Suay dam; 6,000 rai of community forest and 9,000 rai of agricultural land in Pakia sub-district; and 8,000 rai of community forest and 3,000 rai of agricultural land in Doi Ngam subdistrict
Figure 1: Map of Mae Lao Watershed
Mae Lao Watershed 279,344 ha
1.2) Potential CBOs and CSOs Hin Land Nai is a small village with 25 households and 107 population, mostly from the Karen ethnic group. The community has gone through several periods of difficulties before it could reach the current stage of self-reliance, ecologically and socio-economically. Key actions taken (aligning with SEPLS approach) • Establish network with other four neighboring villages to build forest fire resistance tracts • Develop different land use zoning, for conservation, residential areas and farming • Restore agricultural land, adopt diversified farming for consumption and income generation • Develop/agree on rules and regulations on wildlife protection • Identify more diversified livelihood opportunities through sustainable use of local materials and linking with outside partners
7 | P a g e
Over the past decade, overall ecological resilience has improved, including biodiversity. The forest is jointly managed with no individual rights over the land but everyone is accountable for its sustainable use and management. Land uses are identified under three categories: I. Residential areas II. Agricultural areas for rotational farming and organic integrated farming III. Forest areas, classified as: • traditional forest • restricted forest • sacred/ritual forest • agro-forests for conservation and income generation purpose by blending indigenous knowledge/wisdom, cultural tradition, and rituals. Examples of activities: o rice field terrace o non-chemical native tea plantation along river banks; well-integrated with the forest o persimmon plantation, native variety introduced by the Royal project o restoration of native food trees and plants and medicinal herbs o bamboo plantations to increase food security. To secure long-term use, rules and regulations on harvesting are agreed upon (two months/year during rainy season) Better land use management has resulted in secured livelihoods. New income generation activities are developed from non-timber forest products such as beekeeping, honey processing, honey-based soap making, tea and coffee processing, etc. Community enterprise groups are set up to manage and market these products under ‘Hin Lad Nai’ brand. A new generation of leaders, most of whom are well-educated and connected with the outside world through their former careers or current businesses take active roles in managing these enterprises. One example is to engage chefs/owners of top restaurants from Bangkok and other big cities to learn from village households about different kinds of local plants and herbs used in traditional cooking and then adapt them to make new dishes which could be served in modern restaurants with more value. Markets for honey-based products also continually expanded as they have been branded as ‘genuinely natural’ with interesting stories about how wild bees are kept for honey and how honey is processed into different kinds of products. Processed tea leaves and coffee beans have their markets both in Thailand and neighboring countries. Each of the social enterprise groups have rules to put certain percentages of their income into ‘community funds’. These funds are used to support activities such as environmental conservation, educational/ health care/ welfare for individual households, youth training, etc. In 1995, the government declared a plan to establish “Khun Jae” National Park in a nearby area. The community requested a map from the forestry office but got no response. So, it developed its own ‘hand-made’ map and campaigned for the right to manage ‘community forests’ in 1997. Governance and social equity are evident. There are two types of leaders. The role of spiritual leader or ‘hi-kho’ is inherited within the family, from one generation to the next. Hi-kho is in charge of managing traditional laws and conducting rituals related to life cycle of community members. Village headmen and village committees are officially appointed and in charge of community development and administration mandated by law. Any important decisions in community development and well-being are jointly made by official leaders and Hi-kho. Youth groups and women’s groups also play important roles. Youth groups are engaged in development processes through ‘learning by doing’ together with community leaders and also help to fill in gaps, e.g. use of ICT or other technologies to assist in village planning and product processing. Women have explicit knowledge in conservation and production, such as about seed selection, and the varieties of food trees/plants. The village has received several national and international awards. For example, Green Globe Award, Outstanding Non-Formal Education Center awarded by the Crown Princess, and Forest Hero award from the Forest Forum by the UN. In 2013, the Cabinet declared Hin Lad Nai to be a special cultural management zone to demonstrate harmonious development of socio-ecosystems.
1.3) Challenges Main challenges raised in this landscape are described as follows;
8 | P a g e
• Production systems have changed; native varieties are gradually disappearing/not being reproduced. • Lack of systematic management and transfer of indigenous knowledge. Indigenous knowledge could be recovered to add more value to primary products. • More health problems among local population, esp. new diseases related to climate change effects. • Land is limited but population has increased. Expansion is not allowed, esp. in protected/conserved areas. Shorter cycle of rotational farming, leading to mono cash cropping on the same land. Increases in household debt from investing in production processes.
2) Phetchabun Mountains in Northeastern Region
2.1) Geographical background The major portion of the region is a plateau, with the mountainous forested watersheds of two major rivers draining to the Lower Mekong River. There are three forest complexes and 20 protected areas in the region. The Khorat Plateau in northeast Thailand between the Phetchabun Mountains to the west and Dongrak Range along the border with Cambodia, have been largely deforested although some deciduous and evergreen forest patches persist. This small ecoregion along the northern reaches of the Mekong River represents a transition from the dry forests of the Khorat Plateau to the moister forests of the Annamite Mountains. This ecotone contains a mix of species from dry and mesic habitats, increasing overall biodiversity. However, much of the natural habitat has been cleared for agriculture. Agriculture is the largest sector of the economy, generating around 22% of the gross regional product (compared to 8.5% for Thailand as a whole). Sticky rice, the staple food of the region, is the main agricultural crop (accounting for about 60% of cultivated land). It thrives in poorly drained paddy fields, and where fields can be flooded from nearby streams, rivers and ponds. Despite its dominance of the economy, agriculture in the region is extremely problematic. The climate is prone to drought, while the flat terrain of the plateau is often flooded in the rainy season. Increasing drought and flooding due to climate change and climate variability and overexploitation and inappropriate use of land resources are the main causes for land degradation. Land degradation due to soil erosion is the most serious threat to sustainable agricultural land use in northeast Thailand. These uplands cover a considerable area with moderate (5-15%) and steep (>15%) slopes, which are susceptible to erosion. Despite recognizing soil erosion as a problem, small farmers are reluctant to invest scarce resources in adopting soil conservation practices and methods. The selected landscape in this region is Phetchabun Mountains, which include the mountain massif in Phetchabun and Loei Province. its highest elevation is 1,794 meters. In the landscape, Pasak Watershed lies between two parallel mountain chains in the Pechabun Range. The Pasak river has its origins in a mountain in the northern part of Loei province and runs southward through Phetchabun, Lopburi and into Pasak Cholasit reservoir before entering into Saraburi Province and emptying into the Chao Phraya River in Ayudhaya. Its total length is around 700 kms. The northern part of the Pasak Watershed is a plain which runs southward from Phetchabun mountain with the average altitude of 110-115 masl and an average slope of 1:1400. The middle part of the watershed is a mix of plain and small hills and mountains, with an average altitude of 40-50 meters sloping southward. The southern part of the watershed is connected to Dong Phayayen Range and continues into Khao Yai national park. The climate is tropical monsoon, characterized by wet and dry season. In general, the wet season starts in May and extends to October. The dry period is from November to April. Rainfall varies considerably between years. The quality of water in the upper watershed areas is clean with some contamination from organic waste. The water gets more polluted when it goes further downward through industrial zones before merging into the Chaophraya river. However, the overall quality of surface water in the watershed is good for all kinds of uses, especially for irrigation. Information about Land use changes during 2002-2009 shows that area used for rice and field crop cultivation has declined whereas the forest coverage has significantly increased as a result of strict law enforcement and reforestation policy of the Forestry Department. Areas for agro-forest and fruit tree orchards also increased, although not substantially.
9 | P a g e
Figure 2: Map of Phetchabun Mountains
Phetchabun Mountains covering in 2
provinces: Phetchabun and Loei - 475,000 ha
2.2) Potential CBOs and CSOs The existing CBOs and CSOs are in place throughout Phetchabun and Loei Province. Their potential engagement in the future landscape management project based on their expertise/experience is illustrated in Table 2. Table 2: Engagement of the potential CBOs and CSOs based in Phetchabun Mountains Organization Expertise/Experience Organic Farming Network of Songplue/Khok Conservation of native seeds; renewable energy; organic Sawang, Lomkao farming; training Utility Forest Conservation and Renewable Energy Forest conservation, renewable energy, climate change Development for Climate Change Adaptation adaptation Group Phong Watershed Network Forest and natural resources management; integrated farming; renewable energy (biomass cooking stoves) Civil Society of Petchabun Range Networking, natural resources management, community development Eco-Cultural Study and Rehabilitation Center Land and natural resources management; gender; human rights; indigenous genetics; disaster responses Pasak Watershed Development Network Natural resources management; renewable energy; conservation/management of wildlife food sources; biodiversity Hmong-Lua-Thin Network Strengthening ethnic women groups and family life; promoting ethnic values and culture through media and communication Petchabun Range Conservation Association Natural resources conservation and knowledge management; research on local knowledge; learning center on watershed restoration; biodiversity; disaster prevention
10 | P a g e
and responses; environmental education Social and Public of Philanthropist Association Philanthropy for disabled /disadvantaged groups, civic education, civic politics, community’s rights. Loei Foundation for Sustainable Development Civil participation, conservation, disaster risk reduction Petchabun Range Civil Society Network Community participation in natural resources management and community development; welfare schemes Thai Ban Researcher Network and Mekhong River Knowledge management, natural resources rehabilitation, Network livelihoods development Foundation for Local Community Rehabilitation Community empowerment and participation, natural resources management and rehabilitation, developing quality of life for underprivileged groups, community welfare schemes KwaeNoi-Pasak Watershed Conservation Watershed rehabilitation and conservation, renewable Organization energy, organizational development, good governance, income generation Civil Society Coordination Center, Kudpong Community development, natural resources management, networking Community Organization Network of Huay Som Waste management, community forest management, integrated farming, GHG emission reduction Northeasten Community Development and Climate Change mitigation, food security through low- Restoration Association cost/organic farming, renewable energy, poverty reduction through inclusive approach Real Friend Foundation Sustainable development
2.3) Challenges Desertification is an important issue as it is related to land degradation and ecological interactions between different components of the landscape. Awareness of landscape resilience and sustainable management is incipient, and soil erosion and degradation prevention as well as biodiversity protection is joint responsibility of everyone living in this landscape. There are two major causes of soil degradation including: • Land use changes. Cutting trees for farming has impacts on the quality of the soil leading to low yields and poor quality of agricultural produce. • Improper treatment/uses of the land. For example, growing crops on sloping lands without any methods to protect soil erosion will result in the loss of nutrients from top soil as well as sedimentation and contamination of the soil downstream. The goal on land issue focuses on prevention of extreme soil degradation. Therefore, proper land use planning and management will be promoted as the joint responsibility of local communities.
3) Kaeng Krachan Forest Complex (KKFC) in Western Region 3.1) Geographical background The major portion of the region is along the mountainous border with Myanmar continuing south from northern Thailand into western Thailand following the Tenasserim Range. Western Thailand hosts much of Thailand's less-disturbed forest areas. Water and minerals are important natural resources. The region is home to many of the country's major dams, and mining is an important industry. Kaeng Krachan Forest Complex (KKFC) is situated in the central western region of Thailand. It lies in the Tenasserim Range on the boundary between Thailand and Myanmar. It has a total area of 4,702.26 sq.km and covers a vast forest area of three western provinces of Thailand: Ratchaburi, Phetchaburi and Prachuab Kirikhan. The complex protects the headwaters of many important rivers such as Phetchaburi, Kui Buri, Pranburi, and Phachee Rivers. There are four legally gazetted protected areas in the complex, one wildlife sanctuary (Mae Nam Phachee protected under the Wildlife Protection and Preservation Act, 1992) and three national parks
11 | P a g e
(Chaloem Phrakiat Thai Prachan, Kaeng Krachan and Kui Buri protected under the National Park Act, 1961). Kaeng Krachan and Kui Buri National Parks are connected by Kui Buri Forest Reserve and the Army Reserve Zone. This corridor is under the Forest Reserve Act (1964) and the Military Reserve Zone Act (1935). Being a conversion point of four zoogeographical sub-regions and four floristic provinces, KKFC is rich in its biodiversity. It is a home to many threatened species including the Sunda pangolin (Manis javanica) and the Siamese crocodile (Crocodylus siamensis), both listed as critically endangered in the IUCN Red List of Threatened SpeciesTM. It also provides a refuge for the endangered Asian elephant, tiger, the Lar gibbon and many other globally important species1.
Figure 3: Map of Kaeng Krachan Forest Complex (KKFC)
3.2) Indigenous People There are 15 Karen community villages scattered around the buffer zone of the complex as illustrated in Table 3. Table 3: Basic information about Karen villages in Kaeng Krachan Forest Complex 2
1 Source: Fact sheet Engaging local communities in participatory management processes and benefit sharing: Kaeng Krachan, IUCN 2 Karen Network for Cultural and Environmental Conservation, Tanaosri Office, February 2018
12 | P a g e
Karen village in KKFC #Village #Household #Household Head # Household with production land Men Women #Household Percentage In protected area 5 269 173 96 186 69.14 Outside protected area 12 205 129 76 136 66.34 Total 17 474 302 172 322 67.93
In the middle of KKFC, there are two Karen villages (Baan Pongluek and Baan Bangkloi) which settled there about 100 years ago before the government declared the area as national park. The area is located in the watershed area of Kaeng Krachan National Park. The watershed area starts from Petch River which flows from Thai-Myanmar border through Bang Kloi river and Petchburi river down to the city. There is also a ‘crocodile palace’ in the river where crocodiles migrate once a year. The water in Petch River is sufficient for consumption and farming year- round, for both villages. The communities have sacred rules which reflect their respectful treatment of the River. These rules are in line with the principle of “sustainable water management”. These Karen communities were permitted to continue to live in the park but with limited activities according to the National Park Act. Currently, the “Pidthong Lung Phra” Development Institute is working to improve the lives of the people in this area to pursue the Royal initiatives and philosophy in sustainable development. The agricultural area is located to the north, next to the forest. Villagers are allowed to use this land for their subsistence farming but not for other activities. Major agricultural activities, which are main sources of household income, are lemon, banana and durian plantation and integrated farming. Close to agricultural land is an old elephant saltlick which is no longer used because the elephants found new food sources in another village. Community forest is managed by the villagers under commonly agreed rules and regulations. Communities can collect wood and non-timber forest products from the forest as provided by the rules. The majority of the villagers are Buddhists, with a small number of Christians. Important places include KKC national park office, Pid Thong Lung Phra Institute coordination office, TAO, child development center, border patrol police school, non-formal education center, irrigation office, and an army camp. Resources and infrastructure • Micro-grid electricity system for water pumps. The water is pumped up and collected in a tank before supplying to surrounding farms located in the highlands. The electricity system is sponsored by the Office of Internal Security and Dept of Irrigation. • Water reservoir constructed by Department of Water Resources • Two large water ponds (1,800 and 1,000 cubic meters)
3.3) Challenges In the past few years, KKFC has faced a critical situation with a sharp decrease in flora and wildlife species/populations. Key factors are the increase in population living within and around the forests from migration, resulting in deforestation for agriculture, overcollection of forest products, and wildlife hunting for consumption and for commercial purposes even though hunting in protected areas is prohibited. Conflicts and armed encounters along Thai-Myanmar border, forest concessions in the past and encroachment by lowlanders into forest areas have added more pressure on wildlife. The analysis of threats and opportunities of three major forest complexes in Thailand, including KKFC by participants at the workshop “Engaging local communities in participatory management processes and benefit sharing: Introduction to the COMPACT Model” during 27 February-2 March 2017 at KKFC indicated the following.3
Threats and challenges
3 Source: Report on proceedings of workshop Engaging local communities in participatory management processes and benefit sharing: Introduction to the COMPACT Model, GEF/SGP Thailand, 2017
13 | P a g e
• Illegal extraction of natural resources • Boundary issues and encroachment. Land use zoning. • Human-wildlife conflict • Poverty and no income-generation opportunities • Current legal system not supportive of community participation • Lack of understanding of the added value of World Heritage Sites • No clear compensation scheme for land acquired for protected areas Opportunities • The Cabinet Resolutions on the Restoration of the Traditional Practices and Livelihoods of Karen and Sea Gypsies in Thailand 2010, and the Ministerial Regulation on Community Schools 2015. • Availability of good natural resources, water catchment and other services as eco-tourism. Good opportunity for PES • External support from development partners and NGOS, and funding opportunities • Support for income generation activities • Cultural and spiritual linkages of people to their area and surroundings
4) Phang Nga Bay in Southern Region 4.1) Geographical background The Southern Region of Thailand comprises a narrow strip of land bordered by two international water bodies - the Gulf of Thailand to the east, and Bay of Bengal to the west. The area is a mosaic of mountainous, forest, agricultural, coastal and marine ecosystems. There are eight forest complexes and 35 protected areas, including marine ecosystems in the region. The coastal areas of southern Thailand host an important natural resource base, which is the focus of considerable socio-economic activity, with tourism and fisheries contributing significantly to provincial and national economic development. The Andaman Sea coast is characterized by deep oceanic waters and a narrow, rocky and coral reef-associated continental shelf, with a thick mangrove belt protecting the coastline. The Gulf of Thailand has a shallower profile with a combination of mangrove forests, mudflats, and sandy beaches. The gulf is a highly productive fishing area due to its relatively shallow depth (45 meters on average) and a high influx of nutrients and freshwater from five major regional rivers. Thailand’s coastline faces most of the usual pressures and conflicts affecting many tropical coastal areas: coastal erosion and sedimentation, habitat degradation and loss, population increases that lead to greater risks and vulnerability, inadequate capacity in terms of technical expertise in Integrated Coastal Zone Management along the full stretch of coastline to meet these problems. The predominant change in land use patterns in southern Thailand has been conversion to rubber and oil palm plantations. With the introduction of large scale industrial agricultural practices, local ecosystems have suffered from the use of chemical pesticides and a decline in biodiversity from monoculture systems. Some plantations are located on 40-60-degree slopes, resulting in soil erosion. Phang Nga Bay is a 400 km² bay in the Strait of Malacca between the island of Phuket and the mainland of the Malay peninsula of southern Thailand. Since 1981, an extensive section of the bay has been protected as the Ao Phang Nga National Park. The park is in Phang Nga Province, at 08°17'N 098°36'E. Limestone cliffs with caves, collapsed cave systems, and archaeological sites are found about Phang Nga Bay. Phang Nga Bay Marine National Park was declared a protected Ramsar Site (no. 1185) of international ecological significance on 14 August 2002. Phang Nga is a shallow bay with 42 islands, comprising shallow marine waters and intertidal forested wetlands, with at least 28 species of mangrove; seagrass beds and coral reefs are also present. At least 88 bird species, including the globally threatened Malaysian plover (Charadrius peronii) and Asiatic dowitcher (Limnodromus semipalmatus), can be found within the site, as well as 82 fish species, 18 reptile species, three amphibian species, and 17 mammal species. These include the dugong (a vulnerable species), white-hand gibbon (Hylobates lar), the endangered serow (Capricornis sumatraensis), and the black finless porpoise (Neophocaena phocaenoides).
14 | P a g e
A number of diverse cultures co-exist in local communities, which practice fishing, harvesting Nypa palm fronds for thatch, and catering to an international tourist presence drawn both by the natural beauties and by the archaeological sites, which have paintings more than a thousand years old.
Figure 4: Map of Phang Nga Bay
Phang Nga Bay covering in 3 provinces: Phuket, Phang Nga, and Krabi - 250,000 ha
4.2) Potential CBOs and CSOs There are many existing CBOs and CSOs working toward seascape management. Their potential engagement in a potential seascape management project based on their expertise/experience is illustrated in Table 2. Table 4: Engagement of the potential CBOs and CSOs based in Phang Nga Bay Organization Expertise/experience Phuket province Bio-fertiliser Project from Biogas Residue Develop and demonstrate biodigesters, produce bio- fertiliser from biogas residue, develop appropriate renewable energy technologies from renewable solid waste and generate renewable energy for small-scale operation within the community. Bangrong Savings Group Community-based savings, welfare schemes, livelihood development, networking Baan Bangla Conservation Group Mangrove conservation, reforestation Food Security Project Biodiversity based food security, mangrove conservation, gender Bang Goong Bay Mangrove Conservation Group Mangrove conservation, reforestation. networking Haad Rawai community Sustainable ecotourism, mangrove conservation Phuket Marine National Park R&D on sustainable marine park management with community engagement Mangrove Action Plan Sustainable mangrove management Andaman Discovery Sustainable eco-tourism Chum Chon Thai Foundation Community development, natural resources
15 | P a g e
rehabilitation and management Phang Nga province Baan Thong Lang Savings group Community-based savings, welfare schemes, livelihood development, networking Baan Tasanook community Natural resources management, livelihood development Ao Ma Kham Savings Group Community-based savings, welfare schemes, livelihood development, networking Reef to Ridge Explorer Coastal natural resources conservation, sustainable eco- tourism Krabi province Baan Nai Nang community Mangrove conservation, women’s group, biodiversity- based livelihood development
4.3) Challenges There are major threats and challenges arising around this seascape as detailed below: • Water shortage in dry season. • Decline in agricultural areas as a result of expanded urban areas. • Rapid development of tourism resulting in shrinking of agricultural land; land becomes more expensive; there’s tendency that in the future there will be no more agricultural activities in this area. • Huge amount of waste from tourism sector. • Vulnerable groups who failed in agricultural activities and left their communities to find jobs in town. As they need to have a place to live, many of them have settled on public land or mangrove areas. This group has to some extent adopted sustainable management of community forests. • Indigenous people in Nga and Sapam capes and around Rawai beach whose ways of living is in great harmony with the environment. For example, they dive to spear fish with traditional pikes. Because their fishing method has posed no harm to natural resources, there is a current effort to influence/ modify the law to allow them to fish in a protected marine area. • Government development projects are not based on community’s needs and problems. Hence, low level of community participation. • Commercial shipping route invading community fishing areas. • The plan to construct yacht marina in Ao Koong (by foreign investors). The pier will inevitably impact natural resources and local way of living. • No systematic way to document and transfer knowledge within the community.
The problem to be addressed Collective action by civil society is required to achieve and maintain resilience of socio-ecological systems in both rural and urban areas. This resilience is built primarily on climate change mitigation and adaptation and optimization of ecosystem services through biodiversity conservation and sustainable land management, including agro-ecosystem management and integrated water resources management, among other things, all of which are pursued in the context of local sustainable development. Community organizations need to act in synergy to achieve impacts at the scale of rural landscapes, progressively acquiring critical mass to reach a tipping point of adoption by rural constituencies of adaptive practice and innovation. To act effectively, community organizations need the motivation, capacities, knowledge, financing and enabling factors and opportunities to work individually and collectively. Using SGP funding as well as co-financing, community organizations, NGOs and local administrative organizations build their adaptive management capacities through learning by doing i.e. through analysis of their priorities and problems; identification of potential innovations to address them; project design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of results and performance; and renewed analysis and planning for future follow-on efforts based on lessons learned.
16 | P a g e
By and large, community level organizations in Thailand often lack essential adaptive management capabilities such as the technical know-how, the planning skills, the innovation and experimentation capacities and the organizational abilities to become effective agents for the coordinated, long term development or maintenance of socio-ecological landscape resilience. Community organizations are empowered by determining priorities and measures for action, developing strategies and plans, carrying them out, reflecting on impacts and knowledge gained and extracting lessons, and planning and preparing next steps. The essential problem to be addressed by this project is that the necessary collective action in Thailand for adaptive management of resources and ecosystem processes for sustainable development and global environmental benefits is hindered by the organizational weaknesses – analytical, financial, technical and others - of the communities living and working in affected rural and small urban landscapes to act strategically and collectively in building social and ecological resilience. The solution to the problem is for community organizations in rural landscapes and seascapes of key areas of Thailand - the Northern, Northeastern, Western and Southern regions - to develop and implement adaptive landscape management strategies that build social, economic and ecological resilience based on the production of global environmental and local sustainable development, health and well-being benefits. To pursue achievement of the outcomes of these adaptive landscape management strategies, community organizations will implement grant projects reviewed and approved by the SGP National Steering Committee (NSC), supported by multi- stakeholder agreements involving local government, the private sector, NGOs and other partners, and evaluated as part of the broader collective process of adjusting management strategies to new information, knowledge, capacities and conditions. To ensure long-term conservation of ecosystem services, sequestration of carbon, sustainable natural resource management and human well-being, there is an obvious need to involve local communities and provide them with appropriate incentives A critical long-term solution for this is, therefore, to ensure that sufficient institutional and local capacities are available to harness innovative financing opportunities as incentives to local land users to conserve ecosystem function and resources and sustainably manage landscapes/seascapes. However, a great deal of coordinated and concerted effort is required in community capacity building to overcome the following barriers. Barriers to achieving this solution include: • Barrier 1: Community organizations in rural landscapes, as well as community organizations in suburban areas, lack a larger, more long-term vision and strategy for ecosystem and resource management and suffer from weak adaptive management capacities i.e. to innovate, test alternatives, monitor and evaluate results, and adjust practices and techniques to meet challenges and lessons learned; • Barrier 2: Community organizations have insufficient organizational capacities to efficiently and effectively plan, manage and implement initiatives and actions of their own design in favor of landscape resilience objectives in urban and rural areas; • Barrier 3: Community organizations rarely coordinate with other community organizations to pursue collective action for global environmental and landscape management outcomes at a landscape scale; • Barrier 4: Knowledge from project experience with innovation/experimentation is not systematically analyzed, recorded or disseminated to policy makers or other communities, organizations and programs; • Barrier 5: Community organizations lack sufficient financial resources to lower the risks associated with innovating land and resource management practices and sustaining or scaling up successful experiences. These barriers result in poor coordination among stakeholders within the landscape, inadequate design and implementation of initiatives, lack of awareness and information, inadequate funding and incentives and poor infrastructure. Some rural community members/organizations in Thailand are accustomed to a traditional top- down approach to development in rural areas. Community-driven development (CDD) and integrated landscape management (ILM), aimed at improving human well-being, food security, climate change mitigation and conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services, need to be emphasized at the community level and the experience replicated at a larger landscape scale.
17 | P a g e
III. STRATEGY
The GEF Small Grants Programme in Thailand
The GEF Small Grants Program has been a fundamental part of the GEF’s support to the generation of global environmental benefits and the implementation of the UNFCCC, UNCBD, UNCCD and other multilateral environmental agreements in Thailand since 1994, when the Thailand SGP Country Program was first established. By supporting community level initiatives in the focal areas of the GEF, the Country Program has assisted Thai civil society over the years to become more aware of how global environmental problems are manifested locally, how these affect them concretely and what can be done to mitigate or address them through local sustainable development actions that produce global environmental benefits. Since 1994, the Thailand SGP Country Programme has supported more than 300 NGOs and community-based organizations (CBOs) with over USD 6 million in grants to implement more than 300 projects. The Program has followed a trajectory of greater and greater strategic focus both geographically and thematically, as articulated in successive Country Program Strategies, guided, reviewed and approved by the National Steering Committee (NSC). The NSC, whose members serve on a voluntary basis and without financial compensation, is a central element of SGP and provides major substantive contributions to as well as oversight of the programme. The NSC typically comprises representatives from local NGOs, Civil Society Organizations, concerned government agencies, academia, UN agencies and, occasionally, co-funding donors. Government membership on the NSC enables successful local community initiatives to highlight areas requiring policy change at the district, regional and national levels and influence decision-making. The NSC assures a “country-driven” approach to SGP implementation and allows community empowerment and capacity building in the management of a national programme. This serves as a useful platform for multi-stakeholder dialogue and consultations as well as discussion of broader national sustainable development concerns. In the early stages of Country Program implementation, grants were provided for a wide variety of CBO and NGO projects, with priority given to local, grassroots organizations. As experience was gained and knowledge acquired regarding efficiency and effectiveness of project interventions and NGO/CBO and community capacities, the Country Program Strategy has become more focused on specific areas of action, aligning NGO/community capabilities and sustainable development objectives with national priorities, global environmental commitments and emerging institutional capacities. Several key lines of work that have been developed successfully over the years of SGP Thailand Country Program implementation include co-management of protected areas in several types of ecosystems for sustainable use of globally significant biodiversity, adoption of several types of renewable energy/energy efficiency technologies to reduce CO2 emissions, implementation of agro-forestry/integrated farming practices to ensure sustainable land use, management of catchment areas and water bodies of transboundary water systems to improve water quality/quantity/periodicity, and reduction of harmful chemicals, especially POPs. With over 20 years of implementation, the Programme continues to help community organizations build both institutional and technical capacities as well as networks in each region. With this experience, therefore, the time is ripe to build on acquired capacity and experience to achieve more systematic replication, consolidation and mainstreaming into community development planning processes. In support of this iterative process towards ever greater knowledge and impact, the Thailand Country Program’s National Steering Committee has promoted collaborative arrangements with CSOs and government programs and institutions to enhance effectiveness of community-based components in specific initiatives. The SGP Thailand Country Program has collaborated with government institutions implementing the Local Energy Planning Programme to further promote the use of renewable energy/energy efficiency technologies, the Water for People Partnership Small Grants Programme, and the Mangroves for the Future Small Grants Fund. As for GEF-financed Full-sized Projects, the SGP Thailand Country Programme has been a supporting mechanism for the UNDP-GEF Building the Partnership in Environmental Management for Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA), and the UNEP-GEF Reversing Environmental Degradation of South East Asia and the Gulf of Thailand, by providing grants to community organizations for projects aligned with FSP goals. In addition, several SGP Thailand communities and
18 | P a g e
partners have become stakeholders in several full-sized projects, e.g. UNDP-GEF Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems, UNDP-GEF Promoting Renewable Energy in Mae Hong Son Province, and FAO-GEF Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem. The SGP Country Programme has given first priority to building and involving grassroots organizations, while other well-organized national/international NGOs play mentoring/supporting roles from project concept to completion stage. In the grant-making process, major concepts and criteria of GEF and GEF SGP are disseminated to communities in easy-to-understand materials and through other means, and NGOs are identified who may be willing to assist communities in formulating concepts and pre-proposals. The most eligible concepts are then selected by the National Coordinator (NC) and National Steering Committee (NSC) for further quality upgrading in stakeholder workshops. In essence, the workshop is a combination of orientation, capacity-building and initial networking processes, where GEF and global environmental benefits, results-based management, budgeting and co-financing are discussed. Data and information shared in the workshop are used by the proponents to develop their concept papers into full-blown proposals to be submitted to the NSC for final recommendation for funding or modification. Implementation of approved proposals begins with a briefing meeting to confirm responsibilities and obligations of parties involved. During implementation, each project is visited by the NC/NSC to witness results and give technical/institutional advice, as needed. A few months before project completion, an evaluation workshop is organized where all projects under the same grant cycle meet again to share experience and reports of the progress made, results, problems and issues and how to address them. This workshop is a participatory evaluation, providing an opportunity for project leaders to learn and correct any deficiencies/deviations before submission of the completion report. The NC and NSC play a central role in this process. Data and information and lessons learned during implementation are recorded by the NC with assistance from the NSC and the grantees themselves. After refining the data, information and experience, these are shared through networks of grantees, NSC-affiliated institutions, responsible government agencies, selected GEF agencies and the private sector. Channels used to share the experience include interim reports, bi-monthly newsletters, the SGP global database, special events such as knowledge fairs, etc. Currently, the programme has established a closed group Facebook page with nearly 300 members. These relationships have led to the development of natural multi- stakeholder networks in specific geographic areas in support of longer term, multi-project efforts. At least twice a year since 2008, the NC has been invited by academic institutes, government agencies and/or NGO networks to present the experiences and lessons learned of the SGP Country Programme. To date, while the Thailand Country Program has supported community organizations individually, it has also organized them in informal networks for broader knowledge sharing and information exchange. SGP Thailand’s experience with different successful lines of work has laid the foundation for upscaling of specific technologies, practices and systems. A significant enabling factor for the success of the SGP Country Programme over the years and a concrete basis for upscaling has been the establishment of long-lasting multi-stakeholder networks in all regions of the country and around specific themes. Partners include local governments, national agencies and Ministries, NGOs, the private sector and others, who provide support (technical assistance, strategic guidance, financing) to community level initiatives. From the public sector, collaborators include the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment’s National Environment Fund, the National Environment Planning and Policy Unit, the Department of Marine and Coastal Resources, the Department of Pollution Control, the Ministry of Energy’s Department of Alternative Energy Development and Efficiency, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, through its Thailand International Cooperation Agency. Other institutions who have played supporting or coordinating roles include the NGO-Coordinating Centres, Research and Development of Khonkaen University, the Energy and Environment Centre of Kasetsart University, the Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives, the Metropolitan Water Works Authority, and the International Union for Conservation of Nature.
The proposed alternative scenario
Resilient rural landscapes for sustainable development and global environmental protection
19 | P a g e
GEF incremental funding and co-financing will be applied to overcome the barriers mentioned above and to add value, where appropriate and possible, to existing government sectoral initiatives in four specific landscapes of Thailand – Mae Lao Watershed; Phetchabun Mountains; Kaeng Krachan Forest Complex; Phang Nga Bay - representative of the four focal regions described above. It will contribute to the long-term solution of adaptive management of these landscapes for social, economic and ecological resilience and human well-being. GEF funding will provide small grants to NGOs and Community-based Organizations to develop four landscape management strategies and implement community projects in pursuit of strategic landscape level outcomes related to biodiversity conservation, climate change mitigation and adaptation, sustainable land management and integrated water resources management. Funding will also be available for initiatives that build the organizational capacities of specific community groups as well as landscape level organizations to plan and manage complex initiatives and test, evaluate and disseminate community level innovations. Resources will also be made available through the SGP strategic grant modality to upscale proven technologies, systems or practices based on knowledge from analysis of community innovations from past experience gained during previous phases of the SGP Thailand Country Programme. Identification of specific potential upscaling initiatives will take place during project preparation, but preliminary possibilities include expansion of programs for co-management of protected areas, agro-ecosystem management for increased productivity and sustainability, promotion of energy efficiency/renewable energy (biomass, biogas, solar energy, micro-hydro, etc.), and management of river basins using Ridge-to-Reef or Forested Upland down-to-Delta approaches. Formal multi-stakeholder groups will be consolidated in each landscape that will incorporate local government, national agencies and Ministries, CSOs, the private sector and other relevant actors. These partnerships will provide technical assistance, strategic guidance and financial support, where possible, to community-based organizations for individual community initiatives, as well as landscape level projects and strategic upgrading projects. Formal partnership agreements will be agreed and signed with communities as projects are identified and aligned with landscape level outcomes. The project components will be carried out in specific landscapes of the Northern, Northeastern, Western and Southern regions, applying an integrated approach to enhance resilience in socio-ecological production landscapes and seascapes to harmonize human activities that can sustain biodiversity and ecosystem services while also supporting human well-being and production activities. The Country Program has selected one landscape in each region based on the consolidation of community experiences and lessons learned from the on-going and previously supported projects in GEF-4 and 5 for forthcoming replication, upscaling and mainstreaming. Project experiences and best practices will be systematized and knowledge generated for discussion and dissemination to local policy makers and national/subnational advisors, as well as landscape level organizations, NGOs and other networks.
▪ Northern region: Mae Lao Watershed, which is mountainous and forested with comparatively limited low flat land for cultivation. ▪ Northeastern region: Phetchabun Mountains, which consists of two parallel mountain chains, with the valley of the Pa Sak River in the middle. ▪ Western region: Kaeng Krachan Forest Complex (KKFC) lying in the Tenasserim Mountain Range and in connection with Tanintharyi Region on the boundary between Thailand and Myanmar. KKFC is selected as a site for wildlife conservation due to its significance as the most important protected area in the forest complex. ▪ Southern region: Phang Nga Bay, which includes Phang Nga Bay Marine National Park, was declared a protected Ramsar Site (no. 1185) of international ecological significance on 14 August 2002. Phang Nga is a shallow bay with 42 islands, comprising shallow marine waters and intertidal forested wetlands, with at least 28 species of mangrove; seagrass beds and coral reefs are also present.
During the project preparation period, site inventory and analysis of forests, water resources, land use, local livelihoods, climate conditions, health impacts from climate change, local organizations, and needs of selected communities was conducted in the four regions to identify/confirm project sites and strategies for socio-ecological production landscapes/seascapes. After the identification of project sites, functional plans and diagrams with full
20 | P a g e
participation of community stakeholders were created so that local stakeholders and planners had the entire picture of communities and their needs and links between communities. The three-fold approach of the Satoyama Initiative will be fully applied during project implementation: a) consolidate wisdom on securing diverse ecosystem services and values; b) integrate traditional ecological knowledge and modern science; and c) explore new forms of co-management systems. Exit strategies for phasing out will be planned with the multi-stakeholder groups at this stage to aim at ensuring the sustainability of impacts and to encourage community commitment after GEF-6 funding ends.
Strategic interventions to support scale up of sustainable livelihoods Strategic interventions allow for the integration of individual community-based initiatives through knowledge and support networks, associations, value chains, and marketing. They also allow for monitoring of the aggregated impact on specific land/seascapes and ecosystems. With over twenty years of support to community-based organizations and their initiatives, successful, popular lines of work have emerged that are increasingly ready for upscaling and broader adoption. Some potential lines of work to be upscaled include broader adoption of renewable energy applications, sustainable tourism, and agroecological practices and cropping systems, including crop genetic resource conservation and processing of coffee, tea and honey.
The baseline scenario and associated baseline projects
Component 1: Resilient rural landscapes for sustainable development and global environmental protection The primary baseline investments and activities in the four selected regions of Thailand relevant to this GEF-6 phase, as in previous programming, are those linked with the 12th National Economic and Development Plan, the National Adaptation Plan, the National Strategy on Climate Change, and Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs). These are important sectoral efforts that will contribute to the enhancement and revitalization of the target production landscapes selected for SGP in its GEF-6 Phase. SGP grant projects supporting local communities will add value and build on these government led initiatives. Under the current baseline scenario, without GEF SGP support, vulnerable community organizations in degraded landscapes would remain in the same conditions, as the above-mentioned initiatives do not have the capability to reach out and work with remote and poor communities in the landscapes where SGP will be focusing to address global environmental and development issues in an integrated and sustainable manner. SGP has supported the capacity development of CBOs/CSOs in each region through their support to grant projects and has strong, established partnerships with stakeholders there, including local governments. These organizations work with existing communities and networks in the targeted locations. Major CSOs working with SGP in the Northern region are the Northern NGO-Coordinating Centre, Northern Development Foundation, Northnet Foundation, Northern Organic Standard Association, Ping River Committee, Association for Akha Education and Culture in Thailand, Inter Mountain Peoples Education and Culture in Thailand Association, Rakthai Foundation, Tak Border Child Assistance Foundation, Chiang Mai University, Mae Jo University, and the Centre for Renewable Energy Promotion. SGP has supported over 50 CSOs in the Northeastern region to conserve biodiversity, demonstrate the use of several types of renewable energy, manage transboundary water systems, plan sustainable use of land, and reduce application of persistent organic pollutants. Major CSOs working with SGP are Northeastern NGO-Coordinating Centre, Foundation for Rural Youth, NET Foundation, Mekong River Community Council, Khonkaen University, and Centres for Renewable Energy Promotion. In the Western region, SGP has supported communities through about 20 CSOs to conserve biodiversity, demonstrate the use of several types of renewable energy, manage transboundary water systems and water resources, plan sustainable use of land, and reduce application of persistent organic pollutants. Major CSOs working with SGP are Western NGO-Coordinating Centre, Pa Deng Village-Energy Innovation Community, Local Development Institute, Tak Border Child Assistance Foundation, Rakthai Foundation, and RECOFTC – the Center for People and Forests.
21 | P a g e
In the Southern region SGP has supported communities through about 50 CSOs/NGOs to conserve biodiversity, demonstrate the use of several types of renewable energy, manage transboundary water systems, plan sustainable use of land, and reduce application of persistent organic pollutants. Major CSOs working with SGP are Southern NGO-Coordinating Centre, Ao Phang-nga Coastal Fishing Community Food Security Project, Phang Nga Bay Savings Group Network for Social Development, Chumphon Environmental Friends Association, Save Andaman Network Foundation, Southern Alternative Agriculture Network, Prince of Songkhla University, and Centres for Renewable Energy Promotion. There are currently no other small grants programmes in Thailand aiming specifically at building the capacities of rural communities to plan and manage sustainable development projects consistent with global environmental benefits, especially with a strategic focus on building landscape resilience. SGP Thailand, over the past two decades, has developed strong multi-stakeholder partnerships with local governments, national agencies and Ministries, CSOs, the private sector and others in the geographic areas in which it works. These partnerships have allowed these entities to facilitate support to community organizations to implement projects, while at the same time, SGP has been able to match community initiatives with government priorities and programmes where community participation is a priority of communities and government agencies. These partnerships and long- standing collaborative arrangements around sectoral initiatives in the rural landscapes constitute a dynamic baseline of programmes and relationships on which further GEF investment will be built. There are currently no rural landscape management initiatives underway in Thailand to build socio-ecological resilience that take an integrated, participatory, community-based approach, since the landscape management approach is comparatively new in Thailand. The Government of Thailand does implement a number of sectoral initiatives that pursue specific objectives in regard to conservation of energy, land and water management, co- management of protected areas and the development of alternative livelihoods. However, there is no integrated approach focused geographically that brings these initiatives together to produce synergistic benefits aimed at enhancing resilience based on global environmental benefits and sustainable development. The focus of government initiatives is on individual smallholders so there are no initiatives to empower community organizations, individually or collectively, to take a lead role as decision makers in determining strategic landscape management priorities, which technologies or practices to adopt, how production systems should be designed, how they should be adapted to prevailing community conditions, etc.
