request for CEO ENDORSEMENT

REQUEST FOR CEO ENDORSEMENT

P ROJECT T YPE : Full-sized Project

T YPE OF T RUST F UND :GEF Trust Fund

PART I: PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Title: Strengthening capacity and incentives for wildlife conservation in the Western Forest Complex

Country: Thailand GEF Project ID: 4677

GEF Agency:

Other Executing Partner:

GEF Focal Area:

Name of Parent Program (if applicable):

For SFM/REDD+

UNDP

Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation (DNP), Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment

(MNRE)

Multi-focal Areas

GMS Forest and Biodiversity Program

GEF Agency Project ID:

Submission Date:

Project Duration(Months)

Agency Fee ($):

5436

16 September

2014

60 months

660,550

A.

F

OCAL

A

REA

S

TRATEGY FRAMEWORK

Focal Area

Objectives

BD-1: Improve sustainability of protected area systems

CCM-5: Promote

Conservation and

Enhancement of

Carbon Stocks through Sustainable

Management of Land

Use, Land Use

Change and Forestry

SFM/REDD-2

Expected FA Outcomes

Outcome 1.1: Improved management effectiveness of existing and new protected areas

Outcome 1.2: Increased revenue for protected area systems to meet total expenditures required for management

Outcome 5.1: Good management practices in

LULUCF adopted both within the forest land and in the wider landscape

Outcome 5.2: Restoration and enhancement of carbon stocks in forests and nonforest lands, including peatland

Outcome 5.3: GHG emissions avoided and carbon sequestered

Outcome 1.2: Good management practices applied in existing forests

Outcome 2.1: Enhanced institutional capacity to account for GHG emission reduction and increase in carbon stocks

Outcome 2.2: New revenue for SFM created through engaging in the carbon

Expected FA Outputs

Output 1 New protected areas and coverage of unprotected ecosystems .

Output 2: New protected areas and coverage of unprotected threatened species and endemic species.

Output 3: Sustainable financing plans

Output 1: Carbon stock monitoring systems established

Output 2: Forests and nonforest lands under good management practices

Output 1.2: Forest area under sustainable management, separated by forest type

Output 2.2: National forest carbon monitoring systems in place

Output 2.3: Innovative financing mechanisms established.

Trust

Fund

Grant

Amount

($)

GEF TF 3,494,976

GEF TF 1,747,488

GEF TF 1,747,488

Co-financing

($)

14,941,968

4,128,000

3,697,059

Thailand: Strengthening capacity and incentives for wildlife conservation in the WEFCOM Page 1

market

Sub-Total 6,989,952

Project Management Cost 349,498

Total project costs 7,339,450

22,767,027

1,467,400

24,234,427

B.

P ROJECT F RAMEWORK

Project Objective: To improve management effectiveness and sustainable financing for HKK-TY WHS and incentivise local community stewardship .

Project

Component

Component 1

Strengthening on-ground conservation and wildlife protection

Component 2

Promoting

Grant

Type

TA

TA

Expected Outcomes

The effectiveness of the management of the three wildlife sanctuaries is improved, resulting in a reduction of the direct threats to forest habitats, tigers and tiger prey.

- By EOP the METT scores increased: HKK 67 to 71%; TYE 75 to 77% & TYW 60 to 68%.

- Area of WHS covered by patrols increased from 60 to > 90% and number of poachers encountered per annum on patrol reduced from:

HKK 84 to 76; TYE 72 to 65 &

TYW 96 to 86.

- Incidences of wildfire encroachment onto the WHS reduced from baseline (which is to be established through the project).

- Biological monitoring coverage increased from: HKK 60 to > 70%;

TYE 30 to > 40% & TYW.

- The number of tigers/100 km 2 increased from: HKK 2.3 to 2.7;

TYE 0.7 to 0.9 & TYW 1.3 to 1.5.

- Tiger prey density increased from

(number/km 2 ): HKK 6.5 to 8; TYE

9 to 11 & TYW 13 to 17.

- The number of captive and wild tigers which have a DNA record increases from: Captive 0 to 1250 &

Wild 0 to 500.

- Feasibility of establishing a

Regional Tiger Training Centre for

13 tiger range states established.

- The death and disability insurance of rangers improved through increased coverage of group insurance scheme: 36% to 100% of temporary rangers.

- Number of staff trained: Refresher

0 to 470; Train-the-Trainer 0 to 40.

Linkages between livelihood development activities in the

Expected Outputs

Trust

Fund

Grant

Amount

($)

Confirmed

Co-financing

($) i) Wildlife and Habitat

Protection through : increased ground coverage of the current SMART patrolling system; a developed and implemented

Integrated Fire Management

Plan for the WHS; and established capacity for

DNP to build and maintain a registry of DNA information for both wild and captive tigers. ii) Resource monitoring and information management through : improved monitoring and information management capacity in the

Khao Nang Ram Wildlife

Research Station as well as the sub-stations in TYE and

TYW; expanded tiger and prey transect and occupancy monitoring; and established

GIS information management system for

HKK-TY WHS. iii) Training and capacity development through : a sustained training and skills development program implemented for staff and community partners; a knowledge sharing platform across 13 tiger range states established; and feasibility assessment of establishing a

‘Regional Tiger

Conservation and Training

Centre (RTCTC) i) Community livelihood assistance in the 14 enclave

GEF TF 4,644,400 16,811,000

GEF TF 1,498,502 3,856,027

Page 2 Thailand: Strengthening capacity and incentives for wildlife conservation in the WEFCOM

incentives and sustainable financing for wildlife conservation and forest

Protection

Component 3

Improved local education, awareness and participation

TA enclave and buffer zone villages and specific conservation outcomes are improved, and incentivise the adoption of more sustainable land use practices.

- Conservation agreements signed between the DNP and the representative leadership of enclave villages in TYW (0 to >7) and TYE

(0 to >7) as well as in the HKK buffer zone (0 to > 14).

- The area registered as community forest in the HKK buffer zone increases from 1029ha to 1338ha.

- The number of people living in the enclave villages who are direct recipients of project grant funding support increases from 0 to 175 ((of which 60% are female)).

- Direct project beneficiaries living in buffer zone villages who are direct recipients of project grant funding support increases from 0 to

300 (of which 60% are female).

- Financial management of the WHS is put on a more sustainable trajectory through the analysis of the nature-based tourism potential and the development of a medium-term financial plan.

- Demonstration carbon sequestration projects aligned with overarching national R-PP implementation process, project idea notes (PINs) prepared and third party validation conducted.

- Avoided forest degradation in the

WHS, enclave villages and HKK buffer zone (0 to 985 ha; or 249,969 tonnes of CO

2

or CO

2 eq.).

- Annual deforestation rate reduced from 0.76% to 0.62% in the WHS, enclave villages and HKK buffer areas

An improved level of awareness of the need to and the importance of, protecting the forest ecosystems and wildlife leads to more constructive involvement of buffer communities in their conservation .

- Core team of community liaison/outreach staff established and implementing an education and outreach programme across the

WHS.

- Number of WS community liaison and outreach staff working in targeted enclave and buffer zone villages and selected villages in the HKK buffer zone through : negotiated conservation agreements; technical and financial assistance being facilitated for agreed livelihood development opportunities in the enclave villages; and technical and financial assistance being facilitated for community based forestry initiatives in the

HKK buffer zone villages. ii) Nature based tourism developments advanced through : the development of a medium-term financial plan for the WHS; the undertaking of a tourism and recreation feasibility assessment for the WHS; and the development of a detailed concept and business plan for the proposed Thap Salao ecotourism project. iii) REDD+ and Wildlife

Premium Mechanism advanced through : the support and development of demonstration carbon sequestration projects in the

HKK-TY WHS and its buffer areas – as part of this development process the feasibility of adopting an explicit performance-based

Wildlife Premium

Mechanism will be assessed. i) Community education and outreach through : an established core team of community education and outreach officers in TYE and TYW; and a developed and implemented education and outreach program for the whole WHS and buffer areas. ii) Participatory management of the WHS through : ensuring that

GEF TF 847,050 2,100,000


villages (<21 to 29).

- Number of schools using WHSbased education and information materials (0 to 20).

- Number of educational and informational roadshows presented per annum using the mobile education units (0 to 144).

- Protected area committees of the three wildlife sanctuaries strengthened and meaningfully participating in the reserve management planning and decisionmaking processes.

- Number of PACs with full representation and involvement of villagers from enclave villages and

HKK buffer zone villages (0 to 3).

Subtotal

Project management Cost (PMC)

Total project costs village communities are effectively and appropriately integrated into decision-making for the enclave and HKK buffer zone villages and can enforce the conservation agreements

GEF TF

6,989,952 22,767,027

349,498 1,467,400

7,339,450 24,234,427

C.

SOURCES OF CONFIRMED C O

-

FINANCING FOR THE PROJECT BY SOURCE AND BY NAME ($)

Sources of Co-financing

National Government

CSO

CSO

GEF Agency

Total co-financing

Name of Co-financier (source)

Government of Thailand

Wildlife Conservation Society

Seub Nakasathien Foundation

UNDP

Type of

Cofinancing

In-kind

Grant

Grant

Grant

D.

TRUST FUND R ESOURCES R EQUESTED BY AGENCY , F OCAL A REA AND COUNTRY

GEF Agency

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

Type of

Trust Fund

GEF TF

GEF TF

GEF TF

Total Grant Resources

Focal Area

Country Name/

Global

Biodiversity Thailand

Climate Change Thailand

Multi-focal Areas Thailand

Grant

Amount (a)

3,669,725

1,834,862

1,834,863

7,339,450

(in $)

Agency Fee

(b) 2

330,275

165,138

165,137

660,550

F.

C ONSULTANTS WORKING FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMPONENTS :

Cofinancing

Amount ($)

22,864,427

500,000

370,000

500,000

24,234,427

Total c=a+b

4,000,000

2,000,000

2,000,000

8,000,000


Component

International Consultants

National/Local Consultants

Grant Amount

($)

135,000

121,000

Cofinancing

($)

450,000

410,000

G.

D OES THE PROJECT INCLUDE A

“

NON GRANT

”

INSTRUMENT ?

No

Project Total

($)

585,000

531,000

(If non-grant instruments are used, provide in Annex D an indicative calendar of expected reflows to your Agency

and to the GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF Trust Fund).

PART II: PROJECT JUSTIFICATION

A. DESCRIBE ANY CHANGES IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE PROJECT DESIGN OF THE ORIGINAL PIF

A.1 National strategies and plans or reports and assessments under relevant conventions, if applicable, i.e. NAPAS,

NAPs, NBSAPs, national communications, TNAs, NCSA, NIPs, PRSPs, NPFE, Biennial Update Reports, etc.:

N/A (no changes)

A.2. GEF focal area and/or fund(s) strategies, eligibility criteria and priorities:

SECTION I, PART II Project Rationale and Conformity (‘Fit with GEF Focal Area Strategy and Programme’) of the

UNDP PRODOC describes the consistency of the project with three GEF focal areas (BD, CC and SFM/REDD), and quantifies the project’s contribution to the relevant outcome/output indicators for each Focal Area Strategy.