Consistency with GEF Policy and Programming The project proposed here is in full conformity with the policy for upgrading of SGP Country Programmes as first described in GEF/C.36/4 Small Grants Programme Execution Arrangements and Upgrading Policy for GEF-5 and then in GEF/C.46/13 GEF Small Grants Programme: Implementation Arrangements for GEF-6, approved by GEF Council in Cancun 2014. At the same time, the proposed project outcomes are fully aligned with the SGP Strategic Directions for GEF-6 found on pages 200-206 of GEF/R.6/20/Rev.04, GEF Programming Directions, approved by GEF Council in March 2014. The project also contributes to specific GEF -6 corporate results No. 1, 2 and 4.
Consistency with National Priorities This project is fully consistent with the national strategies and plans or reports and assessments under relevant conventions listed below:
The 11th National Social and Economic Development Plan (2012- 2016) The plan upholds the royal initiatives on Philosophy of Sufficiency Economy, which provides guidelines for Thai people to live by at all levels — the individual, the family, the community, society and the nation — and uses the middle path to direct the country’s evolution. Following this Philosophy, economic development will be balanced and able to respond to changes. Rationality must be used to analyze causes and effects, while moderation is needed to achieve balanced development between material and mental advancement, between self-reliance and competitive capability in the world community, and between rural and urban society. A resilient system must be achieved through the use of risk management to meet challenges from change. To drive the development process at all levels requires knowledge that is relevant to the Thai way of life. Ethics must be fostered within the nation so
22 | P a g e
that Thai people work with moral integrity and live with perseverance. These qualities constitute a resilient character that prepares families, communities and the country for changes. The plan contains six strategic directions, all relevant to environmental conservation and sustainable development: Building a fair and justice society; developing humanity towards a learning society; enhancing capacity in the agricultural sector and food and energy security; modifying economic structures towards sustainability; coordinating with countries in the region; and preparing to adapt to climate change and paving ways to a low- carbon, environmentally-friendly society.
Thailand Policy and Prospective Plan for Enhancement and Conservation of National Environment Quality (1997- 2016) These policies were endorsed by Sub-Committees of the National Environmental Board and the Pollution Control Board after which the Cabinet passed a resolution accepting the policies. The policies include essential strategies to accelerate rehabilitation of renewable resources and application of mitigation measures to address a variety of environmental and natural resources: soil and land use, forest resources, water resources, coastal resources, mineral resources, and energy resources. In each, there are specific objectives and guidelines for sectors to follow.
National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan: NBSAP (2015-2021) The action plan comprises four strategies that include community participation and local implementation as follows; 1) integration of biodiversity values and management with participation from all levels 2) conservation and restoration of biodiversity 3) building capacity for utilization and sharing of benefits derived from biodiversity in accordance with the principle of the green economy, and 4) developing knowledge and database systems on biodiversity, consistent with internationally recognized standards. In each, there are specific action plans for sectors at all level to carry out.
National Adaptation Plan: NAP (Phase 1-2: 2015-2016) The plan is still in the process of climate vulnerability and risk assessment in the context of current capabilities and needs from key sectors. This analysis will point to potential entry points for integrating adaptation into development planning. A core component of Integrating Agriculture into the NAP is community participation in the design and implementation of climate-smart agricultural systems, integrated watershed and sustainable land management plans, and climate-proofed coastal protection infrastructure.
Policies, Measures and Plans for Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity (2008-2012) Still considered valid and used as the foundation to formulate further action plans, the policies comprise five strategies: protection of biological components, support for sustainable use of biodiversity, mitigation of threats to biodiversity, promotion of research and development and education, and enhancement of country capacity to fulfil international obligations, including management mechanisms and monitoring and evaluation. The policies emphasize community participation.
National Climate Change Adaptation Master Plan (2014-2050) The plan envisages that Thailand will develop resilience to the effects of climate change, and its society will grow to be a low-carbon one and consistent with sustainable development approaches. The missions of the plan include: reduction of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions rate, enhancement of sectoral capacity to be prepared for implementation of the relevant policies and plans, development of databases and knowledge to support plans and policies to reduce GHG emission rates and adapt to climate change, and development of suitable mechanisms to support holistic and effective implementation.
10-year Strategic Plan on Combating Land Degradation and Desertification (2008-2018) This national plan is implemented on the principle that local communities play participating and implementing roles to combat land degradation and/or mitigate the effects of drought. The plan is to develop real actions at
23 | P a g e
community level throughout the country. The plan focuses on affected areas, improving soil quality, rehabilitating degraded areas, and managing soil and water resources in a sustainable way.
Thailand Plan and Strategy for New York Declaration on Forests: NYDF (2014-2030) Thailand Government had endorsed the New York Declaration on Forests during the UN Climate Change Conference, in Paris (COP21) in 2015. The framework of the New York Declaration on Forests in Thai context has been developed to achieve two main targets under SDGs 13 (climate change) and SDG 15 (forest landscape). The community forest management is a key role to achieve the milestones of the national NYDF when the carbon sink capacity is enhanced. This could mitigate the rate of global climate change.
IV. RESULTS AND PARTNERSHIPS i. Expected Results:
Global environmental benefits Global environmental benefits (GEB) generated by the Thailand SGP Upgrading Country Programme as a result of the project proposed here can be estimated simplistically over the short term as a result of potential aggregated impacts from hypothetical future individual grant projects. However, overall benefits over the longer term will be a function of the synergies created between projects through programmatic approaches such as the landscape/seascape management proposed here. Under these approaches, community groups, local authorities and CSOs form multi-stakeholder partnerships to develop and implement landscape resilience strategies based on outcomes linked to biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services, sustainable land management, climate change mitigation, and water resource management, all of which are shaped and defined by their relation to local priorities for food security, income generation and the development of social capital for the global environment and socio-ecological resilience. These strategies will define the types and numbers of SGP-supported community projects required to meet the selected outcomes; at that point, once the strategies have been developed by the communities in each landscape/seascape, a more credible, detailed accounting of potential global environmental benefits will be possible. At the same time, the project’s multi-stakeholder partnerships will explicitly develop strategic projects (defined by SGP as up to USD 150,000/project) to upscale successful SGP-supported technologies, practices or systems identified from previous phases of the SGP Thailand Country Programme. Prospective GEB from these initiatives have been estimated during project preparation and will be refined during landscape strategy implementation as a result of adaptive management. During project preparation, consultations and analysis of potential community initiatives in each landscape yielded estimates of concrete targets as expressed in the table below. The Thailand Upgrading Country Programme will focus on the strategic goal of Resilient rural landscapes for sustainable development and global environmental protection, assisting communities to manage their landscapes/seascapes adaptively to enhance socio-ecological resilience based on global environmental benefits. The Thailand Country Programme will focus on empowering community organizations in landscape level networks to build their adaptive management capacities by implementing community level projects and collaborating in managing landscape resources and processes to achieve socio-ecological resiliency. This line of work is expected to result in landscapes/seascapes under adaptive management for global environmental benefits and local sustainable development. A reasonably precise measure of the area (in hectares) to be brought under adaptive management for global environmental benefits has been made as a result of project preparation. Greater food security and/or generation of employment and income for resource-dependent communities from sustainable management of ecosystem processes, marketing of biodiversity and other resources and reducing dependence on fossil fuels will provide the primary economic incentive to these communities, individually and collectively, to conserve biodiversity and optimize ecosystem services. Community organizations will build their capacities to plan and manage resources adaptively and in synergy with each other, thus contributing to the sustainability of
24 | P a g e
biodiversity conservation, land management and climate mitigation, and to broaden the global recognition of the values of these landscapes for conservation as well as for human well-being. Based on the principle of “small people, mighty thoughts”, SGP Thailand not only supports communities to achieve environment and livelihood benefits, but also offers practical models to inspire policy-making and empower community-based and non-governmental organizations to carry out activities that would contribute to securing national environmental and sustainable livelihood benefits. This enables SGP to facilitate financing to community organizations and act as a working partner to communities to address national development and environmental problems and promote sustainable development. The knowledge obtained from analysis of project experiences and lessons learned will be socialized through SGP's well established national network of stakeholders – from CSOs, academia, government, private sector, media and the international development community - and used in upscaling successful initiatives. Successful initiatives from previous phases of SGP Thailand will be identified and upscaled; prospective candidates thus far for upscaling include conservation of globally significant biodiversity through community conservation areas, ecotourism, sustainable harvest of NTFPs; reduction of greenhouse gas emissions through applications of renewable energy technologies, energy efficiency technologies and sustainable forest management; reversal and/or prevention of desertification/land degradation and mitigation of the effects of drought in affected areas through improved soil conservation, water harvesting, and biomass management; and empowerment of communities and civil society organizations to address global environmental challenges through enhanced organizational capacities. Multi-stakeholder landscape level “policy platforms” through multi- stakeholder landscape management groups (including local policy makers and subnational/national advisors) will be established to analyze lessons learned from project and programme performance and identify and discuss potential policy applications with local policy makers and national/subnational policy advisors. With GEF-6 funding, SGP Thailand will strengthen the linkages between policy makers, academia, and community- based and non-governmental organizations and already existing networks working in the field of environment and sustainable development to facilitate exchange of experience, engage technical support and disseminate successful experiences and knowledge; this will enable replication or up-scaling of successful lessons in different areas. It will also partner with multi-stakeholders to develop and implement strategic projects to bring adoption of specific successful SGP-supported technologies, practices or systems to a tipping point in each landscape through engagement of potential financial partners, policy makers and national/subnational advisors and institutions, as well as the private sector. Finally, the Country Programme will link community organizations, as part of this project’s strategy, built on the successes and lessons learned from its previous experience, to larger government and non-governmental organizations and initiatives (including those FSPs financed by the GEF) involved in implementing Thailand’s policies related to development of low emissions rural/urban systems, sustainable rural energy, and landscape management for climate resilience based on biodiversity conservation and optimization of ecosystem function. As such, SGP will continue to work with GEF Full-sized Projects, especially in the fields of renewable energy, sustainable transport, biodiversity conservation, and sustainable land use to promote community-based approaches and the delivery of local development benefits. SGP will collaborate closely with various national NGO networks to promote global environmental values and their integration with sustainable development priorities. NGOs and CBOs will play increasingly significant roles in efforts to achieve national priorities and commitments to the relevant global conventions during this phase of the SGP Thailand Upgrading Country Programme by:
• Strengthening the linkages between NGOs and CBOs and pre-existing networks working in the field of environment and sustainable development to facilitate exchange of experience, engage technical support and disseminate successful experiences and knowledge which will help to replicate or up-scale successful lessons in different areas; • Establishing new networks for CSOs implementing projects in the same focal and/or geographic area in climate change mitigation (renewable energy applications, sustainable transport projects, etc.) and in biodiversity conservation to strengthen means of cooperation, coordination and networking through a strategic approach;
25 | P a g e
• Adopting specific successful SGP-supported technologies, practices or systems to reach a tipping point in each landscape through engagement of potential financial partners, policy makers and national/subnational advisors and institutions, as well as the private sector; • Applying community-driven development and integrated landscape management to broaden the global recognition of the values of these landscapes for conservation as well as human well-being; • Establishing a link between national and global NGO communities to share good practices internationally and ensure the dissemination of experience and lessons learnt.
The following are the expected global environmental benefits to be generated by the project:
Corporate Results Replenishment Targets Project Targets 1. Maintain globally significant Improved management of landscapes and 29,500 hectares biodiversity and the ecosystem goods seascapes covering 300 million hectares and services that it provides to society 2. Sustainable land management in 120 million hectares under sustainable 1,500 hectares production systems (agriculture, land management rangelands, and forest landscapes) 3. Support to transformational shifts 750 million tons of CO2e mitigated 3,406,625.62 metric 4 towards a low-emission and resilient (include both direct and indirect) tons of CO2e development path
Contribution of the project to the Aichi targets A central feature of this project is the development of four landscape management strategies aimed at strengthening the socio-ecological resilience of landscapes and communities based on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services. The vast majority, if not all, of small grant projects financed by the project proposed here will achieve global environmental benefits as a consequence of activities that also produce economic benefits related to food security, disaster risk reduction, and other goals. These landscape strategies will also include activities related to landscape governance, thus beginning to formalize development and poverty reduction as part of landscape management. This project will contribute to the following Aichi targets:
Target 5: By 2020, the rate of loss of all natural habitats, including forests, is at least halved and where feasible brought close to zero, and degradation and fragmentation is significantly reduced Target 7: By 2020 areas under agriculture, aquaculture and forestry are managed sustainably, ensuring conservation of biodiversity. Target 13: By 2020, the genetic diversity of cultivated plants and farmed and domesticated animals and of wild relatives is maintained. Target 14: By 2020, ecosystems that provide essential services, including services are restored and safeguarded. Target 15: By 2020, ecosystem resilience and the contribution of biodiversity to carbon stocks has been enhanced, through conservation and restoration, including restoration of at least 15 per cent of degraded ecosystems. Target 18: By 2020, the traditional knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities and their customary use, are respected.
These six targets will be addressed through individual grant projects approved and implemented in alignment with and pursuit of strategic landscape outcomes for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. The quantification
4 For the Sixth Operational Phase of the SGP in Thailand, it is expected that specific community projects will directly impact 26,000 hectares of forest to mitigate emissions to the atmosphere over 20 years of approximately 3,406,625.62 tons of CO2e. For more details on the methodology used to calculate this figure, please see Annex J.
26 | P a g e
of proposed landscape level targets and indicators will take place during the planning phases of each landscape strategy with the direct involvement of landscape stakeholders. A baseline assessment will be carried out in each landscape prior to outcome definition and target identification. Progress towards these landscape outcomes and targets will be tracked in annual landscape level stakeholder meetings.
Project objective The project’s primary objective is to enable community organizations in Mae Lao Watershed; Phetchabun Mountains; Kaeng Krachan Forest Complex; and Phang Nga Bay land/seascapes of Thailand to take collective action for adaptive land/seascape management for socio-ecological resilience - through design, implementation and participatory evaluation of grant projects for global environmental benefits and sustainable development.
Project outcomes, outputs and activities The above objective will be achieved through four outcomes organized around a single component: Resilient rural landscapes and seascapes for sustainable development and global environmental protection. These four outcomes will be achieved through delivery of 15 outputs. Individual small grants, strategic grants and other project outputs and activities will be combined to deliver the following four outcomes:
• Outcome 1: Multi-stakeholder partnerships the Mae Lao Watershed; Phetchabun Mountains; Kaeng Krachan Forest Complex; and Phang Nga Bay landscapes/seascapes develop and execute adaptive management plans to enhance landscape/seascape and community resilience, and global environmental benefits. • Outcome 2: Community organizations in landscape/seascape level networks build their adaptive management capacities by implementing community level projects and collaborating in managing landscape resources and processes to achieve socio ecological production landscape resiliency. • Outcome 3: Multi-stakeholder landscape and seascape management groups, local policy makers and subnational/national advisors organized in landscape policy platforms discuss potential policy innovations based on analysis of project experience and lessons learned. • Outcome 4: Multi-stakeholder partnerships develop and implement strategic projects to bring adoption of specific successful SGP-supported technologies, practices or systems to a tipping point in each landscape through engagement of potential financial partners, policy makers and national/subnational advisors and institutions, as well as the private sector.
Outcome 1: Multi-stakeholder partnerships in four pilot landscapes and seascapes – Mae Lao Watershed; Phetchabun Mountains; Kaeng Krachan Forest Complex; Phang Nga Bay - develop and execute adaptive management plans to enhance landscape/seascape and community resilience with global environmental benefits.
The overall purpose of this Outcome is to establish and operationalize practical partnerships among the key stakeholders in each of the target landscapes. These partnerships will function as platforms for analysis, discussions and agreements on how to enhance socio-ecological resilience through community-based sustainable development initiatives that produce global environmental benefits. These groups will develop landscape management strategies aimed at achieving four outcomes at landscape level: conservation of biodiversity and ecosystems services; productivity and sustainability of agricultural and other production ecosystems; development of alternative livelihoods that enhance global environmental benefits, including the application of renewable and energy efficiency technologies; and improved landscape governance. The following Outputs will be produced to achieve this Outcome:
Output 1.1 Formal multi-stakeholder groups organized in each landscape
27 | P a g e
Landscape level workshops were undertaken in each landscape during project preparation that brought CBOs and other stakeholders together to discuss landscape resilience issues and management and gauge interest in participating in project implementation. Shortly after project inception, the SGP Country Programme Management Team will organize and carry out a multi-stakeholder workshop in each landscape to confirm engagement of CBOs, local authorities, NGOs, et al., in landscape resilience planning. Each multi-stakeholder group or network will then be consolidated with a formal, documented constitutional agreement.
Output 1.2 Formal multi-stakeholder agreements agreed and signed regarding long term outcomes in each landscape Under this Output, the Country Programme Management Team will work with each group or network to apply the Satoyama Landscape Resilience Indicators, analyzing positive and negative trends in landscape resilience indicators. These indicators were used in the COMDEKS program financed by the Ministry of Environment of Japan, where they were used in 20 countries around the world5 to build consensus around landscape level outcomes. This process of analysis and discussion will lead to agreement on long term resilience outcomes for each landscape.
Output 1.3 Participatory research and planning processes instituted leading to comprehensive socio-ecological baseline assessments Based on the agreed analysis of landscape resilience carried out under Output 1.2, each multi-stakeholder group will outline participatory research and planning processes leading to socio-ecological baseline assessments. The group will draft TORs for socio-ecological baseline assessments, and SGP will call for proposals to lead participatory research and planning processes in the four landscapes. A capable NGO will then be selected to lead the participatory research and planning, which will be monitored closely by the Country Programme management team. Finally, each group will evaluate the baseline assessments for consistency with the initial outline, including comprehensiveness, detail, etc.
Output 1.4 Landscape and seascape strategies developed by multi-stakeholder groups With the baseline assessments in hand, together with the agreed landscape level Outcomes, the Country Programme management team will hold strategy formulation workshops to confirm Outcomes, identify Outputs and Activities and clarify roles and responsibilities.
Output 1.5 Typology of community level projects developed and agreed by multi-stakeholder groups together with elegibility criteria With the landscape/seascape strategy fully defined by each multi-stakeholder group, a typology of eligible community level initiatives will be developed that aligns with landscape Outcomes and the capacities of community based organizations. Each project in the typology corresponds to one or more of the landscape level Outcomes, which themselves are aligned with GEF focal areas (BD, CC, LD).
Outcome 2: Community organizations in landscape/seascape level networks build their adaptive management capacities by implementing community level projects and collaborating in managing landscape resources and processes to achieve socio ecological production landscape resiliency.
Based on the agreed typology of eligible initiatives produced under Output 1.5, above, community organizations participating in the multi-stakeholder groups can propose an initiative that they wish to carry out with GEF SGP funding. A call for proposals may also be issued for a landscape with clear guidance in terms of desired project type i.e. Outcomes to be pursued, etc. Each community level initiative will identify targets and impacts sought in terms of global environmental and other impacts (social, economic, other), knowledge to be gained based on assumptions related to a community level theory of change, and capacities to be built. With impacts, knowledge
5 UNU-IAS, Bioversity International, IGES and UNDP (2014) Toolkit for the Indicators of Resilience in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS). Found at https://comdeksproject.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/toolkit-indicators-web.pdf
28 | P a g e
and capacity indicators defined, each community organization will plan participatory M&E with the assistance of the Country Programme management team. Each project will follow this same pattern regardless of GEF focal area to be addressed, in keeping with the SGP Operational Guidelines. As such, the following Outputs will achieve this Outcome:
Output 2.1 Community level small grant projects in the selected landscapes and seascapes that conserve biodiversity and enhance ecosystem services: co-management of protected areas, community conservation areas, watershed management, sustainable harvest of non-timber forest products, sustainable fisheries, reforestation, others.
Output 2.2 Community level small grant projects in the selected landscapes that enhance productivity and sustainability of smallholder agroecosystems: participatory vulnerability assessments; agroecological techniques/practices such as polycultures, cover crops, agroforestry systems, crop genetic resource conservation, soil conservation, others
Output 2.3 Community level small grant projects in the selected landscapes that innovate alternative livelihood options and improve market access: value addition to agroecological products; ecotourism; market access for environmentally friendly products, others
Output 2.4 Community level small grant projects in the selected landscapes that mitigate climate-related risks to health and well-being: demonstration of energy efficiency/renewable energy applications (biomass efficient stoves, biogas, solar energy, micro-hydro, etc.); waste management for energy and improved carbon sequestration/storage through sustainable forest management.
Outcome 3: Multi-stakeholder landscape and seascape management groups, local policy makers and subnational/national advisors organized in landscape policy platforms discuss potential policy innovations based on analysis of project experience and lessons learned.
Participatory landscape planning and management to enhance socio-ecological resilience provides a solid foundation of on-the-ground project experience to be mined for lessons applicable to other regions and nationally. This experience needs to be systematized and codified for dissemination to policy makers, program managers and community organizations and their networks for discussion and analysis and potential use in policy reform, as well as in replication of best practice. To ensure that lessons from landscape management and community-driven projects are disseminated and discussed by stakeholders, and local and national authorities, this project will establish a policy dialogue platform in each landscape comprised of key stakeholders, experts and authorities; at the same time, a dialogue platform will be organized at national level to present lessons and potential policy inputs gleaned from the landscape platforms for further consideration by national level authorities, NGOs, donors and others. As such, the following Outputs will achieve this Outcome:
Output 1.3.1 Multisectoral policy dialogue platforms organized for each landscape/seascape and one dialogue platform organized nationally
Under this output, community organizations, second level organizations, local authorities, thematic experts and others will be invited to participate in dialogues around project experiences and analysis of potential lessons.
Output 1.3.2 Relevant project and portfolio experiences systematized and codified for dissemination to policy platform participants as well as community organizations and networks, as well as second level organizations
In this phase of the SGP Country Program, each grant project for community-based initiatives or strategic projects will be subjected to a participatory evaluation financed through the grant project budget and supervised by the Country Program management team. The lessons derived from these evaluations will be assessed by the team and
29 | P a g e
presented first to the National Steering Committee for review and discussion. With the most relevant ones lessons selected by the NSC, the team will organize their presentation to the policy dialogue platforms. At the same time, the Country Program team will disseminate relevant lessons to community organizations and networks around Thailand.
Outcome 4: Multi-stakeholder partnerships develop and implement strategic projects to bring adoption of specific successful SGP-supported technologies, practices or systems to a tipping point in each landscape through engagement of potential financial partners, policy makers and national/subnational advisors and institutions, as well as the private sector.
With over twenty years of support to community-based organizations and their initiatives, successful, popular lines of work have emerged that are increasingly ready for upscaling and broader adoption. Some potential lines of work to be upscaled include broader adoption of renewable energy applications, sustainable tourism, and agroecological practices and cropping systems, including crop genetic resource conservation and processing of coffee, tea and honey. To support upscaling, it will be necessary to analyze and understand what made the community initiatives successful in social, economic and ecological terms, as well as the requirements for achieving broader adoption at scale; this would include value chain and market access analysis. Partnerships between community or producers’ organizations and NGO, government and private sector actors and entities will be facilitated. Potential financial partners will also be engaged at this stage. Multi-stakeholder partnerships around specific commodities or products or services will develop strategies aimed at upscaling a particular line of work, including value-chain development for specific products. As such, the following Outputs will achieve this Outcome:
Output 1.4.1 Detailed analysis of successful grant project portfolios and lines of work (e.g. crop genetic resource conservation, renewable energy applications) to identify lessons learned/best practice and market opportunities
Under this output, the Country Program team will identify 2-3 likely upscaling candidates for analysis and potential development. A call for proposals will then be issued to NGOs, academic institutions and the private sector for the analysis; proposals will be vetted by the NSC and approved for funding. The NSC will establish monitoring and supervision arrangements for implementation of the successful proposals, including periodic reporting to multi- stakeholder partnerships.
Output 1.4.2 Engagement of potential financial partners and public sector institutions as viable in analysis and planning
As part of the proposals under Output 1.4.1, proponents will identify potential financial partners and an engagement strategy to obtain their collaboration in analysis and planning, as well as potential implementation.
Output 1.4.3 Based on the detailed analysis, identification of upscaling requirements and opportunities, and development of a strategy(ies) to enable and facilitate upscaling
Each analysis will identify upscaling requirements and opportunities, including value-chain needs, market access options, risks to production and commercialization where appropriate, financing necessities, legal requirements, etc. Each analysis will be shared with the multi-stakeholder partnership behind the potential upscaling initiative, and the partnership stakeholders will develop a strategy, based on the analysis, for upscaling. This will include financing from the GEF SGP Strategic Projects window, combined with cofinancing from other stakeholders and entities.
Output 1.4.4 Strategic projects (up to USD 150,000) that implement strategies enabling and facilitating upscaling of the identified portfolios and lines of work e.g. potentially, broader adoption of renewable energy applications, sustainable harvesting of NTFPs, and agroecological practices and cropping systems, including crop genetic resource conservation.
30 | P a g e
Under this output, the Country Program team will assist multi-stakeholder partnerships, including financial partners, to prepare proposals to implement their strategies, including identification of adequate technical assistance, M&E, budgeting, and other elements. The Country Program team may contract specialized technical expertise where needed to oversee strategic project implementation.
ii. Partnerships:
The GEF Small Grants Programme is predicated on the need for partnerships at all levels: between community members, between organizations, between the GEF and co-financiers of community grants, between the institutions and members of the National Steering Committee. This project builds on this history of partnership in seeking more purposeful and systematic participation in SGP strategies and plans of key potential allies and stakeholders, particularly in regard to upscaling of successful production lines of work. Upscaling is based on analyses of past experience and current value chains - strong multi-stakeholder partnerships are critical to overcome financial, technical, and capacity barriers to realizing value chain development and the ensuing benefits to producers and the global environment. The formation of multi-stakeholder platforms in each landscape, and the establishment of broad partnerships for value chain development, involve public and private entities who will provide financing, technical assistance or other forms of support. Significant co-financing has been committed by government institutions, as well other donors. Finally, the development of value chains by second level organizations and networks of community organizations exemplifies the importance of partnership development to the success of this project.
The Thailand SGP Country Programme will share its experiences with appropriate private sector, government and other entities related to the community driven landscape planning and management approach and, in particular, the upscaling of successful lines of work. The Thailand SGP Country Programme has developed a series of partnerships and collaborative arrangements over the years with government entities, as well as NGOs, financed from a variety of sources, including the GEF. On- going coordination with these organizations and their initiatives is mainstreamed within the SGP planning and programming framework through a) co-financing agreements; b) landscape level planning processes in which the relevant institutions and programmes are invited to participate; and c) participation of program or institutional representatives on the National Steering Committee. In this last case, the multi-stakeholder nature of the NSC - on which government, NGO and UNDP representatives sit - enables fluid and direct communication and discussion regarding coordination of SGP programming with other initiatives and projects during the NSC review of project proposals. This has resulted in coordination of planning and programming, often sustained with co-financing contributions, which has resulted in broader impacts and on-the-ground synergies. The Thailand SGP Country Programme has consistently reached out and coordinated with other relevant GEF initiatives in the geographic areas of the Programme. For example, in the case of the project “Strengthening Conservation and Incentives for Wildlife Conservation in the Western Forest Complex” (Tiger Project), the SGP Country Programme collaborated with and technically supported the grant-making mechanism as well as community capacity building aspects. During preparation of the project proposed here, 1) Tiger6; 2) Flora and Fauna7; and 3) Peat swamp8-GEF projects were identified as potentially relevant to SGP activities in the target landscapes in GEF6. These projects, which are at different stages of planning and implementation (in the pipeline, approved or under implementation), were identified as potentially relevant to SGP because they are either national projects important to the work in the selected landscapes or projects with direct interventions in the geographic areas in which SGP will intervene. The 1) Tiger; 2) Flora and Fauna; and 3) Peat swamp projects address sustainable forest management, land degradation, biodiversity planning/conservation/ sustainable use in coastal
6 Strengthening Capacity and Incentives for Wildlife Conservation: https://open.undp.org/projects/00081732 7 Conserving Habitats for Globally Important Flora and Fauna: https://open.undp.org/projects/00083158 8 Maximizing carbon sink capacity: https://open.undp.org/projects/00084475
31 | P a g e
and terrestrial ecosystems, and land use/land use change and forestry climate change mitigation initiatives, climate change adaptation initiatives or are enabling activities.
iii. Stakeholder engagement:
Civil Society The primary stakeholders of the SGP are community-based organizations and local community members who will design and implement the projects to generate global environmental benefits and community livelihood benefits. Second level organizations, community production associations, and NGO landscape, national and sub-national networks associated with SGP will also be involved in various Programme implementation aspects to achieve the expected outcomes. In particular, landscape and regional-level civil society organizations will play a central role in enabling the necessary planning, coordination, exchange of information, technical assistance, and business development support required to achieve results at the landscape/ seascape level. SGP may allocate strategic grants (up to USD 150,000) to eligible organizations for activities to integrate communities and their projects at the landscape/seascape level. Associated second-level organizations and NGO networks will join the SGP National Steering Committee (NSC) in the ongoing dialogue and coordination that needs to take place with relevant national and sub-national level government institutions and Programmes. Other NGOs not directly associated with SGP but with activities in the landscapes will be invited to share information and experiences and be part of the dialogue. It should be noted that each land/seascape has a specific institutional setting, and the specific key government, academic and non-government organizations were determined at the project preparation grant (PPG) stage who will be involved in each landscape to enhance landscape/seascape governance and to help consolidate the production activities at scale for each production line. The SGP National Steering Committee A multi-stakeholder body with a non-governmental majority, will be the main decision-making body of the project. It will determine the criteria for project eligibility in each landscape/ seascape based on the SGP Operational Guidelines and overall landscape/seascape sustainable management objectives and targets and will approve all grants. It should be noted that SGP landscape/seascape management objectives and targets have been discussed and agreed during the PPG phase and adjusted as necessary by the NSC upon consultation with relevant stakeholders. SGP has collected baseline data for each landscape that will be continuously updated and used for monitoring and project evaluation purposes. While the SGP Country Programme Manager (CPM) will review and provide feedback on individual grant reports, the NSC will review and provide feedback to the annual portfolio performance report to be prepared by the CPM that will aggregate and provide analysis on grant results at the landscape and large ecosystem level. The NSC will also provide advice concerning SGP-promoted multi-stakeholder partnerships at the landscape and large ecosystem levels, including their composition, and terms of reference.
Indigenous People (IP) The Indigenous groups of Thailand are concentrated in three geographic areas of the country: fishing and hunter- gatherer groups in the south, on the Korat plateau along the borders of Laos and Cambodia in the northeast and in the northwestern highlands, where the largest population of Indigenous Peoples, more often known as “hill tribes”, live. While there is no direct account of the total population of ethnic groups in Thailand, the population of hill tribe peoples is estimated at nearly one million. The SGP landscape management project will involve the IP of each landscape as key actors and beneficiaries toward their landscape outcomes as outlined in the following table. Table 5: Involvement of the Indigenous People Landscape/seascape Key IP-based CBOs/NGOs Key Involvement In Mae Lao Watershed of the north, IMPECT Association; - Cultural conservation and most of the population are ethnic Akha University and Cultural alternative education; sustainable minorities of different tribes such as Network; environmental and natural Akha, Lahu, Karen, Chin Haw, Mhong, Mae Lao Watershed resources management; and Lisu, and Yao, having different traditions, Conservation Network; promoting indigenous wisdom and
32 | P a g e
values and beliefs with a mixture of Ethnic Group of the Golden participation of indigenous people in Buddhists, Christians, and animists. Triangle, development Villages are scattered over highlands, hill Ethnic Youth Group; - Proper land use planning sides and valleys between the hills. Most Mae Salong-Mae Kham - Promote sustainable forest households have home gardens and fruit Watershed Network; management trees for home consumption. Animals Akha Ethnic Center for - Raise conservation awareness are kept for food supply and labor, for Environment; among the people example, free roaming pigs, chickens, Hin Lad Nai Honey and Coffee - Integrated farming should be ducks, fresh water fish, cows, buffaloes, Group; adopted to secure constant income. etc. Khun Lao village - Reduce use of chemicals by using natural substances based on indigenous knowledge - Promote/develop renewable energy technologies suitable for highland areas and communities could manage by themselves Along the Phetchabun Mountains, there Hmong-Lua-Thin Network; - Raise awareness of landscape are a variety of ethnic groups including Eco-Cultural Study and resilience and sustainable Hmong, Lisu, Thin, Thai-Dam, Thai-Tai, Rehabilitation Center; management. and Thai-Loei. - Soil erosion and degradation Hmong and Lisu tribes live around Khao prevention as well as biodiversity Kho district while Lua and Thin tribes are protection is joint responsibility of found in Lom Khao district of everyone living in the landscape. Phetchabun province where they have - CBO network is expanding to cover become a big tourist attraction and the whole target landscape to work created other issues on land rights, land together on ecosystem protection encroachment and excessive waste. - Promote green consumption and production such as organic farming, safety food. - Promote eco-tourism and culture- based tourism KKFC is made up of four protected areas. Karen Network for Culture and Practice Community Management of The KKFC, apart from being rich in Environment; Protected Areas Conservation biological diversity (both flora and Inter Mountain Peoples (COMPACT) methodology through fauna), is a home to indigenous Karen Education and Culture in the three closely inter-linked core who have been living there for hundreds Thailand Association (IMPECT); elements: an initial baseline of years. Their land is part of their Indigenous Knowledge and assessment of the landscape, which identity, and most of their livelihood Peoples Foundation (IKAP); then served as the foundation for comes from the lands they farm and Pid Thong Lung Phra Institute developing a conceptual model from the surrounding forests. The for Development; (generally in the form of a graphical national park officials have been Pong Luek-Karen village; representation) portraying site-level planning to relocate or evict the Bang Kloy-Karen village processes, threats and communities out of protected areas in opportunities, and a site strategy for their attempt to establish a natural the conservation actions in the World Heritage site using the national KKFC. The governance structure of forest conservation policy and law. the KKFC COMPACT was a local consultative body in which the SGP NSC was represented along with all World Heritage site stakeholders. In the seascape of Phang Nga Bay, there Chum Chon Thai Foundation; - Increase agroforest/integrated are a few groups of IPs, namely: Rawai community; garden areas 1) Sireh is a Moken or Sea Gypsy’s island. Bangrong Savings Group; - Increase areas for mangrove
33 | P a g e
The word ‘sireh’ means ‘betel palm’ Baan Bangla Conservation forest, beach forest, seagrass bed, which goes with ‘betel leaf’, the name of Group; coral reef, and cockle conservation. another island in Malaysia. This shows Ao kung Mangrove - Waste management at original that the community has long-rooted Conservation Group; sources (at home, school, and history in this area, even before the Baan Tasanook community; community) island became part of the Kingdom of Baan Thong Lang Savings - Agree on rules for sustainable Thailand. group; use/management of natural 2) Yamoo-Bangla is an original Baan Nai Nang community; resources. For example, grow 10 /indigenous group. Their goal is to seedlings to replace one tree, or use restore richness and diversity of natural appropriate fishing gears resources and sustainable management - Community-based eco-cultural of community forests. There were times tourism in the past that some of the people in - Cultural revival these communities have shifted from - Strengthen existing networks and agriculture-based livelihoods to service expand them to cover every sector jobs in hotels, resorts, etc. During the - Build capacity of both men and past 10 years, however, more and more women in administrative function of these people returned to their original based on good governance livelihoods as small-scale fishermen principles where they have more freedom and - Together with concerned control over their lives. Currently, there government agencies, jointly are about 200 fishermen in Ao Makham develop and implement rules and who use traditional fishing gears to regulations on sustainable use of preserve coastal resources. natural resources, such as types of fishing tool, size of fish/marine lives 3) Moken and 2. Along Sapam bay and which could be taken, rotational Rawai beach where sea gypsies (Moken fishing, farming, etc. and Urak-Lawoi) live whose ways of living is in great harmony with the environment. For example, they dive to spear fish with traditional pikes in area around three km offshore. Because their fishing methods pose no harm to natural resources, there is a current effort to influence/ modify the law to allow them to fish in a protected marine area.
iv. Mainstreaming gender9: Thailand has mixed experience in promoting gender. Despite equalities in some of these aspects, the overall gender gap still exists and needs to be fully addressed. Although men outnumber women at birth, the mortality rate has been lower among female infants and women at all ages. Consequently, there are more elderly women and many of them live alone. While girls and boys have had equal access to basic education, women have outnumbered men in secondary and tertiary education, but more men have been enrolled in subjects such as engineering and manufacturing which are regarded as ‘high income’ areas. Women have also had slightly less opportunity for self-development and learning after the age of 29 years and women’s household responsibilities have accounted for this drop. Regarding employment, income and poverty, it was found that women’s participation in the workforce has increased but is still lower than that of men. A large number of women are in the agricultural and service sectors, family businesses and producers’ cooperatives while men work as employers, government employees, private
9 Please see Annex E Gender Analysis and Action Plan for more detailed information.
34 | P a g e
employees, and own account workers. During 2004-2007, women have worked approximately 45 hours per week the same as men but have earned less than men. Despite increases in women’s share of household income, they continued to shoulder a large part of unpaid work. Women’s paid and unpaid work in the household and workplace has contributed to the improvement of the well- being of their families and the decline in the overall poverty incidence of the country. But poverty incidence among women still exists especially in female-headed households which has constantly increased. The average income of female heads of household families has constituted 87.8% of male heads of households and the gender gap is largest was in the South The highest poverty incidence for women is found in border provinces in the Northeast, North and South. The poverty of women is due largely to the lack of access to resources and social services, e.g. credit, land, assets, education and social security. For reproductive health, birth control has been practiced by most families and in most cases, by women. Risks involved in pregnancy and birth delivery have abated in the North, but the situation in the South has not improved. Percentage of mothers below the age of 20 years is also on a constant rise. The increase has been observed in all regions. Domestic violence and sexual violence affecting women and children has continued to increase. Domestic violence and broken homes have a profound impact on family members, especially children and youth. During 2002-2007, children and youth aged 7-18 years old of both sexes were arrested and sent to corrective facilities at increasing rates. Violence in Southern provinces has also had significant impacts on women and children. 95% of the orphans due to violence in the four southern provinces lost their fathers, who had been bread winners of the family. Despite increasing women’s presence in workplaces in both private and public sectors, only a small number are in executive positions. In 2007, there were only 22% of female directors in the companies listed on the Stock Exchange Market of Thailand and another 35.37% female directors of all companies registered with the Department of Business Development, Ministry of Commerce. In the public sector, women outnumber men but only a small number have managed to reach the top. Women made up less than one-fourth of the executives. In the National Parliament, women have been under-represented. During 2007-2013, women were selected and elected to the Senate less than 20% of the time. However, this percentage represented an improvement from the 2006 Senate. Likewise, women constituted a small share (11.67%) of the House of Representatives in the 2007 election. The situation was slightly improved in the 2011 election where women represented 15.8% of the elected members of the parliament. This phenomenon also applies at the local political level. However, it is remarkable that the percentage of women in decision making positions in community-based organizations (e.g. cooperatives, village leaders, etc.) has increased at a significant rate, and in 26 provinces, numbers of women leaders at village level outnumber men. UNDP’s analysis of climate change and gender vulnerability further finds that Thailand experienced several extreme climatic events in the recent past, including temperature rise, decrease in total rainfall, sea-level rise, extreme weather events, more intense tropical storms, and unpredictable cold spells. These have had negative impacts on women’s lives in many ways, especially in rural/agricultural communities where women rely heavily on natural resources for their living. Droughts have caused water shortages, and women have to walk longer to fetch water for home use or have to work longer hours for extra income to compensate the loss of income from farming. The rise in temperature and also floods can have effects on the heath of family members as well as the women’s health, hence, more time and money spent on health care. Natural disasters seem to have more female victims than males, directly and indirectly due to their lack of necessary skills to survive the disasters, lack of access to prevention systems, their traditional roles which expect them to take care of the children and elderly before themselves, etc. Women’s migration can also be a result of natural disasters since they have no choice of working in their original community. Promoting gender equality Conclusions of the analysis of gender indicate that: (1) Gender gaps are caused by several factors, including social norms of the roles of men and women, which in many cases limit women from equal access to education, training, employment, and political participation. Gender-biased laws and policies is another key factor, among others.
35 | P a g e
(2) In development planning, it is important to consider these inequalities and ensure that development interventions do not reinforce these existing gaps, but rather help to improve them through gender mainstreaming. (3) Gender equality could be achieved only when women and men enjoy the same rights and opportunities across all sectors of society, including economic participation and decision-making, and when different behaviors, aspirations, needs of women and men are equally valued and favored.
v. South-South and Triangular Cooperation (SSTrC):
The Thailand SGP Country Programme will share its experiences with other SGP participating countries implementing Country Programmes with a landscape approach and expects to benefit from the other countries’ experiences via peer-to-peer support, exchange workshops and by reviewing documents that summarize their approaches and results. Through SGP’s Central Programme Management Team, the Thailand SGP Country Programme’s experiences and lessons will be made available to the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, the UN Convention to Combat Desertification and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change as well as other Programmes and initiatives with similar objectives around the world. If financial resources can be mobilized, SGP will support select grantees to participate in relevant South-South and Triangular Cooperation events organized by UNDP or other development partners.
V. PROJECT MANAGEMENT
i. Cost efficiency and effectiveness:
SGP strives to be cost-effective both at the Programme and individual grant level.
Grants: Cost-effectiveness is an important criterion for the approval of SGP grants by the NSC. The budgets of project proposals are compared with those of prior similar interventions and assessed against expected environmental and social benefits. In all cases, communities are expected to contribute substantial in-kind co- financing (i.e., labor, infrastructure, equipment, tools, land) and help mobilize other in-kind or cash resources from development partners and local government. The NSC also assesses whether there may be more cost-effective alternatives to achieving the same global environmental benefits before approving SGP grants. This ensures that GEF funds are applied in the most cost-effective manner. Partnerships to implement renewable energy and energy efficiency initiatives with the private sector will enable SGP grantees to benefit from private sector infrastructure, technologies, know-how, and financial services. SGP Country Programme: NSC members provide vital scientific and technical inputs to the SGP that would be expensive to obtain via consultant contracts. In addition, the Country Programme Management Unit will establish partnerships with local institutions that are carrying out development initiatives in the target areas, as well as with international, development agencies and GEF-funded projects. The landscape and portfolio approach will help build synergies and achieve economies of scale in certain community-based interventions and also for training and other capacity development initiatives. This Country Programme’s emphasis on scaling up is based on two decades of community level development of and support to innovative projects, which have resulted in robust capacities of the Country Programme Management Unit, partner NGOs, and community organizations. At the same time, co- financing commitments from state and local governments indicate
Project management:
The SGP Country Programme is structured similarly to other SGP Country Programmes worldwide under the SGP Operational Guidelines approved by GEF Council. First and foremost, the Country Programme is governed by a National Steering Committee comprised of rotating representatives of civil society (the majority), as well as
36 | P a g e
government and UNDP. The National Coordinator manages the Country Programme. Their duties and responsibilities are briefly described below; their detailed Terms of Reference can be found in the Operational Guidelines and will be annexed to the Project Document after the project preparation phase. SGP National Steering Committee: Functions as Project Steering Committee; reviews and approves landscape strategies; advises regarding multi-stakeholder partnership composition and TORs; approves criteria for project eligibility for each landscape based on proposal by multi-stakeholder partnership and SGP Operational Guidelines; reviews and approves projects submitted by the SGP Country Programme Manager; reviews annual project progress reports and recommends revisions and course corrections, as appropriate, representative participant on policy platforms. SGP Country Programme Manager (National Coordinator), and team: Responsible for the overall implementation and operations of the SGP Philippines Country Programme, acting as secretary to the National Steering Committee, mobilizing cofinancing, organizing strategic partnerships with government and non-governmental organizations, and in general managing the successful achievement of Country Programme Objectives, as described in the Project Document.
Agreement on intellectual property rights and use of logo on the project’s deliverables and disclosure of information:
To accord proper acknowledgement to the GEF for providing grant funding, the GEF logo will appear together with the UNDP logo on all promotional materials, other written materials like publications developed by the project, and project hardware. Any citation on publications regarding projects funded by the GEF will also accord proper acknowledgement to the GEF. Information will be disclosed in accordance with relevant policies notably the UNDP Disclosure Policy10 and the GEF policy on public involvement11.
10 See http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/operations/transparency/information_disclosurepolicy/ 11 See https://www.thegef.org/gef/policies_guidelines
37 | P a g e
VI. PROJECT RESULTS FRAMEWORK
This project will contribute to the following Sustainable Development Goal (s): SDG 1 (End poverty in all its forms everywhere); SDG 2 (End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture); SDG 13 (Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts by regulating emissions and promoting developments in renewable energy); SDG 14 (Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development); and SDG 15 (Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss). This project will contribute to the following country outcome included in the UNDAF/Country Programme Document: Outcome 1: Promoting inclusive Green Growth, creating fairness and reducing inequality in the society for sustainable development This project will be linked to the following output of the UNDP Strategic Plan Integrated Results and Resources Framework (2014-2017): Output 1.3: Solutions developed at national and sub-national levels for sustainable management of natural resources, ecosystem services, chemicals and waste. Output 1.4: Scaled up action on climate change adaptation and mitigation cross sectors which is funded and implemented. Output 1.5: Inclusive and sustainable solutions adopted to achieve increased energy efficiency and universal modern energy access (especially off-grid sources of renewable energy) Output 2.5: Legal and regulatory frameworks, policies and institutions enabled to ensure the conservation, sustainable use, and access and benefit sharing of natural resources, biodiversity and ecosystems, in line with international conventions and national legislation. Objective and Outcome Indicators Baseline12 Mid-term End of Project Data Collection Methods and 13 14 (no more than a total of 15 -16 indicators) Target Target Risks/Assumptions (3 years)
Project Objective: A. Increased area (hectares) of Less than 100 15,000 hectares 31,000 additional Data collected by Country Program team at to enable community landscapes under improved practices hectares hectares with project approval and during M&E organizations in four diverse (GEF Core Indicator 4.1+ 4.3) under improved regions of Thailand to take agroecological community Risks: Economic crisis provokes disinterest in collective action for adaptive practices and management of participation; weather and climate impacts landscape and seascape currently which 26,000 damage grant projects or cause abandonment management for socio- protected by hectares of of project areas; communities. landscapes and ecological resilience - through Assumptions: Legal and policy frameworks 5,000 hectares of design, implementation and Zero area of land enable communities to develop plans and seascapes evaluation of grant projects for rehabilitated and obtain permits to sustainably use their natural global environmental benefits improved resources and sustainable development through Government environmental institutions sustainable land maintain or increase their pledged support to management and community sustainable livelihood activities soil improvement practices No major severe weather event will jeopardize community project activities
12 Baseline, mid-term and end of project target levels must be expressed in the same neutral unit of analysis as the corresponding indicator. Baseline is the current/original status or condition and need to be quantified. The baseline must be established before the project document is submitted to the GEF for final approval. The baseline values will be used to measure the success of the project through implementation monitoring and evaluation. 13 Target is the change in the baseline value that will be achieved by the mid-term review and then again by the terminal evaluation. 14 Data collection methods should outline specific tools used to collect data and additional information as necessary to support monitoring. The PIR cannot be used as a source of verification. 38 | P a g e
B. Carbon sequestered or emissions To be determined 1,700,000 tons 3,406,625.62 tons Data collected by Country Program team at avoided in the sector of Agriculture, during landscape of CO2e of CO2e project approval and during M&E; tons of CO2e Forestry and Other Land Use (GEF Core level avoided estimated using UNFCCC co-efficients Indicator 6.1) ( environmental for area forests and RE/EE assessments (see Risks: Economic crisis provokes disinterest in Output 1.2.1) participation; weather and climate impacts damage grant projects or cause abandonment of project areas; Assumptions: Legal and policy frameworks enable communities to develop plans and obtain permits to sustainably use their natural resources Government environmental institutions maintain or increase their pledged support to community sustainable livelihood activities No major severe weather event will jeopardize community project activities
C. Number of direct beneficiaries 32 communities 60 communities 120 communities Data collected by Country Program team at disaggregated by gender (GEF Core with improved with improved project approval and during M&E Indicator 11) livelihoods and livelihoods and enhanced enhanced Risks: Economic crisis provokes disinterest in resilience resilience to participation; weather and climate impacts through natural climate change damage grant projects or cause abandonment resources including 4,320 of project areas; management women and 5,280 during SGP OP5 men Assumptions: Markets and product prices provide sufficient incentives for communities to Including 405 produce sustainable, resilient products women and 945 Legal and policy frameworks enable men communities to develop plans and obtain permits to sustainably use their natural resources Government environmental institutions maintain or increase their pledged support to community sustainable livelihood activities No major severe weather event will jeopardize community project activities
39 | P a g e
Component 1: Resilient rural landscapes and seascapes for sustainable development and global environmental protection
Component/Outcome 1 Formal multi-stakeholder groups One network of One multi- One multi- Data collected by Country Program team established in each landscape/seascape to CSOs and CBOs stakeholder stakeholder group through field visits and direct observation carry out adaptive planning and was built in each group per per landscape is Multi-stakeholder partnerships management region in GEF5 landscape is established and in four pilot landscapes and Risks: Key stakeholders are unwilling or unable established and operational with seascapes – Mae Lao to participate in landscape planning and operational with formal agreement Watershed; Phetchabun management groups formal to collaborate Mountains; Kaeng Krachan agreement to Assumptions: A diverse, representative group Forest Complex; Phang Nga Bay collaborate of landscape stakeholders are interested and - develop and execute adaptive willing to participate in a landscape planning management plans to enhance and management group. landscape/seascape and Stakeholders agree to use the Satoyama community resilience with Resilience Indicators. global environmental benefits Number of adaptive and participatory No existing Four adaptive Four adaptive and Data collected by Country Program team land/seascape management strategies landscape and participatory through field visits and direct observation developed/updated strategies participatory land/seascape land/seascape management Risks: Stakeholders cannot reach consensus on management strategies and desirable landscape level Outcomes and are strategies and plans approved by unable to develop landscape strategies plans approved the National by the National Steering Assumptions: Stakeholders will make every Steering Committee effort to discuss and agree landscape level Committee outcomes and have sufficient analytical and planning capacities to develop landscape strategies. Typologies of community level projects and Projects in A landscape A landscape Data collected by Country Program team eligibility criteria formulated for each landscapes are specific typology specific typology through field visits and direct observation landscape/seascape not aligned with of community of community broader level projects level projects and Risks: Stakeholder groups are insufficiently landscape level and eligibility eligibility criteria innovative or ambitious to identify projects that outcomes criteria formulated and will make an impact on landscape resilience. formulated and agreed to by each agreed to by multi-stakeholder Assumptions: Sufficient number of community each multi- group for each organizations will be interested in discussing stakeholder landscape potential initiatives. group for each landscape Component/ Outcome 2 Area (ha) under community management Less than 100 ha 700 hectares At least 1,500 ha Data collected by Country Program team implementing agroecological principles and under managed under through field visits and direct observation practices for selected crops agroecological agroecological
40 | P a g e
Community organizations in practices practices that Risks: Farmers will be disinterested in landscape/seascape level enhance agroecological farming because they perceive it networks build their adaptive productivity and as risky or unprofitable. management capacities by sustainability of Assumptions: Once a number of farmers see implementing community level smallholder and experience the economic benefits of projects and collaborating in agroecosystems: agroecological farming, more farmers will be managing landscape resources participatory convinced to try it. and processes to achieve socio vulnerability ecological production landscape assessments; resiliency. polycultures, cover crops, agroforestry systems, crop genetic resource conservation; others Area (ha) under community-based As above 5,000 hectares At least 11,000 ha Data collected by Country Program team sustainable forest management including under community- through field visits and direct observation reforestation and/or afforestation based sustainable forest Risks: Local stakeholders will be disinterested in management, sustainable forest management because they including perceive it as risky or unprofitable. reforestation and/or Assumptions: Once sufficient number of local afforestation, that stakeholders see and experience the economic conserve benefits of sustainable forest management, biodiversity and more will be convinced to try it. enhance : ecosystem services: watershed management, non- timber forest products. Area (ha) under indigenous and community Less than 100 ha 8,000 hectares At least 17,000 ha Data collected by Country Program team conservation areas (ICCAs) with land use currently under ICCAs with through field visits and direct observation planning and management, including co- protected by management plans management arrangements with communities that protect Risks: Communities are not interested in government protected areas biodiversity and conserving habitat to protect biodiversity and enhance enhance ecosystem services ecosystem services Assumptions: Community stakeholders can be
convinced of the potential benefits of conservation areas.
41 | P a g e
Area (ha) of land rehabilitated and Zero area of land 700 hectares At least 1,500 ha Data collected by Country Program team improved through sustainable land rehabilitated and under sustainable through field visits and direct observation management and soil improvement improved land management practices through and soil sustainable land improvement management and practices that soil improvement enhance practices ecosystem services: terracing, Risks: Farmers and community organizations bunds, gabions, will be disinterested in soil conservation gully plugs, because they perceive it as unprofitable. intercropping, etc. Assumptions: Once sufficient farmers and community groups see and experience the economic benefits of increased fertility, water holding capacity and soil moisture availability, more farmers will be convinced to try it. Component/ Outcome 3 Number of operational multi-stakeholder Zero existing -0- One landscape Data collected by Country Program team policy dialogue platforms in each landscape multi-stakeholder multi-stakeholder through field visits and direct observation and nationally policy platforms policy platform in Multi-stakeholder landscape and participants each of four and seascape management Risks: Local authorities and national level engaged in at landscapes groups, local policy makers and advisors reject invitations to participate in landscape level subnational/national advisors policy dialogue platforms and analyze lessons organized in landscape policy from grant projects. platforms discuss potential Assumptions: Local stakeholders (authorities, policy innovations based on private sector, CSOs, and others) will want to analysis of project experience participate in the dialogue platforms given the and lessons learned. visibility it will provide them and other benefits.
Number of multi-stakeholder participants Weak multi- -0- At least 1,000 Data collected by Country Program team engaged in multi-sectoral policy dialogue stakeholder multi-stakeholder through field visits and direct observation platforms and the discussion and analysis of participation in participants lessons learned from landscape planning and organization engaged in multi- Risks: Local authorities and national level and management of knowledge sectoral policy advisors reject invitations to participate in sharing events, dialogue platforms policy dialogue platforms and analyze lessons capacity building and in the analysis from grant projects. activities or process of the outreach landscape Assumptions: Local stakeholders (authorities, private sector, CSOs, and others) will want to planning and management for participate in the dialogue platforms given the
four landscapes visibility it will provide them and other benefits.
42 | P a g e
Number of case studies of the participatory No case studies -0- One case study of Data collected by Country Program team landscape planning and management or other the participatory through direct observation experience produced and disseminated knowledge landscape products planning and produced or management
disseminated process for each of regarding the four participatory landscapes landscape Risks: Engagement and enthusiasm of multi- planning and stakeholder groups slacks off over time. management Assumptions: Multi-stakeholder landscape planning and management groups will maintain an appropriate level of activity and commitment to implementation of the landscape strategies. Number of knowledge products produced Project and 3 different At least 10 Direct observation by Country Program team and disseminated country knowledge different programme products knowledge experiences and products based on Risks: Grantee groups show reluctance to lessons are not project and participate in project evaluations. analyzed, country Assumptions: Stakeholder participation will codified and programme yield insights and knowledge of best practice communicated as experiences and can derive lessons of value and interest to part of an overall produced and authorities and others. strategy or plan disseminated
Component/ Outcome 4 Number of strategic projects consolidating, Zero existing At least four At least four Data collected by Country Program team Multi-stakeholder partnerships replicating and up-scaling specific strategic projects analytical strategic projects through field visits and direct observation develop and implement successful SGP-supported technologies, upscaling SGP- reports of replicating and up- practices or systems supported successful scaling specific strategic projects to bring Risks: Stakeholders are uninterested in technologies, project successful SGP- adoption of specific successful upscaling and no leadership emerges to take practices or portfolios and supported SGP-supported technologies, the process forward. practices or systems to a tipping systems lines of work for technologies, Assumptions: Sufficiently robust numbers of point in each landscape through potential practices or SGP supported projects have been engagement of potential replication and systems implemented to constitute a thematic portfolio financial partners, policy makers upscaling susceptible to upscaling. and national/subnational advisors and institutions, as well Potential investors are likely to be interested in as the private sector. co-financing upscaling initiatives
43 | P a g e
Outputs and Activities COMPONENT 1: Resilient rural landscapes and seascapes for sustainable development and global environmental protection Outcome 1: Multi-stakeholder partnerships in four pilot landscapes and seascapes – Mae Lao Watershed; Phetchabun Mountains; Kaeng Krachan Forest Complex; Phang Nga Bay - develop and execute adaptive management plans to enhance landscape/seascape and community resilience with global environmental benefits. Outputs Activities 1.1 Formal multi-stakeholder 1.1.1 Organize and carry out a multi-stakeholder workshop in each landscape to engage CBOs, local authorities, NGOs, et al in groups organized in each landscape resilience planning landscape 1.1.2 Consolidate multi-stakeholder group, document and adopt formal group constitutional agreement
1.2 Formal multi-stakeholder 1.2.1 Using the Satoyama Landscape Resilience Indicators, analyze positive and negative trends in landscape resilience agreements agreed and signed indictors and discuss and agree long term resilience outcomes for each landscape. regarding long term outcomes 1.2.2 Identify and discuss landscape level outcomes in each landscape 1.3.1 Based on agreed analysis of landscape resilience and desirable outcomes, outline participatory research and planning 1.3 Participatory research and processes for socio-ecological baseline assessments and draft TORs planning processes instituted 1.3.2 Call for proposals to lead participatory research and planning processes in the four landscapes leading to comprehensive 1.3.3 Select NGO or other entity to lead participatory research and planning socio-ecological baseline 1.3.4 Monitor implementation of participatory research and planning assessments 1.3.5 Evaluate baseline assessments
1.4 Landscape and seascape 1.4.1 Organize and carry out a multi-stakeholder workshop in each landscape to develop landscape and seascape strategies strategies developed by multi- using assessment reports and agreed landscape outcomes stakeholder groups
1.5 Typology of community 1.5.1 Develop and agree on a typology of community level projects eligible for funding by SGP that are consistent with and level projects developed and supportive of the resilience outcomes agreed for each landscape agreed by multi-stakeholder
groups together with elegibility criteria
Outcome 2: Community organizations in landscape/seascape level networks build their adaptive management capacities by implementing community level projects and collaborating in managing landscape resources and processes to achieve socio ecological production landscape resiliency. 2.1 Community level small grant projects in the selected
44 | P a g e
landscapes and seascapes that For all Outputs under Outcome 2: conserve biodiversity and enhance ecosystem services • Call for community small grants proposals in each target production land/seascape for project ideas consistent with and supportive of the specific land/seascape outcomes agreed during landscape strategy process 2.2 Community level small • Review and approval of proposals for small grants by the NSC, ensuring synergies and complementarity of community grant projects in the selected projects with each other and with landscape outcomes landscapes that enhance • Monitor grant implementation and take adaptive measures to address any emerging issues productivity and sustainability • Evaluate the performance of each grant in a participatory manner, documenting experience and lessons learned of smallholder agroecosystems
2.3 Community level small grant projects in the selected landscapes that innovate alternative livelihood options and improve market access
2.4 Community level small grant projects in the selected landscapes that mitigate climate-related risks to health and well-being
Outcome 3: Multi-stakeholder landscape and seascape management groups, local policy makers and subnational/national advisors organized in landscape policy platforms discuss potential policy innovations based on analysis of project experience and lessons learned. 3.1 Multi-sectoral policy 3.1.1 Identify and sensitize local and sub-regional authorities, NGOs, academic institutions, and others to the landscape dialogue platforms organized resilience planning and management strategies elaborated under Activity 1.4.1 for each landscape and one 3.1.2 Organize a multi-sectoral policy platform in each landscape, securing the participation of relevant authorities, donors, dialogue platform organized representatives of academic institutions, NGOs, and others nationally. 3.1.3 Identify and select relevant project and portfolio experiences and lessons learned for potential policy discussions 3.2 Relevant project and 3.1.4 Carry out landscape policy platform discussions in each landscape (once every 18 months) based on lessons learned from portfolio experiences project and landscape strategy implementation systematized and codified for 3.1.5 Identify and sensitize national authorities, NGOs, academic institutions, and others to the landscape resilience planning dissemination to policy and management strategies elaborated under Activity 1.4.1 platform participants as well as 3.1.6 Organize a multi-sectoral policy platform at national level, securing the participation of relevant authorities, donors, community organizations and representatives of academic institutions, NGOs, and others networks, as well as second 3.1.7 Identify and select relevant project and portfolio experiences and lessons learned for potential policy discussions level organizations 3.1.8 Carry out national policy platform discussions (at mid term and at the end of the project) to analyze lessons from project
45 | P a g e
implementation 3.1.9 Systematize and codify lessons and best practice 3.1.10 Publish and disseminate lessons to policy platform participants
Outcome 4: Multi-stakeholder partnerships develop and implement strategic projects to bring adoption of specific successful SGP-supported technologies, practices or systems to a tipping point in each landscape through engagement of potential financial partners, policy makers and national/subnational advisors and institutions, as well as the private sector 4.1 Detailed analysis of 4.1.1 Evaluate and analyze successful grant project portfolios and lines of work e.g. ecotourism, agroecology successful grant project portfolios and lines of work 4.2.1 Identify upscaling requirements and opportunities based on previous experience with project portfolios and lines of work at landscape level or across landscapes 4.2 Based on the detailed 4.2.2 Develop strategies for specific upscaling initiatives e.g. ecotourism in a particular landscape analysis, identification of 4.2.3 Develop terms of reference for strategic project development that would facilitate specific product development, upscaling requirements and certification and marketing at scale (including fair-trade markets). opportunities, and 4.2.4 Develop terms of reference for strategic projects that are conducive to community land/seascape planning and development of a strategy(ies) management including land/seascape management and conservation for each target land/seascape to provide planning to enable and facilitate and implementation support to grantees and help monitor performance of SGP’s interventions at that scale upscaling 4.2.5 Obtain approval for all TOR from the NSC upon consultation with SGP’s Global UCP Coordinator
4.3 Engagement of potential 4.3.1 Explore potential financial sources to support scaling up of existing sustainable production activities including donors, financial partners and public national and local level government institutions, lending institutions, and others. sector institutions as viable in 4.3.2 Work with second-level organizations and/or NGOs to facilitate negotiation and development of business plans to analysis and planning improve the likelihood they will obtain the resources 4.3.3 Facilitate training to enhance stakeholder capacities to manage resources efficiently, effectively and transparently 4.4 Strategic projects (up to USD 150,000) that implement 4.4.1 Call for proposals, review and approval of strategic grants by the NSC strategies enabling and 4.4.2 Periodic monitoring of strategic grants and course correction as needed facilitating upscaling of the 4.4.3 Evaluate the performance of each grant in a participatory manner and identify lessons learned and adaptive measures identified portfolios and lines of work
46 | P a g e
VII. MONITORING AND EVALUATION (M&E) PLAN
The project results as outlined in the project results framework will be monitored annually and evaluated periodically during project implementation to ensure the project effectively achieves these results. Supported by Component/Outcome Four: Knowledge Management and M&E, the project monitoring and evaluation plan will also facilitate learning and ensure knowledge is shared and widely disseminated to support the scaling up and replication of project results.
Project-level monitoring and evaluation will be undertaken in compliance with UNDP requirements as outlined in the UNDP POPP and UNDP Evaluation Policy. The UNDP Country Office will work with the relevant project stakeholders to ensure UNDP M&E requirements are met in a timely fashion and to high quality standards. Additional mandatory GEF-specific M&E requirements (as outlined below) will be undertaken in accordance with the GEF M&E policy and other relevant GEF policies15.
In addition to these mandatory UNDP and GEF M&E requirements, other M&E activities deemed necessary to support project-level adaptive management will be agreed during the Project Inception Workshop and will be detailed in the Inception Report. This will include the exact role of project target groups and other stakeholders in project M&E activities including the GEF Operational Focal Point and national/regional institutes assigned to undertake project monitoring. The GEF Operational Focal Point will strive to ensure consistency in the approach taken to the GEF-specific M&E requirements (notably the GEF Indicators) across all GEF-financed projects in the country.16
M&E Oversight and monitoring responsibilities: Project Manager: The Project Manager is responsible for day-to-day project management and regular monitoring of project results and risks, including social and environmental risks. The Project Manager will ensure that all project staff maintain a high level of transparency, responsibility and accountability in M&E and reporting of project results. The Project Manager will inform the Project Board, the UNDP Country Office and the UNDP-GEF RTA of any delays or difficulties as they arise during implementation so that appropriate support and corrective measures can be adopted.
The Project Manager will develop annual work plans based on the multi-year work plan included in Annex, including annual output targets to support the efficient implementation of the project. The Project Manager will ensure that the standard UNDP and GEF M&E requirements are fulfilled to the highest quality. This includes, but is not limited to, ensuring the results framework indicators are monitored annually in time for evidence-based reporting in the GEF PIR, and that the monitoring of risks and the various plans/strategies developed to support project implementation (e.g. ESMP, gender action plan, stakeholder engagement plan etc..) occur on a regular basis.
Project Board: The Project Board will take corrective action as needed to ensure the project achieves the desired results. The Project Board will hold project reviews to assess the performance of the project and appraise the Annual Work Plan for the following year. In the project’s final year, the Project Board will hold an end-of-project review to capture lessons learned and discuss opportunities for scaling up and to highlight project results and lessons learned with relevant audiences. This final review meeting will also discuss the findings outlined in the project terminal evaluation report and the management response.
Project Implementing Partner: The Implementing Partner is responsible for providing all required information and data necessary for timely, comprehensive and evidence-based project reporting, including results and financial data, as necessary. The Implementing Partner will strive to ensure project-level M&E is undertaken by national
15 See https://www.thegef.org/gef/policies_guidelines 16 See https://www.thegef.org/gef/gef_agencies
47 | P a g e
institutes, and is aligned with national systems so that the data used and generated by the project supports national systems.
UNDP Country Office: The UNDP Country Office will support the Project Manager as needed, including through annual supervision missions. The annual supervision missions will take place according to the schedule outlined in the annual work plan. Supervision mission reports will be circulated to the project team and Project Board within one month of the mission. The UNDP Country Office will initiate and organize key GEF M&E activities including the annual GEF PIR, the independent mid-term review and the independent terminal evaluation. The UNDP Country Office will also ensure that the standard UNDP and GEF M&E requirements are fulfilled to the highest quality.
The UNDP Country Office is responsible for complying with all UNDP project-level M&E requirements as outlined in the UNDP POPP. This includes ensuring the UNDP Quality Assurance Assessment during implementation is undertaken annually; that annual targets at the output level are developed, and monitored and reported using UNDP corporate systems; the regular updating of the ATLAS risk log; and, the updating of the UNDP gender marker on an annual basis based on gender mainstreaming progress reported in the GEF PIR and the UNDP ROAR. Any quality concerns flagged during these M&E activities (e.g. annual GEF PIR quality assessment ratings) must be addressed by the UNDP Country Office and the Project Manager.
The UNDP Country Office will retain all M&E records for this project for up to seven years after project financial closure to support ex-post evaluations undertaken by the UNDP Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) and/or the GEF Independent Evaluation Office (IEO).
UNDP-GEF Unit: Additional M&E and implementation quality assurance and troubleshooting support will be provided by the UNDP-GEF Regional Technical Advisor and the UNDP-GEF Directorate as needed.
Audit: The project will be audited according to UNOPS Financial Regulations and Rules and applicable audit policies on UNOPS-implemented projects.17
Additional GEF monitoring and reporting requirements:
Inception Workshop and Report: A project inception workshop will be held within two months after the project document has been signed by all relevant parties to, amongst others: a) Re-orient project stakeholders to the project strategy and discuss any changes in the overall context that influence project strategy and implementation; b) Discuss the roles and responsibilities of the project team, including reporting and communication lines and conflict resolution mechanisms; c) Review the results framework and finalize the indicators, means of verification and monitoring plan; d) Discuss reporting, monitoring and evaluation roles and responsibilities and finalize the M&E budget; identify national/regional institutes to be involved in project-level M&E; discuss the role of the GEF OFP in M&E; e) Update and review responsibilities for monitoring the various project plans and strategies, including the risk log; SESP, Environmental and Social Management Plan and other safeguard requirements; project grievance mechanisms; the gender strategy; the knowledge management strategy, and other relevant strategies; f) Review financial reporting procedures and mandatory requirements, and agree on the arrangements for the annual audit; and g) Plan and schedule Project Board meetings and finalize the first year annual work plan.
The Project Manager will prepare the inception report no later than one month after the inception workshop. The inception report will be cleared by the UNDP Country Office and the UNDP-GEF Regional Technical Adviser, and will be approved by the Project Board.
17 See guidance here: https://info.undp.org/global/popp/frm/pages/financial-management-and-execution-modalities.aspx
48 | P a g e
GEF Project Implementation Report (PIR): The Project Manager, the UNDP Country Office, and the UNDP-GEF Regional Technical Advisor will provide objective input to the annual GEF PIR covering the reporting period July (previous year) to June (current year) for each year of project implementation. The Project Manager will ensure that the indicators included in the project results framework are monitored annually in advance of the PIR submission deadline so that progress can be reported in the PIR. Any environmental and social risks and related management plans will be monitored regularly, and progress will be reported in the PIR.
The PIR submitted to the GEF will be shared with the Project Board. The UNDP Country Office will coordinate the input of the GEF Operational Focal Point and other stakeholders to the PIR as appropriate. The quality rating of the previous year’s PIR will be used to inform the preparation of the subsequent PIR.
Lessons learned and knowledge generation: Results from the project will be disseminated within and beyond the project intervention area through existing information sharing networks and forums. The project will identify and participate, as relevant and appropriate, in scientific, policy-based and/or any other networks, which may be of benefit to the project. The project will identify, analyse and share lessons learned that might be beneficial to the design and implementation of similar projects and disseminate these lessons widely. There will be continuous information exchange between this project and other projects of similar focus in the same country, region and globally.
Independent Mid-term Review (MTR): An independent mid-term review process will begin after the second PIR has been submitted to the GEF, and the MTR report will be submitted to the GEF in the same year as the 3rd PIR. The MTR findings and responses outlined in the management response will be incorporated as recommendations for enhanced implementation during the final half of the project’s duration. The terms of reference, the review process and the MTR report will follow the standard templates and guidance prepared by the UNDP IEO for GEF-financed projects available on the UNDP Evaluation Resource Center (ERC). As noted in this guidance, the evaluation will be ‘independent, impartial and rigorous’. The consultants that will be hired to undertake the assignment will be independent from organizations that were involved in designing, executing or advising on the project to be evaluated. The GEF Operational Focal Point and other stakeholders will be involved and consulted during the terminal evaluation process. Additional quality assurance support is available from the UNDP-GEF Directorate. The final MTR report will be available in English and will be cleared by the UNDP Country Office and the UNDP-GEF Regional Technical Adviser, and approved by the Project Board.
Terminal Evaluation (TE): An independent terminal evaluation (TE) will take place upon completion of all major project outputs and activities. The terminal evaluation process will begin three months before operational closure of the project allowing the evaluation mission to proceed while the project team is still in place, yet ensuring the project is close enough to completion for the evaluation team to reach conclusions on key aspects such as project sustainability. The Project Manager will remain on contract until the TE report and management response have been finalized. The terms of reference, the evaluation process and the final TE report will follow the standard templates and guidance prepared by the UNDP IEO for GEF-financed projects available on the UNDP Evaluation Resource Center. As noted in this guidance, the evaluation will be ‘independent, impartial and rigorous’. The consultants that will be hired to undertake the assignment will be independent from organizations that were involved in designing, executing or advising on the project to be evaluated. The GEF Operational Focal Point and other stakeholders will be involved and consulted during the terminal evaluation process. Additional quality assurance support is available from the UNDP-GEF Directorate. The final TE report will be cleared by the UNDP Country Office and the UNDP-GEF Regional Technical Adviser, and will be approved by the Project Board. The TE report will be publically available in English on the UNDP ERC.
The UNDP Country Office will include the planned project terminal evaluation in the UNDP Country Office evaluation plan, and will upload the final terminal evaluation report in English and the corresponding management response to the UNDP Evaluation Resource Centre (ERC). Once uploaded to the ERC, the UNDP IEO will undertake
49 | P a g e
a quality assessment and validate the findings and ratings in the TE report, and rate the quality of the TE report. The UNDP IEO assessment report will be sent to the GEF IEO along with the project terminal evaluation report.
Final Report: The project’s terminal PIR along with the terminal evaluation (TE) report and corresponding management response will serve as the final project report package. The final project report package shall be discussed with the Project Board during an end-of-project review meeting to discuss lesson learned and opportunities for scaling up.
Mandatory GEF M&E Requirements and M&E Budget: Note to project developers: Delete rows with italic text as appropriate (e.g. if the project is medium-sized). GEF M&E requirements Primary Indicative costs to be Time frame responsibility charged to the Project Budget18 (US$) GEF grant Co- financing Inception Workshop UNDP Country Office USD 11,000 n/a Within two months of project document signature Inception Report Project Manager None None Within two weeks of inception workshop Standard UNDP monitoring and UNDP Country Office None None Quarterly, annually reporting requirements as outlined in the UNDP POPP Risk management Project Manager None None Quarterly, annually Country Office Monitoring of indicators in project Project Manager Per year: USD n/a Annually before PIR results framework 4,000 GEF Project Implementation Report Project Manager and None None Annually (PIR) UNDP Country Office and UNDP-GEF team Audit UNOPS USD 20,000 n/a At mid-term Lessons learned and knowledge Project Manager n/a n/a Annually generation Monitoring of environmental and Project Manager n/a n/a On-going social risks, and corresponding UNDP Country Office management plans as relevant Stakeholder Engagement Plan Project Manager n/a n/a On-going UNDP Country Office Gender Action Plan Project Manager n/a n/a On-going UNDP Country Office UNDP GEF team Addressing environmental and social Project Manager n/a n/a On-going grievances UNDP Country Office
Project Board meetings Project Board n/a n/a At minimum UNDP Country Office annually
18 Excluding project team staff time and UNDP staff time and travel expenses.
50 | P a g e
GEF M&E requirements Primary Indicative costs to be Time frame responsibility charged to the Project Budget18 (US$) GEF grant Co- financing Project Manager Supervision missions UNDP Country Office None19 n/a Annually Oversight missions UNDP-GEF team None19 n/a Troubleshooting as needed GEF Secretariat learning missions/site UNDP Country Office None n/a To be determined. visits and Project Manager and UNDP-GEF team Mid-term GEF Indicators to be updated Project Manager USD 10,000 n/a Before mid-term by review mission takes place. Independent Mid-term Review (MTR) UNDP Country Office USD 20,000 - n/a Between 2nd and 3rd and management response and Project team and 30,000 PIR. UNDP-GEF team Terminal Indicator Annex to be Project Manager USD 10,000 n/a Before terminal updated by evaluation mission takes place Independent Terminal Evaluation (TE) UNDP Country Office USD 30,000 - n/a At least three included in UNDP evaluation plan, and and Project team and 60,000 months before management response UNDP-GEF team operational closure Translation of MTR and TE reports into UNDP Country Office USD 2,000 – n/a As required. GEF English 10,000 will only accept reports in English. TOTAL indicative COST 140,000 n/a Excluding project team staff time, and UNDP staff and travel expenses
19 The costs of UNDP Country Office and UNDP-GEF Unit’s participation and time are charged to the GEF Agency Fee.
51 | P a g e
VIII. GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS
The diagram above shows the project organizational structure (Fig.2). The roles and responsibilities of the various parties to the project are described in the SGP Operational Guidelines. UNDP will provide overall Programme oversight and take responsibility for standard GEF project cycle management services beyond assistance and oversight of project design and negotiation, including project monitoring, periodic evaluations, troubleshooting, and reporting to the GEF. UNDP will also provide high level technical and managerial support from the UNDP GEF Global Coordinator for the SGP Upgrading Country Programmes, who is responsible for project oversight for all upgraded country Programme projects. The SGP Central Programme Management Team (CPMT) will monitor upgraded country Programmes for compliance with GEF SGP core policies and procedures.
In accordance with the global SGP Operational Guidelines (Annex H) that will guide overall project implementation in Thailand, and in keeping with past best practice, the UNDP Resident Representative will appoint the National Steering Committee (NSC) members. The NSC, composed of government and non-government organizations with a non-government majority, a UNDP representative, and individuals with expertise in the GEF Focal Areas, is responsible for grant selection and approval and for determining the overall strategy of the SGP in the country. NSC members serve without remuneration and rotate periodically in accordance with its rules of procedure. The Government is usually represented by the GEF Operational Focal Point or by another high-level representative of relevant ministries or institutions. The NSC assesses the performance of the Country Programme Manager (formerly National Coordinator) with input from the UNDP RR, the SGP UCP Global Coordinator, and UNOPS. The NSC also contributes to bridging community-level experiences with national policy-making.
52 | P a g e
The Country Office is the business unit in UNDP for the SGP project and is responsible for ensuring the project meets its objective and delivers on its targets. The Resident Representative signs the grant agreements with beneficiary organizations on behalf of UNOPS. The Country Office will make available its expertise in various environment and development fields as shown below. It will also provide other types of support at the local level such as infrastructure and financial management services, as required. UNDP will be represented in the NSC and will actively participate in grant monitoring activities. The CO will participate in NSC meetings, promoting synergies with other relevant programmes, and support the design and implementation of the SGP strategy, etc.
The Country team composed of a National Coordinator (also known as Country Programme Manager in CEO Endorsement) and a Programme Assistant, recruited through competitive processes, is responsible for the day-to- day operations of the Programme. This includes supporting NSC strategic work and grant selection by developing technical papers, undertaking ex-ante technical reviews of project proposals; taking responsibility for monitoring the grant portfolio and for providing technical assistance to grantees during project design and implementation; mobilizing cash and in-kind resources; preparing reports for UNDP, GEF and other donors; implementing a capacity development Programme for communities, CBOs and NGOs, as well as a communications and knowledge management strategy to ensure adequate visibility of GEF investments, and disseminating good practices and lessons learnt.
As GEF Project Agency, UNDP will provide overall programme oversight and take responsibility for standard GEF project cycle management services beyond assistance and oversight of project design and negotiation, including project monitoring, periodic evaluations, troubleshooting, and reporting to the GEF.
UNDP (Headquarters) will also provide high-level technical and managerial support through the Low Emissions Climate Resilient Development Strategies cluster, and from the UNDP Global Coordinator for Upgrading Country Programme, who will be responsible for project oversight for all upgraded country programme projects worldwide. SGP’s Central Programme Management Team (CPMT) will monitor for compliance of upgraded country programme with the core policies and procedures of the SGP as a GEF Corporate Programme.
Grants will be selected by the NSC from proposals submitted by CBOs and NGOs through calls for proposals in specific thematic and geographic areas relevant to the SGP Country Programme strategy, as embodied in this document. Although government organizations cannot receive SGP grants, every effort will be made to coordinate grant implementation with relevant line ministries, decentralized institutions, universities and local government authorities to ensure their support, create opportunities for co-financing, and provide feedback on policy implementation on the ground. Contributions from and cooperation with the private sector will also be sought.
SGP utilizes consultants for specialized services, mostly for baseline data collection, capacity development activities, business development support, and to assist grantees when specialized expertise is required, or for tasks that require an external independent view such as the mid-term and terminal evaluations. Civil society organization networks may also benefit from SGP grants.
UNOPS will provide Country Programme implementation services, including human resources management, budgeting, accounting, grant disbursement, auditing, and procurement. UNOPS is responsible for SGP’s financial management and provides periodic financial reports to UNDP. The UNOPS SGP Standard Operating Procedures guide the financial and administrative management of the project.
A key service of UNOPS is the contracting of SGP staff as needed and required by the Programme, and once contracted, UNOPS provides guidance and supervision, together with the UNDP CO acting on behalf of UNOPS, to the SGP country staff in their administrative and finance related work. UNOPS also provides other important services (as specified in the GEF Council document C.36/4) that include (1) oversight and quality assurance: (i) coordinate with the Upgrading Country Programme (UCP) Global Coordinator on annual work plan activities and (ii) undertake trouble-shooting and problem-solving missions; (2) project financial management: (i) review and authorize operating budgets; (ii) review and authorize disbursement, (iii) monitor and oversee all financial
53 | P a g e
transactions, (iv) prepare semi-annual and annual financial progress reports and (v) prepare periodic status reports on grant allocations and expenditures; (3) project procurement management: (i) undertake procurement activities and (ii) management of contracts; (4) project assets management: (i) maintain an inventory of all capitalized assets; (5) project risks management: (i) prepare and implement an annual audit plan and (ii) follow up on all audit recommendations; and (6) Grants management: (i) administer all grants, (ii) financial grant monitoring and (iii) legal advice.