The minor changes in alignment of project activities with the GEF focal areas, as originally identified in the PIF, are briefly described below:

BD (Outcome 1.2) and SFM/REDD+ (Outcome 2.2)

With the considerable delays experienced in the national preparedness for implementing REDD+ in Thailand; the low carbon prices; the unsettled carbon markets under the REDD scheme; complications of REDD methodologies; and high carbon transaction costs, it was considered that the pilot REDD+ WPM pilot in the Huai Kha Khaeng-Thung Yai

World Heritage Site (HKK-TY WHS) may not actually reach the point of being able to start generating ring-fenced income from carbon trading during the project’s lifetime, as was initially anticipated in the PIF.

GEF funds will however still be used, as originally envisaged in the PIF, to support the development of demonstration carbon sequestration projects in the HKK-TY WHS and its buffer areas. As part of this development process, the feasibility of adopting an explicit performance-based Wildlife Premium Mechanism (WPM) will also continue to be assessed, in accordance with the PIF. However GEF support has been now refocused on supporting the development of project concepts and design documents in three potential target areas 1 , and to only initiate the process of bringing forest carbon credits to market, but not to create new revenues for subsidizing the management of the WHS during the project timeframe.

BD (Outcome 1.2)

While the PIF envisaged the development of wildlife-based ecotourism products and services as a viable mechanism for increasing revenues for the WHS and surrounding communities, work during the preparatory phase suggested that the regulatory environment (i.e. wildlife sanctuaries are not open to the general public), inadequate infrastructural services (e.g. accommodation, roads, bulk services), weak land tenure security, limited tourism destinations and attractions and low tourism traffic to the area constitute significant barriers to nature- and/or cultural-based tourism enterprise development in the area.

1 The potential target areas are: (i) the buffer zone (up to 15km) to the east of HKK WS, covering an area of 1,817 km 2 ; (ii) the whole WHS (i.e.

HKK, TYE, TYW) covering an area of 6,427 km 2 ; and (iii) a decommissioned mine site northwest of TYW, covering an area of about 100 km 2 .


While a couple of companies do have some very low volume specialist tours, the Thai Ecotourism and Adventure

Association (TEAA) have advised that eco-tourism is currently not considered a commercially viable standalone business venture for the region. In response, the project has now focused GEF investments on directly supporting only one collaborative joint venture (between the Wildlife Sanctuaries, Uthai Thani Provincial Conservation Foundation,

HKK Breeding Centre, HKK Extension and Development for Conservation Centre and the Ban Bung Charoen village)

– the

Thap Salao Ecotourism Project - rather than the 3-4 originally envisaged in the PIF. The strategic focus for this ecotourism project has shifted from generating income to testing the feasibility of establishing joint tourism-ventures with local communities as a way of diversifying livelihoods, improving relationships between the Wildlife Sanctuaries and surrounding villages and creating economic incentives to reduce the extent and intensity of poaching and deforestation activities. The project will however use GEF resources to capture the lessons learnt from the Thap Salao

Ecototourism Project and use these to develop a long-term integrated tourism and recreational strategy and plan for the WHS and surrounds. Further, the project will also use GEF resources to assist in the preparation of a Sustainable

Financing Plan (see Output 1.3 under Outcome 1.2 of the BD-1) that evaluates the feasibility of a range of different funding mechanisms/tools, and identifies a set of key actions that will be required to mobilize financial resources for and build financial capacity in the WHS.

CC and SFM:

Under Objective 5 of the GEF’s Climate Change (CC) Focal Area Strategy Outcome 5.2 and 5.3 was added to table

A. The project will contribute incrementally to the following outcomes under Objective 5: (i) Good management practices in LULUCF adopted both within the forest land and in the wider landscape (Indicator increment due to project – from zero to at least 28 villages in the enclave and buffer villages adopt Conservation agreements); and (ii)

Restoration and enhancement of carbon stocks in forests and non-forest lands, including peatland ( Indicator increment due to project – from 1029 ha to 1,338 ha of natural forest habitat restored in the WHS buffer area .

Under Objective 1 of the GEFs Sustainable Forest Management (SFM)/ REDD-PLUS Focal Area Strategy, ‘ Reduce pressures on forest resources and generate sustainable flows of forest ecosystem services’ , Outcome 1.2 was added.

The project will contribute incrementally to the following outcome under Objective 1: Outcome 1.2 Reduce pressures on forest resources and generate sustainable flows of forest ecosystem services (Avoided deforestation and forest degradation – Indicator increment due to project – from zero to 985 ha or 249,969 tonnes of CO

2

or CO

2 eq) .

The project is otherwise fully aligned with the GEF focal area strategies and priorities, as described in the PIF.

A.3 The GEF Agency’s comparative advantage:

The project was originally proposed by the World Bank. By agreement between the World Bank, the GEFSEC and

UNDP the project has subsequently been transferred to the UNDP.

UNDP has a major biodiversity and ecosystem programme, and protected areas are one of UNDP’s signature programmes. UNDP manages a large portfolio of protected area projects globally, and across south-east Asia, that are designed to strengthen the management effectiveness and financial sustainability of protected area systems.

This project builds on UNDP’s global work on tiger conservation in a number of Tiger Range Countries, including

Malaysia, Indonesia, India and Myanmar.

The project will contribute to building on the strong partnership UNDP already has with the Royal Government of

Thailand and the Thai civil society in their efforts to promote conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in the country.

This project will benefit from, as well as contribute to, UNDP’s current environmental work in Thailand. UNDP has been supporting a range of projects to build national and local capacities in environmental management and climate change mitigation and adaptation.