Under its legal advice role, UNOPS takes the lead in investigations of UNOPS-contracted SGP staff. UNOPS services also include transactional services: (1) personnel administration, benefits and entitlements of project personnel contracted by UNOPS; (2) processing payroll of project personnel contracted by UNOPS, (3) input transaction instruction and automated processing of project personnel official mission travel and DSA; (4) input transaction instruction and automated processing of financial transactions such as Purchase Order, Receipts, Payment Vouchers and Vendor Approval and (5) procurement in UN Web Buy.
UNOPS will continue with a number of areas for enhancing execution services started in the previous the SGP GEF- 5, including: inclusion of co-financing below $500,000; technical assistance to high risk/low performing countries; developing a risk-based management approach; strengthening the central structure to make it more suitable for an expanded Programme; resolving grant disbursement delays; enhancing country Programme oversight; improving monitoring & evaluation; increasing the audit volume and quality assurance work; and optimizing Programme cost-effectiveness. To facilitate global coherence in execution of services, guidance and operating procedures, UNOPS through a central management team and NSC, coordinates primarily with UNDP/GEF HQ respectively.
UNOPS will not make any financial commitments or incur any expenses that would exceed the budget for implementing the project as set forth in this Project Document. UNOPS shall regularly consult with UNDP concerning the status and use of funds and shall promptly advise UNDP any time when UNOPS is aware that the budget to carry out these services is insufficient to fully implement the project in the manner set out in the Project Document. UNDP shall have no obligation to provide UNOPS with any funds or to make any reimbursement for expenses incurred by UNOPS in excess of the total budget as set forth in the Project Document.
UNOPS will submit a cumulative financial report each quarter (31 March, 30 June, 30 September and 31 December). The report will be submitted to UNDP through the ATLAS Project Delivery Report (PDR) system and follow the established ATLAS formats and PDR timelines. The level of detail in relation to the reporting requirement is indicated in the Project Document budget which will be translated into the ATLAS budgets. UNDP will include the expenditure reported by UNOPS in its reconciliation of the project financial report.
Upon completion or termination of activities, UNOPS shall furnish a financial closure report, including a list of non- expendable equipment purchased by UNOPS, and all relevant audited or certified financial statements and records related to such activities, as appropriate, pursuant to its Financial Regulations and Rules.
Title to any equipment and supplies that may be furnished by UNDP or procured through UNDP funds shall rest with UNDP until such time as ownership thereof is transferred. Equipment and supplies that may be furnished by UNDP or procured through UNDP funds will be disposed as agreed, in writing, between UNDP and UNOPS. UNDP shall provide UNOPS with instructions on the disposal of such equipment and supplies within 90 days of the end of the Project.
The arrangements described in this Project Document will remain in effect until the end of the project, or until terminated in writing (with 30 days’ notice) by either party. The schedule of activities specified in the Project Document remains in effect based on continued performance by UNOPS unless it receives written indication to the contrary from UNDP. The arrangements described in this Agreement, including the structure of implementation and responsibility for results, shall be revisited on an annual basis and may result in the amendment of this Project Document.
54 | P a g e
If this Agreement is terminated or suspended in accordance with paragraph 140 above, UNDP shall reimburse UNOPS for all costs directly incurred by UNOPS in the amounts specified in the project budget or as otherwise agreed in writing by UNDP and UNOPS.
All further correspondence regarding this Agreement, other than signed letters of agreement or amendments thereto should be addressed to the UNDP-GEF Executive Coordinator and the UNDP Resident Coordinator.
UNOPS shall keep UNDP fully informed of all actions undertaken by them in carrying out this Agreement.
Any changes to the Project Document that would affect the work being performed by UNOPS shall be recommended only after consultation between the parties. Any amendment to this Project Document shall be effected by mutual agreement, in writing.
If UNOPS is prevented by force majeure from fulfilling its obligations under this Agreement, it shall not be deemed in breach of such obligations. UNOPS shall use all reasonable efforts to mitigate the consequences of force majeure. Force majeure is defined as natural catastrophes such as but not limited to earthquakes, floods, cyclonic or volcanic activity; war (whether declared or not), invasion, rebellion, terrorism, revolution, insurrection, civil war, riot, radiation or contaminations by radio-activity; other acts of a similar nature or force.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, UNOPS shall in no event be liable as a result or consequence of any act or omission on the part of UNDP, the government and/or any provincial and/or municipal authorities, including its agents, servants and employees.
UNDP and UNOPS shall use their best efforts to promptly settle through direct negotiations any dispute, controversy or claim which is not settled within sixty (60) days from the date either party has notified the other party of the dispute, controversy or claim and of measures which should be taken to rectify it, shall be referred to the UNDP Administrator and the UNOPS Executive Director for resolution.
This project will be implemented by UNOPS in accordance with UNOPS’ Financial Rules and Regulations provided these do not contravene the principles established in UNDP’s Financial Regulations and Rules.
UNOPS as the Implementing Partner shall comply with the policies, procedures and practices of the United Nations security management system.
Agreement on intellectual property rights and use of logo on the project’s deliverables and disclosure of information: In order to accord proper acknowledgement to the GEF for providing grant funding, the GEF logo will appear together with the UNDP logo on all promotional materials, other written materials like publications developed by the project, and project hardware. Any citation on publications regarding projects funded by the GEF will also accord proper acknowledgement to the GEF. Information will be disclosed in accordance with relevant policies notably the UNDP Disclosure Policy20 and the GEF policy on public involvement21.
20 See http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/operations/transparency/information_disclosurepolicy/ 21 See https://www.thegef.org/gef/policies_guidelines
55 | P a g e
IX. FINANCIAL PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
The total cost of the project is USD 7,790,620 This is financed through a GEF grant of USD 2,381,620, and USD 5,409,000 in parallel co-financing. UNDP, as the GEF Implementing Agency, is responsible for the execution of the GEF resources and the cash co-financing transferred to UNDP bank account only.
Parallel co-financing: The actual realization of project co-financing will be monitored during the mid-term review and terminal evaluation process and will be reported to the GEF. The planned parallel co-financing will be used as follows:
Co-financing source Co- Co- Planned Risks Risk Mitigation financing financing Activities/Outputs Measures type amount (USD) UNDP Country Office In-kind 147,000 Output : 2.1; 3.1 None apparent n/a Royal Forest Department In-cash 1,500,000 Output : 1.5 ; 2.1 ; Change of Mitigated by having (RFD), Ministry of Natural 3.1 ; 4.1 ; 4.2 ; 4.3 government policy the RFD delegate on Resources and and personnel NSC, and ongoing Environment dialogue among UNDP, SGP and RFD Land Development In-cash 1,910,000 Output : 1.5 ; 2.1 ; Change of Mitigated by having Department (LDD), 3.1 ; 4.1 ; 4.2 ; 4.3 government policy the LDD delegate on Ministry of Agriculture and personnel NSC and ongoing and Cooperatives dialogue among UNDP, SGP and LDD IUCN In-cash 352,000 Output : 1.2 ; 1.4 ; Change of personnel Mitigated by setting 1.5 ; 3.1 ; 3.2 ongoing dialogue between UNDP, SGP and IUCN Grantees In-kind 1,300,000 Output : 1.1 ; 1.2 ; None apparent n/a 1.3 ; 1.4 ;1.5 ; 2.2 ; 2.3 ; 2.4 ; 4.4 Grantees In-cash 200,000 Output : 2.2 ; 2.3 ; Availability of cash is CPM team to look for 2.4 ; 4.4 constrained by co-financing to offset economy community contributions
Budget Revision and Tolerance: As per UNDP requirements outlined in the UNDP POPP, the project board will agree on a budget tolerance level for each plan under the overall annual work plan allowing the project manager to expend up to the tolerance level beyond the approved project budget amount for the year without requiring a revision from the Project Board. Should the following deviations occur, the Project Manager and UNDP Country Office will seek the approval of the UNDP-GEF team as these are considered major amendments by the GEF: a) Budget re-allocations among components in the project with amounts involving 10% of the total project grant or more; b) Introduction of new budget items/or components that exceed 5% of original GEF allocation.
56 | P a g e
Any over expenditure incurred beyond the available GEF grant amount will be absorbed by non-GEF resources (e.g. UNDP TRAC or cash co-financing).
Refund to Donor: Should a refund of unspent funds to the GEF be necessary, this will be managed directly by the UNDP-GEF Unit in New York.
Project Closure: Project closure will be conducted as per UNDP requirements outlined in the UNDP POPP. On an exceptional basis only, a no-cost extension beyond the initial duration of the project will be sought from in-country UNDP colleagues and then the UNDP-GEF Executive Coordinator.
Operational completion: The project will be operationally completed when the last UNDP-financed inputs have been provided and the related activities have been completed. This includes the final clearance of the Terminal Evaluation Report (that will be available in English) and the corresponding management response, and the end-of- project review Project Board meeting. The Implementing Partner through a Project Board decision will notify the UNDP Country Office when operational closure has been completed. At this time, the relevant parties will have already agreed and confirmed in writing on the arrangements for the disposal of any equipment that is still the property of UNDP.
Financial completion: The project will be financially closed when the following conditions have been met: a) The project is operationally completed or has been cancelled; b) The Implementing Partner has reported all financial transactions to UNDP; c) UNDP has closed the accounts for the project; d) UNDP and the Implementing Partner have certified a final Combined Delivery Report (which serves as final budget revision).
The project will be financially completed within 12 months of operational closure or after the date of cancellation. Between operational and financial closure, the implementing partner will identify and settle all financial obligations and prepare a final expenditure report. The UNDP Country Office will send the final signed closure documents including confirmation of final cumulative expenditure and unspent balance to the UNDP-GEF Unit for confirmation before the project will be financially closed in Atlas by the UNDP Country Office.
57 | P a g e
X. TOTAL BUDGET AND WORK PLAN
Please see Annex K for Project Budget.
Summary of Funds:
Amount Amount Amount Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total 189,400 1,101,220 1,091,000 2,381,620 GEF
Other Donors – Parallel financing cash 1,352,250 2,434,050 1,622,700 5,409,000 and in-kind TOTAL 1,541,650 3,535,270 2,713,700 7,790,620
58 | P a g e
XI. LEGAL CONTEXT The project document shall be the instrument envisaged and defined in the Supplemental Provisions to the Project Document, attached hereto as Annex M and forming an integral part hereof, as “the Project Document”. This project will be implemented by UNOPS (“Implementing Partner”) in accordance with its financial regulations, rules, practices and procedures only to the extent that they do not contravene the principles of the Financial Regulations and Rules of UNDP. Where the financial governance of an Implementing Partner does not provide the required guidance to ensure best value for money, fairness, integrity, transparency, and effective international competition, the financial governance of UNDP shall apply. Any designations on maps or other references employed in this project document do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNDP concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
XII. RISK MANAGEMENT
UNOPS as the Implementing Partner will comply with the policies, procedures and practices of the United Nations Security Management System (UNSMS).
UNOPS as the Implementing Partner will ensure that the following obligations are binding on each responsible party, subcontractor and sub-recipient that is not a UN entity: a. Consistent with the Article III of the SBAA [or the Supplemental Provisions to the Project Document], the responsibility for the safety and security of each responsible party, subcontractor and sub-recipient and its personnel and property, and of UNOPS’ property in such responsible party’s, subcontractor’s and sub-recipient’s custody, rests with such responsible party, subcontractor and sub-recipient. To this end, each responsible party, subcontractor and sub-recipient shall:
i. put in place an appropriate security plan and maintain the security plan, taking into account the security situation in the country where the project is being carried; ii. assume all risks and liabilities related to such responsible party’s, subcontractor’s and sub- recipient’s security, and the full implementation of the security plan. b. UNOPS reserves the right to verify whether such a plan is in place, and to suggest modifications to the plan when necessary. Failure to maintain and implement an appropriate security plan as required hereunder shall be deemed a breach of the responsible party’s, subcontractor’s and sub-recipient’s obligations under this Project Document.
UNOPS agrees to undertake all reasonable efforts to ensure that none of the project funds are used to provide support to individuals or entities associated with terrorism and that the recipients of any amounts provided by UNDP hereunder do not appear on the list maintained by the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1267 (1999). The list can be accessed via http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/aq_sanctions_list.shtml.
59 | P a g e
Social and environmental sustainability will be enhanced through application of the UNDP Social and Environmental Standards (http://www.undp.org/ses) and related Accountability Mechanism (http://www.undp.org/secu-srm).
The Implementing Partner shall: (a) conduct project and Programme-related activities in a manner consistent with the UNDP Social and Environmental Standards, (b) implement any management or mitigation plan prepared for the project or Programme to comply with such standards, and (c) engage in a constructive and timely manner to address any concerns and complaints raised through the Accountability Mechanism. UNDP will seek to ensure that communities and other project stakeholders are informed of and have access to the Accountability Mechanism.
All signatories to the Project Document shall cooperate in good faith with any exercise to evaluate any Programme or project-related commitments or compliance with the UNDP Social and Environmental Standards. This includes providing access to project sites, relevant personnel, information, and documentation.
The Implementing Partner will take appropriate steps to prevent misuse of funds, fraud or corruption, by its officials, consultants, responsible parties, subcontractors and sub-recipients in implementing the project or Programme or using the UNDP funds. The Implementing Partner will ensure that its financial management, anti- corruption and anti-fraud policies are in place and enforced for all funding received from or through UNDP.
The Implementing Partner and UNDP will promptly inform one another in case of any incidence of inappropriate use of funds, or credible allegation of fraud or corruption with due confidentiality.
Where the Implementing Partner becomes aware that a UNDP project or activity, in whole or in part, is the focus of investigation for alleged fraud/corruption, the Implementing Partner will inform the UNDP Resident Representative/Head of Office, who will promptly inform UNDP’s Office of Audit and Investigations (OAI). The Implementing Partner shall provide regular updates to the head of UNDP in the country and OAI of the status of, and actions relating to, such investigation.
UNDP shall be entitled to a refund from the Implementing Partner of any funds provided that have been used inappropriately, including through fraud or corruption, or otherwise paid other than in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Project Document. Such amount may be deducted by UNDP from any payment due to the Implementing Partner under this or any other agreement.
Where such funds have not been refunded to UNDP, the Implementing Partner agrees that donors to UNDP (including the Government) whose funding is the source, in whole or in part, of the funds for the activities under this Project Document, may seek recourse to the Implementing Partner for the recovery of any funds determined by UNDP to have been used inappropriately, including through fraud or corruption, or otherwise paid other than in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Project Document.
Note: The term “Project Document” as used in this clause shall be deemed to include any relevant subsidiary agreement further to the Project Document, including those with responsible parties, subcontractors and sub- recipients.
Each contract issued by the Implementing Partner in connection with this Project Document shall include a provision representing that no fees, gratuities, rebates, gifts, commissions or other payments, other than those shown in the proposal, have been given, received, or promised in connection with the selection process or in
60 | P a g e
contract execution, and that the recipient of funds from the Implementing Partner shall cooperate with any and all investigations and post-payment audits.
Should UNDP refer to the relevant national authorities for appropriate legal action any alleged wrongdoing relating to the project, the Government will ensure that the relevant national authorities shall actively investigate the same and take appropriate legal action against all individuals found to have participated in the wrongdoing, recover and return any recovered funds to UNDP.
The Implementing Partner shall ensure that all of its obligations set forth under this section entitled “Risk Management Standard Clauses” are passed on to each responsible party, subcontractor and sub-recipient and that all the clauses under this section entitled “Risk Management” are included, mutatis mutandis, in all sub-contracts or sub-agreements entered into further to this Project Document.
XIII. MANDATORY ANNEXES A. Multi-year Workplan (see template below) B. Terms of Reference for Project Board, Project Manager, Chief Technical Advisor and other positions as appropriate (see example template below) C. UNDP Social and Environmental and Social Screening Template (SESP) and Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) for moderate and high-risk projects D. Stakeholder Engagement Plan E. Gender Analysis and Action Plan F. UNDP Risk Log (to be completed by UNDP Country Office, see template below) G. UNDP Project Quality Assurance Report (to be completed in UNDP online corporate planning system by UNDP Country Office, does not need to be attached as separate document) H. SGP Operational Guidelines I. Project Co-financing Letters (separately attached) J. Carbon mitigation calculations K. Project Budget L. GEF Core Indicators Template
61 | P a g e
Annex A: Multi Year Work Plan
Output Indicator Responsible Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Party Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Output 1.1 Country Formal multi- Programme stakeholder Management groups Team organized in NSC each landscape Output 1.2 Country Formal multi- Programme stakeholder Management agreements Team agreed and Multi- signed regarding stakeholder long term landscape outcomes in platform each landscape Output 1.3 Country Participatory Programme research and Management planning Team processes instituted leading to comprehensive socio-ecological baseline assessments
Output 1.4 Country Landscape and Programme seascape Management strategies Team developed by Multi-
62 | P a g e
Output Indicator Responsible Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Party Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 multi- stakeholder stakeholder landscape groups platform NSC Output 1.5 Country Typology of Programme community level Management projects Team developed and Multi- agreed by multi- stakeholder stakeholder landscape groups together platform with elegibility criteria
Output 2.1 Country Community level Programme small grant Management projects in the Team selected landscapes and seascapes that conserve biodiversity and enhance ecosystem services
Output 2.2 Country Community level Programme small grant Management projects in the Team selected NSC landscapes that enhance
63 | P a g e
Output Indicator Responsible Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Party Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 productivity and sustainability of smallholder agroecosystems
Output 2.3 Country Community level Programme small grant Management projects in the Team selected NSC landscapes that innovate alternative livelihood options and improve market access
Output 2.4 Country Community level Programme small grant Management projects in the Team selected NSC landscapes that mitigate climate- related risks to health and well- being
Output 3.1 Country Multi-sectoral Programme policy dialogue Management platforms Team organized for each landscape
64 | P a g e
Output Indicator Responsible Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Party Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 and one dialogue platform organized nationally. Output 3.2 Relevant project and portfolio experiences systematized and codified for dissemination to policy platform participants as well as community organizations and networks, as well as second level organizations
Output 4.1 Detailed analysis of successful grant project portfolios and lines of work
Output 4.2 Based on the detailed analysis, identification of upscaling
65 | P a g e
Output Indicator Responsible Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Party Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 requirements and opportunities, and development of a strategy(ies) to enable and facilitate upscaling
Output 4.3 Engagement of potential financial partners and public sector institutions as viable in analysis and planning
Output 4.4 Strategic projects (up to USD 150,000) that implement strategies enabling and facilitating upscaling of the identified portfolios and lines of work
66 | P a g e
Annex B: Terms of Reference A. National Steering Committee
NSC Functions and Duties
The SGP National Steering Committee (NSC) composition and operation will conform to the relevant sections of the GEF-SGP Operational Guidelines. The principal functions and duties of the NSC include:
• Participation in the development and periodic revision of the Country Program Project Document in line with the global guidance from UNDP-GEF and national environmental priorities, and oversee its implementation; • Provide overall strategic guidance and direction to the Country Program and contribute to development and implementation of strategies for Country Program sustainability; • Review and approve project proposals, submitted to the SGP by NGOs/CBOs and pre- screened by the Country Program Manager, in accordance with established criteria and procedures; • Ensure transparency and impartiality of NSC activities striving to avoid appearance of conflict of interest or undue influence.
NSC members are also encouraged to actively participate in site visits and ongoing monitoring and evaluation activities associated with the SGP and its projects, and to provide technical assistance and advice to the SGP projects and NGO/CBO project proponents. Travel to project site visits is paid for by the SGP.
The NSC may wish to elaborate a set of project selection criteria based on the Country Program strategy as elaborated in the Project Document to help guide decisions and provide additional consistency to project selection.
The NSC shall decide whether it will consider and approve project concepts and planning grants or will rather leave these tasks to the Country Program Manager. In the case of the latter, the CPM will keep the NSC informed of concepts received and approved and planning grants awarded.
NSC Terms of Office and Appointment
Members of the NSC serve on a voluntary basis and without financial compensation. Reimbursement of reasonable and necessary expenses such as long-distance travel to project sites and NSC meetings will be provided. Reimbursement of expenses such as travel should be approved prior to the actual expenditure and follow standard the SGP procedures.
The NSC should consist of between six and twelve members, with the majority of members from civil society. Efforts should be made to ensure gender and ethnic diversity in the committee.
Members of the NSC are appointed by the UNDP Resident Representative in consultation with the CPM. Appointments to the NSC are subject to endorsement by the Global Coordinator of the Upgrading Country Programs. Members may also be removed from the NSC by the UNDP Resident Representative for cause.
67 | P a g e
The UNDP Resident Representative, or his/her delegate, represents the UNDP on the NSC.
The SGP Country Program Manager serves ex officio on the NSC, participating in deliberations, but not voting in the project selection process. The CPM also serves as Secretariat to the NSC.
The term of office of each NSC member is for a period of three years. Ideally the NSC would have a three-year rolling membership with members serving staggered terms. In the event that a member fails to complete a full term of office, a new member shall be appointed by the UNDP Resident Representative. NSC members may be reappointed to serve additional two terms based on service and commitment to the Country Program and the principles of the GEF-SGP overall.
NSC Meetings and Rules of Order
The NSC meets on a biannual basis (or as determined by the NSC) to provide strategic guidance to the Country Program, review and approve grant proposals and to conduct other activities within its terms of reference.
The NSC nominates a Chair from among its regular members, preferably by consensus. Neither the UNDP Resident Representative (nor his/her delegate) nor the SGP Country Program Manager may serve as the Chair. The Chair presides at NSC meetings in accordance with the rules of order which have been adopted and facilitates the process of consensus-building in NSC deliberations. The position of Chair is not permanent and rotates every year.
Where possible, the NSC operates on the basis of consensus rather than formal voting. Specific procedures and rules of order for NSC deliberations, including voting procedures and quorum requirements, should be proposed by the Country Program Manager and NSC members and adopted by the NSC prior to any substantive deliberations or determinations.
Regular meetings of the NSC ordinarily include the following agenda items: • Report on status and progress of the Country Program; • Status reports and updates on projects and activities under implementation; • Financial report on execution of grant allocations; • Presentation of project proposals for consideration
NSC minutes concerning meetings in which projects are approved should be as detailed and specific as possible, listing each project considered and including all NSC recommendations or observations about each project. The NSC decision about each project should be clearly noted, including any reformulations required before final approval. The list of approved projects should include the budget amount approved. The minutes should be signed by all NSC members present.
The NSC should review and sign-off on project proposals that are reformulated or adjusted after being provisionally approved by the NSC, prior to submitting them to the UNDP Resident Representative for MOA signature. A formal meeting is not required, and the review may be done on a no-objection basis.
68 | P a g e
Upon accepting appointment to the NSC, members commit themselves to ensuring the complete objectivity and transparency of the NSC, both in fact and in appearance. The NSC must avoid the appearance of self-dealing, conflict of interest, or undue influence. NSC members cannot benefit directly from the SGP grants. No member of the NSC shall participate in the review or approval of any project in which that member, or an organization with which that member is associated, has an interest. In such cases, the member shall be excused from both the discussion and decision on the project.
As a matter of principle, the NSC (and the SGP as a whole) must operate in as transparent a manner as possible. The CPM should maintain an official record of each NSC meeting, which is available to the public. However, to protect NSC members from external pressures, neither the identities of NSC members, nor the attributed statements of NSC members during deliberations, shall be disclosed.
Country Program Manager Responsibilities:
The CPM is the Secretariat for the NSC, and is responsible for managing communication between and among NSC members, for sending out notices of meetings, and for maintaining substantive records of all meetings and actions taken. In addition, the CPM shall present to the NSC substantive reports on the status and progress of the SGP and its activities, as well as project proposals for consideration.
Meetings of the NSC shall be convened by the CPM. Notice is to be given at least fifteen days in advance of the meetings, except in the case of special or emergency meetings, for which the notice requirement may be waived. Notice shall include the agenda for the meeting, a list of all projects to be considered at the meeting, and copies of all relevant documents and proposals.
The CPM shall prepare and present meeting minutes for review and signature by the NSC after every meeting. Once signed by the NSC members involved, the original should be filed in the SGP office and a copy sent to the UNDP SGP focal point.
B. Country Program Manager
% of Time Key Results Expected / Major Functions 20% 1. Managerial Functions • Supervise the national SGP team members and provide necessary guidance and coaching; • Promote and maintain a suitable environment for teamwork with the SGP team, the National Steering Committee (NSC), and the UNDP CO team: • Prepare annual work plans, including strategic and /or innovative initiatives to be undertaken/explored, and set delivery and co –financing targets; • Set annual performance parameters and learning objectives for the SGP team, assess their performance and provide feedback; • Build and maintain an effective relationship with key partners and stakeholders, and keep the NSC UNDP/GEF, UNOPS and UNDP CO informed as appropriate. 50% 2. Program/portfolio Development and Management • Keep abreast of national environmental and sustainable development concerns
69 | P a g e
and priorities as well as the socio-economic conditions and trends as they relate to the GEF-SGP and its focal areas, and assess their impact on the SGP’s work and program. • Contribute to the formulation of the Upgrading Country Program Project Document and its annual Project Implementation Reviews; • Exercise quality control over the development of a portfolio of project ideas and concepts, and closely monitor the program’s implementation progress and results; • Organize periodic stakeholder workshops and project development sessions for NGOs, Community Based Organizations (CBO) and local communities, and other stakeholders to explain the SGP and to assist potential applicants in making the link between local environment and development problems and global concerns of the GEF focal areas; • Work closely with NGOs and CBOs in preparation of project concepts and proposals to ensure that individual projects fit the strategic framework of the Project Document; • Authorize and manage project planning grants, as required. • Conduct periodic program monitoring visits to the field and provide technical and operational support and guidance to the SGP grantees as required; • Work closely with and support the National Steering Committee and its deliberations during project proposal selection and approval, especially the initial appraisal of proposals and assessment of eligibility. • Foster operational and policy linkages between the GEF-SGP and the large or medium-sized GEF projects, planned or underway in the country, as well as those of other donors and development partners. • Manage annual work plan and budgeting (administrative and grants), maintain the financial integrity of the program, ensure most effective use of the SGP resources; • Report periodically to the UNDP/GEF Global Coordinator of the Upgrading Country Programs on program implementation status, including financial reporting, and update relevant global SGP databases. 20% 3. Resource Mobilization • Establish and maintain close working relationships with stakeholders, advocate SGP policies, comparative advantages and initiatives, and ensure visibility. • Assess program interest and priorities of key donors and other development partners, develop SGP advocacy campaigns and develop/update the SGP Country Program resource mobilization strategy; • Identify opportunities and areas eligible for GEF-SGP support, and mobilize resources from the Government, donors and other partners to best leverage the SGP resources. 10% 4. Knowledge Management • Assist in the preparation of the SGP project/program evaluation and the Annual Monitoring Review; • Document lessons learned and best practices in SGP program/project development, implementation, and oversight; • Raise awareness of SGP Country Program Team on corporate strategic issues, plans and initiatives to maximize highest impact and effectiveness; • Access UNDPs world-wide and regional knowledge, distill best practices and facilitate their dissemination within the CO and to counterparts and partners; • Access global best practices, share them with other local and international stakeholders and ensure their incorporation into the SGP portfolio and project design process.
70 | P a g e
C. Programme Associate
% of Time Key Results Expected / Major Functions 30% 1. Support to Program Implementation Contribute to day-to-day support to program/project implementation and ensure conformity with expected results, outputs, objectives and work-plans; • Assist the Country Program Manager (CPM) in prescreening project concepts and project proposals, and evaluate the financial part of the project proposals; • Assist the CPM in development and amendment of application forms and other management tools and requirements of the program and other SGP documents; • Advise potential grantees on technical project preparation issues, and report to CPM and NSC on project development activities, as required; • Provide day-to-day support to new and already approved projects and the grantees, as required; • Assist the CPM in project implementation and monitoring, including participation in field visits; • Organize the SGP advocacy events, workshops, round-tables, missions for CPM and other SGP events; • Maintain working-level contacts with NGOs, governmental institutions, donors, other SGP stakeholders, and participate at events for SGP information dissemination purposes; • Draft progress reports and other reporting material to the Global Coordinator of the Upgrading Country Programs, UNOPS and UNDP CO, and assist CPM in preparation of semi-annual and bi-annual progress reports; • Draft articles, publications, speeches, letters, memos and other documents on behalf of CPM, and respond to queries on SGP program matters; • Create and maintain the SGP project database and the SGP stakeholder database; • Support and assist CPM with other ad hoc duties as and when needed 40% 2. Financial Management • Review and process payment requests from grantees and vendors by obtaining necessary clearances and authorizations and ensuring payments are effected promptly; • Maintain financial integrity of the Country Program, implement and monitor accounting system and databases of the SGP Country Program budget; • Prepare and maintain the grant disbursement table and calendar; • Review financial reports submitted by grantees and advise the CPM, as required; • Draft administrative budget proposals; • Enter, extract, transfer data from ATLAS and the SGP database and produce reports as required; • Provide other financial reports as required 25% 3. Administrative Functions • Procure office equipment and furniture (including communication and audio equipment, supplies etc.); • Manage and organize everyday office work; • Establish a proper filing system and maintain files and documentation in good order; • Draft routine correspondence and communications;
71 | P a g e
• Prepare background information and documentation, update data relevant to the program areas and compile background material for the CPM and NSC; • Ensure flow of information and dissemination of materials with all concerned; • Follow up on travel arrangements and DSA payments for the CPM and NSC members; • Maintain personnel files, performance evaluation reports, leave records, and other pertinent personnel/consultant records; • Ensure all reporting and/or submission deadlines from UNDP-GEF (HQ) are met; • Provide logistical and other support to the local SGP team and visiting missions, as required 5% 4. Knowledge Management • Actively support the SGP and NSC teams in their efforts towards knowledge management and knowledge networking.
D. Technical Assistant
% of time Key Results Expected/Major Functions 15% 1. Managerial Functions • Work closely with the Country Programme Manager (CPM) to ensure smooth and efficient operations of the office. • Support the CPM to effectively deliver expected results • Supervise UNV staff and provide guidance as needed • Support in developing workplans for the SGP secretariat and the field staff
60% 2. Monitoring and evaluation • Develop tools to facilitate collection, storage analysis and dissemination of information • Develop a comprehensive M&E strategy, incorporating reporting and learning. • Develop tools for monitoring gender and other key indicators as per the project Monitoring Plan • Lead development of consolidated quarterly semi-annual and annual progress implementation reports for the programme including PIR • Work closely with multi-stakeholder platforms to assess and monitor implementation of portfolio at landscape or seascape level • Organize landscape/seascape annual grantee workshops for cross-learning, information exchange and networking • Coordinate preparation for Mid-term review (MTR) and Terminal Evaluation (TE). • Develop community-based monitoring tools to be applied at project level to meet project Monitoring Plan needs • Coordinate joint monitoring field visits to assess and validate progress reports • Ensure GEF SGP global database is regularly updated • Develop tools for tracking the amount of co-financing raised at programme level and project level. • Keep track of funds committed and spent per GEF focal area 25% 3. Knowledge Management and Communications • Assist to develop a knowledge management and communications plan • Support knowledge management by documenting lessons learnt and earmarking
72 | P a g e
best practices • Contribute to the development of communications products including project fact sheets, documentaries, briefs, and project reports. • Promote vibrancy and relevance of SGP Thailand website • Write success stories and features for the SGP Thailand website. • Assist in the production of an e-quarterly newsletter • Enhance presence of SGP Thailand on social media • Support media personnel to produce newspaper features • Facilitate development of a digital photo library
73 | P a g e
Annex C: UNDP Social and Environmental Screening Procedure and plans as needed
Project Information
Project Information 1. Project Title Sixth Operational Phase of the GEF Small Grants Program in Thailand 2. Project Number 5530 3. Location (Global/Region/Country) Thailand
Part A. Integrating Overarching Principles to Strengthen Social and Environmental Sustainability
QUESTION 1: How Does the Project Integrate the Overarching Principles in order to Strengthen Social and Environmental Sustainability?
Briefly describe in the space below how the Project mainstreams the human-rights based approach The GEF Small Grants Program provides up to USD 50,000 in funding and technical assistance to community level organizations for design and implementation of projects of their choosing within an overall strategic landscape management framework they participate in developing. Community organizations receive training on implementation and monitoring and adaptive management methods and skills.
Briefly describe in the space below how the Project is likely to improve gender equality and women’s empowerment
Gender will be considered throughout this project’s design and implementation. The project will prioritize work with women’s groups, particularly indigenous women, as well as girls’ groups. The Country Programme team, as part of project preparation, has formulated a specific strategy (GAAP) to engage women/girls groups as primary actors in landscape and resource management and micro and small enterprise development. The Country Programme team will work with the gender focal point on the National Steering Committee to identify potential project ideas for initial discussions with women’s and girls’ groups. Gender-sensitive NGOs will be engaged to support women/girls’ groups in defining grant project objectives and designing grant project activities, as needed. Women/girls groups will evaluate their projects’ performance to identify lessons and knowledge for adaptive management as well as gender specific policy recommendations.
Briefly describe in the space below how the Project mainstreams environmental sustainability
The premise of the GEF Small Grants Program is that communities will adopt environmentally sustainable practices if they do not imply additional costs or risks to their current production and livelihood systems. The SGP finances community organizations to design and implement sustainable development projects that also produce global environmental benefits.
74 | P a g e
Part B. Identifying and Managing Social and Environmental Risks
QUESTION 2: What are the Potential QUESTION 3: What is the level of significance of the QUESTION 6: What social and environmental Social and Environmental Risks? potential social and environmental risks? assessment and management measures have been Note: Describe briefly potential social Note: Respond to Questions 4 and 5 below before conducted and/or are required to address potential and environmental risks identified in proceeding to Question 6 risks (for Risks with Moderate and High Significance)? Attachment 1 – Risk Screening Checklist (based on any “Yes” responses). Risk Description Impact Significanc Comments Description of assessment and management measures and e as reflected in the Project design. If ESIA or SESA is Probabilit (Low, required note that the assessment should consider all y (1-5) Moderate, potential impacts and risks. High) I = 3 moderate Risk mitigation systems in place will be strengthened to P = 2 maintain or improve CBO and NGO performance. The Thailand SGP Country Programme works with all grantees to help build capacities by identifying appropriate rates of disbursement, linking grantee partners to learn from each other (peer-to-peer), and Risk 1: Low capacity and awareness of working in a flexible manner that responds to the local NGOs and CBOs may decrease strengths and comparative advantages of grantees. demand for community driven projects The SGP Country Programme also reduces risk by as well as influence the pace and supporting replication of good practices that have implementation of grant projects once proven to deliver on GEF strategic priorities at the approved. community level. The National Steering Committee (NSC), with representation from civil society leaders, government institutions, and donors, further provides support for effective design and implementation of SGP-financed projects.
75 | P a g e
I = 5 Moderate SGP plans to overcome these risks through the Risk 2: Political instability may have a P = 2 continuous efforts of the NC, NSC members and SGP negative impact on resource team to encourage more civil society organizations to mobilization, on the implementation of be engaged with the programme due to its significant SGP funded projects’ activities in role in the national development process – in different governorates, and may also partnership with the state and the private sector – as a affect the sustainability of projects. result of their experience in welfare and social development programs. Risk 3: If less attention is paid to the I = 2 Low The SGP National Steering Committee will continue to quality of the environment (both global P = 2 advocate that investing in environmental protection and local) and the state of ecosystem will serve economic development and the quality of life services, less funding and support are of all Thailand’s people, as well as enable Thailand to likely to be given to SGP and related or meet its commitments under the global environmental partner projects. conventions. Risk 4: Greater obstacles to I = 2 Low The SGP Country Programme has been involved in the participation by civil society P = 2 national consultations on new legislation regarding organizations in carrying out NGOs and has maintained good relations with programmes and projects to protect the responsible governmental bodies to ensure local and global environment may result cooperation and facilitate necessary procedures. in less participation in the SGP Country Programme. [add additional rows as needed] QUESTION 4: What is the overall Project risk categorization?
Select one (see SESP for guidance) Comments Low Risk Moderate Risk X The project builds on more than 15 years of SGP experience and the established programming, governance and operational mechanisms of the Country Program. UNDP sits on the National Steering Committee of the Country Program which reviews the country strategy, project eligibility criteria and proposals for approval. Other NSC members include civil society organizations, including representatives
76 | P a g e
of indigenous peoples, women and other rural actors. High Risk QUESTION 5: Based on the identified risks and risk categorization, what requirements of the SES are relevant? Check all that apply Comments Principle 1: Human Rights ☐ Principle 2: Gender Equality and Women’s See the second section under Question 1. X Empowerment 1. Biodiversity Conservation and Natural The SGP expressly finances projects to conserve and X Resource Management use biodiversity sustainably. 2. Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation The SGP expressly finances projects to mitigate and X adapt to climate change. 3. Community Health, Safety and Working ☐ Conditions 4. Cultural Heritage ☐ 5. Displacement and Resettlement ☐ 6. Indigenous Peoples The SGP has a programmatic preference for poor, X vulnerable and marginalized groups. 7. Pollution Prevention and Resource Efficiency The SGP expressly finances projects to prevent X pollution and use natural resources efficiently.
Final Sign Off
Signature Date Description QA Assessor – Diana Salvemini UNDP staff member responsible for the Project, typically a UNDP Programme Officer. Final signature confirms they have “checked” to ensure that the SESP is adequately conducted. QA Approver – Stephen Gold UNDP senior manager, typically the UNDP Deputy Country Director (DCD), Country Director (CD), Deputy Resident Representative (DRR), or Resident Representative (RR). The QA Approver cannot also be the QA Assessor. Final signature confirms they have “cleared” the SESP prior to submittal to the PAC.
77 | P a g e
PAC Chair UNDP chair of the PAC. Final signature confirms that the SESP was considered as part of the project appraisal and considered in recommendations of the PAC.
78 | P a g e
SESP Attachment 1. Social and Environmental Risk Screening Checklist
Checklist Potential Social and Environmental Risks Answer Principles 1: Human Rights (Yes/No) 1. Could the Project lead to adverse impacts on enjoyment of the human rights (civil, political, No economic, social or cultural) of the affected population and particularly of marginalized groups? 2. Is there a likelihood that the Project would have inequitable or discriminatory adverse impacts No on affected populations, particularly people living in poverty or marginalized or excluded individuals or groups? 22 3. Could the Project potentially restrict availability, quality of and access to resources or basic No services, in particular to marginalized individuals or groups? 4. Is there a likelihood that the Project would exclude any potentially affected stakeholders, in No particular marginalized groups, from fully participating in decisions that may affect them? 5. Are there measures or mechanisms in place to respond to local community grievances? Yes 6. Is there a risk that duty-bearers do not have the capacity to meet their obligations in the No Project? 7. Is there a risk that rights-holders do not have the capacity to claim their rights? No 8. Have local communities or individuals, given the opportunity, raised human rights concerns No regarding the Project during the stakeholder engagement process? 9. Is there a risk that the Project would exacerbate conflicts among and/or the risk of violence to No project-affected communities and individuals?
Principle 2: Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment
1. Is there a likelihood that the proposed Project would have adverse impacts on gender equality No and/or the situation of women and girls? 2. Would the Project potentially reproduce discriminations against women based on gender, Yes especially regarding participation in design and implementation or access to opportunities and benefits? 3. Have women’s groups/leaders raised gender equality concerns regarding the Project during No the stakeholder engagement process and has this been included in the overall Project proposal and in the risk assessment? 3. Would the Project potentially limit women’s ability to use, develop and protect natural No resources, taking into account different roles and positions of women and men in accessing environmental goods and services? For example, activities that could lead to natural resources degradation or depletion in communities who depend on these resources for their livelihoods and well being
22 Prohibited grounds of discrimination include race, ethnicity, gender, age, language, disability, sexual orientation, religion, political or other opinion, national or social or geographical origin, property, birth or other status including as an indigenous person or as a member of a minority. References to “women and men” or similar is understood to include women and men, boys and girls, and other groups discriminated against based on their gender identities, such as transgender people and transsexuals.
79
Principle 3: Environmental Sustainability: Screening questions regarding environmental risks are encompassed by the specific Standard-related questions below
Standard 1: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Natural Resource Management
1.1 Would the Project potentially cause adverse impacts to habitats (e.g. modified, natural, and No critical habitats) and/or ecosystems and ecosystem services?
For example, through habitat loss, conversion or degradation, fragmentation, hydrological changes 1.2 Are any Project activities proposed within or adjacent to critical habitats and/or Yes environmentally sensitive areas, including legally protected areas (e.g. nature reserve, national park), areas proposed for protection, or recognized as such by authoritative sources and/or indigenous peoples or local communities? 1.3 Does the Project involve changes to the use of lands and resources that may have adverse No impacts on habitats, ecosystems, and/or livelihoods? (Note: if restrictions and/or limitations of access to lands would apply, refer to Standard 5) 1.4 Would Project activities pose risks to endangered species? No 1.5 Would the Project pose a risk of introducing invasive alien species? No 1.6 Does the Project involve harvesting of natural forests, plantation development, or Yes reforestation? 1.7 Does the Project involve the production and/or harvesting of fish populations or other aquatic Yes species? 1.8 Does the Project involve significant extraction, diversion or containment of surface or ground No water? For example, construction of dams, reservoirs, river basin developments, groundwater extraction 1.9 Does the Project involve utilization of genetic resources? (e.g. collection and/or harvesting, Yes commercial development) 1.10 Would the Project generate potential adverse transboundary or global environmental No concerns? 1.11 Would the Project result in secondary or consequential development activities which could No lead to adverse social and environmental effects, or would it generate cumulative impacts with other known existing or planned activities in the area? For example, a new road through forested lands will generate direct environmental and social impacts (e.g. felling of trees, earthworks, potential relocation of inhabitants). The new road may also facilitate encroachment on lands by illegal settlers or generate unplanned commercial development along the route, potentially in sensitive areas. These are indirect, secondary, or induced impacts that need to be considered. Also, if similar developments in the same forested area are planned, then cumulative impacts of multiple activities (even if not part of the same Project) need to be considered.
Standard 2: Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation
80
2.1 Will the proposed Project result in significant23 greenhouse gas emissions or may exacerbate No climate change? 2.2 Would the potential outcomes of the Project be sensitive or vulnerable to potential impacts of No climate change? 2.3 Is the proposed Project likely to directly or indirectly increase social and environmental No vulnerability to climate change now or in the future (also known as maladaptive practices)? For example, changes to land use planning may encourage further development of floodplains, potentially increasing the population’s vulnerability to climate change, specifically flooding
Standard 3: Community Health, Safety and Working Conditions
3.1 Would elements of Project construction, operation, or decommissioning pose potential safety No risks to local communities? 3.2 Would the Project pose potential risks to community health and safety due to the transport, No storage, and use and/or disposal of hazardous or dangerous materials (e.g. explosives, fuel and other chemicals during construction and operation)? 3.3 Does the Project involve large-scale infrastructure development (e.g. dams, roads, buildings)? No 3.4 Would failure of structural elements of the Project pose risks to communities? (e.g. collapse of No buildings or infrastructure) 3.5 Would the proposed Project be susceptible to or lead to increased vulnerability to No earthquakes, subsidence, landslides, erosion, flooding or extreme climatic conditions? 3.6 Would the Project result in potential increased health risks (e.g. from water-borne or other No vector-borne diseases or communicable infections such as HIV/AIDS)? 3.7 Does the Project pose potential risks and vulnerabilities related to occupational health and No safety due to physical, chemical, biological, and radiological hazards during Project construction, operation, or decommissioning? 3.8 Does the Project involve support for employment or livelihoods that may fail to comply with No national and international labor standards (i.e. principles and standards of ILO fundamental conventions)? 3.9 Does the Project engage security personnel that may pose a potential risk to health and safety No of communities and/or individuals (e.g. due to a lack of adequate training or accountability)?
Standard 4: Cultural Heritage
4.1 Will the proposed Project result in interventions that would potentially adversely impact sites, No structures, or objects with historical, cultural, artistic, traditional or religious values or intangible forms of culture (e.g. knowledge, innovations, practices)? (Note: Projects intended to protect and conserve Cultural Heritage may also have inadvertent adverse impacts) 4.2 Does the Project propose utilizing tangible and/or intangible forms of cultural heritage for No commercial or other purposes?
23 In regards to CO2, ‘significant emissions’ corresponds generally to more than 25,000 tons per year (from both direct and indirect sources). [The Guidance Note on Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation provides additional information on GHG emissions.]
81
Standard 5: Displacement and Resettlement
5.1 Would the Project potentially involve temporary or permanent and full or partial physical No displacement? 5.2 Would the Project possibly result in economic displacement (e.g. loss of assets or access to No resources due to land acquisition or access restrictions – even in the absence of physical relocation)? 5.3 Is there a risk that the Project would lead to forced evictions?24 No 5.4 Would the proposed Project possibly affect land tenure arrangements and/or community- No based property rights/customary rights to land, territories and/or resources?
Standard 6: Indigenous Peoples
6.1 Are indigenous peoples present in the Project area (including Project area of influence)? Yes 6.2 Is it likely that the Project or portions of the Project will be located on lands and territories Yes claimed by indigenous peoples? 6.3 Would the proposed Project potentially affect the rights, lands and territories of indigenous No peoples (regardless of whether Indigenous Peoples possess the legal titles to such areas)? 6.4 Has there been an absence of culturally appropriate consultations carried out with the No objective of achieving FPIC on matters that may affect the rights and interests, lands, resources, territories and traditional livelihoods of the indigenous peoples concerned? 6.4 Does the proposed Project involve the utilization and/or commercial development of natural No resources on lands and territories claimed by indigenous peoples? 6.5 Is there a potential for forced eviction or the whole or partial physical or economic No displacement of indigenous peoples, including through access restrictions to lands, territories, and resources? 6.6 Would the Project adversely affect the development priorities of indigenous peoples as No defined by them? 6.7 Would the Project potentially affect the traditional livelihoods, physical and cultural survival of No indigenous peoples? 6.8 Would the Project potentially affect the Cultural Heritage of indigenous peoples, including No through the commercialization or use of their traditional knowledge and practices?
Standard 7: Pollution Prevention and Resource Efficiency
7.1 Would the Project potentially result in the release of pollutants to the environment due to No routine or non-routine circumstances with the potential for adverse local, regional, and/or transboundary impacts? 7.2 Would the proposed Project potentially result in the generation of waste (both hazardous and No
24 Forced evictions include acts and/or omissions involving the coerced or involuntary displacement of individuals, groups, or communities from homes and/or lands and common property resources that were occupied or depended upon, thus eliminating the ability of an individual, group, or community to reside or work in a particular dwelling, residence, or location without the provision of, and access to, appropriate forms of legal or other protections.
82
non-hazardous)? 7.3 Will the proposed Project potentially involve the manufacture, trade, release, and/or use of No hazardous chemicals and/or materials? Does the Project propose use of chemicals or materials subject to international bans or phase-outs? For example, DDT, PCBs and other chemicals listed in international conventions such as the Stockholm Conventions on Persistent Organic Pollutants or the Montreal Protocol 7.4 Will the proposed Project involve the application of pesticides that may have a negative effect No on the environment or human health? 7.5 Does the Project include activities that require significant consumption of raw materials, No energy, and/or water?
83
Annex D: Stakeholder Engagement Plan
Stakeholder Engagement Plan: Sixth Operational Phase of the GEF Small Grants Programme in Thailand
The Project has been formulated through a consultative process with multi-stakeholders from local communities, CBOs, CSOs, NGOs, relevant government agencies, Royal Projects, research institutes, and the GEF National Steering Committee. The process has been participatory with active engagement of and valuable contributions from all stakeholders. Four (4) local stakeholder consultation workshops were organized during April-June 2018 in four regions covering three landscapes and one seascape. Numbers of participants in each workshop are provided by category in Table 1. Please find below a list of participants for each workshop.
Table 1: Number of participants in stakeholder consultation workshops by region. Landscape/seascape # of participants Total Community CBO/CSO NGO Royal Provincial Local NSC leaders Project agencies gov’t Mae LaoWatershed (North) 4 14 3 1 2 3 2 29 Phetchabun Range (Northeast) - 30 - - 1 - 4 35 Kaeng Krachan Forest Complex 4 7 4 7 - 4 3 29 (West) Phang Nga Bay (South) 3 12 2 - 2 - 5 24 Total 11 63 9 8 5 7 14 117
The workshop held sessions to introduce the SEPLS approach, carry out participatory mapping of landscape/seascapes, discuss landscape/seascape biodiversity, assess landscape resilience and score it, identify climate change mitigation issues and opportunities and roles of landscape communities, analyze gender issues, and develop long-term objectives and outcomes for landscape management. Information gathered from the workshops was consolidated and used for the formulation of the Project Document, as well as this Stakeholder Engagement Plan. During the project implementation phase, stakeholders who participated in the feasibility study and project formulation phase will continue to be engaged. New stakeholders will also be identified and included as part of a Multi-Stakeholder Network Group for each respective landscape/seascape. Stakeholder engagement in project implementation will start with national level inception workshops to kick off the project and will continue throughout the project period. Numbers and roles of women/men stakeholders for each activity are determined in the project Gender Action Plan. Project SELPS Consultant and provincial and district level line agencies will be engaged to provide training and supervision on technical aspects of project activities whereas local governments are expected to provide both technical and financial support to grant projects, as needed. A Gender Specialist will be involved to give advice and training on gender mainstreaming both at project and landscape/seascape level (Ref: project Gender Action Plan), whereas the GEF SGP National Steering Committee and National Coordinator will provide overall facilitation and supervision support for all grant projects. Details of stakeholder engagement at output/activity level are provided in Table 2.
84
Table 2: Stakeholder Engagement Plan at national and landscape level Outcome/ Activity Objective Timing Location Target Participants Output All Project Inception To develop shared Y 1/Q1 Bangkok Committee members of Workshop understanding of the target landscape/seascape project objectives, multi-stakeholder groups theory of change, implementation plan, Provincial and district roles and of each agencies supporting project party involved and to implementation in 4 target make necessary landscapes/seascape adjustments.
Outcome 1: Multi-stakeholder partnerships in pilot landscapes and seascapes of four diverse regions- 1) upstream watersheds of Northern, 2) dry plateau of Northeastern, 3) long mountainous border of Western, and 4) coastal area of Southern - develop and execute adaptive management plans to enhance landscape/seascape and community resilience and global environmental benefits.
Outputs Formation of To establish multi- Q2/Y1 Mae Lao Community leaders, CBOs, 1.1.-1.2 landscape/seascape stakeholder groups in Watershed, CSOs, NGOs, Provincial and multi-stakeholder target Petchabun Range, local governments who groups landscape/seascapes Kaeng Krachan participated in stakeholder and to sign multi- Forest Complex, consultation workshops, as stakeholder Phang Nga Bay well as newly identified agreements stakeholders proposed by regarding long term original landscape outcomes for each stakeholders based on their landscape existing role and experience in landscape management.
Outputs Developing To develop Q2/Y1 Mae Lao Multi-stakeholder groups of 1.3-1.5 landscape/seascape sustainable Watershed, each landscape /seascape strategies and landscape/seascape Petchabun Range, typology strategies and Kaeng Krachan community level community Forest Complex, projects development Phang Nga Bay projects based on
SEPLS principles
Outcome 2: Community organizations in landscape/seascape level networks build their adaptive management capacities by implementing community level projects and collaborating in managing landscape resources and processes to achieve socio ecological production landscape resiliency. Outcome/ Activity Objective Timing Location Target Participants Output Output 2.1 Community level To implement, Q4/Y1- Target/selected Multi-stakeholder groups of small grant projects monitor and improve Q3/Y3 communities within each landscape /seascape in the selected implementation of Mae Lao landscapes and grant projects Watershed, Relevant activity groups in seascapes that through adaptive Petchabun Range, target communities, e.g. for conserve management Kaeng Krachan 85
biodiversity and towards long-term Forest Complex, co-management of enhance ecosystem landscape/seascape Phang Nga Bay protected areas; watershed services outcome. management; non-timber forest products, sustainable fisheries;
Line agencies such as forestry and fishery offices
Output 2.2 Community level To implement, Q4/Y1- Target/selected Multi-stakeholder groups of small grant projects monitor and improve Q3/Y3 communities within each landscape /seascape in the selected implementation of Mae Lao landscapes that grant projects Watershed, Relevant activity groups in enhance through adaptive Petchabun Range, target communities, e.g. for productivity and management Kaeng Krachan participatory vulnerability sustainability of towards long-term Forest Complex, assessments; agroecological smallholder landscape/seascape Phang Nga Bay techniques/practices such agroecosystems outcome as polycultures, cover crops, agroforestry systems, crop genetic resource conservation; etc.
Line agencies such as agriculture office, research institute, training institute Output 2.3 Community level To implement, Q4/Y1- Target/selected Multi-stakeholder groups of small grant projects monitor and improve Q3/Y3 communities within each landscape /seascape in the selected implementation of Mae Lao
landscapes that grant projects Watershed, Relevant activity groups in innovate alternative through adaptive Petchabun target livelihood options management Range, Kaeng communities, e.g. for and improve market towards long-term Krachan Forest landscape/seascape ecological products, access Complex, Phang outcome ecotourism. Etc. Nga Bay
Line agencies such as community development and tourism offices, private sector/SME, research institute, etc.
Output 2.4 Community level To implement, Q4/Y1- Target/selected Multi-stakeholder groups of small grant projects monitor and improve Q3/Y3 communities within each landscape /seascape in the selected implementation of Mae Lao landscapes that grant projects Watershed, Relevant activity groups in mitigate climate- through adaptive Petchabun Range, target communities, e.g. for related risks to management Kaeng Krachan energy efficiency/ health and well- towards long-term Forest Complex, renewable energy being landscape/seascape Phang Nga Bay outcome applications, waste
86
management for energy, and improved carbon sequestration/ storage.
Line agencies such as energy and agricultural offices, MoNRE provincial office, RFD. Outcome 3: Multi-stakeholder landscape and seascape management groups, local policy makers and subnational/national advisors organized in landscape policy platforms discuss potential policy innovations based on analysis of project experience and lessons learned. Outputs Multisectoral policy To analyse lessons Q1/Y3 Bangkok and in Four multi-stakeholder 3.1-3.2 dialogue platforms learned and develop each of the target groups organized for each case studies and landscape/seascape
landscape/seascape knowledge products All line agencies engaged in and one dialogue on sustainable project implementations platform organized landscape/seascape
nationally management Project consultants, NSC, NC
Local policy makers (sub-
district level) and relevant
subnational and national
level policy making bodies
Outcome 4: Multi-stakeholder partnerships develop and implement strategic projects to bring adoption of specific successful SGP-supported technologies, practices or systems to a tipping point in each landscape through engagement of potential financial partners, policy makers and national/subnational advisors and institutions, as well as the private sector. Output 4.1 Detailed analysis of To analyse successful Q1/Y3 (To be identified) Multi stakeholder groups in successful grant grant project each landscape project portfolios portfolios and lines and lines of work of work and identify Activity groups engaged in lessons learned, best grant project practices and market implementation opportunities
Participating line agencies and local governments
NSC/NC KM consultant Outputs Engagement of To explore their Q1/Y3 (To be identified) National and regional level 4.2-43 potential financial interest and potential financial partners and public partners and public to support upscaling sector institutes which have sector institutions projects policies to support green growth and to meet
87
relevant SDGs Output 4.3 Development of To identify upscaling Q1/Y3 (To be identified) KM consultant together upscaling projects requirements and with identified financial opportunities and to partners/public develop strategic organizations upscaling projects Multi-stakeholder groups engaged in individual upscaling projects
NSC/NC Output 4.4 Implementation of To implement Q2/Y3 (To be identified) Selected grantees of grant strategic projects strategic upscaling projects which have been projects to enhance selected for upscaling
multiplying effects
of the tested SEPLS the 4-target grant projects landscape/seascape
In addition to this, informal sessions on stakeholder engagement will also take place through monitoring visits, on- going grant project level learning-reflection processes and other emerging learning-reflection events organized at landscape/seascape level by multi-stakeholder groups. Information will be systematically compiled and used as evidence to support development of case studies on best practices or project lines of work which could be useful for future replication of the models in other areas.
List of participants, Stakeholder Consultation Workshops (April-June 2018) Mae Kok River Basin Name Organization Mae Lao Watershed 1. Mr. Kraisit Sitthichodok Akha Cultural Network and University 2. Mr. Patipan Ayi Akha Ethnic Center for the Environment 3. Mr. Inlaeng Taikorn Mae Lao Forest Conservation Network 4. General Thanayod Pringthongfu Area-based Integrated Development for Sustainable Highland Security Project 5. Mr. Cha-ie Prichaprasit Mae Long-Mae Kham Watershed Netwok 6. Mr. Surapong Wueyue Youth Group 7. Mr. Damrongpong Doommai Green Net Foundation 8. Mr. Boonnak Chomtham Wiang Pa Pao Environmental Conservation Volunteer 9. Mr. Pranom Chuemchaipoom Mae Suay Community Organization Council 10. Ms. Anchalee Intawong 11. Mr. Phuwadon Thisorn Wiang Pa Pao Financial Institute 12. Ms. Hosumi Nakato Roong Arun Project 13. Mr. Chaitawat Jomoti Honey and Coffee Social Enterprise -Hin Lad Nai village
88
14. Mr. Natdanai Trakarnsupakorn 15. Mr. Chaipresert Phokha Hin Lad Nai village headman 16. Mr. Apirun Khampinkham Khun Lao village headman 17. Mr. Manop Boonyuenkul Village headman 18. Mr. Sakhorn Somyod Mayor, Sansaree Tambon Administrative Organization 19. Mr. Boonsong Muenkha Chief, Khun Jae National Park 20. Mr. Santikul Juepa TAO member 21. Mr. Suriya Sriprasert IMPECT Association 22. Mr. Tatchai Akrawongwiriya Raks Thai Foundation 23. Mr. Direk Kruachansi Lower Mae Kok Watershed 24. Mr. Api Sa-ngo Golden Triangle Ethic Group, Chiang Rai 25. Mr. Dusit Chitsuk Friends of Buffalo Group 26. Mr. Naret Singkaew Village leader, Baan Pha Rua, Mae Chan district 27. Mr. Songsit Jeeyotkad Village leader, Baan Tha Khao Pluek, Mae Chan district 28. Mr. Sompong Chantapoon Nam Lau group 29. Mr. Artit Yasakha 30. Ms. Chandee Chittarom Raks Wiang Nong community enterprise 31. Ms. Khamnoi Yasakha 32. Mr. Akrapong Chalerm Lieamthong Mae Yao Tambon Administrative Organization 33. Mr. Chamlong POkham Highland Development Project 34. Mr. Duangdee Janu Village headman, Moo 13, Mae Yao sub-district GEF/SGP National Committee Mr. Komon Pragtong Mr. Prasert Trakarnsupakorn UNDP/GEF SGP Ms. Suwimol Saereepaowong National Coordinator Ms. Thadthana Luengthada Project Assistant Consultants Ms. Walaitat Worakul PPG National Consultant/workshop facilitator Ms. Jaree Kiatsuphimol Rapporteur
Petchabun Range Name Organization Community-based Organization (CBO)-Loei province 1. Mr. Boonsin Pisalbutr Organic Farming Network of Songplue/Khik Sawang, Lomkhao 2. Mr. Thongchai Khamya 3. Mr. Somchai Khamkha 4. Mr. Narin Horavet Utility Forest Conservation and Renewable Energy Development 5. Mr. Arthit Pisalbutr for Climate Change Adaptation 6. Mr. Decha Khambaomuang 7. Mr. Veesai Duangthong Phong Watershed Network
89
8. Mr. Ae Buranphai 9. Mr. Pundej Boonnak Social and Public Philanthropist Association 10. Mr. Ekkarat Khammongkhun 11. Ms. Jiemjit Thongviset 12. Mr. Tossaporn Narinrak Civil Society of Petchabun Range 13. Mr. Sassana Sonpha 14. Mr. Sanong Khunkrong 15. Mr. Kongthen Boonprasob 16. Mr. Jeerasak Tridech Community-based Organization (CBO)-Petchabun province 17. Mr. Channarong Wongla Thai-Baan Researcher Network and Mekhong River Network 18. Ms. Bui Thi Hue 19. Mr. Sasawat Tonkunya The Foundation of Local Community Rehabilitation 20. Mr. Boonmak Sriporn 21. Mr. Damrongsak Manokaew Community Organization of Watershed Conservation from Kwae- Noi-Pasak 22. Ms. Saengrawee Dapha The Civil Society Coordination Centre, Kudpong 23. Mr. Sookruethai Phanuch Community Organization Network of Huay Som 24. Ms. Kessarin Butrasiri 25. Ms. Amornrat Duangla 26. Ms. Oranuch Pholphinyo Eco-Cultural Study and Rehabilitation Centre of Petchabun Range 27. Ms. Kanwaratorn Khamwang 28. Mr. Weeraphol Parnphum Restoration of Northeastern Community Development Association 29. Mr. Soonthorn On-Uthai 30. Mr. Chalit Saphaphak Real Friend Association GEF/SGP National Steering Committee 31. Mr. Komon Pragthong, Ph.D National Steering Committee Members 32. Asst, Professor Nukul Ruttanadakul 33. Mr. Prasert Trakansuphakon, Ph.D 34. Mr. Wisit Ngamsom
UNDP/GEF 35. Ms. Suwimol Saereepaowong National Coordinator 36. Ms. Thadthana Luengthada Project Assistant PPG Consultants 37. Ms. Walaitat Worakul Project Development and Gender Consultant 38. Mr. Pawin Talerngsri Community-based Climate Change Mitigation Consultant 39. Ms. Jaree Kiatsuphimol Rapporteur
Kaeng Krachan Forest Complex Name Organization
90
Community leaders 1. Mr. Arun Kerdsaming Phukhem village, Kaeng Krachan sub-district, Kaeng Krachan 2. Ms. Orawan Sadsan district, Petchburi 3. Ms. Sirikwan Srichanfua Nong Nam Dam village, Kaeng Krachan sub-district, Kaeng Krachan 4. Ms. Sin Kaewsuk district, Petchburi Community-based Organizations 5. Ms. Chutharat Donpaisri Father’s Footprints Network, Padeng subdistrict, Kaeng Krachan 6. Ms. Kwanruen Khongsomchit district, Petchburi 7. Mr. Chukarn Sawangsi Project to Strengthen Capacity of Local Leaders for Cooperatives 8. Mr. Winai Khongchaem Development 9. Mr. Suphap Siangwan Young Dharma Ambassador Group 10. Mr. Arun Sookchitdee Kanchanaburi Forest Association 11. Mr. Chalit Saphaphak Real Friends Group, Suphanburi Local governments (Tambon Administrative Organizations-TAO) 12. Mr. Chuanchom Phu-ngam Bang Nam Klad Tai TAO, Nong Ya Plong district, Petchburi 13. Mr. Chamlong Kuaphu 14. Mr. Thanasit Pibunwattanakorn Had Kham TAO, Kui Buri district, Prachuab Khirikhan 15. Ms. Samorn Sangthong Institute 16. Mr. Suthin Phayak Pid Thong Lang Phra Institure for Development 17. Nattaphol Jaikwang 18. Mr. Ekhachai Homdok 19. Mr. Nitipol Jawpanja 20. Ms. Pairoh Boonsuk 21. Mr. Monkolchai Rakjongjaroen 22. Mr. Sommart Pukad International/national NGOs 23. Mr. Naret Suadurian WWF Thailand (Kui Buri Wildlife Protection Project) 24. Mr. Witsanuwit Thong-on 25. Ms. Thanpitcha Jaikaew 26. Mr. Ratkawi Boonmek IUCN Thailand GEF/SGP National Committee 27. Mr. Komon Pragtong 28. Mr. Prasert Trakarnsupakorn 29. Mr. Phirat Inpanich UNDP/GEF SGP/ 30. Ms. Suwimol Saereepaowong National Coordinator 31. Ms. Thadthana Luengthada Project Assistant
Consultants 32. Ms. Walaitat Worakul PPG Thailand Project Development and Gender Consultant 33. Mr. Pawin Talerngsri PPG Thailand Community-based Climate Change Mitigation Consultant 34. Ms. Jaree Kiatsuphimol Rapporteur
91
Phang Nga Bay No Name Organization Krabi Province 1 Mr. Dollor Mankala Nai Nang Community, Muang district, Krabi 2 Mr. Chafee-aee Wansuk 3 Mr. Songpol Tippayawong Reef to Ridge Explorer Foundation Phang Nga Province 4 Mr. Chokdee Somprom Chumchon Thai Foundation 5 Mr. Decha Lawan 6 Mrs. Noppamas Lawan Ao Makham Savings Group, Phang Nga 7 Mrs. Suthida Karakham 8 Mr. Weerasak Saleyrat 9 Mrs. Sumitra Homrotkla Baan Klong Khien Savings Group, Phang Nga 10 Mrs. Sukhon Saleyrat 11 Mrs. Sunee Chantrajit 12 Ms. Punnee Chantrajit Baan Thong Lang Savings Group, Phang Nga 13 Ms. Urai Abdullah 14 Mr. Ahmed Khamnuengkarn Ta Sanook community, Phang Nga 15 Mrs. Minla Khamnuengkarn Phuket province 17 Mr. Apinan Puripatranon Had Rawai community, Phuket 18 Ms. Teeraya Intrarak Andaman Discovery 19 Mr. Chaiwut Sinsamosorn Biofertiliser from Biogas Residue Project, Muang district 20 Mr. Udomsak Pariwatpan Mangrove Action Project 21 Ms. Sudjai Samutaban Bang Rong Savings Group 22 Ms. Marukhamat Libong 23 Mr. Kasem Suphap 24 Mr. Arun Bamrungna Bangla Conservation Group 25 Mr. CHamnien Phinkokyao 26 Mr. Pichet Pandum Food Security Project, Talang, Phuket 27 Ms. Rattanaporn Jangjaidee 28 Mr. Pradit Phuangket 29 Mr. Mudtaleb Dumchua Baan Ao Koong Mangrove Conservation Group 30 Mr. Taleb Wongkla 31 Mr. Os Somthip 32 Ms. Nok Malaidaeng Phuket Marine National Park Operation Center 33 Ms. Prapasri Wutti 34 Mr. Chalit Sapaphak Real Friend Group, Suphanburi
National Steering Committee 35 Mr. Komon Pragthong, Ph.D Chairperson, National Steering Committee
92
36 Asst. Prof. Nukul Ruttanadakul National Steering Committee member 37 Mr. Prasert Trakansuphakon, Ph.D National Steering Committee member 38 Ms. Makasiri Chaowagul, Ph.D National Steering Committee member 39 Mr. Kanchit Sukjamitr National Steering Committee member GEF/SGP-UNDP 40 Ms. Suwimol Sereepaowong National Coordinator, GEF/SGP 41 Ms. Thadthana Luengthada Programme Assistant, GEF/SGP Consultants/Facilitators 42 Ms. Walaitat Worakul PPG Thailand Project Development and Gender Consultant 43 Mr. Pawin Talerngsri, Ph.D PPG Thailand Community-based Climate Change Mitigation Consultant 44 Mr. Jaree Kiatsuphimol Rapporteur
93
Annex E: Gender Analysis and Action Plan
Gender Analysis and Action Plan
Sixth Operational Phase of the GEF Small Grants Programme in Thailand
1. Introduction The proposed Sixth Operational Phase of the GEF Small Grants Programme in Thailand has been conceived to engage community organizations in four diverse regions of Thailand to take collective action for adaptive landscape and seascape management for socio-ecological resilience - through design, implementation and evaluation of grant projects for global environmental benefits and sustainable development. It will promote sustainable land management through the strengthening of viable agro-forestry and sustainable agriculture practices and systems that improve soil and water conservation, increase the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and enhance the innovative use of renewable energy. It will be carried out in specific landscapes and seascapes of the Northern, Northeastern, Western and Southern regions of Thailand. These four regions have been selected in consultation with government and civil society partners based on Thailand’s geographic diversity and the consolidation of experiences and lessons learned from the on-going and previous supported community initiatives during the GEF 4 and 5 replenishment periods (2006-2014) for forthcoming replication, upscaling and mainstreaming.
This gender assessment aims to provide an overview of gender equality situation in Thailand as well as specific gender-related issues in the four targeted landscapes/seascape selected for the project. It will also explore potential opportunities for gender mainstreaming into the design and implementation of the project activities in each respective area. The assessment is based on data available from studies conducted by the Royal Government of Thailand and donor organizations as well as data reflected by the stakeholders in the stakeholder consultation workshops.
Key documents reviewed included:
• Gender and Development: Similarities and Differences”,25 a report on national gender-disaggregated data conducted by the Office of National Statistics and Office of Women Affairs and Family Development, supported by UNDP Thailand (2008). • Women Development Strategies (2017-2021), Department of Women’s Affairs and Family Development, Ministry of Social Development and Human Security (2017) • ADB’s Country Partnership Strategies -Thailand (2013-2016) • Gender analysis, paper prepared under the project “Mainstreaming Gender and Human Rights in Climate Change Budget Integration Index (CCBII), UNDP Thailand, 2017 • Thailand’s MDG Report 2015, UNDP Thailand
25 The report is the first and only gender-disaggregated report prepared for the whole country by the National Statistical Office in Collaboration with Department of Women’s Affairs and Family Development with support from UNDP Thailand. It provides data and analysis of gender situation in 7 key areas including health, education, employment, income and poverty, family life and reproductive health, domestic and social violence, and leadership.
94
• Thailand Poverty and Inequality Report, NESDB, 2017 • Knowledge Management Report, Promoting Renewable Energy in Mae Hong Son Project, 2017 Website:
UN Women’s website: http://asiapacific.unwomen.org/en/countries/thailand
NESDB’s website: http://social.nesdb.go.th/social
GEF Website: GEF/C.53/04 http://www.thegef.org/sites/default/files/council-meeting documents/EN_GEF.C.53.04_Gender_Policy.pdf
Stakeholders consulted include 128 representatives from communities, NGOs, CSOs, local governments in the four regional targeted landscapes/seascapes, i.e. Mae Kok River Basin, Petchabun Range, Kaeng Krachan Forest Complex, and Pang-Nga Bay.
Background
UNDP prioritizes gender mainstreaming as its main strategy to achieve gender equality and women’s empowerment. Gender mainstreaming is the process of assessing any planned action in all areas and levels to determine the implication for women and men. It is a strategy for making women’s, as well as men’s, concerns and experiences an integral dimension of the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of projects so that women benefit equally. Gender mainstreaming aims to transform unequal social and institutional structures in order to make them profoundly responsive to gender, and, when realized, it ensures that both women and men benefit equally from the development process. It involves much more than simply adding women’s participation to existing strategies and programmes. Special attention and action are often required to compensate for the existing gaps and inequalities that women currently face.
The UNDP Gender Equality Strategy 2018-2021 is aligned with the 2030 Development Agenda and UNDP’s Strategic Plan. The strategy recognizes gender equality as a human right as well as instrumental to the achievement of sustainable development. It considers women and men as active agents of change and development, not simply beneficiaries and vulnerable groups and it recognizes how working with men and boys is of critical importance to change gender norms and attitudes and achieve gender equality.
The GEF Council approved a new GEF Policy on Gender Equality26, in November 2017. The policy outlines the need to address gender equality and promote women’s empowerment across GEF operations, and, in particular, in its projects and programs. The policy requires gender-responsive actions, from design to implementation, monitoring and evaluation to ensure that GEF programs and projects are not only designed with a good understanding of relevant gender differences, roles and needs, but also actively pursue activities that contribute to equal access to and control over resources, decision-making, and empowers women and girls.
Both UNDP and the GEF require a gender responsive approach, an approach in which the particular needs, priorities, power structures, status and relationships between men and women are recognized and adequately addressed in the design, implementation and evaluation of activities. The approach seeks to ensure that women and men are given equal opportunities to participate in and benefit from an intervention, and promotes targeted measures to address inequalities and promote the empowerment of women.
2. Gender assessment: national overview Women’s participation in socio-economic development at all levels is essential. Their participation in sustainable natural resources management is as important because majority of women in rural areas depend largely on these resources for their living. The government of Thailand recognizes the need to promote women’s empowerment as
26 GEF/C.53/04 (http://www.thegef.org/sites/default/files/council-meeting-documents/EN_GEF.C.53.04_Gender_Policy.pdf)
95
well as to address gender gaps. Gender equality principles and measures have been embedded in the Constitution since 1997 and various measures to promote women’s development and empowerment have been included in the series of 5 Year-Cycled National Development Plans since then.
As a result, Thailand has reached mixed achievements with regard to promoting gender equality. Its MDG report27 stated that Thailand has reached gender parity in primary school enrolment. At secondary and tertiary education, women outnumbered men. Women and men have equal access to health services. Increasing number of women are employed in non-agricultural sector and percentages of women in decision making positions in private sector and local politics have also increased. Despite these progresses, the overall challenges in gender equality and the empowerment of women in Thailand remain in the areas of lack of sex disaggregated data, traditional attitudes and stereotypes which underpin domestic violence and violence against women, low participation of women in national politics and public decision-making positions, discrimination and vulnerabilities of ethnic and rural women as well as women in the informal sector, HIV prevalence, trafficking and exploitation. Studies also show that women are more vulnerable to climate change than men especially in rural areas. 28
Progress made towards gender equality by sector.
The following paragraphs provide more details on overall gender situation in Thailand by sector. The data is drawn from various references as outlined above.
Health
Although men outnumbered women at birth, the mortality rate was lower among female infants and women at all ages. Consequently, there were more elderly women and many of them lived alone. Women and men were threatened by different health risks. Mentally, women had higher risks of mental illness, but more men committed suicide and death rate from leading diseases was higher among men.
Maternal mortality ratio continues to decline but the prevalence in Muslim communities in the South was still relatively high. Unsafe abortion also contributed to maternal mortality especially in teenage pregnancy. Limited sex education and life skills education programs add to young girls’ vulnerability to unwanted pregnancy and unsafe abortion.
Education
Girls and boys have equal access to basic education. In upper secondary and tertiary education, women outnumber men. At upper secondary level, girls and boys are on par in educational achievement. At tertiary level, more men are enrolled in subjects which are regarded as ‘high income’ areas, such as engineering and manufacturing.
Despite high rate of enrollment, completion rates lag behind, with dropout rates highest for secondary education at 2.44% in 2008. UNICEF’s Multiple indicator cluster survey, 2005–2006 revealed that a mother’s completion of secondary education has a positive correlation with the school completion of their children. Gender stereotype perceptions are prevalent among students and teachers, and these are reinforced through education materials.
Women also have slightly less opportunity for self-development and learning after the age of 29 years and women’s household responsibilities accounted for this drop.
Employment
27 http://social.nesdb.go.th/social/Default.aspx?tabid=125&articleType=ArticleView&articleId=3 28 http://asiapacific.unwomen.org/en/countries/thailand
96
Women’s participation in the workforce had increased but was still lower than that of men. A large number of women were in the agricultural and service sectors, family businesses and producers’ cooperatives while men worked as employers, government employees, private employees, and own account workers. During 2004-2007, women worked approximately 45 hours per week the same as men but earned less than men. Men outnumbered women in the informal sector but women outnumbered men as homeworkers. In general, home workers face unsafe working environment, low and late payment.
The shift of women workers from the agriculture sector to retail trade and manufacturing has been increased but women tend to get paid less than men for similar jobs. In terms of access to economic and other productive resources, the law generally does not discriminate: men and women have equal rights to inheritance and land holding, and equal access to bank loans and credit. Thailand’s maternity leave laws allow 90 days of leave. However, women working in the informal sector and as unpaid laborers are not eligible for these social benefits.
Income and Poverty
Women’s paid and unpaid work in the household and workplace has contributed to the improvement of the well- being of their families and the decline in the overall poverty incidence of the country. But poverty incidence among women still exists especially marginalized groups in border provinces in the Northeast, North and South. The poverty of these women is due largely to the lack of access to resources and social services, e.g. credits, land, assets, education and social security.
Number of female-headed households has constantly increased. The average income of female heads of households constitutes around 87 % of male heads of households and the gender gap was largest in the South. Although female-headed households earn less, they tend to manage to secure food and basic necessities to keep the family above the poverty line. At the national level, poverty incidence among female-headed households has been lower than among male-headed households.
Despite increased in women’s share of household income, they continue to shoulder a large part of unpaid work.
Family life and reproductive health
For reproductive health, birth control is practiced by most families and in most cases, by women. Risks involved in pregnancy and birth delivery abated in the North, but the situation in the South has slowly improve. Percentage of mothers below the age of 20 years is also on a constantly rise. The increase is observed in all regions.
Pregnancy check-ups drop but women are less threatened by HIV. The Central Region and the South record the highest prevalence rates. High prevalence is often located in industrial areas, fishery communities, and border areas.
Domestic and Social Violence
Increasing number of women and children become preys to sexual violence within and outside the family. Closed cases on sex-related offense at the Criminal Court and the Juvenile and Family Court increased by 40% during 2003-2007. One-stop crisis centers for victims of violence have been established in all provincial and district hospitals and recognized as good practice. However, despite existing response services, multisector response coordination remains a challenge.
Domestic violence and broken families29 have profound impact on family members, especially children and the youth. During 2002-2007, children and youth aged 7-18 years old of both sexes were arrested and sent to corrective facilities at increasing rates. Violence in Southern provinces also had significant impacts on women and children. Ninety-five (95%) of the orphans from the on-going terrorism-related violence in the four southern
29 Gender and Development: Similarities and Differences”, Office of National Statistics and Office of Women Affairs and Family Development, (2008).
97
provinces lost their fathers who had been bread winners of the family. Thus, increasing the number of women- headed households. This has also led to emergence of women’s leadership at community level and establishment of women’s networks to fight for justice.
Leadership/Political Participation
Despite increasing women’s presence in workplaces in both private and public sectors, only a small number are in executive positions. In 2007, 22% of directors of companies listed at the Stock Exchange Market in Thailand were women and another 35.37% of female directors of all companies registered with the Department of Business Development, Ministry of Commerce. In the public sector, women outnumber men but only a small number manage to reach to the top. Women make up less than one-fourth of the executives in the public sector.
At the National Parliament, women are grossly underrepresented. Political parties have failed to promote women’s participation in national politics. According to the 2004 report of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), women wishing to stand for office face considerable hurdles, including discouragement from their families from entering a “male domain” and lack of access to patronage networks.
During 2007-2013, women were selected and elected to the Senate less than 20%. However, this percentage represented an improvement from the 2006 Senate. Likewise, women constituted a small share (11.67%) of the House Representatives in the 2007 election. The situation was slightly improved in the 2011 election. This phenomenon also applied at the local political level. In 2012, women accounted for 6.43% pf all decision-making positions of local administration. However, it is remarkable that percentages of women sitting in decision making positions at community-based organizations (e.g. cooperatives, village leaders, etc.) had increased at significant rate and during 2007-2013, in 26 provinces numbers or women leaders at village level outnumbered men.
Women in the changing environment
With regard to the life of women in the changing environmental conditions, UNDP’s analysis on climate change and gender vulnerability 30 further provides that Thailand experienced several extreme climatic events in the recent past, including temperature rise, decrease in total rainfall, sea-level rise, extreme weather events, more intense tropical storms, and unpredictable cold spells. These have negative impact on women’s life in many ways, especially in rural/agricultural communities where women rely heavily on natural resources for their living. Droughts caused water shortage and women have to walk longer way to fetch water for home use or have to work longer hours for extra income to compensate loss of income from farming. The rise in temperature and also floods can have the effects on the heath of family members as well as the women’s health, hence, more time and money spent on health care. Natural disasters seem to have more female victims than males, directly and indirectly due to their lack of necessary skills to survive the disasters, lack of access to prevention systems, their traditional roles which expect them to take care of the children and elderly before themselves, etc. Women migration can also be a result of natural disasters since they have no choice of work, shelter, etc. in their original community.
Land ownership
The law generally does not discriminate rights of women and men over land ownership. Issue of land ownership distribution in Thailand is more prevalent between the business/industrial sector and the other sectors. According to 2017 National Poverty and Inequality Report by NESDB31, the top 10 Decile of land owner had in total 61.48% of the land. This resulted from the state policy which promoted foreign investments and issuance of law allowing for long-term rent of land by business/industrial sector. Hence, low income people have less access to land and, in some places, this has led to illegal encroachment into the forest or protected areas of the state.
30 Mainstreaming Gender and Human Rights in Climate Change Budget Integration Index (CCBII), UNDP Thailand, 2017 31 Thailand Poverty and Inequality Report, National Economic and Social Development Board, 2017.
98
However, there has been improvement in land ownership distribution in agricultural sector. The same report indicated that in 2017 percentage of households that own medium-sized farm land (between 10-19 rai32) had increased to 28.79 compared to 24.91 in 2006, while percentage of those owning big-sized farm had declined to 7.21 compared to 9.88 in 2006.
Issue of land ownership inequality between women and men do exist in some of the target landscapes, especially in ethnic minority communities. This issue as well as example of women’s role in land-right campaign will be further discussed in the section no. 4 below on “Gender assessment by stakeholders in the four target landscapes/seascape”
Energy
In 2016, 99.9% of households in Thailand have access to electricity. This include both grid- and off-grid connections.
The Alternative Energy Development Plan (AEDP 2015) set a target to increase renewables in all forms, to 30% of the country’s final energy consumption by 2036. It has aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20-25% from the business-as-usual scenario by 2030. As such, several measures have been developed as means to achieve these targets. Among others, is to promote workable renewable energy technologies in rural areas of the country.
Review of previous SGPs as well as full-sized GEF projects on renewable energy in Thailand33 reflects that women’s participation in the training, operation and management of RETs have resulted in improved living conditions of the family in many ways. Access to electricity generated from micro hydro power plants and solar home systems allow women to have longer hours into the night to do their weaving, sewing, watching news and entertainment programmes from TV while their children work on their school assignments. Women’s participation in bio-digester management helped to reduce costs on natural gas and the time women spent on collecting firewood from the forest. In some communities, women are champions in advocating to replace traditional cook stoves, which produce lots of smoke, with improved cook stoves using charcoal. Hence, less risks from the smoke while cooking.