The interventions proposed under this project are in line with the current United Nations Partnership Frameworks of

Thailand (UNPF, 2012–2016) which aims to enhance national development processes towards environmental sustainability.

UNDP has a network of Regional Technical Advisors, with extensive experience in conservation and management, which will be made available to this project. At the country level, the UNDP Thailand country office has sufficient and competent staff that can effectively provide supervision to the project staff recruited to implement the project.

A.4.The baseline project and the problem that it seeks to address:

The target area for project interventions site has been spatially refined during project preparation. The core project site for project support is the Huai Kha Khaeng-Thung Yai Naresuan World Heritage Site (HKK-TY WHS), comprising the Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary (HKK) and two adjoining Wildlife Sanctuaries - Thung Yai Naresuan East

(TYE) and Thung Yai Naresuan West (TYW). The fourteen formally recognised enclave villages located within the

TYW (7 villages) and TYE (7 villages) and the twenty nine villages in a defined 5km buffer zone to the east of HKK, have been identified as the target areas for complementary project interventions (SECTION I, PART I.

Situation

Analysis (‘Context and global significance’) of the UNDP PRODOC provides a map of the core project site, the enclave villages and the 5km buffer zone east of HKK).

The situation analysis (i.e. ‘the baseline project and the problem it seeks to address’) has been considerably improved.

The following is a brief summary of SECTION I, PART I Situation Analysis of the UNDP PRODOC:

SECTION I, PART 1 Situation Analysis (‘Context and global significance’) of the UNDP PRODOC describes in more detail; the global biodiversity significance of Thailand; the biodiversity significance and social context of the project site; the current state of tiger conservation in Thailand; the institutional context for the project; and the policy and legislative context for the project.

SECTION I, PART I Situation Analysis (‘Threats, Root Causes and Impacts’) of the UNDP PRODOC provides a more detailed description of the threats, the root causes of these threats and the impacts of these threats, on the forest ecosystems, habitats and species in the HKK-TY WHS. The threats and their impacts are presented under three broad groupings: i) habitat degradation and fragmentation; ii) poaching of tiger prey species; and iii) poaching of tigers.

SECTION I, PART I Situation Analysis (‘Long-term solution and barriers to the solution’) of the UNDP PRODOC

The main barriers to achieving this solution are: (i) Inadequate operational capacity and resources to effectively manage the wildlife sanctuaries; (ii) Limited progress in linking livelihood development activities in the enclave and buffer villages with improved conservation outcomes in the HKK-TY WHS; and (iii) Low awareness levels of the importance of, and the need to conserve, the forest habitats and associated wildlife in and around the HKK-TY WHS.

A more detailed description of each barrier, with relevant examples, is further elaborated in this section.

SECTION I, PART I Situation Analysis (‘Baseline Analysis’) of the UNDP PRODOC provides more details of the resources, capacity and financing that have already been committed by a range of national and international organisations – over the five year time frame of the project - to address, in part, the key barriers to the effective management of the HKK-TY WHS, and to improving the conservation stewardship role of local communities.

A. 5.

Incremental / Additional cost reasoning : describe the incremental (GEF Trust Fund/NPIF) or additional

(LDCF/SCCF) activities requested for GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF financing and the associated global environmental benefits (GEF Trust Fund) or associated adaptation benefits (LDCF/SCCF) to be delivered by the project:

The long-term solution for one of Thailand’s most important biodiversity areas, the Huai Kha Khaeng-Thung Yai

World Heritage Site (HKK-TY WHS) - comprising three contiguous wildlife sanctuaries: Thung Yai West (TYW);


Thung Yai East (TYE); and Huai Kha Khaeng (HKK) - is one where: (i) legally secure and effectively demarcated

Wildlife Sanctuaries are configured to ensure that populations of forest habitats and forest species can persist in the wild; (ii) a mandated and fully accountable management institution is responsible for the efficient and cost-effective management of these Wildlife Sanctuaries; (iii) individual Wildlife Sanctuaries are sufficiently staffed, adequately resourced and sustainably funded to achieve their defined management objectives; and (iv) communities living in villages located in and around the Wildlife Sanctuaries live in harmony with, and sustainably utilise, the unique natural resources of the area. Through this project, the area of work undertaken in the ‘business-as-usual’ scenario with largely national / local benefits will as a result of the GEF investment have substantial global benefits, including increased numbers of globally endangered and charismatic species namely tiger.

Without the GEF investment , the ‘business-as-usual’ scenario for the HKK-TY WHS in the next few years is one where: (i) the coverage and intensity of ranger patrols in HKK, TYE and TYW remains constrained by the availability of suitably trained and properly equipped trained ranger staff, with the concomitant increase in poaching incidents in poorly patrolled areas; (ii) the coverage of the monitoring efforts is unevenly distributed, leading to a spatial bias of information on tigers and tiger prey; (iii) the success of prosecutions relating to illegal trade in tigers is limited due to the lack of wildlife forensic science capabilities; (iv) fire-fighting capacity and skills are utilitarian, leading to reactive fire management responses; (v) limited incentives to encourage the adoption of more biodiversity-friendly land and natural resource use practices in the enclave and buffer zone villages result in continued forest degradation and deforestation; (vi) weak cooperative governance, limited benefit-sharing and a conservation approach dominated by enforcement, results in continued low levels of collaboration by local communities in improving the protection of forests and wildlife; (vii) a high dependency on state budget allocations for the management of the wildlife sanctuaries, leading to limited budget for capital investments and innovations in management; (viii) sporadic and uncoordinated education, awareness and outreach programmes in the enclave and buffer zone villages remain focused on schools, leading to continued low environmental awareness levels in the adult village populations.