National Gender Policies and Strategies
Thailand ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in 1985 and its Optional Protocol in 2000, and has endorsed the Beijing Platform for Action (BPFA) and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). It has developed the Millennium Development Goals Plus, with the spirit of treating the MDGs as the floor and not the ceiling. Thailand has made significant efforts to integrate the international principles and instruments into the policy and programming framework. The Protection of Domestic Violence Victim Act was promulgated in 2007, providing for protection and rehabilitation of victims, requiring members of the public to report alleged abuse, and obliging law enforcement officers to respond to reports of violence. In 2007, the Penal Code was amended to criminalize marital rape, and the Civil Code amended to provide women and men equal grounds for divorce. The Prevention and Suppression of Human Trafficking Act was passed in 2008.
Gender-related provisions and policies have been included in the 1997, 2007 and 2017 Constitutions which prohibit discrimination of all forms, including sexual discrimination. The 2017 Constitution, in particular, includes provisions on gender equality and women rights in several ways. Article 27 (Paragraph 2) stated that men and women shall enjoy equal rights. Article 90 (paragraph 3) promotes women’s engagement in politics at Parliamentary level. More importantly, it is the first Constitution which has provision on ‘gender budgeting’.
32 6.25 rai =1 hectar 33 Knowledge Management Report, Promoting Renewable Energy in Mae Hong Son Project, 2017
99
National Women Development Fund was set up in 2012 to allocate budget (around 100 million Baht per province) to support the improvement of socio-economic conditions of women through projects initiated and implemented by women organizations themselves.
The current 12th National Socio-Economic Development Plan (2017-2021) comprises 10 development strategies. Out of these, three strategies have specific implications to gender equality and women development.
1. Human development as key to develop happy and secured aging society 2. Creating a Just Society and Reducing Inequality, including gender disparities. 3. Promoting inclusive and sustainable growth National Gender Mainstreaming Plan has been drafted to support implementation of these strategies. The plan focuses on:
(1) Promoting societal norms towards gender equality (Paradigm Shift Measures). (2) Enhancing existing capacity and promoting participation of women in decision making and implementation of development process in order to improve quality of life of women at all levels (Empowerment Measures). (3) Developing enabling factors and conditions for women development on equity basis (Enabling Condition Measures) (4) Developing measures to observe and eliminate risk factors and measures to protect, assist and provide remedy to those affected (Protective and Corrective Measures). (5) Strengthening mechanism and procedures in women development in compliance to the 20 Year National Strategic Direction (2017-2036) and the 12th National Socio-Economic Development Plan (2017-2021) which highlight people-centered development principles. (Measures to Strengthen Mechanism and Processes for WID and gender equality) This National Gender Mainstreaming Plan provides broad direction for sectoral gender mainstreaming plan to be developed by individual ministries/departments.
Institutional Mechanism
The Office of Women’s Affairs and Family Development under the Ministry of Social Development and Human Security is the focal national machinery responsible for promoting gender equality and the empowerment of women. It is in charge of formulating policies and measures to enhance social security for woman, as well as setting up mechanisms for promoting coordination among concerned government offices and nongovernment organizations. The office serves as the secretariat for the National Committee on the Policy and Strategy for the Advancement of Women, chaired by the Prime Minister. It also implements a five-year cycled National Women’s Development Plan, which currently falls under the period of 2017-2021.
Each department has appointed Chief Gender Equality Officer (CGEO) and develops its gender mainstreaming plan which is complying with the national socio-economic development and national gender strategic plan. The position of CGEO is now in place in 131 government departments and agencies. They are responsible for providing and coordinating gender mainstreaming support within the department and between various subnational government agencies.
Departments under the various ministries (e.g. Ministry of Natural Resources Management and Environment, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Education, etc.) whose work will support implementation of sustainable landscape/seascape management in the four target regions are expected to have gender mainstreaming action plan in place. This plan should align with the current National Socio-Economic Development Plan, National Gender Development Plan, and the Departmental Operational Plan. Examples from some concerned departments are listed below.
Table 1: Examples of Sectoral Gender Mainstreaming Plan
100
Ministry Example of gender mainstreaming intervention Natural Resources and Environment • Develop ministerial gender master plan • Develop gender-disaggregated data base to be used in project/programme planning, monitoring and evaluation. • Promote genuine participation of women beneficiaries in MoNRE’s programmes/activities • Establish internal and external networks to promote gender equality Agriculture and Cooperatives • Apply non-gender discrimination principles/approach in agricultural programme planning and implementation across the board. • Raise awareness of staff on gender equality issues Interior • Plan and implement non-gender discriminated development programmes (e.g. skill training, livelihood development, etc.) • Promote women in leadership positions at all level (especially in local governments) • Develop gender-disaggregated data base Education • Set up committee at national level to oversee gender mainstreaming into ministerial programmes at all levels • Ensure that girls and boys, women and men have equal access to educational services • Improve educational gender gaps among special groups such as ethnic minority groups, marginalized groups in border areas, children in juvenile corrective centers, etc.
4. Gender assessment by stakeholders in the four target landscapes/seascape The gender assessment by stakeholders in the four target landscapes/seascapes conducted during April-June 2018 reflects similar trends as those at the national level but with varying degrees of severity and focus. Despite slight differences across the regions, the most commonly prevalent challenges for promoting women empowerment/gender equality are traditional attitudes and stereotypes on gender roles, women doubled/tripled responsibilities, domestic violence and sexual harassment, teenage pregnancy and women’s specific health condition, and limited participation of women in public decision-making process.
Apart from challenges, the stakeholders also identified existing women’s strengths/capacities which could potentially be further enhanced through the implementation of their grant projects. These strengths are counted as factors which could help improve effectiveness and efficiency of the implementation should women are actively and equally engaged. Examples of key strengths are women’s coordination and mediator skills, traditional knowledge, volunteer spirit, commitment, honesty, financial management ability, and decisiveness.
Summary of women’s issues and potential for each target landscape as reflected by the stakeholders is provided below.
Mae Kok River Basin
Issues
Traditional value that women’s place is in the home still persists in some communities. In some families, women are still expected to follow their husband’s decisions. More and more women are burdened with doubled responsibilities-earning money and looking after the family without sufficient support from their husbands. Although more women are working to support the families, many people still regard women as physically weaker than men. Hence, they do not have equal job opportunities as men do. Cultural and traditional values are also key
101
constraint for women to take full participation in community development work, especially in ethnic communities with strict taboos. In some of these communities, there are taboos that prevent women to have equal rights to men, especially about family life and decision making in public sphere. With regard to community leading role, men are perceived as more suitable than women as they are more flexible to work in difficult situations, day or night, even with frequent traveling. Women are not supported to do the same thing as their dominant role is at home. Stereotypically, men are also considered as being more rationale in decision making where as women as more emotional especially when personal matters are concerned.
About land ownership, both women and men in some highland communities are vulnerable groups as the government has declared policy to take back forest area which overlap with the community’s land by customary law.
Strengths/capacities
Many women care about the environment and participate in its conservation because they rely on forest, land and water for their living. They have good knowledge about medicinal plants. Women prove to have strong volunteer spirit and are committed to their roles in conservation and community services. Increasing number of women are engaged in community work and some as leaders. They are good negotiator and possess more persuading skills than men. In difficult times, women prove to be tolerant and patient. Most of the community-based savings groups are run by women as they have experience managing household budgets.
Kaeng Krachan Watershed
Issues
Women have some physical limitations to do certain kinds of work that men can do. In some rural communities, women are not supported to work outside their home/ community for safety reason. Hence, women do not have equal opportunity to participate in self-development activities such as training, study tours which would expose them to new knowledge and experiences. Although there is a positive trend that more women are elected as leaders, number of women leaders still lagged behind that of men. In some ethnic communities (e.g. Karen), certain cultural values/taboos are key factors limiting women’s access to education, information, and communication. In community mobilization activity, women are usually left out and not considered as equally important as men and their voices and opinions are less accepted compared to those of men.
Strengths/capacities
There is emergence of female leadership at community and local administration level. More women are elected as village head and members of Tambon Administrative Organizations (local government). Most of them are elected because they have voluntarily worked hard for many years for the benefits of the community. They have communicated regularly and effectively with the rest of the community through meetings and informal home visits/discussion. However, number of female leaders are still limited because women are confined to their responsibilities in the family and have to work/earn money to support well-being of their children. Women possess several attributes/skills which are perceived as their strengths, for example, tolerance and commitment. Women can plan in more practical details. In many cases, they work hard for the benefits of others and beyond their own benefits. In some communities, women represent their families in village meetings and make decisions on development projects/activities. In some villages, there are more women sitting on village committee than men. Majority of community healthcare volunteers are also women.
There is a culture-based way of compromising conflicts in the community and women play a key mediating role. There are clear divisions of responsibility between men and women leaders in the community. For example, men do work which is physically risky while women take care of coordinating/ communication work.
102
It is also noted that more children are brought up with changing attitudes /practices on gender stereotypes. For example, boys are trained to do household chores, cooking, washing, etc. Girls play football and other conventional boys’ sports.
Petchabun Range
Issues There are certain constraints to personal and professional development of women. These include familial responsibilities; physical condition and societal perception that regard women as weaker than men in most aspects; male-chauvinist attitude/male-dominated society; domestic violence; teenage pregnancy; lack of opportunities to participate in decision making process at all development levels; and violence against women in workplace and public.
Analysis of problems in specific sectors also revealed that for education, many families do not support daughters for higher education and girls who get pregnant while still in school are not well-accepted back to pursue their education afterwards. For employment, women have less access to good pay job compared to men and physical conditions constrain women from some kind of work, so employers prefer to hire men. Women and men have equal access to public services. Regarding health, there are some health issues that are specific only to women. Hard work/overloaded responsibilities often have negative impact on women’s physical and sometimes mental health. About participation, in some communities, women’s participation in natural resources management is limited by traditional beliefs/culture and their role in decision making is not well accepted. In some culture, women do not express themselves in the public. Men have more opportunity than women to take leadership role in most communities. Women are confined to family responsibilities. Most of them are not free to take leadership role in the community.
Stereotypes of gender role/bias still exist in family, school and society. For some ethnic tribe, a married woman who gets divorced will not be accepted back to her own family.
Strengths/capacities
More and more women participate in social movements as the situation becomes more critical. For example, fighting for rights over the use of natural resources. Women have knowledge and careful consideration when it comes to natural resources management. Many women have changed their attitudes about their roles. Many of them come out to public sphere and work side by side with men in addressing common issues in the community/society. Women usually have long-term vision and plan systematically to achieve the vision. They are sympathetic and understanding. Women are decisive when they take a leading role.
There are also positive factors contributing to enhancement of gender equality in each sector. For education, graduation rates among women are higher than men at higher level. There are more institutions which provide specific courses only for women. For employment, women are employed in professional work such as in communication and sale sectors. Government provides more public services to women than to men. There are several women-specific service schemes, especially on health. Women’s participation in public work is important. In the communities within this landscape, women have developed network to exchange ideas and information on their development activities on a continual basis.
Phang-Nga Bay
Issues There is inequality in educational opportunities. Religious rules do not support women to be leaders, especially in organizations. Women are not usually expected/ encouraged to express themselves in the public forum. So, not
103
many of them can rise as leaders. In Muslim communities, women have inferior status to men. They are multi- tasked and do many more tedious activities than men. In a family, women usually have to practice birth control, not men. Women are often subject of sexual harassment (verbally and physically) and in some culture, women are subject of arranged marriage.
Workwise, some jobs prefer men to women and most women still prefer to do stereotypical/ traditional works such as secretary, accountant, public relation, etc. which receive lower pay. Men tend to inherit more family’s properties than women
Strengths/capacities
Women work hard and are highly committed. They have been trained on traditional knowledge more than men. They tend to be more collaborative. Women have gentle way to settle conflicts. They are good at certain skills such as in financial management, communication and coordination. They are committed, prudent and honest. In many communities, there have been increases in number of women graduating from colleges and universities. Women have important role in transferring knowledge to younger generation in the family and community. Women youth are more enthusiastic in community work than men youth. For example, they show up more in community meetings. They are good networkers and mobilisers.
5. Recommendations for project actions Recommendations listed below are specific to the Sixth Operational Phase of the GEF Small Grants Programme in Thailand which will be implemented in the four selected landscapes and seascape through Socio-Ecological Production Landscape and Seascape (SEPLS) approach. The approach focuses on landscape management to enhance social and ecological resilience and to achieve four inter-related resilience outcomes including:
(1) Enhancing eco-system services (2) Strengthening the sustainability of production systems (3) Developing and diversifying livelihoods and income generation (4) Strengthening institutions and governance systems The recommendations are related to key issues identified in the gender assessment at both national and landscape level with more emphasis on the later while ensuring that national priorities and agenda are addressed.
General recommendations
1. Implementation to achieve the resilience outcomes in each target landscape/seascape should include consider to mainstream gender equality principles through the following steps. • Raise awareness of stakeholders on gender inequality issues and the needs for gender mainstreaming in project activities and build capacity of the CBOs/NGOs engaged in the implementation of grant projects in gender analysis, gender-responsive/mainstreaming planning, implementation and monitoring. • Based on the findings from the landscape resilience assessment, identify gender-related impacts to understand different impacts of the changes in the landscape on women and men • Establish sex-disaggregated data base • Develop gender responsive/gender mainstreaming actions/activities based on gender-disaggregated data to address problems/issues in landscape management under the four resilience outcomes • Identify gender-specific indicators to establish baseline against which the improvements from implementation are measured through regular monitoring • Documentation/reflection of lessons learned on gender mainstreaming practices in sustainable landscape management in relation to: -Impact/ Changes on women’s life
104
-Good practices -Challenges 2. Work towards attitude and behavioral changes towards gender equality at household, community and landscape level. Activities could include, for example.
• Raise awareness on gender inequality issues among stakeholders. • Organize platform where participants discuss roles of women and men in the changing world/environment and see how the changing roles could complement each other to bridge the gender gaps • More women should be supported to have leading roles especially in activities that require their good skills/knowledge • Integrate content/activities about gender equality in family and school 3.Engage gender specialist to provide advice within the project to implement gender-related activities.
Recommendations specific to the proposed activities under each resilience outcome
Resilience Outcome 1: Enhancing eco-system services
Proposed intervention Recommendation on gender mainstreaming Increase green area coverage (through reforestation, • Women have knowledge and careful planting more trees in public land, mangrove consideration when it comes to natural resources rehabilitation and protection) management. The project should integrate Agro-forest (for food security and soil erosion prevention) women’s roles in decision making, planning and Improved community-forest management (rules and implementing relevant activities. For example, regulations on sustainable use and maintenance) women are knowledgeable about seed selection Land-use zoning (clear boundary of forest area, farming and collecting forest products. Projects on forest area, living area, etc.) conservation should closely engage women in all Improve soil quality using traditional and scientific stages. knowledge) • Ensure that women’s specific needs and concerns Increase areas designated as food sources and increase are sufficiently addressed in the planning and local species implementation of activities. For example, Chemical-free/organic farming community forest rules and regulations should Improve water quantity and quality for agriculture and consider women’s needs for some specific kind of fishery (construct and manage community water woods/herbs, etc. reservoir, check dams, small irrigation schemes) • Women have traditional knowledge in food Waste management (household waste and community plants and medicinal herbs. They could take a waste) lead in activities related to increasing food Awareness raising and learning about valuation of eco- security, herb farming and processing. system services • Percentages of elderly women in each community are constantly increasing. These women have invaluable experiences in several fields. They should be engaged in some activities and on different capacities such as advisors, leaders, or supporters. • Integrate gender considerations in the development of learning/campaigning materials
Resilience Outcome 2: Strengthening the sustainability of production systems
Proposed intervention Recommendation on gender mainstreaming Production activities based on indigenous knowledge • Women and men are trained in skills needed to systems and local wisdoms
105
Safe and good agricultural practices (chemical free implement/manage planned activities, e.g. organic farming, apply science and innovation in agricultural farming, seeds preservation, operation and and processing of agricultural products) maintenance of selected renewable energy Integrated/diversified farming technologies, financial management. Preservation of local seeds and animal breeds • Women could take a leading role in activities which Adoption of community-and home-based renewable require their specific skills/knowledge such as in energy technologies in production savings group (Women are believed to be better Biodiversity-based fishery and livestock than men in managing money), indigenous Crab bank for conservation knowledge transfer to youth and children Control measures on size of fishing nets • Have equal number of women and men in Aquatic nursery to protect and increase stock of clam, management committee of activity groups crab, seaweed, etc. • Women have knowledge and careful consideration Set up savings group to support socio-ecological and when it comes to natural resources management cultural development activities of the landscape/seascape
Resilience Outcome 3: Developing and diversifying livelihoods and income generation
Proposed intervention Recommendation on gender mainstreaming Effective management of eco-tourism • Promote equal participation of women and men in Strengthened production and marketing skills of bio- the management of community-based enterprises diversity-based production groups /livelihood activities with support from government Community-based social enterprises agencies and NGOs Natural resources rehabilitation fund from profit of • Ensure fair and equitable share of the profits social enterprises • Enhance women’s capacity through skill training, Diversified livelihoods from biodiversity and culture study visits, on-the-job coaching. Development of community’s own branding • Tasks which require women’s skills could include Marine-based products (sea-grape cultivation and (but not limited to) marketing, managing, sale, processing, seafood processing) bookkeeping, data base maintenance. • Train women on vocational skills and promote home-based income generation activities for women
Resilience Outcome 4: Strengthening institutions and governance systems
Proposed intervention Recommendation on gender mainstreaming Apply social enterprise concept to set up and manage • Set up organizational / network structure which fund for sustainable natural resource rehabilitation and includes both women and men in leading roles. use Where possible on an equal number basis. Develop inter-watershed/landscape network to share • Enhance women’s access to relevant training and experience and synergize efforts information needed to effectively perform their Establish CBO to coordinate projects on sustainable (leading role) and to catch up with changes in the management of the landscape society. Develop rules and regulations mutually agreed by • For ethnic women, language and communication community and network members based on good skill training is important so that they have governance principles confidence to speak out in meetings or public Based on lessons drawn from project implementation, sphere. develop policy proposal and submit to relevant • Keep women informed about changes in policies government unit (local and national) and laws that affect their lives. Where possible, Engage future leaders (youth leaders) in learning train them on skills that are helpful for self- process through their participation in meetings/key advocacy or negotiations. 106
activities. • Set up funds from savings groups or community- based enterprises to support women’s self- development (e.g. higher education, training on new skills such as computer, new media, law and politics, etc.) so they are better equipped for their leading roles
107
6. Gender Action Plan
This Gender Action Plan will form a part of the ProDoc of the project Sixth Operational Phase of the GEF Small Grants Programme in Thailand. It will specify gender-related activities, indicator, target, baseline, budget, timeline and responsibility at the project objective and outcome levels in accordance with the Strategic Result Framework.
Project Gender-Related Indicators Target Baseline Timeline Responsibility Component/Outcome Activity/Output
Component 1: Resilient rural landscapes and seascapes for sustainable development and global environmental protection Outcome 1: Multi-stakeholder partnerships in four pilot landscapes and seascapes – Mae Lao Watershed; Phetchabun Range; Kaeng Krachan Forest Complex; Phang Nga Bay - develop and execute adaptive management plans to enhance landscape/seascape and community resilience with global environmental benefits. Stakeholder workshops to Number of women participants 50% Women No similar Q1/Y1 Project Gender raise awareness on gender from each landscape/seascape participants workshops exist. Specialist inequality issues and build capacity on gender User-friendly tools/methods for Some tools exist but mainstreaming in SEPLS gender mainstreaming in One complete set of not systematically project design, project cycle (planning, tools/methods introduced to target implementation and implementation and M&E) participants evaluation Based on findings from Participation of women in At least 50% of No such assessment Q2/Y1 Project Gender landscape resilience identification process participants are exists Specialist assessment, identify women impacts of the changes on Project Consultant on women (and how they Gender-disaggregated data on List of gender- SEPLS process differ from those on men) impacts disaggregated impacts covering 20 resilience indicators Development of sex- Sex-disaggregated database (to 1 set for individual No such database Q1-Q2/Y1 Project Gender disaggregated data-base for support gender mainstreaming landscape/ seascape exists Specialist each of the four landscapes planning) and for the whole project 1 set for whole project Landscape multi- stakeholder groups Development and Number of projects which 30% of projects No such projects Through- NSC/NC implementation of gender- incorporate different concerns address women’s developed. out responsive/gender of women and men specific needs project mainstreaming activities as Women comprise cycle integral part of grant Percentage of women in At least 30% of 10% of leadership projects leadership positions of grant leadership positions in positions in existing projects all grant projects are SGPs women Percentage of women At least 50% of project There is no sex- beneficiaries beneficiaries are disaggregated data women on beneficiaries of previous SGPs Establishment of Number of multi-stakeholder 30% of leadership No existing multi- Q2/Y1 NSC/NC formal multi-stakeholder groups with women as leaders positions are women stakeholder groups groups for each landscape as well as members with participation of 40% of group members women in both leadership are women and non-leadership positions. Gender-responsive formal Number of gender-responsive Four agreements (one No such agreements Q2/Y1 Landscape-level 108
multi-stakeholder multi-stakeholder agreements agreement per exist multi-stakeholder agreements agreed and prepared with women landscape) groups signed regarding long term participation outcomes NSC/NC Landscape and seascape Number of strategies which At least one strategy No such strategy Q2/Y1 Multi-stakeholder strategies which include include gender-related concerns focusing specifically on exists groups of each target women’s specific concerns women’s needs landscape/ developed by multi- Percentage of women Seascape with stakeholder groups participating in the At least 50% of supervision from development of strategies participants in strategy NSC/NC development process are women Gender-responsive Percentage of projects which At least 30% Existing SGPs Q3/Y1 Multi-stakeholder Typology of community address women’s specific community level groups of each target level projects developed concerns projects do not landscape/ and agreed by multi- specifically address Seascape with stakeholder groups women’s concerns supervision from together with eligibility NSC/NC criteria which reflect women’s concerns Needs-based capacity Number of workshops One workshop for each No specific Q 3/Y1 Project Gender building workshops to developed and conducted to landscape/ seascape leadership/ Specialist and Project enhance women’s address women’s capacity gaps management SEPLS Consultant leadership, management in project management and training in relation to NSC/NC and operational skills for operation SELPS exists for SEPLS grant projects women Outcome 2: Community organizations in landscape/seascape level networks build their adaptive management capacities by implementing community level projects and collaborating in managing landscape resources and processes to achieve socio ecological production landscape resiliency. Community level small Women’s participation in the 30% in leadership role Women comprise Q4/Y1- Respective Multi- grant projects in the design, implementation and and 50% in operational 10% of leadership Q3/Y3 Stakeholder Groups selected landscapes and monitoring of grant projects, role positions and 30% of Project SELPS seascapes that conserve including technical skills for operational role in Consultant biodiversity and enhance specific activities. At least 25 % of existing SGPs ecosystem services, projects demonstrate Existing SGPs on NSC/NC incorporate gender Percentage of projects which consideration on these biodiversity and concerns, and engage address women’s specific needs points in the design ecosystem services participation of women in and/or build upon women’s and implementation do not explicitly both leadership and knowledge and skills address gender operational roles. concerns Community level small Number of women and men At least 50% of women Women represent Q4/y1- Respective Multi- grant projects in the trained in skills needed for their members of each less than 30% of Q3/Y3 Stakeholder Groups selected landscapes that specific activities (e.g. organic activity group participants in enhance productivity and farming, seeds preservation, technical training Project SELPS sustainability of smallholder operation and maintenance of At least 30% of women courses under Consultant agroecosystems, renewable energy technologies, in leadership role existing SGPs. incorporate gender etc.) NSC/NC concerns, and engage 10% of leadership participation of women in Number of women in leadership positions in existing both leadership and role for these activities SGPs are women operational roles. Community level small Number of women trained on At least 40% of A few of vocational Q3/Y1- Respective Multi- grant projects in the vocational/income generation members of each group exists. Q3/Y3 Stakeholder Groups
109
selected landscapes that and marketing skills vocational group innovate alternative A few of alternative Project SELPS livelihood options and Number of alternative livelihood At least 25% of total livelihood projects Consultant improve market access, projects which aim specifically livelihood projects supported by local incorporate gender to enhance women’s livelihood under each landscape government NSC/NC concerns, and engage opportunities women participation in 30% in leadership role No such innovative Multi-stakeholder both leadership and Number of women in leadership livelihood project group committee of operational roles. roles of innovative livelihood 50% of beneficiaries exists each target projects landscape/ Fair benefit sharing No such model seascape Number of women benefiting model approved by exists. from improved livelihood both women and men projects members of each No such Fund exists group Benefit sharing model One community fund Women’s Development Fund per landscape. set up with profits from livelihood groups to facilitate At least 30% of women self-development of women and the disadvantage and other disadvantaged groups in respective landscape have access to the Fund. Community level small Number of women participating 30% of leadership Women represent Q3/Y1- Project CC Mitigation grant projects in the in design, implementation and positions and 50% of 5% of leadership Q3/Y3 Consultant selected landscapes that monitoring of CC mitigation implementing staff positions and 10% of mitigate climate-related projects At least 25% of CC implementing team Multi-stakeholder risks to health and well- mitigation projects in in existing CC group committee being, incorporate gender CC projects addressing CC each landscape mitigation projects concerns, and engage impacts specific to women supported by SGPs NSC/NC women’s participation in both leadership and Existing CC operational roles. mitigation SGPs do not explicitly address CC impacts on women Outcome 3: Multi-stakeholder landscape and seascape management groups, local policy makers and subnational/national advisors organized in landscape policy platforms discuss potential policy innovations based on analysis of project experience and lessons learned. Multisectoral policy Number of women participants At least 30% No such platform Q1/Y3 Project KM dialogue platforms in operational multi-stakeholder exists Consultant organized for each policy and governance landscape/seascape and platforms in each landscape NSC/NC one dialogue platform organized nationally with active participation of both women and men Relevant project and Number of case studies which At least 25% of the No such cases exist Q2/Y3 Project Gender portfolio experiences, clearly demonstrate gender total cases Specialist including those on gender mainstreaming experiences mainstreaming produced and disseminated KM Consultant systematized and codified
110
for dissemination to policy NSC/NC platform participants as well as community organizations and networks and second level organizations Detailed analysis of Number of gender At least 25% of the No such cases exist Q1/Y3 Multi-stakeholder successful grant project mainstreaming strategic total cases identified as groups of each portfolios and lines of work projects identified good lessons learned landscape/ which include analysis of seascape women’s roles to identify lessons KM consultant learned/best practice and market opportunities NSC/NC
Identify upscaling Number of women participating At least 40% of the No such cases exist requirements and in identification process participants opportunities and develop upscaling strategies with participation of all stakeholder groups including women Engagement of potential Number of financial partners At least 15 % of the No such cases exist Q1/Y3 SEPLS Consultant financial partners and and public sector institutions total partners/ public sector institutions with clear gender inclusion institutions KM Consultant with gender inclusion policy/guidelines NSC/NC guidelines Outcome 4: Multi-stakeholder partnerships develop and implement strategic projects to bring adoption of specific successful SGP-supported technologies, practices or systems to a tipping point in each landscape through engagement of potential financial partners, policy makers and national/subnational advisors and institutions, as well as the private sector Strategic projects that Number of strategic projects At least 25% of No strategic project Q2/Y3 NSC/NC and selected implement strategies with clear gender strategic projects exists. SGP grantees from enabling and facilitating mainstreaming interventions the 4 upscaling of the identified At least 30% in Women comprise landscape/seascape portfolios and lines of work Women’s participation in leadership role and 10% of leadership which also incorporate design, implementation and 50% in implementation positions and 30% of gender concerns monitoring of strategic projects role implementation role in existing SGPs
111
Annex F: UNDP Risk Log # Description Date Type Impact & Countermeasures / Mngt response Owner Submitted, Last Status Identified Probability updated by Update Enter a brief When was Environmental Describe the What actions have been taken/will be Who has been Who submitted When e.g. dead, description of the risk first Financial potential taken to counter this risk appointed to the risk was the reducing, the risk identified Operational effect on the keep an eye on status of increasing, Organizational project if this this risk the risk no change Political risk were to last Regulatory occur checked Strategic Other Enter probability on a scale from 1 (low) to 5 (high) P =
Enter impact on a scale from 1 (low) to 5 (high) I = 1 The - Environmental P = 3; I = 3 SGP’s overall objective is to increase NSC; NC - Stable communities’ socio-ecological resilience in the target NC; Grant Recipients effort in MODERATE land/seascapes, therefore, a number of Grant Recipients (CBOs/NGOs) conserving activities are designed to improve the (CBOs/NGOs) biodiversity and health of ecosystems and the adaptive land capacity of communities. The risk of degradation severe weather events, in particular long may decline due periods of drought, is ever present and to prolonged SGP will ensure that community project drought and initiatives take into consideration such severe storm. climate risk-informed and identify the The situation means to mitigate them at the project can lower their design stage. priorities with the project. The top priority is income generation and family care. 2 Low capacity - Strategic, P = 3; I = 3 SGP is working in rural areas of the NSC; NC; - Decreasing and awareness knowledge, country where community capacities are NC; Second level of local NGOs experience MODERATE very low. The main risk mitigation organisation Second level and CBOs to strategy is to engage national NGOs/CSOs providing organisation address global as second level organisations to provide support to
112
environmental on-going support and training to the providing support communities problems communities. to communities 3 Legislation of - Environmental, P = 3; I = 3 Particularly, in KKFC landscape, the Local NC - Increasing land use policy Regulatory communities will take a participatory government; Communities and changes for MODERATE approach under COMPACT to determining NC; representatives; conservation the rules governing access to natural Community purposes or resources within the protected areas. representatives; restriction in the Specific training topics to be identified. use of natural resources may affect some members of the communities 4 Multi- - Strategic, P = 3; I = 3 The benefits of an effective multi- NC; NC - Stable stakeholder Organizational stakeholder platform will be defined and Members of platforms MODERATE conveyed to all participants at the multi-stakeholder require a programme inception phase, to ensure significant that they are willing to invest time with Second level investment of programme activities. An annual work organisation time and plan would help members of the platform providing support commitment of know in advance the amount of time they to communities all its members would need to reserve for its activities. to function effectively. 5 CSO-private - Strategic, P = 3; I = 3 SGP will enable environment to continue NC; NC - Stable sector co- dialogue between CSOs and the private financing for MODERATE sector/enterprise and will share positive Second level Second level upscaling examples of successful partnerships organisation organisation initiatives may where both parties benefit. providing support providing not materialize SGP will also ensure that the principles to communities support to due to failure to and rules governing the partnership and communities demonstrate co-financing mechanism are specified in benefits to both an attachment to the grant proposal parties. signed by both parties. 6 The 2019 - Political P = 3; I = 3 If political unrest occurs, project activities NSC; NC - Stable General have to be suspended temporarily, NC; UNDP CO Elections may MODERATE revision to extend project duration may Communities UCP Global force a delay in become necessary to enable a realistic representatives; Coordinator calls for period of time for grant implementation. proposals and Second level UNOPS project organisation
113
approval, providing support therefore to communities reducing the time available for grant implementation
114
Annex G: UNDP Project Quality Assurance Report
PROJECT MONITORING QA ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE
OVERALL PROJECT
EXEMPLARY (5) HIGH (4) SATISFACTORY (3) NEEDS IMPROVEMENT (2) INADEQUATE (1) At least three All criteria are rated At least six criteria At least three criteria One or more criteria criteria are rated Satisfactory or are rated are rated Satisfactory are rated Exemplary, and all higher, and at least Satisfactory or or higher, and only Inadequate, or five criteria are rated three criteria are higher, and only four criteria may be or more criteria are High or Exemplary. rated High or one may be rated rated Needs rated Needs Exemplary. Needs Improvement. Improvement. Improvement. The SES criterion must be rated Satisfactory or above. DECISION • APPROVE – the project is of sufficient quality to continue as planned. Any management actions must be addressed in a timely manner. • APPROVE WITH QUALIFICATIONS – the project has issues that must be addressed before the project document can be approved. Any management actions must be addressed in a timely manner. • DISAPPROVE – the project has significant issues that should prevent the project from being approved as drafted. RATING CRITERIA
STRATEGIC Rating Score 1. Does the project’s Theory of Change specify how it will contribute to higher level change? (Select the option from 0-4 that best reflects the project): • 4: The project has a theory of change backed by credible evidence specifying how the project will contribute to higher level change through the programme outcome’s theory of change. The project document clearly describes why the project’s strategy is the best approach at this point in time. • 3: The project has a theory of change, specifying how the project will contribute to higher level change through the programme outcome’s theory of change, but this backed by relatively limited evidence. The project document clearly describes why the project’s strategy is the best approach at this point in time. • 2: The project has a theory of change describing how the project intends to contribute to development results, but it is not supported by evidence nor linked to higher level results 3 through the programme outcome’s theory of change. There is some discussion in the project document that describes why the project’s strategy is the best approach at this point in time. • 1: The project does not have a theory of change, but the project document describes in generic terms how the project will contribute to development results. It does not make an explicit link to the programme outcome’s theory of change. The project document does not clearly specify why the project’s strategy is the best approach at this point in time. • 0: The project does not have a theory of change, and the project document does not specify how the project will contribute to higher level change, or why the project’s strategy 115
is the best approach at this point in time. *Note: Management Action or strong management justification must be given for scores of 0 or 1
Evidence: The project document outlines how the sustainable livelihood grants to be provided to community organizations, in a given land/seascape, in the areas of climate change, biodiversity conservation and land degradation will facilitate larger scale and long-term changes. The SGP by design focuses on local scale operations to bring about changes in a limited geographic scope but also strives to effect change at a larger scale by: a) planning and monitoring change at the land/seascape level; and b) establishing networks and associations that help engage government and other stakeholders with the ability to use SGP experiences to inform policy at county, sector and national level. It also works with partners that help implement SGP best practices at a larger scale. Encouraging and providing incentives for private sector involvement is another strategy towards larger-scale impacts. While SGP cannot be held accountable for achieving global environmental benefits through broader adoption of grant-level results, SGP outcomes achieved under the SGP can extend beyond the individual grant level by scaling up and using successful projects as demonstration to extend lessons learned to other communities and inform policy dialogue. The evidence supporting this “theory of change” is embedded in the GEF programming framework for the SGP, the COMDEKS approach, the COMPACT experience, UNDP’s strategic programming on biodiversity, low-emission and climate resilient development strategies, and the localisation of Sustainable Development Goals. Rating Score 2. Is the project aligned with the UNDP Strategic Plan? (select the option from 0-4 that best reflects the project):
• 4: The project responds to one of the three areas of development work (1. Sustainable development pathways; 2. Inclusive and effective democratic governance; 3. Resilience building) as specified in the Strategic Plan; it addresses at least one of the proposed new and emerging areas (sustainable production technologies, access to modern energy services and energy efficiency, natural resources management, extractive industries, urbanization, citizen security, social protection, and risk management for resilience); an issues-based analysis has been incorporated into the project design; And the project’s RRF includes at least one SP output indicator. • 3: The project responds to one of the three areas of development work (1. Sustainable development pathways; 2. Inclusive and effective democratic governance; 3. Resilience building) as specified in the Strategic Plan; an issues-based analysis has been incorporated 4 into the project design; and the project’s RRF includes at least one SP output indicator. • 2: The project responds to one of the three areas of development work (1. Sustainable development pathways; 2. Inclusive and effective democratic governance; 3. Resilience building) as specified in the Strategic Plan. The project’s RRF includes at least one SP output indicator, if relevant. • 1: While the project responds to one of the three areas of development work (1. Sustainable development pathways; 2. Inclusive and effective democratic governance; 3. Resilience building) as specified in the Strategic Plan, none of the relevant SP indicators are included in the RRF. • 0: The project does not respond to one of the three areas of development work (1. Sustainable development pathways; 2. Inclusive and effective democratic governance; 3. Resilience building) as specified in the Strategic Plan Evidence: The project responds to all three areas of development work per the UNDP Strategic Plan. The evidence for this is through the various project activities that will integrate global environmental criteria and indicators into sustainable development planning frameworks, and that enhance communities and landscape resilience while building governance capacities. The project addresses sustainable production technologies, natural resources management, renewable energy and energy efficiency, and social protection by empowering marginalized and
116
indigenous communities and their livelihoods.
RELEVANT Rating Score 3. Does the project have strategies to effectively identify and engage targeted groups/areas? (select the option from 0-4 that best reflects this project): • 4: The target groups/areas are appropriately specified. The project has an explicit strategy to identify and engage specified target groups/areas throughout the project. Beneficiaries will be identified through a rigorous process based on evidence (if applicable.) The project plans to solicit feedback from targeted groups regularly through project monitoring. Representatives of the target group/area will be included in the project’s governance mechanism (i.e., National Steering Committee (NSC)) • 3: The target groups/areas are appropriately specified. The project has an explicit strategy to identify and engage the target groups/areas throughout the project. Beneficiaries will be identified through a rigorous process based on evidence (if applicable.) The project plans to solicit feedback from targeted groups through project monitoring. Representatives of the target group, will contribute to the project’s decision making, but will not play a role in the project’s formal governance mechanism. 4 • 2: The target groups/areas are appropriately specified and engaged in project design. The project document is clear how beneficiaries will be identified and engaged throughout the project. Collecting feedback from targeted groups has been incorporated into the project’s RRF/monitoring system, but representatives of the target group will not be involved in the project’s decision making. • 1: The target groups/areas are specified, but the project does not have a written strategy to identify or engage the target groups/areas throughout the project. • 0: The project has not specified any target group/area that is the intended beneficiary of the project’s results. *Note: Management Action must be taken for scores of 0 or 1 Evidence: Target groups in the land/seascapes have been identified through PPG consultations. The GEF 2020 Strategy emphasizes the requirement that stakeholder representatives actively engage in the full project life cycle in order to facilitate the strategic adaptation of project activities in keeping with project objectives. For this reason, there was wide-ranging participation by local stakeholders and community groups during the project design phase. Once approved, the project document will be shared widely through the NSC to ensure that there is ongoing communication and collaboration with key partners. Call for proposals will target the identified groups, women in particular. This project proposes to carry out participatory, multi-stakeholder, management in the land/seascapes, and in the areas of Renewable Energy (RE) and Energy Efficiency (EE) innovations. Participatory monitoring will take place regularly at the grant and land/seascape levels and periodic monitoring of implementation progress will be undertaken by the UNDP CO. Furthermore, specific meetings will be scheduled between the NSC, the UNDP CO and other pertinent stakeholders as deemed appropriate and relevant. Rating Score 4. Have knowledge, good practices, and past lessons learned of UNDP and others informed the project design? (select the option from 0-4 that best reflects this project): • 4: Knowledge and lessons learned backed by credible evidence from evaluation, analysis and monitoring have been explicitly used, with appropriate referencing, to develop the project’s theory of change and justify the approach used by the project over alternatives. 4 • 3: The project design references knowledge and lessons learned backed by credible evidence from evaluation, analysis, monitoring and/or other sources, but these references have not been explicitly used to develop the project’s theory of change or justify the
117
approach used by the project over alternatives. • 2: The project design mentions knowledge and lessons learned backed by relatively limited evidence/sources, but these references have not been explicitly used to develop the project’s theory of change or justify the approach used by the project over alternatives. • 1: There is only scant mention of knowledge and lessons learned informing the project design. These references are not backed by evidence. • 0: There is no evidence that knowledge and lessons learned have informed the project design. *Note: Management Action or strong management justification must be given for scores of 0 or 1 Evidence: The project is built on several programme cycles of experience and strong institutional memory through which lessons learned have been generated, adapted and applied, and effective partnerships have been established. During the five subsequent GEF operational phases (1997-2014), the SGP-Thailand funded 414 community led initiatives. In each phase, the Country Programme Strategy was formulated based on the outcomes of the previous phase, lessons learned and new information. The project is designed to coordinate its efforts with, and build upon other initiatives in the area, including the COMDEKS and COMPACT approach. This project will use the knowledge, best practices, and lessons learned from other projects to inform project activities and outcomes, and to improve the overall project. Rating Score 5. Does the project use gender analysis in the project design and includes special measures/ outputs and indicators to address gender inequities and empower women? • 4: Gender analysis has been conducted on the differential impact of the project’s development situation on gender relations, women and men, with constraints identified and clearly addressed in the design of gender-specific measures/outputs and indicators, where appropriate • 3: Gender analysis has been conducted on the differential impact of the project’s development situation on gender relations, women and men, with constraints identified but only partially addressed in the design of gender-specific measures/ outputs and indicators, where appropriate • 2: Partial gender analysis has been conducted on the differential impact of the project’s 4 development situation on gender relations, women and men with constraints identified, but these have not been explicitly addressed in the design of gender-specific measure/outputs and indicators. • 1: The project design mentions information and/or data on the differential impact of the project’s development situation on gender relations, women and men but the constraints have not been identified and gender-specific intervention has not been considered. • 0: No gender analysis has been conducted on the differential impact of the project’s development situation on gender relations, women and men. Evidence: A gender analysis and action plan (GAAP) was carried out during the PPG project design and through multi- stakeholder consultation. Project activities take into account which activities will benefit women and improve their socioeconomic circumstances. Improved gender participation in the governance bodies and other decision-making mechanism supported by the project will take place. Targets of indicators make it compulsory to disaggregate by gender. Calls for proposals will target women groups and networks in all geographic areas to ensure maximum participation and benefits. Rating Score 6. Does UNDP have a clear advantage to engage in the role envisioned by the project vis-à-vis national partners, other development partners, and other actors? (select from options 0-4 that best reflects this project): • 4: An analysis has been conducted on the role of other partners in the area that the project intends to work, and credible evidence supports the proposed engagement of UNDP and partners through the project. Options for south-south and triangular cooperation have been considered, as appropriate. 4 • 3: An analysis has been conducted on the role of other partners in the area that the project intends to work, and relatively limited evidence supports the proposed engagement of UNDP and partners through the project. Options for south-south and triangular
118
cooperation have been considered, as appropriate. • 2: Some analysis has been conducted on the role of other partners in the area that the project intends to work, and relatively limited evidence supports the proposed engagement of UNDP and partners through the project. Options for south-south and triangular cooperation have not been explicitly considered. • 1: No clear analysis has been conducted on the role of other partners in the area that the project intends to work, and relatively limited evidence supports the proposed engagement of UNDP and partners through the project. Options for south-south and triangular cooperation have not been considered. • 0: No analysis has been conducted on the role of other partners in the area that the project intends to work to inform the design of the role envisioned by UNDP and other partners through the project. *Note: Management Action or strong management justification must be given for scores of 0 or 1 Evidence: UNDP’s mandate, relationship with government, and long-standing engagement in the area gives it a comparative advantage in facilitating government partnerships especially for GEF grant financed projects. UNDP has played critical role in the past SGP operational phases. In addition to SGP projects, UNDP has also supported the government and CSOs in other various projects.
MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING Rating Score 7. Does the project have a strong results framework? (select from options 0-4 that best reflects this project): • 4: The project’s selection of outputs and activities are an appropriate level and relate in a clear way to the project’s theory of change. Outputs are accompanied by SMART, results- oriented indicators that measure all of the key expected changes identified in the theory of change, each with credible data sources, and populated baselines and targets, including gender sensitive, sex-disaggregated indicators where appropriate. • 3: The project’s selection of outputs and activities are an appropriate level and are consistent with the project’s theory of change. Outputs are accompanied by SMART, results-oriented indicators, with specified data sources. Most baselines and targets populated. Some use of gender sensitive, sex-disaggregated indicators. • 2: The project’s selection of outputs and activities are at an appropriate level, but do not reference the project’s theory of change. Outputs are accompanied by SMART, results- oriented indicators, but baselines, targets and data sources are not fully specified. Some 4 use of gender sensitive, sex-disaggregated indicators. • 1: The project’s selection of outputs and activities are not at an appropriate level. Outputs are not accompanied by SMART, results-oriented indicators that measure the expected change, and have not been populated with baselines and targets. Data sources are not specified. No gender sensitive, sex-disaggregation of indicators is used. • 0: The project’s selection of outputs and activities are not accompanied by appropriate indicators that measure the expected change. *Note: Management Action or strong management justification must be given for scores of 0 or 1 Evidence: Project outcomes will be measured through a set of output, process, and performance indicators that have been constructed using SMART design criteria. These indicators were developed to coincide with each major project activity.
Yes 8. Is there a comprehensive and costed M and E plan with specified data collection sources and methods to support evidence-based management and monitoring of the project? (2)
119
Rating Score 9. Is the project’s governance mechanism clearly defined in the project document, including planned composition of the NSC? • 4: The project’s governance mechanism is fully defined in the project composition. Individuals have been specified for each position in the governance mechanism (esp. all members of the NSC), and full terms of reference of the NSC has been attached to the project document. A conversation has been held with each board member on their role and responsibilities, and all members agree on the terms of reference. • 3: The project’s governance mechanism is almost fully defined in the project document. Individuals have been specified for each position in the governance mechanism (esp. all members of the NSC). While full terms of reference of the NSC may not be attached, the project document describes the responsibilities of the NSC, project director/manager and quality assurance roles. • 2: The project’s governance mechanism is partially defined in the project document; 4 specific institutions are noted as holding key governance roles, but individuals have not yet been specified. The project document lists the most important responsibilities of the NSC, project director/manager and quality assurance roles, but full terms of reference are not included. • 1: The project’s governance mechanism is loosely defined in the project document, only mentioning key roles that will need to be filled at a later date. No information on the responsibilities of key positions in the governance mechanism. • 0: The governance mechanism is not clearly defined in the project document *Note: Management Action or strong management justification must be given for scores of 0 or 1
Evidence: The governance mechanism is fully defined in the project document and in accordance with the SGP Operational Guidelines. The project document also clearly describes the roles and responsibilities of the National Steering Committee (NSC) and those of UNDP and UNOPS. The NSC terms of reference are appended to this project document.
Rating Score 10. Have the project risks been identified with clear plans stated to manage and mitigate each risk? (select from options 0-4 that best reflects this project): • 4: Project risks fully described in the project risk log, based on comprehensive analysis that references key assumptions made in the project’s theory of change. Clear and complete plan in place to manage and mitigate each risk. • 3: Project risks identified in the project risk log. Clear plan in place to manage and mitigate risks. • 2: Some risks identified in the initial project risk log. While some general mitigation measures have been identified, they do not adequately and fully address all the identified 3 risks. • 1: Some risks identified in the initial project risk log, but no clear risk mitigation measures identified. • 0: Risks not clearly identified. No initial project risk log included with the project document. *Note: Management Action must be taken for scores of 0 or 1 Evidence: An assessment of internal and external risks based on extensive consultations and review of background documentation has been completed. Risks and assumptions have been fully identified in the project. Measures to mitigate the risk have been considered and addressed in the project document. This includes the completion of Social and Environmental Risk Screening template. An assessment of internal and external risks based on extensive consultations and review of background documentation has been completed. Risks and assumptions have been fully identified in the project. Measures to mitigate the risk have been considered and addressed in the
120
project document. This includes the completion of the social and environmental screening template.
EFFICIENT
11. Have specific measures for ensuring cost-efficient use of resources been explicitly Yes
mentioned as part of the project design? This can include using the theory of change analysis (2) to explore different options of achieving the maximum results with the resources available.
12. Are plans in place to ensure the project links up with other relevant on-going projects and Yes
initiatives, whether led by UNDP, national or other partners, to achieve more efficient results (2) (including, for example, through sharing resources or coordinating delivery?) Yes 13. Is the budget justified and supported with valid estimates? (2) Yes 14. Is the Country Office fully recovering its costs involved with project implementation? (2)
EFFECTIVE Rating Score 15. Is the chosen implementation modality most appropriate? (select from options 0-4 that best reflects this project): • 4: The required implementing partner assessments (capacity assessment, HACT micro assessment) have been conducted, and there is evidence that options for implementation modalities have been thoroughly considered. There is a strong justification for choosing the selected modality, based on the development context. • 3: The required IP assessments (capacity assessment, HACT micro assessment) have been conducted, and there is evidence that options for implementation modalities have been considered. There is justification for choosing the selected modality, based on the development context. • 2: The capacity of the IP has been assessed, but the HACT micro assessment has not been done due to external factors outside of UNDP’s control. There is evidence that options for N/A implementation modalities have been considered. There is justification for choosing the selected modality, based on the development context. • 1: The required assessments have not been conducted, but there is evidence that options for implementation modalities have been considered. • 0: The required assessments have not been conducted, and there is no evidence that options for implementation modalities have been considered. *Note: Management Action or strong management justification must be given for scores of 0 or 1 Evidence: This project will be implemented through UNOPS execution. The choice of modality is based on an agreement between the Government of Thailand, UNOPS, and UNDP and follows previous practice based on analysis of best practice, comparative advantage and the need for efficient reporting at SGP UCP portfolio level.
Yes 16. Have targeted groups, including marginalized populations that will be affected by the project, been engaged in the design of the project? (2)
Yes 17. Does the project have explicit plans for evaluation or other lesson learning, timed to inform course corrections if needed during project implementation? (2)
121
18. The project budget at the output level reflects adequate financial investments contributing to the advancement of gender equality. This can include outputs that have adequately mainstreamed gender (GEN2), and/or outputs for gender specific or stand-alone intervention Rating Score (GEN3). • 4: The project budget reflects outstanding financial investments contributing to gender equality as evidenced by 100% of the project budget at the output level with the gender marker score GEN2+GEN3. • 3: The project budget reflects adequate financial investments contributing to gender equality as evidenced by at least 75% of the project budget at the output level with the gender marker score GEN2+GEN3. • 2: The project budget reflects partial investments contributing to gender equality as evidenced by at least 50% of the project budget at the output level with the gender marker score GEN2+GEN3. 2 • 1: The project budget reflects limited financial investments contributing to gender equality as evidenced by at least 25% of the project budget at the output level with the gender marker score GEN2+GEN3. • 0: The project budget reflects no financial investments contributing to gender equality *Note: Management Action or strong management justification must be given for scores of 0 or 1 Evidence Gender targets for participation of women indicate that a portion of the budget will be specifically allocated to women’s’ inclusion. However, the actual amount invested will depend on the grant proposals received for consideration and the corresponding decisions of the NSC. As it has in the past, SGP will make every effort to enhance the capacities of women’s groups to successfully compete for grants.
19. Is there a realistic multi-year work plan and budget to ensure outputs are delivered on time Rating Score and within allotted resources? (select from options 0-4 that best reflects this project): • 4: The project has a realistic multi-year work plan and multi- year budget at the activity level to ensure outputs are delivered on time and within the allotted resources. • 3: The project has a multi-year work plan at the activity level and multi-year budget at the output level. 2 • 2: The project has a multi-year work plan and a multi-year budget at the output level. • 1: The project has an output level multi-year work plan, but not a multi-year budget • 0: The project does not yet have a multi-year work plan.
Evidence The multi-year work plan was prepared at the Output level and not at the activity level. This is consistent with past practice given the SGP implementation modality.
SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS 20. Has the project ensured that both women and men have equitable access to project resources and comparable social and environmental benefits? (select from options 0-4 that best Rating Score reflects this project): • 4: Credible evidence that the project fully reflects a consistent strategy that provides
122
equitable access to and control over project resources and social and environmental benefits (e.g., security, health, water, and culture) through project rationale, strategies and results framework. • 3: Credible evidence that the project partially reflects a strategy that provides equitable access to and control over project resources and social and environmental benefits (e.g., security, health, water, and culture) through project strategies and the results framework. • 2: Credible evidence that the project design includes a set of activities that provide equitable access to and control over project resources and social and environmental benefits (e.g., security, health, water, and culture) although project activities are not part 3 of a consistent strategy. • 1: Credible evidence that the project design includes some scattered activities that provide equitable access to and control over project resources and social and environmental benefits (e.g., security, health, water, and culture) • 0: The project has no interventions to ensure a fair share of opportunities and benefits for women and men or reduce gender inequalities in access to and control over resources and social and environmental benefits (e.g., security, health, water, and culture) *Note: Management Action or strong management justification must be given for scores of 0 or 1 Evidence Gender sensitivity and gender considerations have been taken into account in the formulation of the project. Every effort will be made to address gender concerns in its implementation. Roles of men and women in participation in project activities will be assigned without any discrimination. The project has been designed to target women’s needs for improved livelihoods, socio-economic benefit.
21. Did the project apply a human rights based approach? Rating Score • 4: Credible evidence that opportunities to integrate human rights in the project and prioritize the principles of accountability, meaningful participation, and non-discrimination were fully considered. Any potential adverse impacts on enjoyment of human rights were rigorously assessed and identified with appropriate mitigation and management measures incorporated into project design and budget. • 3: Partial evidence that opportunities to integrate human rights in the project and the principles of accountability, meaningful participation, and non-discrimination were considered. Potential adverse impacts on enjoyment of human rights were assessed and identified and appropriate mitigation and management measures incorporated into the project design and budget. • 2: Limited evidence that opportunities to integrate human rights in the project and the principles of accountability, meaningful participation and non-discrimination were considered. Potential adverse impacts on enjoyment of human rights were assessed and 4 identified and appropriate mitigation and management measures incorporated into the project design and budget. • 1: No evidence that opportunities to integrate human rights in the project and the principles of accountability, meaningful participation and non-discrimination were considered. Limited evidence that potential adverse impacts on enjoyment of human rights were considered. • 0: No evidence that opportunities to integrate human rights in the project were considered. No evidence that the potential adverse impact on the enjoyment of human rights have been considered. *Note: Management action or strong management justification must be given for scores of 0 or 1
123
Evidence The project supports the meaningful participation and inclusion of all stakeholders, during the design, implementation, monitoring, and adaptive collaborative management of the project. During the project formulation phase, consultation sessions and meetings were undertaken with a diverse group of stakeholders to construct as holistic as possible an understanding of the challenges and barriers related to the management of natural resources in the selected sites. Project design makes the assumption that the extensive consultations during project formulation strengthen the transparency and legitimacy of the proposed project activities, notwithstanding that during project implementation activities can and should be adapted to ensure that the human rights of stakeholders are preserved and/or reinforced. The extensive stakeholder consultations, learning-by-doing activities, and knowledge exchanges are intended to engage as many people as possible in order to reduce the risk of marginalizing stakeholders and incorporating their diverse perspectives in as many project activities as possible. For each grant, potential adverse impacts on human rights will be rigorously assessed and appropriate mitigation and management measures identified and incorporated into project design and budget.
22. Did the project consider potential environmental opportunities and adverse impacts, Rating Score applying a precautionary approach? • 4: Credible evidence that opportunities to enhance environmental sustainability and integrate poverty-environment linkages were fully considered. Identified opportunities fully integrated in project strategy and design. Credible evidence that potential adverse environmental impacts identified and rigorously assessed with appropriate management and mitigation measures incorporated into project design and budget. • 3: Limited evidence that opportunities to enhance environmental sustainability and poverty-environment linkages were considered. Credible evidence that potential adverse environmental impacts identified and assessed and appropriate management and mitigation measures incorporated into project design and budget. • 2: No evidence that opportunities to strengthen environmental sustainability and poverty- 4 environment linkages were considered. Credible evidence that potential adverse environmental impacts assessed and appropriate management and mitigation measures incorporated into project design and budget. • 1: No evidence that opportunities to strengthen environmental sustainability and poverty- environment linkages were considered. Limited evidence that potential adverse environmental impacts were adequately considered. • 0: No evidence that potential adverse environmental impacts have been considered. Note: Management action or strong management justification must be given for scores of 0 or 1 Evidence The entire focus of the project is on enhancing environmental sustainability and livelihoods of local communities. In the technologies and innovations considered thus far (both in SGP-05 and planned for SGP-GEF-6), there are no adverse environmental impacts detected. The NSC review and approval process for grant projects is bolstered by technical experts in biodiversity conservation, sustainable land management and climate change mitigation and adaptation. Yes 23. If the project is worth $500,000 or more, has the Social and Environmental Screening Procedure (SESP) been conducted to identify potential social and environmental impacts and Yes risks?
SUSTAINABILITY AND NATIONAL OWNERSHIP Rating Score 24. Have national partners led, or proactively engaged in, the design of the project? (select from options 0-4 that best reflects this project):
124
• 4: National partners have full ownership of the project and led the process of the development of the project. • 3: The project has been developed jointly by UNDP and national partners, with equal effort. • 2: The project has been developed by UNDP in close consultation with national partners. 4 • 1: The project has been developed by UNDP with limited engagement with national partners. • 0: The project has been developed by UNDP with no engagement with national partners.
Evidence The priorities have been determined through a consultative process involving community-based partner organizations, the National Steering Committee and representatives of others such as State Governments, NGOs and academia that have expertise in local sustainable development and the GEF focal areas. In selecting grantee projects, the criteria for consideration include their fit with the GEF focal areas to ensure that global environmental benefits are generated while sustaining local level development benefits, especially enhanced incomes, food security and ecosystem services like water provision. In addition, proposed activities needed to be aligned with and/or contribute to national priorities as outlined in national policy documents. Rating Score 25. Are key institutions and systems identified, and is there a strategy for strengthening specific/ comprehensive capacities based on capacity assessments conducted? (select from options 0-4 that best reflects this project): • 4: The project has a comprehensive strategy for strengthening specific capacities of national institutions based on a systematic and detailed capacity assessment that has been completed. • 3: A capacity assessment has been completed, although it is not systematic or detailed. The project document has identified activities that will be undertaken to strengthen capacity of national institutions, but these activities are not part of a comprehensive strategy. 3 • 2: A capacity assessment is planned after the start of the project. There are plans to develop a strategy to strengthen specific capacities of national institutions based on the results of the capacity assessment. • 1: There is mention in the project document of capacities of national institutions to be strengthened through the project, but no capacity assessments or specific strategy developments are planned. • 0: Capacity assessments have not been carried out and are not foreseen. There is no strategy for strengthening specific capacities of national institutions. Evidence Project activities are designed to increase the capacity of key institutions and communities on a wide range of issues. Through a learning-by-doing and adaptive collaborative management approach, the project will strengthen targeted institutional and technical capacities. The project will also support the implementation of training, mentoring and peer-exchanges on various topics to be determined through a detailed capacity needs assessment to be conducted at project inception. This is fully described in the Project document
26. Is there a clear plan for how the project will use national systems, and national systems will Yes No be used to the extent possible? (2) (0)
27. Is there a clear transition arrangement/ phase-out plan developed with key stakeholders in Yes No order to sustain or scale up results (including resource mobilization strategy)? (2) (0)
125
Annex H: SGP Operational Guidelines
GEF SMALL GRANTS PROGRAMME (SGP) OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES
Purpose of this Document
These Operational Guidelines are intended to assist GEF SGP National Coordinators/Sub-Regional Coordinators (NCs/SRCs), National Steering Committees (NSCs), Sub-regional Steering Committees (SRSCs), National Focal Groups (NFGs), UNDP Country Offices and National Host Institution (NHI) staff as well as the SGP Central Programme Management Team (CPMT) and the Global Coordinator of the SGP Upgrading Country Programmes in programme implementation. They are based on the experience and knowledge gained both at the country and global levels through years of GEF SGP programme implementation. They provide the basic framework for operations in relation to the structure, implementation, and administration of the programme. They also address the project cycle and grant disbursement. Programme and project monitoring, evaluation, and reporting are covered in the GEF SGP Monitoring and Evaluation Framework.
The guidelines and models set forth herein are meant to apply generally to all GEF SGP Country Programmes. It is recognized, however, that different contexts and situations will require different responses and adaptations. Any questions about the application of particular provisions of the guidelines or need for adaptation should be referred to the GEF SGP Global Manager and Central Programme Management Team (CPMT) or the Global Coordinator of the SGP Upgrading Country Programmes. On administrative and financial matters, questions may be answered by the UNOPS SGP Standard Operating Procedures and, if necessary, to the respective UNOPS SGP Portfolio Manager.
126
List of Acronyms
BAC Budget Account Classification Code CBO Community-based Organization CCF Country Cooperation Framework CO Country Office COA Chart of Account (ATLAS) COB Country Operating Budget CPMT Central Programme Management Team CPS Country Programme Strategy GEF Global Environment Facility IOV Inter-office Voucher MandE Monitoring and Evaluation MOA Memorandum of Agreement MOD Miscellaneous Obligation Document NC National Coordinator NFP National Focal Person NFG National Focal Group NGO Non-governmental Organization NHI National Host Institution NPFE GEF National Portfolio Formulation Exercise NSC National Steering Committee OP Operational Programme PA Programme Assistant PO Purchase Order (ATLAS) REQ Requisition (ATLAS) SBAA Standard Basic Assistance Agreement SGP GEF Small Grants Programme SOPs Standard Operating Procedures SRC Sub-Regional Coordinator SRSC Sub-Regional Steering Committee SPS Sub-Regional Programme Strategy TOR Terms of Reference UCP Upgrading Country Programme UNCBD United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNOPS United Nations Office for Project Services UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
127
Part I: GEF SGP Programme Structure
1. The structure of the GEF Small Grants Programme (SGP), implemented by UNDP, is decentralized and country-driven. Within the parameters established by the GEF Council and reflected in the Project Document for an Operational Phase, the programme seeks to provide for maximum country and community-level ownership and initiative. This decentralization is balanced against the need for programme consistency and accountability across the participating countries for the achievement of the GEF’s global environmental objectives, and the SGP’s particular benchmarks as stated in the Project Document for each Operational Phase.
2. The SGP is a global and multi-focal area GEF project, approved for funding by the GEF Council on a rolling replenishment, implemented by UNDP on behalf of the GEF partnership, and executed by UNOPS. In the case of Upgraded Country Programmes, UNOPS execution is the recommended option although a country-specific execution modality utilizing a national non-governmental organization or a consortium of non-governmental organizations, selected by UNDP through a competitive process, can be utilized34. Within the UNDP framework, the SGP, as a global programme, is handled differently from UNDP core national or regional programmes.35
3. The GEF Council approves SGP Project Information Form (PIF), GEF CEO Endorsement request, and SGP Project Document for the SGP Global Programme as well as for all Upgrading Country Programmes for each GEF Operational Phase. The SGP Project Document, whether for the global program or upgrading country programmes, provides the framework for SGP operations in accordance with the GEF mandate, including specific benchmarks for project achievements. It also sets forth many of the programme and financial reporting requirements for which UNDP has legal responsibility.
4. Globally, the SGP brings together country programmes of participating countries across all world regions. The key eligibility criteria for countries to participate in SGP are:
✓ Existence of environmental needs and threats in GEF focal or thematic areas; ✓ Ratification of at least one of the global environmental conventions including the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD); the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC); the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants; and United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD); ✓ Government commitment in the participating country and support for the programme’s implementation modality according to the operational guidelines; ✓ Potential for strong government-NGO relations and positive support for local Civil Society Organizations;36 ✓ Commitment to resource mobilization: the UNDP/CO and government share available funding for SGP delivery from both GEF and non-GEF sources, and support efforts to attract other co-funding sources;
34 As per policy approved by the GEF Council Meeting (November 10-12, 2009, Washington DC) based on GEF/C.36/4 Small Grants Programme: Execution Arrangements and Upgrading Policy for GEF-5 (see para 19 and paras 52 - 53). This has been reaffirmed through the approval of the GEF Council Paper GEF/C.46/13 of April 30, 2014 “GEF Small Grants Programme: Implementation Arrangements for GEF-6. 35 For more information about global programming, please see the UNDP Programming Manual, especially Section 8.3. The Programming Manual is available in UNDP Country Offices and at the following website: http://www.undp.org/osg/pm/index.htm 36 For the purpose of the SGP and its grant making, CSOs refer to national and local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) with priority on community-based organizations (CBOs), indigenous peoples, farmers, scientific community, women’s groups, and youth and children organizations. 128
✓ Positive enabling environment.
SGP Headquarters Structure 5. A UNDP/GEF Unit at UNDP Headquarters in New York provides fiduciary oversight for all of its GEF activities, including the SGP. Key UNDP Headquarters staff include the UNDP GEF Executive Coordinator, and his/her Deputy, who are legally accountable to UNDP and to the GEF Council for the utilisation of GEF resources.
6. Overall management of the SGP Global Programme, including operational guidance and support to the country programmes, as well as the identification and establishment of SGP Country Programmes in new countries, are conducted by the SGP Central Programme Management Team (CPMT). The CPMT is composed of a Global Manager and Deputy Global Manager; Programme Specialists responsible for matrixed country support and focal area guidance, knowledge management, and monitoring and evaluation; Programme Associates; as well as external consultants, as needed. The SGP Upgrading Country Programmes (UCPs), given their financing modality as GEF Full-Size Projects, are managed by a UNDP-GEF UCP Global Coordinator, who provides technical assistance, strategic advice, and resource mobilization support and promotes substantive and strategic alignment and coordination of the UCPs with the Global SGP Programme.
7. The United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS) provides programme execution services including administrative, financial, legal, operational, procurement and project management for the SGP as described in detail in the UNOPS SGP Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs).37 The UNOPS SGP Cluster Coordinator and his/her team work closely with the SGP Deputy Global Manager and CPMT staff, as well as with the SGP UCP Global Coordinator.
8. The SGP Global Manager and his/her alternate, the SGP Deputy Global Manager, are ultimately responsible for the overall management, strategic direction, policy development and resource mobilization efforts of the SGP Global Programme. The Programme Specialists are primarily responsible for guidance on GEF focal areas and thematic directions, Country Programme support, regional coordination responsibilities, knowledge sharing, partnership development and networking. As necessary, the Global Manager and Deputy Global Manager may delegate certain functions to the Programme Specialists.
9. SGP regional teams, composed of at least one staff member from CPMT and from UNOPS, as well as the regional senior SGP National Coordinator as needed, may provide a range of technical advice, operational, management and administrative support to country programmes in each of the six SGP world regions,38 divided as follows:
o Africa o Arab States o Asia o Europe and CIS o Pacific o Latin America and the Caribbean
37https://intrafed.unops.org/ORGANIGRAMME/NAO/SGP/SGP_MANUAL/Pages/default.aspx 38 For a full list of participating SGP countries see: http://www.sgp.undp.org//index.cfm?module=ActiveWebandpage=WebPageands=contry_profile
129
10. While for the Global Programme, the CPMT regional focal point focuses primarily on GEF technical and programmatic matters, and the UNOPS regional focal point is responsible for administrative and financial issues, the SGP regional team works collaboratively in advising country programmes with regard to all substantive and operational matters. The regional teams also review the annual SGP country staff performance and recommend ratings for review by the Deputy Global Manager, and his/her counterpart in UNOPS, prior to endorsement and finalisation by the Global Manager.
11. For the Upgrading Country Programmes, the division of labour between the SGP UCP Global Coordinator and UNOPS is similar to those above, as are the collaborative arrangements between UNDP- GEF and UNOPS.
12. SGP Programme Associates are responsible for daily administration, filing and archive management; financial record-keeping and reporting to donors; human resources support; external communications; organisation of meetings; and responses to routine requests for information. The Programme Associates monitor completion of SGP work-plans, and assist in CPMT activities, correspondence, and other assigned tasks.
SGP Country Programme Structure
13. The SGP operates in a decentralized and country-driven manner through a National Coordinator or Sub-regional Coordinator (both hereafter to be referred as NC) and National Steering Committee or National Focal Group for those in sub-regional programme modality (both hereafter abbreviated to NSC) in each participating country, with some modification in the case of countries in a sub-regional programme modality39, with financial and administrative support provided by the UNDP Country Office (CO). In some countries, a National Host Institution (NHI) or host NGO40 is responsible for programme implementation in conjunction with the NC and NSC. At the country level, the SGP operates under the overall UNDP SBAA agreement, although the SGP Global Programme is not considered a part of the CCF or UNDP core functions at the country level.
14. The NSC is composed of voluntary members from NGOs, academic and scientific institutions, other civil society organizations, the UNDP CO, and government, with a majority of members coming from the non-governmental sector. The NSC provides overall guidance and direction to the Country Programme, and contributes to developing and implementing strategies for Country Programme sustainability.
15. The technical capacity of the individual NSC members is an important criterion in determining its composition, and to the maximum extent possible the NSC membership should include experts in the relevant GEF focal areas of biodiversity; climate change mitigation; international waters; sustainable land management; sustainable forest management and REDD; persistent organic pollutants/ chemicals; as well as capacity development. The inclusion of the government GEF Operational Focal Point (OFP) or relevant Convention Focal Point in the NSC is also recommended.
16. The NSC is responsible for the review, selection and approval of projects, and for ensuring their technical and substantive quality as regards the strategic objectives of the SGP. In collaboration with the
39In the case of SGP Sub-regional Programmes, the Sub-Regional Coordinator (SRC) may manage the programme, while projects are reviewed and approved by a voluntary National Focal Group (NFG) with part-time facilitation by a National Focal Person (NFP). Some countries, with substantial grant making, may decide to shift to a Country Programme modality still linked to the subregional group with a full-time NC or a Community Program Officer and the SRC providing subregional coordination and technical support. 40 National Host Institution or NHI and host NGO are used interchangeably in this document because SGP Country Programmes commonly employ both terms.
130
NC, the NSC contributes to the development of the Country Programme Strategy (CPS)41 in accordance with the relevant GEF Project Document for the Operational Phase and national environmental priorities, and oversees its implementation. NSC members are expected to support the Country Programme in resource mobilization and in mainstreaming SGP lessons learned and successes in national development planning and policy-making. NSC members are encouraged to participate in pre-selection project site visits and in project monitoring and evaluation.
17. The NSC may also constitute a Technical Advisory Groups (TAG) with a pool of voluntary experts on call to serve as a technical sub-committee, for review of proposals and in relation to specific areas of programming and partnership development. The TAG can also be tasked by the NSC to provide specific technical guidance in specialised areas of work, such as carbon measurement, payments for ecosystem services, marketing and certification of products, transboundary diagnostic analysis, and other relevant fields. In addition, the TAG may also be formed in response to donor and co-financing requirements mobilised for the SGP country programme.
18. The SGP NC has lead responsibility for managing the development and implementation of the country or sub-regional programme, for ensuring that grants and projects meet GEF and SGP criteria, and for planning and implementation of upscaling strategies. The NC’s primary functions include inter alia: (i) assisting CSOs in the formulation of project proposals; (ii) serving as the ex officio secretariat for the NSC; (iii) ensuring sound programme monitoring and evaluation, including periodic project site visits; (iv) resource mobilization; (v) communication and dissemination of SGP information; and (v) global reporting to CPMT, UNOPS, responding to audits, and other tasks as stipulated in their ToR.42
19. The UNDP CO provides management support to the SGP Country Programme as outlined in this document. The UNDP Resident Representative/Resident Coordinator (hereafter abbreviated to UNDP RR) in each UNDP CO assigns a senior staff person (typically the Environment Focal Point or head of the Sustainable Development Cluster) to serve as the SGP focal point. The UNDP RR participates in the NSC or may designate the focal point as his/her delegate in the NSC. Each UNDP CO also contributes to monitoring programme activities – usually through broad oversight by the designated focal point as part of NSC responsibilities - facilitates interaction with the host government, and develops links with other in- country financial and technical resources.
20. The UNDP CO is also responsible for providing operational support – the RR signature of grant project MOAs (on behalf of UNOPS); appointment letters of NSC members (on behalf of CPMT); local grant disbursements; HR administration; as well as assisting in audit exercises for the programme. The detailed steps for each operational aspect are described in the UNOPS SGP SOPs. The UNDP CO also plays a fundamental role in launching a new SGP Country Programme in terms of endorsement of the government application to be a participating SGP country and in helping CPMT organize the start-up mission. The UNDP CO also plays a critical role in the proper closing of an SGP Country Programme.
Part II Implementation and Administration of SGP Country Programmes
In-country institutional arrangements
21. The SGP operates at the country level under the overall UNDP SBAA agreement, however, the SGP Global Programme remains the responsibility of the CPMT/UNOPS SGP Cluster at Headquarters and, like
41 An Upgrading Country Programme is not required to produce a Country Programme Strategy since it produces a Project Document for the Full Size Project financing their Country Programme for the relevant Operational Phase. 42 See full-length version of SGP CPM ToRs.
131
the Upgrading Country Programmes, is accountable to UNDP-GEF in New York, and ultimately, the GEF Council. There are two basic modalities for SGP hosting arrangements for the country programme that, in consultation with country stakeholders, will be decided by CPMT or the UCP Global Coordinator. In most countries, the programme is hosted by the UNDP CO, although this may also mean that the SGP office is physically located outside CO premises. Where there are issues of accessibility and based on consultations with stakeholders, the programme could be hosted in a National Host Institution (NHI), which may be an NGO or academic institution.
22. In case of NHI hosting, UNOPS issues and administers a sub-contract with the NHI that outlines the technical support and administrative services to be provided, as well as the applicable operating budget. In all cases, the UNDP CO provides needed support for SGP in-country operations in coordination with the CPMT or UCP Global Coordinator and UNOPS. Whatever the hosting arrangements, all Country Programmes respond equally to the relevant Operational Phase Project Document (global or national upgrading) and the global SGP Operational Guidelines.
23. As noted above, NCs of Country Programmes in the Global SGP Programme are guided by CPMT regional focal points for the majority of operational and technical matters, whilst reporting ultimately to the SGP Global Manager. NCs of Upgrading Country Programmes are guided by the Global UCP Coordinator. NCs are also accountable to the UNDP RR for country-level programme expenditures and on matters regarding meeting the ethical and professional standards of the UNDP. The UNDP RR, in consultation with members of the NSC, is responsible for preparing the annual evaluation of NC performance and recommendation concerning contractual status for review by either CPMT or the Global UCP Coordinator, and UNOPS.
24. In keeping with the spirit and mandate of the SGP to develop and foster the capacities of CSOs in participating countries, it is expected that as individual Country Programmes mature it will be possible to transfer the hosting arrangements from the UNDP CO to NHIs. Any decision for transfer should be based on a full consultative process and analysis of key factors, and must be approved by the CPMT or Global UCP Coordinator in consultation with the UNDP RR. In certain cases, where the selected NHI does not fully meet performance expectations, and upon consultation with country stakeholders, the contract may be terminated by the CPMT or Global Coordinator, and UNOPS, and hosting will be transferred either to the UNDP CO or to another NHI.
25. The relationship with an NHI may range from the provision of physical office space, with the NC and NSC carrying full responsibility for programme management; one in which the NHI is responsible for providing specifically agreed services, such as technical advice and support; through to one where the NHI carries full responsibility for managing the SGP programme. The extent of responsibility will be clearly defined in the contract for services signed by UNOPS and the NHI and may evolve over time.
26. The identification of a pool of suitable NHIs may be carried out through a process of competitive bidding, or by gradually accumulating a list of available and interested organizations in consultation with key stakeholders. Local representation of international NGOs would not normally be eligible. The legitimacy and neutrality of potential NHIs within the national NGO community are essential qualifications to carry out SGP grant-making activities. Once a pool of organizations has been established, the following factors will be considered by the CPMT or Global UCP Coordinator, and UNDP CO to select the best candidate:
✓ National stature and credibility; ✓ Good working relationships with other CSOs, including participation in environment/ development networks;
132
✓ Demonstrated compatibility with the procedures, objectives, and grant-making functions of the SGP, GEF, and UNDP; ✓ Significant experience in community-based, participatory environment and development; ✓ Substantial involvement and technical expertise in environmental issues related to the GEF focal areas and the Rio conventions; ✓ Proven programme management and administrative capacity with systems in place.
27. The NC is normally an employee of UNOPS whereas the contract is administered locally by the UNDP CO on behalf of UNOPS. In some cases, the NC contract administration can be covered under the terms of the contract with the NHI. The selection of the NC is done through a publicly advertised and competitive selection process. As a general rule, the recruitment process for the NC is managed on behalf of UNOPS by the UNDP CO under the overall supervision of the UNDP RR. This is ordinarily the case even if the NC will be placed in an NHI; however, the NHI, as appropriate and upon approval of CPMT, may manage the NC recruitment. The selection panel submits three of the top applicants to the SGP Global Manager for final selection and decision. The recruitment process and related guidelines are described in more detail in the UNOPS SGP Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). 28. 29. Typically, NHIs do not normally administer grant funds. As Country Programmes evolve and/or upgrade, however, it may become desirable to include direct grants administration as part of NHI responsibilities under UNOPS-issued contracts or other mechanisms, thereby increasing the level of country ownership of, and civil society participation in, the programme. Administrative procedures will need to be devised to ensure that the administration of grant allocations and their transferal to grant recipients remain transparent, accountable and fluid. NHIs cannot be awarded nor use SGP grant funds.
SGP country staff roles and responsibilities
30. The NC is responsible for the overall functioning of the SGP in each participating country, and for the achievement of the benchmarks established for Country Programme implementation in the CPS (Global Programme) or Project Document (UCP) for the relevant Operational Phase. The NC is expected to have full-time dedication to the SGP.43 The NC is responsible for ensuring sound programme and project monitoring and evaluation, and laying the foundation for programme upscaling and sustainability. In project development, the NC may work directly to assist the proponent CSO to access needed support, including the recommendation of support through planning grants. The NC, jointly with the UNDP CO, bear direct responsibility for all local programme expenditures. A critical aspect of the NC job performance is to carefully monitor and supervise these expenditures under the overall supervision of UNOPS and to ensure accountability and transparency.
31. The NC usually represents the SGP in local and national meetings, workshops, and other events, and may be accompanied by members of the NSC. However, for legal and financial purposes, only the UNDP RR or his/her Officer in Charge (OIC) may represent the SGP in-country (on behalf of UNOPS). Only the UNDP RR or his/her Officer in Charge (OIC) can sign SGP grant Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs) and for signing any co-financing arrangements on behalf of SGP. While the NC may initiate and undertake co- financing and other negotiations for the programme, s/he should never officially sign such agreements. The NC, however, may sign non-binding collaborative agreements between SGP and other projects and programs. The NC should consult the CPMT or the Global UCP Coordinator, and the UNOPS SGP Cluster if there is any doubt on signing rules and procedures.
43 The NC should not accept any other functions unless a cost-sharing arrangement can be negotiated with the UNDP CO or host NGO and validated by CPMT/UNOPS.
133
32. The performance of NCs is evaluated annually. The evaluation is undertaken through an online Performance and Results Assessment (PRA) in two parts: a self-assessment by the NC, and a performance evaluation with NSC inputs under the charge of the UNDP RR. These two parts of the evaluation should be completed shortly after the completion of the reporting period. The completed and signed evaluations are submitted to the CPMT or the Global UCP Coordinator. The PRA evaluations are reviewed by the CPMT or Global UCP Coordinator, with UNOPS inputs, and final decisions are then taken for the Global Programme Country Programmes by the SGP Global Manager and Deputy Global Manager on contract renewal, or by the Global UCP Coordinator, as well as other actions that might need to be taken.
33. In most countries, the NC works with a Programme Assistant/Associate (PA). On behalf of UNOPS, the UNDP CO may hire a PA with technical and/or administrative skills and functions depending on local needs. The NC shall be involved in the selection process and the panel recommendation will be forwarded to CPMT and UNOPS for final approval. The NC will be in charge of the supervision and PRA for the PA. In certain cases, consultants with a technical background, especially in the GEF focal areas, may be recruited to contribute to project design, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation, and can be delegated by the NC to provide these services to CSOs and SGP projects as necessary. The recruitment process and related guidelines are highlighted in detail in the UNOPS SGP SOPs.
National Steering Committee procedures
34. The NSC is a central element of the SGP and provides the primary substantive contribution and oversight to the programme, in coordination with the NC. While staffing and operational management of the SGP is undertaken through UNDP/UNOPS structures, no SGP project may be undertaken at the country level without the approval of the NSC. As such, the NSC must do its best to ensure the technical and substantive quality of SGP grants, and the administrative and financial capacity, either actual or potential, of the CSO grant recipients. The UNDP RR, or his/her delegate, as well as other members of the NSC, are encouraged to provide any relevant information about these concerns, especially the financial and organizational integrity of CSOs. Operationally, the decisions of the NSC are considered final provided they are consistent with these operational guidelines, the SGP Project Document for the GEF Operational Phase and the Country Programme Strategy (or UCP Project Document). However, neither the NSC nor its individual members as programme volunteers, hold any legal or fiduciary responsibility for the SGP or its activities.
35. The selection of NSC members is normally done by the NC in consultation with the UNDP RR. For new country programmes, the NSC is often established as a result of a preparatory mission or in the initial stages of launching the programme. NSC members should have an abiding interest and commitment to working with communities and share a vision of what sustainable development and "thinking globally, acting locally" might mean in terms of linking the GEF focal areas with community needs and concerns. NSC non-governmental members must have high credibility and wide experience working with local communities and CSOs in the country and thus can represent their needs and interests in committee discussions. Strong, experienced, and technically competent civil society representation on the NSC is crucial as a means of keeping the SGP responsive to its mandate to work with CSOs, CBOs and indigenous peoples. These members must also have the requisite knowledge of GEF Focal Areas and/or specific themes such as gender, sustainable livelihoods, and knowledge management. Governmental and donor agency members should hold positions relevant to the work of the SGP and at a level where they could make decisions on behalf of their agencies, particularly when assessing proposals which they are being asked to fund. NSC members on the whole must be able and willing to discuss constructively and develop consensus decisions. The NSC, together with the NC, is responsible for ensuring participatory, democratic, impartial, and transparent procedures for project review and approval, as well as all other aspects of programme implementation at the country level in accordance with the SGP Project Document for the relevant Operational Phase.
134
36. The composition of a newly established NSC is subject to ratification by the SGP Global Manager or the Global UCP Coordinator while subsequent appointments can be ratified by the responsible CPMT Regional Focal Point for global programme countries and by the Global UCP Coordinator for upgrading country programmes. In general, only one government representative on the NSC is required. However, depending on the circumstances, country programmes can have additional government representatives such as Convention focal points, although whatever the case, the majority of members must be non- governmental. The UNDP RR provides the appointment letters on behalf of the SGP.