Alternative scenario enabled by the GEF : The incremental GEF funding will support the implementation of a suite of complementary activities to contain and reverse the current extent of forest degradation and fragmentation, and reduce the intensity of poaching threats to tigers and other key faunal species, in the HKK-TY WHS. GEF resources will be used to strengthen the management, and improve the financial sustainability, of the HKK-TY WHS. GEF funding will support the development and implementation of mechanisms to incentivise surrounding communities living in and around the HKK-TY to better protect the biodiversity of the World Heritage Site and to adopt more sustainable land use and forestry management practises in the adjacent buffer areas. Finally, GEF financing will be used to implement measures to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the HKK-TY WHS and its buffer areas by reducing the burning of forests and enhancing the protection of forests in order to increase levels of carbon storage. Collectively the

GEF investment in the project will result in best practice management of critical wildlife and their habitats, including

Indochinese Tiger and prey, at this key tiger source site of south-east Asia.

The project has been organised into three components , and will be implemented over a period of five years. The first component of the project is directed towards strengthening and scaling up existing best-practice management activities, and developing and testing innovative approaches to enforcement and compliance, in the HKK-TYN WHS.

It will strive to reduce the direct threats to tigers and their prey, improve effectiveness of wildlife sanctuary management, and enhance the use of data and information to support key management decision-making. The second component of the project is focused on linking sustainable livelihood development in the enclave and buffer zone villages with specific conservation outcomes, and improving economic links between the buffer zone and enclave villages and the Wildlife Sanctuaries. It will seek to achieve these linkages by promoting incentives (including technical support and grant funding for sustainable livelihood initiatives, ecotourism development and piloting a

REDD+ Wildlife Premium carbon project) for community-based sustainable forest management, environmentallyfriendly agricultural practices, nature-based tourism and education and improved wildlife and habitat protection.The third component of the project is directed towards raising the awareness in communities living in and around the WHS of the need to conserve, and the importance of protecting, the forest landscapes and associated wildlife. With the iterative recognition in these communities of the intrinsic value of the forest habitats and wildlife, work under this component will assist in strengthening the representation of the buffer and enclave communities in each of the

Wildlife Sanctuary’s Protected Area Committees (PACs). With improved community-based representation on the


PAC, the project will assist in building the capacity (information, knowledge, skills) of each of the community representatives to assure a constructive and meaningful contribution to the co-management of the three Wildlife

Sanctuaries.

SECTION I, PART II Strategy (Project Goal, Objective, Outcomes and Outputs/Activities) of the UNDP PRODOC more fully details the full suite of project outcomes, outputs and activities.

The table below summarises the changes made, and the rationale for these changes, to the components and outputs in the PIF.

GEF CEO ER

No change

Rationale

Components

PIF

1. Strengthening on-ground conservation actions and wildlife protection

2. Developing and promoting incentives and sustainable financing for wildlife conservation and forest protection

3. Capacity building and knowledge sharing

2. Promoting incentives and sustainable financing for wildlife conservation and forest protection

3. Improved local education, awareness and participation

Simplification of component description.

1.1 Best practice management and enforcement

1.1 Wildlife and habitat protection

No change

Refining component description to better reflect outputs and activities.

Simplification of output description, and remove term

‘enforcement’ at request of stakeholders.

1.2 Resource monitoring and data collection

1.3 Institutional and technical capacity strengthening

1.3 Training and capacity development

Outputs

2.1 Establish wildlife-based ecotourism with direct links to community incentives for wildlife conservation

2.2 Prepare for REDD+ implementation in a wildlife reserve

2.2 Nature-based tourism development

2.3 REDD+ and Wildlife

Premium

2.1 Community livelihood assistance

Remove term ‘institutional’, as all activities are focused on wildlife sanctuaries, not at institutional level

Simplification of output description. As mentioned above, the explicit reference to

‘community-incentives’ for wildlife conservation remains to be tested.

Simplification of output description.

3.1 Information and awareness-raising

3.1 Community education and outreach

Although described in the PIF

Project Framework, there was no clear Output defined for the umbrella of livelihood assistance activities being proposed. During project preparation, stakeholders identified this as a strategically important output, hence its inclusion.

The PIF envisaged a broader information and awarenessraising programme. To ensure optimal return on investment, it was decided to contain information and awarenessraising activities to the footprint


Co-financing Forest Carbon Partnership

Facility – US$ 3,600,000 grant

Government of Thailand –

US$ 24,273,100 in-kind

Seub Nakasathien Foundation

– US$ 1,000,000 grant

UNDP – No co-financing of the targeted villages. Hence the reformulation of the output.

3.2 Participatory management During project preparation, the potential role of the Protected

Area Committees (PACs) in representing the ongoing interests in and facilitating the involvement of local communities was considered an important feature in ensuring the long-term sustainability of project activities. There was however a need to strengthen the functioning of, and improve the representation of villages in, these PACs. Hence the addition of this output.

DNP decided not to pursue this co-financing for the project, as they would like to keep the two efforts separate until the national policy framework on

REDD+ has a clearer direction and has gone through a public

No co-financing

Government of Thailand –

US$ 22,864,427 in-kind

Seub Nakasathien Foundation

– US$ 370,000 grant

UNDP – US$ 500,000 grant participation process.

The co-financing amount is reduced due to the change in management in the Wildlife

Division (the Director General changed in early 2014) and different policy emphasis, resulting in the reduction of budget allocation to the overall

Wildlife Division

SNF did not receive the funding for the key private sector and other donors, which was expected at the time they made the co-financing commitment.

In order to offset the loss in cofinancing from SNF and the

Government of Thailand,

UNDP undertook when the project was handed over to them to provide US$ 500,000 as grant co-financing.

The Project Strategic Results Framework is appended in ANNEX A of the GEF CEO ER.

Global Environmental Benefits : By implementing the above-mentioned components, the GEF investment will significantly contribute to the protection of 6,427 km 2 of forests (Montane Evergreen forests - 964km 2 ; Seasonal/ Dry

Evergreen forests - 1,928km 2 ; Mixed Deciduous forest – 2,892 km 2 ; Dry Dipterocarp forest – 64km 2 ; Gallery

Evergreen forests and Savanna forest – 579 km 2 ) and grassland (257 km 2 ). The project will result in an improvement in the conservation security of, and a reduction of threats to, a faunal mix of species with Indo-Chinese, Indo-Burmese


and Sino-Himalayan affinities. This includes: approximately half of Thailand’s tiger population; three National

Reserved Wildlife Species (the wild water buffalo, the mainland serow and the hog deer); the Asiatic wild dog; leopard; clouded leopard; Asian elephant, estimated to number just 150-200 animals; Asian tapir and Fea’s muntjac.

The occupancy rate of Tigers and select tiger-prey species will increase, on average, by more than 10% over the life of the project. The project will deliver an average decrease of 4% in the annual deforestation rate and an estimated avoided forest and forest degradation of 985 ha and 249,969 tonnes of CO

2 eq.in the WHS, enclave villages and HKK buffer areas.

A.6 Risks, including climate change, potential social and environmental risks that might prevent the project objectives from being achieved and measures that address these risks:

Project risks and risk mitigation measures have been significantly updated. The revised risks and risk mitigation measures are described in the table below:

I DENTIFIED R ISKS AND

C ATEGORY

I MPACT L IKELIHOOD

R ISK

A SSESSMENT

M ITIGATION M EASURES

ENVIRONMENTAL

Not all of the local forestdependent communities

(i.e. the 14 enclave villages inside TYE and

TYW, and the 29 buffer zone villages east of the

HKK boundary) will voluntarily cooperate with the conservation authorities in addressing the threats of deforestation

(from shifting cultivation and monoculture) and poaching in the HKK-TY

WHS.

INSTITUTIONAL

The Department of

HIGH

MODERATE

MODERATELY

LIKELY

MODERATELY

LIKELY

A proactive communication plan and incentives to address the illegal wildlife trade and enhance conservation, including impacts from deforestation, will be developed and adjusted proactively. In addition, local communities and indigenous people (i.e. the Karen villages) have participated in project design and will continue to participate during project implementation through the consultation process. A livelihood development program, an incentives tool and a mechanism for wildlife conservation and reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation will be designed in close consultation with the indigenous people (IP) and local communities to get their buy-in and participation.

Additionally, it is expected that the livelihood assistance provided through the project will assist to get community interest and buy-in to conservation.

Maps with clear allowable forest utilization zones have already been developed for most of the enclave villages in

TYE and TYW, and will continue to be finalised for any outstanding enclave villages. These maps will then be used to then negotiate conservation agreements (CA) with each village to define the approved livelihood activities for each land use category in each village. These agreements will then be jointly enforced by DNP and the village leadership.

The project will actively promote and support the development of community forestry and nature-based tourism enterprise development in the HKK buffer villages in order to protect the remaining NFR forests in the buffer zone.

A peer-to-peer educational process to inform and educate local communities about the impacts of their current agricultural practices and inform about alternative conservation-friendly livelihoods has been proven successful elsewhere in the country and will also be adopted for this project.

Further, awareness raising activities in local communities aims to raise community interest in conservation. Work with schools will change the current education curriculum to integrate local/IP wisdom and knowledge with regards to agricultural practice and forest and wildlife conservation.

Even where illegal poaching and deforestation activities are still occurring, albeit at a lesser intensity, the project is supporting the scaling up of the SMART ranger patrol system to significantly improve the monitoring and enforcement capability of the wildlife sanctuaries.

A National Project Board with representatives from relevant ministries will be established to support, supervise and



C ATEGORY

National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation

(DNP) is unable to solicit the support, and coordinate the efforts, of other organs of state (at national, provincial and local government levels) in the implementation of project activities in the

HKK-TY WHS buffer areas due its limited mandate in the enclave and buffer zone areas.

FINANCIAL

Income-generating mechanisms supported by the project (carbon project and community-based tourism enterprise) do not generate sufficient revenues for reinvestment back into the conservation of the WHS.

ENVIRONMENTAL

The effects of climate change further exacerbate the fragmentation of forest ecosystems in the HKK-

TY WHS and surrounding buffer areas, leading to an increase in the vulnerability of rare and threatened forest species

I MPACT

LOW

LOW

L IKELIHOOD

HIGHLY

LIKELY

UNLIKELY

R ISK

A SSESSMENT

M ITIGATION M EASURES monitor the overall implementation of the project.

The project will also facilitate the establishment and maintenance of coordination mechanisms among the different responsible authorities (including the RTP, RFD,

ALRO, PAOs, TAOs and MTS) and NGOs/CBOs at the national, provincial and district levels, and promote the institutionalization – if required - of such coordination.

The DNP shall appoint a National Project Director (NPD) to oversee the project planning and implementation This NPD will establish a working group –comprising representatives from relevant agencies - for each of the three components

(notably for components 2 and 3) as a cooperative mechanism to facilitate inter-agency coordination and cooperation in the planning and implementation of project activities.

Accountability relationships between agencies will be clearly defined.