37. NSC members usually serve for a period of three years. Each country or sub-regional programme must decide whether this term is renewable, and how eligibility for renewal is determined. In general, periodically inviting new members is a sound and healthy policy that brings new ideas and expertise to programme implementation, and roughly one quarter of NSC members may rotate in any given year. Changing the entire membership at any one time should be avoided.
38. Participation in the NSC is without monetary compensation. Travel expenses for project site visits or to NSC meetings can be covered by the SGP country operational budget.
39. NSCs adopt decisions under the principle of consensus and rarely resort to voting to determine whether a project is approved or a particular course of action is taken. To facilitate meetings, the NSC may decide to select its Chairperson(s) in the following way: (i) one of the most committed expert members to Chair for a particular period of time; (ii) members to chair meetings on a rotating basis to enhance each member’s participation; and (iii) on a co-chair approach with government and non-government representation to promote civil society leadership and CSO-government collaboration which are institutional objectives of the programme.
40. The NC serves ex officio on the NSC, participating in deliberations, but not in decisions in the project selection process. The NC usually convenes the NSC and functions as its secretariat, including preparing minutes of meetings and maintaining a historical record of programme decisions and implementation. A copy of NSC minutes, signed by the members, and other pertinent material should be filed at the UNDP CO.
41. In as wide a consultation as possible with country stakeholders, the NC shall prepare a long list of possible volunteers to the NSC. From this, the NC in consultation with the UNDP RR prepares the list of NSC members to be nominated for approval by the SGP Global Manager by considering both the expertise and qualifications of the individual candidates, and the overall composition and balance of the committee. While certain institutions (the UNDP, and appropriate governmental ministry or agencies, the NHI) must be represented in the NSC, members should also be chosen who as individuals, including from the private sector and donor community, would contribute significantly to the committee and the programme’s various expertise needs (e.g. on GEF focal areas, sustainable livelihoods, gender considerations, communications, resource mobilization, capacity development). The NC, after due consultation with other NSC members of good standing and the UNDP RR, may recommend changes in the composition of the committee to CPMT if it becomes clear that a particular member's participation is not contributing to the programme.
42. The objectivity, transparency and credibility of the NSC is of paramount importance to the success of the Country Programme, and to maintaining good relations among stakeholders. As a general rule, Country Programmes cannot consider proposals associated with organizations of sitting NSC members. A CSO may nonetheless submit proposals when its representative has finished the term of service and is no longer on the Committee. On an exceptional basis, and under specified conditions pre-approved by CPMT or the UCP Global Coordinator, CSOs with members in the NSC can submit proposals.
135
Country Programme Strategy
43. Before any grant-making or other programme activities may take place, each SGP participating country must have an approved Country Programme Strategy or Sub-regional Programme Strategy (abbreviated here to CPS). The development/revision of the CPS is designed to ensure congruence with the SGP Project Document for the relevant Operational Phase; the strategic planning frameworks associated with the relevant Rio Conventions;44 as well as with the GEF National Portfolio Formulation Exercise (NPFE) where relevant.
44. For Upgrading Country Programmes, a standard UNDP-GEF Project Document is produced that reflects the Country Program strategy that is broadly coherent with the SGP Global strategic initiatives announced at the commencement of each Operational Phase. The Project Document is formulated after approval of the corresponding PIF and is approved by UNDP and the GEF CEO as per standard GEF and UNDP procedures. In the development of the Project Document, the same multi-stakeholder, participatory approach is followed as that of Country Program Strategy development.
45. For new SGP Country Programmes, the development of a CPS is one of the first tasks to be undertaken by the NC and newly-formed NSC. In both new and continuing SGP Country Programmes, it is important to involve key stakeholders in the CPS revision/elaboration process, and to fully engage and involve the NSC. In this regard, the CPS may be considered a living document, and shall be revised or updated in every operational phase of SGP, or as deemed necessary by the NSC, to align country programme priorities with GEF policies and priorities, and those included in the relevant SGP Project Document.
46. As described in the CPS Guidance framework, the development or revision of the CPS serves several broad purposes to:
✓ Identify the national circumstances and priorities of the country vis-à-vis the Project Document for the relevant Operational Phase; ✓ Provide stakeholders with a framework document to understand the priorities for SGP funding for strengthened country relevance and ownership; ✓ Provide a strategic framework for allocating resources, especially selection of SGP projects, through a bio-geographic and/or thematic focus; ✓ Serve as the framework for Country Programme operations and guiding programme implementation; ✓ Constitute the basis for the assessment of country programme achievements and impact.
47. The development/revision of the CPS (or UCP Project Document) should be undertaken as a participatory process that engages the full range of non-governmental and government stakeholders in the country. The CPS preparation should be seen not only as a document to satisfy global programmatic requirements, but as a country-led process which has value in its own right. The key players in the process are the NC (who facilitates the process, and is responsible for the majority of the drafting), and the NSC (which provides input and guidance throughout the process, and endorses the end product).
48. The CPS should contain: (a) background situation of the country which the SGP country programme has to consider; (b) key objectives vis-a-vis the country situation and the objectives of the global SGP
44 These include the GEF National Capacity Self-Assessment (NCSA) process; the CBD National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs); the UNFCCC National Communications; the UNCCD National Actions Programmes (NAPs); and the Stockholm Convention National Implementation Plans (NIPs).
136
Prodoc for the operational phase; (c) geographic (with maps) and/or thematic focal areas; (d) priority activities to be supported by grantmaking; and (e) expected outcomes, indicators, and M & E plan. For formulation of a UCP Project Document (ProDoc), the standard UNDP-GEF format is followed.
49. Recommended steps to developing the CPS or ProDoc are as follows:
✓ NC prepares an initial CPS or ProDoc draft for consultation with the NSC based on the current SGP Project Document or the approved PIF in the case of UCPs; ✓ Wide stakeholder consultations held with key CSO, government, academic and other concerned parties to discuss relevant issues (where possible, these consultations to be linked to the National Portfolio Formulation Exercise (NPFE) of the GEF in the country); ✓ Incorporation of stakeholder inputs into the draft CPS or ProDoc by the NC, and initial approval of the document by the NSC; ✓ Submission of the draft CPS to the CPMT Regional Focal Point for comment and review; draft ProDoc submitted to the UCP Global Coordinator for comment and review; ✓ Further CPS or ProDoc revision as necessary based on comments and recommendations by the CPMT or UCP Global Coordinator, respectively; ✓ Submission of the revised CPS or ProDoc by the NC for formal endorsement by the NSC; ✓ Final approval of the endorsed CPS by the SGP Global Manager, or delegated CPMT Regional Focal Point; final approval of the endorsed ProDoc by the UCP Global Coordinator and submission to the GEF for CEO Endorsement and to UNDP for approval; ✓ Posting and circulation of the final version of the CPS as a public document; posting of ProDoc on GEF Website.
Country Operating Budget
50. The Country Operating Budget or Sub-regional Operating Budget (abbreviated here to COB) is the financial provision for country, or sub-regional, programme implementation. The COB is prepared by the NC, and reviewed and approved by the CPMT and UNOPS. The COB should allow the effective operation of the country or sub-regional programme in implementing activities in support of the objectives of the Project Document, as well as to be responsive to specific country circumstances and needs, as reflected in the CPS. In countries where a NHI hosts the SGP, the COB is generally covered by the terms of the contract for services between the organization and UNOPS. The COB process and related guidelines are highlighted in detail in the UNOPS SGP SOPs.
51. The budget for operations of Upscaling Country Programmes is approved as part of the Project Document and is subject to revision on an annual basis along with approval of Annual Work Plans and requests for annual Authorized Spending Limits. UNOPS, as executing agency, manages the budget in direct contact with the National Coordinator and in collaboration with the relevant UNDP Country Office.
Part III Implementation and Administration of SGP Grants
SGP grants and project cycle 52. Each SGP Country Programme should, after adopting or revising its CPS or Project Document, prepare and issue an SGP programme announcement. Information in the call for proposals should clearly state that the SGP makes grants to eligible CSOs45, or to individuals, as in the case of fellowships, with
45 The term civil society organization (CSO) herein refers to the definition of major groups agreed by Governments at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in 1992 to include non-governmental organizations (NGOs), farmers, women, the scientific and technological community, youth and children, indigenous peoples and 137
priority for the poor and vulnerable in the GEF focal areas, with a maximum grant amount for a project of US$50,00046. The subsequent process of developing an SGP grant project should then take place in a transparent manner covering the: (i) project preparation guidelines setting forth the eligibility criteria; (ii) application/proposal review process and calendar; (iii) formats for project concept and proposal development, and; (iv) co-financing requirements in cash and/or in-kind.
53. Project concepts from eligible CSOs may be screened by the NC or jointly with the NSC. Each country programme should determine which screening modality it will follow, and periodically review this decision to make sure that the modality chosen is working well. In both cases, project concept selection should be done on the basis of established eligibility and selection criteria in accordance with the CPS or UCP Project Document At the very least, project concepts should be relevant to one or several of the GEF focal areas and reflect the needs of the community or communities and/or stakeholders that would be involved. Once the concepts have been selected, the proponent organizations will be notified of this decision and asked to develop complete project proposals.
54. It is critical for all project proposals to meet the GEF and SGP criteria. While it is an important part of the NC responsibilities to assist CSOs in proposal development, sometimes, additional assistance is nonetheless required. In such cases, two options may be considered: (i) a local consultant may be hired or a capable “assisting NGO” may be contacted to help the CSO/CBO/communities according to terms of reference that the NC elaborates in coordination with the proponent organization; and (ii) the SGP planning grant modality may be used.
55. In support of regional or global scaling up, mainstreaming, replication, and broader adoption of SGP successes and lessons learned, as well as to leverage resources and utilize strategic opportunities at these levels, grants for regional or global initiatives47 can be provided. For the Global SGP, guidance for proactive or responsive modalities as well as procedures for this will come from the SGP CPMT in consultation with involved SGP Country Programmes and/or relevant Programme stakeholders and partners.
Planning Grants
56. The NC or NSC may authorize planning grants48 once project concepts have been selected. CSOs such as CBOs, indigenous peoples’ organizations and communities with little experience in project design and management receive priority to benefit from this assistance. Hence, the planning grant has an
their communities, business and industry, workers and trade unions and local authorities. For SGP, their eligibility for grants follows the practice of the GEF (for the purpose of CSOs attending/observing Council meetings) which defines them as ‘non-profit organizations”. Local authorities shall include traditional or indigenous governance units and their proposals to be eligible should refer to meeting the needs of communities under their jurisdiction. Furthermore, international NGOs and for-profit business and industry groups are not directly eligible for SGP support but may co- finance the Programme’s grant projects. Priority grant-making should also be directed at grassroots groups such as community-based organizations (CBOs), indigenous peoples, farmers, women, youth and children, and workers. Those that are especially vulnerable because of poverty, social exclusion, or disability should also be provided priority. 46 The SGP Country Programme could provide grants above this maximum amount for “Strategic Grants” that can be up to $150,000 under a special provision for this category of grants and following guidance from CPMT or the Global UCP Coordinator, as relevant. 47 The allocated funds for this should not exceed 10% of the available GEF global core grant allocation for an operational phase. 48 Planning grants are usually in the range of $2,000 to $5,000 depending on the capacity of the proponent and additional work that has to be done. The NSC should decide how to make the provision of planning grants in the most facilitative way such as allowing the NC to make planning grant decisions and reporting on these in NSC meetings.
138
important capacity-building function which in itself is an important SGP objective. The NC makes recommendations to the NSC about which proponent organizations would require a planning grant.
57. A planning grant can be used by an eligible CSO to organize stakeholder workshops or meetings to design the project in a participatory manner. The planning grant can be used to contract an experienced NGO or local consultant to work with the project proponents to elaborate the project, to undertake baseline assessments, develop a business plan (for projects with strong sustainable livelihood elements), and through learning-by-doing, build capacity in proposal design including the development of indicators and a monitoring and evaluation plan.
58. Administratively, a planning grant is a grant like any other SGP grant, and therefore can only be made to eligible CSOs. The project document for the planning grant specifies the activities to be undertaken, and the responsibilities of the parties concerned. The NSC generally approves the planning grant, although the NSC can in certain instances also delegate approval to the NC for certain exceptional cases (e.g. time-sensitive activities, smaller amounts). The process follows the modus operandi of SGP facilitative grant-making and is explained in detail in the UNOPS SGP SOPs.
Project proposals
59. SGP provides grants to support activities that help achieve the programme objectives outlined in the CPS and the global SGP project document or the UCP Project Document for the Operational Phase. In terms of helping achieve global environmental benefits, the SGP’s starting point is to ensure that each project proposal fits the GEF criteria and that each proposal clearly articulates how project objectives and activities would have a positive effect in the relevant GEF focal areas. To create sustainability and impact beyond the project, SGP projects can combine demonstration, capacity-building, network building, awareness raising, and dissemination of lessons learned as integral components. Given this comprehensive approach, while a logical framework is not formally required, it would be advisable to include a Monitoring and Evaluation work plan in each proposal (see SGP M & E Framework).
60. As a demand-driven programme, SGP projects endeavour to address both the GEF criteria, as well as community needs and initiatives. The SGP usually works with communities and localities that confront a multitude of social and economic development problems that impact on concerns related to global environmental conventions. For SGP interventions to have relevance and utility at the community level, these non-GEF circumstances are considered in project design. A key guiding philosophy of the programme has been to reach the marginalized poor and vulnerable communities, especially when there are no other donors present, and where development baseline conditions have not been met. Typically, the SGP will therefore need to mobilize additional resources to help provide the co-financing, technical assistance, capacity-building, gender training, income-generation component, or whatever non-GEF element may be necessary for a project’s success. These project components are vital to achieving local acceptance, ownership, and sustainability of SGP interventions.
Funds disbursement
61. The maximum amount for an SGP grant is $50,000 per project.49 In special cases, grants for “strategic projects” that consolidate efforts of several communities and CSOs could be provided at a maximum of $150,000. SGP grants generally only cover a portion of project costs, with other components provided by the CSO partner, the community itself, or by other donors. Since SGP grants fund activities
49 In many cases, it may however be advisable to provide smaller initial amounts when the grantee-partners have lower implementation capacity.
139
that are directly relevant to the GEF criteria, co-financing must be sought for community baseline or sustainable development needs. However, since it would be unrealistic to require a baseline/incremental cost exercise for each individual project, each country should instead endeavour to mobilize enough funding in cash or in kind to “match” the GEF country grant allocation50.
62. Once the NSC has approved a project for SGP funding support, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is signed on behalf of UNOPS between the grantee and the UNDP CO. SGP projects normally have a duration of between one and three years. The amounts and schedules may differ, contingent upon the nature and length of project activities, but in no case should the first disbursement be more than 50% of the total project grant amount (except when justified and prior approval from UNOPS has been received). The MOA and grant disbursement process, the applicable templates, and all related guidelines are found in detail in the UNOPS SGP SOPs.
63. A grantee may submit another proposal upon successful completion of an initial project but no grantee can receive funds exceeding US$50,000 in a given operational phase. Any grantee that has received the maximum $50,000 in one Operational Phase, may however submit another funding request in the following Operational Phase if the evaluation of project outcomes are positive.
Part IV Reporting and Communications
64. The NC has lead responsibility for communications between the Country Programme and the CPMT or UCP Global Coordinator. In general, the NC reports on substantive and technical matters to the CPMT or UCP Global Coordinator and on administrative and financial issues to the UNOPS portfolio manager. The NC should keep the UNDP CO informed of progress in programme implementation, usually through the RR and SGP focal point in the UNDP CO. In particular, the NC and PA are expected to maintain a close working relationship with the UNDP CO regarding the COB and grants disbursements, which serves to keep the UNDP abreast of SGP developments.51 The NC should also endeavour to share relevant SGP reports with the GEF Operational and Political Focal Points as well as global environmental convention focal points.
65. Communications among Country Programmes are facilitated through the global, regional, and sub- regional list servers, the SGP global database and workspace, and the SGP website. Recurring global reporting requirements, such as annual reports, are complemented by periodic requests by the CPMT, UCP Global Coordinator and/or UNOPS for information on specific subjects, such as reports under preparation for the GEF Council, or for the relevant global environmental conventions. Full guidance on all project and programme reporting is provided in the SGP Monitoring and Evaluation Framework.
66. SGP country teams are responsible for entering detailed information for all prior and current Operational Phases into the SGP database, including the upload of grant project MOAs. Since the database is the foundation for all reporting and communications at the global level, it is imperative that NCs and PAs input the database as soon as projects are approved by the NSC, and keep it regularly updated on the progress of projects. The SGP database and website also includes visual documentation of SGP projects and Country Programmes, accounts of lessons learned, and case studies. Project briefs should be stored in the files of every project for easy use and sharing.
50 The matching of GEF funds with co-financing is finally reckoned at the global programme level so as not to disadvantage new country programmes or those in difficult situations. 51 SGP Country Programmes are required to monitor the funds (grants and COB amounts) and expenditures allocated to them. Reporting tools and relevant guidelines are provided by the UNOPS SGP SOPs.
140
67. The NC is required to report on technical and substantive project and programme progress through the Annual Country Report (GEF Project Implementation Review for UCPs). The ACR complements the information that is entered in the SGP database and should cover progress in meeting the year’s deliverables as well as other important information including: (i) assessment of the overall progress for the country programme portfolio; (ii) results of project monitoring and evaluation; (iii) key outcomes of SGP-sponsored events; (iv) progress in strengthening working relationships with CSOs, as well as with government agencies and donors; (v) results of resource mobilization efforts; (vi) development of SGP visibility as a GEF programme and activities to share lessons learned and influence policy; and (vii) any special challenges and difficulties faced.
68. The NC shall take all necessary measures to ensure the visibility of the GEF financing. Such measures shall be in accordance with the need to give adequate publicity to the action being implemented as well as to the support from the GEF. A communication and visibility plan shall be outlined in each project document. This should include, inter alia, the compulsory use of the GEF logo on all material, publications, leaflets, brochures and newsletters, websites, business cards, signage, vehicles, supplies and equipment, display panels, commemorative plaques, banners, promotional items, photographs, audiovisual productions, public events and visits and information campaigns. The plan should also include press releases, press conferences and press visits to project sites.
69. The Programme Review is an overall assessment of the Country Programme performance to be undertaken by the NC and the NSC, in consultation with SGP grantees and other stakeholders, at the completion of an SGP Operational Phase. The purpose of the Programme Review is to assess the cumulative progress of the Country Programme in a particular Operational Phase and provide strategic recommendations on the direction for the programme in the next Operational Phase. Once finalized, the Programme Review should be shared by the SGP country team with the country GEF Operational and Political Focal Points and also the relevant Rio Convention focal points.
70. Audits of SGP Country Programmes will be conducted in accordance with the internationally accepted auditing standards, and applicable financial rules and regulations. The SGP audit exercises are designed to improve the transparency, accountability and quality of SGP country and global operations. The audits will cover management, financial, and administrative issues as they relate to the country programme as a whole, and will not normally include provisions for project-level inspection. The principles and processes governing SGP audit operations can be found in the UNOPS SGP SOPs.
141
Annex I: Co-financing letters (attached)
142
Annex J: Carbon mitigation calculations
ESTIMATION OF CARBON EMISSIONS MITIGATED THROUGH FORESTRY AND LAND USE MANAGEMENT, RENEWABLE ENERGY, AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
1. SUMMARY OF CARBON EMISSIONS MITIGATED GOOD FORESTRY MANAGEMENT PRACITICES 3,400,704.27 RENEWABLE ENERGY 5,784.04 WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 137.31 TOTAL 3,406,625.62
2. ESTIMATION METHODOLOGIES 2.1 AGROFORESTRY, REFORESTATION, NATURAL REGENERATION The consultations held in the four regions of Thailand indicate the development and establishment of activities related to agroforestry, reforestation and natural regeneration systems, with the aim of reducing or avoiding deforestation and degradation of natural forests in the four years of programme implementation in the four regions of Thailand. To estimate the content of carbon sequestrated through good forestry management practices, the main problems encountered are the lack of information related to the baseline estimations in particular regions in Thailand, lack of defined subsystems of implementation (only a list of recommended species), and lack of data on the diameter growth of agroforestry species as well as net biomass carbon in agroforestry systems in particular regions of Thailand. However, the default values of an annual increase in carbon stocks in biomass of various local tree species in Thailand can be found in Table 4 of “Carbon Sequestration Potentials of Tree Species Manual for Promoting CDM Scheme related to Afforestation and Reforestation”, TGO (2011). Based on this TGO manual, the estimation methodology can be described as follows:
Carbon sequestration of the project (tCO2) = Sum of the content of carbon sequestered (tCo2) (during the period of 25 years) + Baseline [Content biomass in the area (tCo2)] (during the period of 25 years)
Where
The content of carbon sequestered (tCo2) (year 1 to 25) = Estimated area (ha) x Annual growth in tCo2/ha/year (year 1 to 25) (based on TGO Manual, 2011)
Assumptions: (1) Type of tree species selected is local tropical forest for multi-purpose usages, (2) Baseline for agroforestry and reforestation is zero, (3) the annual growth rate in tCo2 is constant over years as there is no locally available research evidence suggesting specific changes of annual growth rates of tCo2, and (4) the lifetime of the tree is approximately 25 years when Girth at Breast Height (GBH) is equal 100 cm and the content of carbon sequestered has become stable, TGO Manual (2011).
2.2 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy The consultations held in the four regions of Thailand indicate the development and establishment of activities related to energy efficient biomass cook stove, biogas system, and solar photovoltaic systems (water pumping and drying) with an aim of saving charcoal and LPG in the four years of programme implementation of Thailand. The TGO Guidelines for Specific Emission Factors 2016 will be used to estimate the amount of carbon emission avoidance in applying energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies with the following estimation methodologies:
143
Technology: Energy Efficient Biomass Cook Stoves The content of carbon emission avoided (during the period of 10 years of technology lifetime based on the Department of Alternative Energy Development and Efficiency, Ministry of Energy, 2006) = Total Number of energy efficient biomass cook stove X amount of charcoal saved per cook stove (kg) X Co2 emission factor for charcoal (kg)
Technology: Solar panels for water pumping and drying The content of carbon emission avoided (during the period of 15 years of technology lifetime for water pumping and 25 years of technology lifetime for drying based on the Department of Alternative Energy Development and Efficiency, Ministry of Energy, 2012) = Total Number of solar panel installation for water pumping X amount of gasoline saved per solar panel installation (kg) X Co2 emission factor for gasoline (kg) (litre will be converted to kg)
Technology: Biogas Content of carbon emission avoided (during the period of 10 years of technology lifetime based on the Department of Alternative Energy Development and Efficiency, Ministry of Energy, 2006) = Total Number of biogas installation (and solar panel installation for drying) X amount of LPG saved per one installation (kg) X Co2 emission factor for LPG (kg)
2.3 Waste Management The consultations held in the southern region of Thailand indicate the development and establishment of activities related to good waste management practices i.e. 3Rs (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) with the aim of reducing the amount waste in the four years of programme implementation in the Southern region of Thailand. The estimation of carbon emission factor (tCo2) tailored to Thailand’s context and this specific exercise will be based on Volume 5: Waste, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas inventories. There are three assumptions used for the estimation: (a) the information related to waste composition (i.e. 63% organic waste, 17% plastic waste, 8% paper, etc.) is based on the Municipality Waste Survey by Department of Pollution Control (2004), (b) the type of climate is the moist and wet tropical climate, and (c) Waste normally managed through shallow sanitary landfill. The following methodology will be used for estimating the content of carbon emission avoidance from the 3Rs practices:
The Content of carbon emission (tCo2) avoided (during the period of 3 years of project implementation) = Baseline carbon emission (unmanaged waste) – carbon emission resulting from the 3Rs practices
Where
The baseline carbon emission (tCo2) = Total volume of unmanaged waste X carbon emission factor (tCo2) (estimated based on Volume 5: Waste, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas inventories)
The carbon emission from 3rs managed waste (tCo2) = Volume of managed waste X carbon emission (tCo2) (estimated based on Volume 5: Waste, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas inventories)
Assumptions: (a) the waste composition is based on the Municipality Waste Survey by Department of Pollution Control (2004), (b) the climate is moist and wet tropical, and (c) Shallow sanitary landfill waste management.
Carbon storage indicator
Carbon benefits resulting from good management practices in land use and forestry 2018 2019 2020 2021 TOTAL Ha Baseline # ha/ tCo2 # ha/ tCo2 # ha/ tCo2 # of tCo2e Intervention year Year 2 year Year 3 year Year 4 hectares cumulative (2043) Agroforestry 0 0 4,000 36,710.00 4,000 73,420.00 4,000 110,130.00 12,000 881,040.00 Reforestation 0 0 3,000 27,532.50 3,000 55,065.00 3,000 82,597.50 9,000 660,780.00
144
Natural regeneration 5000* 1,046,235 1,000 17,290.41 2,000 51,871.23 2,000 86,452.05 5,000 1,858,884.27 TOTAL 26,000 3,400,704.27
* Number of hectares of degraded forests where SGP will implement natural regeneration or forest enrichment
Estimation of Carbon Emissions Avoided by Replacing Fossil Fuel with Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Technologies Volume of Energy Saved (kg) per year Content of through Total Content Carbon Lifetime of Type of Applying Emission of Carbon Emission Technology Technology Spec Unit Energy Renewable factor (kg Emission Avoided (Number of Used Energy and Co2e) (2) Avoided (tCo2e) per Years) (3) Energy (tCo2e) year Efficiency Technologies (1) High Household Efficient Model (Ministry 500 Charcol 453 1.0054 227.7231 10 2277.231 Biomass of Energy) Solar Panel Solar Panel 285 for Water watt/unit 10 Gasoline 1049.1 0.7069 7.4160879 15 111.2413185 Pumping Parabolic Dome Solar Panel Model (8×12.4 2 LPG 164250 0.4122 135.4077 25 3385.1925 for Drying metres) (Ministry of Energy) Household Model (Ministry of Biogas 10 LPG 251.85 0.4122 1.0381257 10 10.381257 Energy) 2 cublic metres Total 5784.046076 (1) Esimated by Ministry of Energy based on Previous Small Grant Programme (2) Emission Factors by Type of Industrial Sectors, TGO (2016) (3) The Department of Alternative Energy Development and Efficiency, Ministry of Energy, 2006 and 2012
Estimations of Carbon Emissions Avoided based on Good Waste Management Practices (3Rs: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle)
Households Region Community Residents (Number) Total Waste (Ton per year) (1) (Number)
South 50 250 104.025 (1) Clean Province, Department of Local Admistration (2018) (2) Calculated based on Information from Department of Pollution Control (2018): Average Waste (Person/ day) of 1.14 kg
145
Carbon Emission Content of Carbon Emission Carbon Emission (tCo2e) Managed Waste (3 Rs) (tCo2e) (Managed Emission (tCo2e) Avoided factor (1) (Baseline) (Three years) (2) (Ton/Three years) (3) Waste) (Three years) (three years)
0.55 171.64125 62.415 34.32825 137.313
(1) Calculated based on Volume 5: Waste, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas inventories with following assumptions: (a) Composition of Waste based on Municipality Waste Survey by Department of Pollution Control (2004) and (b) Moist and Wet Tropical Climate (2) Shallow sanitary landfill (3) Based on an estimation of remiaining waste (20%) resulting from 3 Rs management practices by the Department of Pollution Control (2018)
146
Annex K: Project Budget
PIMS No.: 5530 Award ID: ATLAS Project ID: 00107596 Project ID: 5530 Award Title: PIM 5530: PPG Sixth Operational Phase of the GEF Small Grants Programme Thailand Business Unit: THA Project Title: PIM 5530: PPG Sixth Operational Phase of the GEF Small Grants Programme Thailand Implementing Partner (Executing Agency) UNOPS
Atlas Implementing Fund Donor Budgetary Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Budget GEF component / Atlas activity ATLAS Budget Description Total (USD) Agent [1] ID Name Account (USD) (USD) (USD) note Code 77100 Personnel (National Coordinator) $14,840 $14,840 $14,840 $44,520 1 Component/ Outcome 1: Multi- 77200 Personnel (Project Assistant) $15,660 $15,660 $15,660 $46,980 2 stakeholder partnerships in four pilot landscapes and seascapes – 71200 International consultants - $11,875 $11,875 $23,750 3 Mae Lao Watershed; Phetchabun 71300 Local consultants - $10,000 $10,000 $20,000 4 Mountains; Kaeng Krachan Forest Complex; Phang Nga Bay - develop UNOPS 62000 GEF 71600 Travel $2,000 $5,000 $5,000 $12,000 5 and execute adaptive 72600 Grants to Institutions - - - - 6 management plans to enhance Training, workshops & landscape/seascape and 75700 $12,000 $12,000 - $24,000 7 community resilience with global conferences environmental benefits 74200 Audio Visual & Print Prod Costs $1,000 $1,000 - $2,000 8 74500 Miscellaneous Expenses $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $3,000 9 TOTAL COMPONENT 1 46,500 71,375 58,375 176,250
Component/ Outcome 2: 77100 Personnel (National Coordinator) $14,840 $14,840 $14,840 $44,520 1 Community organizations in 77200 Personnel (Project Assistant) $15,660 $15,660 $15,660 $46,980 2 landscape/seascape level networks build their adaptive management 71200 International consultants - $11,875 $11,875 $23,750 3 capacities by implementing UNOPS 62000 GEF 71300 Local consultants - $10,000 $10,000 $20,000 4 community level projects and collaborating in managing 71600 Travel $2,000 $5,000 $5,000 $12,000 5 landscape resources and processes to achieve socio ecological 72600 Grants to Institutions - $500,000 $500,000 $1,000,000 6 production landscape resiliency. 75700 Training, workshops & - $12,000 $12,000 $24,000 7 Interim Offline Template for GEF-7 Core Indicators -- VERSION 04 147
GEF component / Atlas activity Implementing Fund Donor Atlas ATLAS Budget Description Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total (USD) Budget Agent [1] ID Name Budgetary (USD) (USD) (USD) note conferences Account 74200Code Audio Visual & Print Prod Costs - $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 8 74500 Miscellaneous Expenses $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $3,000 9 TOTAL COMPONENT 2 33,500 571,375 571,375 1,176,250 77100 Personnel (National Coordinator) $14,840 $14,840 $14,840 $44,520 1
Component/ Outcome 3: 77200 Personnel (Project Assistant) $15,660 $15,660 $15,660 $46,980 2 Multi-stakeholder landscape and 71200 International consultants - $11,875 $11,875 $23,750 3 seascape management groups, local policy makers and 71300 Local consultants - $10,000 $10,000 $20,000 4 subnational/national advisors UNOPS 62000 GEF 71600 Travel $2,000 $5,000 $5,000 $12,000 5 organized in landscape policy platforms discuss potential policy 72600 Grants to Institutions - - - - 6 innovations based on analysis of Training, workshops & 75700 - $12,000 $12,000 $24,000 7 project experience and lessons conferences learned. 74200 Audio Visual & Print Prod Costs - $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 8 74500 Miscellaneous Expenses $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $3,000 9 TOTAL COMPONENT 3 33,500 71,375 71,375 176,250 77100 Personnel (National Coordinator) $14,840 $14,840 $14,840 $44,520 1 Component/ Outcome 4: Multi- stakeholder partnerships develop 77200 Personnel (Project Assistant) $15,660 $15,660 $15,660 $46,980 2 and implement strategic projects 71200 International consultants - $11,875 $11,875 $23,750 3 to bring adoption of specific successful SGP-supported 71300 Local consultants - $10,000 $10,000 $20,000 4 technologies, practices or systems UNOPS 62000 GEF 71600 Travel $2,000 $5,000 $5,000 $12,000 5 to a tipping point in each landscape through engagement of 72600 Grants to Institutions - $275,000 $275,000 $550,000 6 potential financial partners, policy Training, workshops & 75700 - $12,000 $14,780 $26,780 7 makers and national/subnational conferences advisors and institutions, as well as 74200 Audio Visual & Print Prod Costs - $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 8 the private sector. 74500 Miscellaneous Expenses $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $3,000 9 TOTAL COMPONENT 4 33,500 346,375 349,155 729,030 62000 GEF 77100 Personnel (National Coordinator) $14,000 $14,000 $14,000 $42,000 1 Project management [2] 77200 Personnel (Project Assistant) $14,400 $14,400 $14,400 $43,200 2 73100 Rental & Maintenance Premises $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $30,000 10
Interim Offline Template for GEF-7 Core Indicators -- VERSION 04 148
GEF component / Atlas activity Implementing Fund Donor Atlas ATLAS Budget Description Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total (USD) Budget Agent [1] ID Name Budgetary (USD) (USD) (USD) note Account72500 Office Supplies $3,000 $1,320 $1,320 $5,640 11 Code 74500 Miscellaneous Expenses $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $3,000 9 TOTAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT 42,400 40,720 40,720 123,840 TOTAL PROJECT 189,400 1,101,220 1,091,000 2,381,620
Budget Notes 0 The 6% UNOPS fee and the Centrally Managed Direct Costs (CMDC) are incorporated in each individual budget line. National Coordinator (NC): overall project management, including substantive support to the NSC, resources mobilization, strategic partnerships (government, 1 academia, civil society, donors and the private sector), strategic planning, work planning, financial management, oversight of project staff and consultants, project portfolio performance monitoring, among other duties described in the terms of reference. Programme Assistant (PA): Overall project management support, daily project financial management and budget control, disbursements to grantees, record 2 keeping and financial reporting to UNOPS and UNDP, administration and procurement. International consultants for the Mid-Term Review (MTR), Terminal Evaluation (TE) as well as for audit purpose. Audit managed by UNOPS to be performed once in 3 the lifetime of the project. Senior local Consultant for specialized technical advice (various substantive matters) particularly at project inception. Junior local consultant to support project 4 database maintenance and update on a quarterly basis (including inputs to the global SGP database and the national data management system). Project site visits, monitoring field visits, on-site technical assistance to grantees, among others, for the application of M&E methods. Attendance of experience- 5 exchange workshop and resource mobilization dialogue. Funds for CBOs and NGOs initiatives based on eligibility criteria determined by the project objective, SGP Operational Guidelines and NSC decisions: 6 a) Individual grants to CBOs and NGOs of up to USD 50,000 b) Strategic grants to select NGOs or second level CSOs of up to USD 150,000 Inception workshop, periodic meetings of the National Steering Committee for the review and approval of CBO/NGO grants, training workshops with grantees, 7 meetings for coordination with partners and donors, baseline assessment workshops. Production, layout, translation, printing and dissemination of SGP knowledge products and communication materials, including audio visuals (e.g., factsheets, 8 reports, studies, newspaper articles, short videos, etc.) 9 Miscellaneous expenses and contingency
10 Rental and maintenance of SGP premises, utility costs and communications (including ICT services and telephone billed by UNDP CO)
11 Purchase, rental and maintenance of equipment (replacement of computers, and rental or purchase of audiovisual equipment for workshop and training activities)
Interim Offline Template for GEF-7 Core Indicators -- VERSION 04 149
Annex L: GEF Core Indicators Template
Interim Offline Reporting Template for GEF-7 Core Indicators 13 Aug 2018 / VERSION 04
Contents
Core Indicator 4: Area of landscapes under improved practices (hectares; excluding protected areas) .. 151 Core Indicator 6: Greenhouse gas emissions mitigated (metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent)Error! Bookmark not defined. Core Indicator 11: Number of direct beneficiaries disaggregated by gender as co-benefit of GEF investment………. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Interim Offline Template for GEF-7 Core Indicators -- VERSION 04 150
CORE INDICATOR 4: AREA OF LANDSCAPES UNDER IMPROVED PRACTICES (HECTARES; EXCLUDING PROTECTED AREAS)
Ha (expected at PIF) Ha (expected at CEO Ha (achieved at MTR) Ha (achieved at TE) Endorsement)
Figure at a given stage must be the sum of all figures reported under the four sub-indicators (4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4) for that stage.
4.1 Area of landscapes under improved management to benefit biodiversity (qualitative assessment, noncertified) Ha (expected at Qualitative Ha (expected at Qualitative Ha (achieved at Qualitative Ha (achieved at Qualitative PIF) description at CEO description at CEO MTR) description at TE) description at PIF Endorsement) ER MTR TE n/a n/a 29,500 - Agroecological practices that enhance productivity and sustainability of smallholder agroecosystems; - Reforestation and/or afforestation, that conserve biodiversity and enhance ecosystem services; - Indigenous and community conservation areas (ICCAs) with land use planning and management Add rows as needed.
4.2 Area of landscapes that meet national or international third-party certification and that incorporates biodiversity considerations Ha (expected at Type of Ha (expected at CEO Type of Ha (achieved at Type of Ha (achieved at Type of Certification PIF) Certification at Endorsement) Certification at MTR) Certification at TE) at TE PIF CEO ER MTR
Add rows as needed.
Interim Offline Template for GEF-7 Core Indicators -- VERSION 04 151
4.3 Area of landscapes under sustainable land management in production systems Ha (expected at Description of Ha (expected at Description of Ha (achieved Description of Ha (achieved at Description of PIF) Management CEO Management at MTR) Management TE) Management Practices at Endorsement) Practices at CEO ER Practices at Practices at TE PIF MTR n/a n/a 1,500 -Prevent and mitigate land degradation and restore degraded soils; - Improve soil-water storage; - Manage soil organic matter for soil carbon sequestration; - Promote integrated soil–crop–water management and integrated agroforestry Add rows as needed.
4.4 Area of High Conservation Value forest loss avoided Total Ha (expected at PIF) Total Ha (expected at Total Ha (achieved at MTR) Total Ha (achieved at TE) CEO Endorsement)
Figure at a given stage must be the sum of all individual PAs reported in the next table, for that stage. Prepare and upload file that justifies the HCVF.
Name of HCVF Ha (expected at Counterfactual at Ha (expected at Counterfactual at Ha (achieved at Ha (achieved at TE) PIF) PIF CEO Endorsement) CEO ER MTR)
Add rows as needed.
Interim Offline Template for GEF-7 Core Indicators -- VERSION 04 152
CORE INDICATOR 6: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS MITIGATED (METRIC TONS OF CARBON DIOXIDE EQUIVALENT)
GHG emission type Metic tons CO2-eq Metic tons CO2-eq Metic tons CO2-eq Metic tons CO2-eq (expected at PIF) (expected at CEO ER) (expected at MTR) (expected at TE) Lifetime direct project GHG emissions mitigated Lifetime direct post-project emissions mitigated Lifetime indirect GHG emissions mitigated Figure at a given stage must be the sum of all figures reported under the first two sub-indicators (6.1 and 6.2) for that stage.
6.1 Carbon sequestered or emissions avoided in the sector of Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use GHG emission type Ha Metric tons Ha (expected at Metric tons Ha Metric tons Ha Metric tons (expected CO2-eq CEO ER) CO2-eq (expected CO2-eq (expected CO2-eq at PIF) (baseline at PIF) (baseline at at MTR) (above at TE) (above CEO ER) baseline at baseline at MTR) TE) Lifetime direct project GHG NA NA 26,000 3,400,704.27 NA NA NA NA emissions mitigated
Lifetime direct post-project NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA emissions mitigated Lifetime indirect GHG emissions NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA mitigated Anticipated year NA NA 2018 2018 NA NA NA NA
6.2 Emissions avoided
GHG emission type Metic tons CO2-eq Metic tons CO2-eq Metic tons CO2-eq Metic tons CO2-eq (baseline at PIF) (baseline at CEO (above baseline at (above baseline at ER) MTR) TE) Lifetime direct project GHG emissions mitigated Lifetime direct post-project emissions mitigated Lifetime indirect GHG emissions mitigated Anticipated year
Interim Offline Template for GEF-7 Core Indicators -- VERSION 04 153
6.3 Energy saved (megajoules) Type of Intervention MJ (expected at PIF) MJ (expected at CEO MJ (achieved at MTR) MJ (achieved at TE) Endorsement)
Add rows as needed.
6.4 Increase in installed renewable energy capacity per technology (megawatts). Type of Renewable MW (entered at PIF) MW (entered at CEO MW (entered at MTR) MW (entered at TE) Energy Endorsement) [biomass, geothermal, ocean, small hydro, solar photovoltaic, solar thermal, wind power, and storage] Add rows as needed.
CORE INDICATOR 11: NUMBER OF DIRECT BENEFICIARIES DISAGGREGATED BY GENDER AS CO-BENEFIT OF GEF INVESTMENT
Total number (expected at PIF) Total number (expected at CEO Total number Total number Endorsement) (achieved at MTR) (achieved at TE) Women n/a 4,320 Men n/a 5,280 Total n/a 9,600
Interim Offline Template for GEF-7 Core Indicators -- VERSION 04 154
Annex M: Standard Basic Assistance Agreement (SBAA) [attached]
Interim Offline Template for GEF-7 Core Indicators -- VERSION 04 155