The proactive disclosure of important information on project activities and agency performance during project implementation, and the promotion of a communication strategy to improve transparency and demand for good governance, will be encouraged.

The RTG recognises that the HKK-TY WHS has limited opportunities for generating income - from large-scale nature-based tourism enterprises (due to the legal constraints of the Wildlife Sanctuary protected areas designation).

The strategic logic for the projects focus on communitybased tourism is rather to incentivise communities living in the buffer areas to develop business opportunities that can complement, and link directly to, the core conservation objectives of the WHS (this strategic logic also underpins the focus on supporting community forestry activities in the buffer area).

More extensive feasibility work is required to assess whether forest carbon financing projects in Thailand are technically feasible and financially sustainable. This project aims to use the HKK-TY WHS and its buffer areas to test this feasibility. While it remains unclear whether carbon projects in Wildlife Sanctuaries are actually financially viable, if they are the HKK-TY WHS (and perhaps the entire area of

WEFCOM) would be well placed to immediately initiate and implement a carbon project (linked to a WPM) once the

RTG have developed its national REDD+ strategy and action plan.

The project will also support the development of a Financial

Plan for WHS which will evaluate the feasibility of a range of additional funding mechanisms/tools for the WHS. Based on the results of this evaluation, a set of key actions that will be required to mobilize financial resources for, and build financial capacity will be prepared.

The impact of climate change regarding habitat fragmentation and degradation of forests during the project period are expected to be minimal. Further, the WHS is situated within the larger Western Forest Complex which is made up of a number of protected areas.

Climate change may result in the increase of more frequent fires that may result in the localised fragmentation of forests and corridors wildlife use to move between forest complexes. The project will thus support the development and implementation (in part) of a fire management plan for the WHS to mitigate the undesirable ecological effects of destructive fires. Further, the project will work closely with villages and communities to identify and support the



C ATEGORY

I MPACT L IKELIHOOD

R ISK

A SSESSMENT

M ITIGATION M EASURES implementation of alternative land use practices that could reduce the scale and impacts of a damaging fire regime under different climate change scenarios.

A.7. Coordination with other relevant GEF financed initiatives:

UNDP will implement this project in close synergy with, and learning from the lessons from, the current UNDP-GEF project “ Catalyzing Sustainability of Thailand’s protected Area System” (2010-2015), which aims to overcome barriers to sustainability of Thailand’s PA system through: (i) improving the governance in order to support an enabling environment for long-term PA system sustainability; (ii) enhancing institutional and individual capacities;

(iii) assessing and testing revenue generation mechanisms and management approaches at pilot sites leading to increased funding levels of the PA system; and (iv) emplacing new models of PA management that support effective management of the system.

The project otherwise remains fully aligned with the proposed coordination efforts described in the PIF

B. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NOT ADDRESSED AT PIF STAGE:

B.1 Describe how the stakeholders will be engaged in project implementation:

1. Stakeholder identification

During the project preparation stage, a stakeholder analysis was undertaken in order to identify key stakeholders, assess their interests in the project and defines their roles and responsibilities in project implementation. The table below describes the major categories of stakeholders identified, and the level of involvement envisaged in the project.

Stakeholder

Ministry of Natural Resources and

Environment (MONRE)

The Department of National Parks,

Wildlife and Plant Conservation

(DNP)

The Ministry of Agriculture and

Cooperatives (MOAC)

Royal Forestry Department (RFD)

Agricultural Land Reform Office

(ALRO)

Roles and Responsibilities

The Ministry is responsible for environmental policy and planning

The Department is responsible for



Managing activities the protected area system in Thailand



Implementing the CITES



Suppressing the illegal wildlife trade within the country



Conducting educational outreach to citizens, business leaders and government agencies in Thailand

Development and regulation of policies on livestock husbandry and the use of fire adjacent to protected areas

The RFD has the responsibility for the management of forests and educating the public about conservation

Responsible for supporting the allocation and use of agricultural reformed land

Proposed involvement in the Project

The Ministry will have overall oversight over the project

The Department will be the implementing agency for the project.

DNP will coordinate the implementation of all project activities, and may be responsible for the direct implementation of a number of these activities.

It will take the lead role in ensuring ongoing communications with all government agencies and other partners in respect of project implementation.

The MOAC will support the project by assisting with the communication of the project to villagers as well as promoting better land use practices adjacent to the

WHS

The RFD will support the project by facilitating the establishment and development of community forestry and nature-based tourism initiatives in the buffer zones.

The ALRO will support the development of sustainable livelihood activities for farmers in the buffer zone villages


Stakeholder Roles and Responsibilities

The Ministry of the Interior (MOI) Supervises provincial governors and their staff. These representatives of provincial government influence development and tourism near protected areas

The Ministry of Tourism and Sports

(MOTS)

The Royal Thai Police (RTP)

The Royal Thai Army (RTA)

The Border Patrol Police (BPP)

The Customs Department

Provincial Administrative

Organisation (PAO)

Tambon 2 Administrative

Organisations (TAO)

Village Chief

Responsible for development of Tourism near to protected areas

Responsible for investigating and enforcing the law relating to illegal wildlife trade in Thailand

The RTA is responsible for military training in the country

Responsible for ensuring the integrity of international borders

Responsible for all check points in the country

Manages and provides public services within a province.

Manage and provide basic infrastructure for communities living in the buffer zones.

Play an important role in decision-making at village level.

Conservation NGOs These organisations provide a voice to a diverse set of stakeholders and are often a source of innovation, funding additional projects and education and awareness.

Specific NGOS that require mentioning are:



Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) who have a specific interest in tiger conservation in the WEFCOM.



Seub Nakhasathien Foundation ( SNF) who have an interest in supporting efforts to promote sustainable conservation and development 3 .



World Wild Fund for Nature (WWF) who have an interest in supplementing

REDD+ payments with biodiversity conservation payments in forests

2

A Tambon is a sub-unit of a district.

3 Visit http://www.seub.or.th/ for further information.

Proposed involvement in the Project

The MOI will assist by ensuring that effective communication within the spheres of government results in good intergovernmental cooperation in support of the project

The MOTS will contribute by supporting the development of economic incentives for communities through the wise promotion of ecotourism in cooperation with local villagers and the DNP.

The Natural Resources and Environmental

Crime Suppression Division of the RTP will contribute to the project by assisting in the training of the park rangers and the Wildlife

Crime Units

The RTA is an important training source and can be used by the project in that capacity

The BPP will contribute by assisting the

DNP in training park rangers working in protected areas and conducting joint patrols along the border areas

The Customs Department will assist by working collaboratively with the Natural

Resources and Environmental Crime

Suppression staff at identified check points

The PAO will assist by facilitating and supporting the development of the Thap

Salao Ecotourism Project

The TAOs will assist the project in the implementation of livelihood development, tourism development and outreach programmes in the buffer zone and enclave communities.

The Phu Yai Baan will support and guide the iterative negotiation of Conservation

Agreements and will nominate representative on the PACs.

NGOs will contribute by supporting the goals and approaches of the project and raising awareness of critical issues within their specific fields of interest and expertise.

They will work in collaboration with DNP and other state agencies.



WCS will support the project in improving the use and value of the

SMART monitoring system



The involvement of SNF will be focused on support around livelihood development and training for local community members in the enclave and buffer villages



WWF will, by agreement with DNP, support the implementation of select


Stakeholder

Universities and colleges

Roles and Responsibilities

To provide research, guidance for students undergoing tertiary education and training in conservation and related topics and through communicating new knowledge

Proposed involvement in the Project project activities.

Undergraduate and post-graduate students may support and/or participate in the implementation of selected project activities

(e.g. camera traps, prey monitoring, outreach programmes, etc.)

The Wildlife Conservation Office (WCO) in the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation

(DNP) will be the main institution responsible for different aspects of project implementation. It will work in close cooperation with all other affected institutions.

2. Information dissemination, consultation, and similar activities that took place during the PPG

Throughout the project's development, very close contact was maintained with stakeholders at the national and local levels. All affected national, provincial, local and village government institutions were directly involved in project development, as were key donor agencies and local village communities. Numerous consultations occurred with all of the above stakeholders to discuss different aspects of project design. A detailed record of all project preparation missions, consultations, interviews, meetings and workshops is on record.

3. Approach to stakeholder participation

The projects approach to stakeholder involvement and participation during project implementation is premised on the principles outlined in the table below.

Principle Stakeholder participation will:

Value Adding

Inclusivity be an essential means of adding value to the project include all relevant stakeholders

Accessibility and Access be accessible and promote access to the process

Transparency

Fairness be based on transparency and fair access to information; main provisions of the project’s plans and results will be published in local mass-media ensure that all stakeholders are treated in a fair and unbiased way

Accountability

Constructive

Redressing

Capacitating be based on a commitment to accountability by all stakeholders

Seek to manage conflict and promote the public interest

Seek to redress inequity and injustice

Seek to develop the capacity of all stakeholders

Needs Based

Flexible

Rational and Coordinated be rationally planned and coordinated, and not be ad hoc

Excellence be subject to ongoing reflection and improvement

4. Stakeholder involvement plan be based on the needs of all stakeholders be flexibly designed and implemented


The project’s design incorporates several features to ensure ongoing and effective stakeholder participation in the project’s implementation. The mechanisms to facilitate involvement and active participation of different stakeholder in project implementation will comprise a number of different elements:

(i) Project inception workshop to enable stakeholder awareness of the start of project implementation

The project will be launched by a multi-stakeholder workshop. This workshop will provide an opportunity to provide all stakeholders with the most updated information on the project and the project work plan. It will also establish a basis for further consultation as the project’s implementation commences.

The inception workshop will address a number of key issues including to: assist all partners to fully understand and take ownership of the project; detail the roles, support services and complementary responsibilities of DNP and WS staff vis à vis the adjacent communities; and discuss the roles, functions, and responsibilities within the project structure, including reporting and communication lines, and conflict resolution mechanisms.

The Workshop will also be a forum to: finalize the first annual work plan as well as review and agree on the indicators, targets and their means of verification, and recheck assumptions and risks; provide a detailed overview of reporting, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) requirements; and plan and schedule project meetings for the

Project Board.

(ii) Constitution of Project Board to ensure representation of stakeholder interests in project

A Project Board (PB) will be constituted to ensure broad representation of all key interests throughout the project’s implementation. The representation, and broad terms of reference, of the PSC are further described in Section I,

Part III (Management Arrangements) of the UNDP PRODOC.

(iii) Establishment of a Project Management team to oversee stakeholder engagement processes during project

The Project Management team - comprising a Project Manager, Field Coordinator and two Project Administrative

Assistants (PAAs) - will take direct operational and administrative responsibility for facilitating stakeholder involvement and ensuring increased local ownership of the project and its results. The Project Manager and one

PAA will be located close to, or in, the DNP offices in Bangkok to ensure coordination among key stakeholder organizations at the national level during the project period. The Field Coordinator and one PAA will be located in the HKK-TY WHS headquarters to ensure coordination among key stakeholder organizations at the WHS level during the project period

(iv) Project communications to facilitate ongoing awareness of project

The project will develop, implement and maintain a communications strategy to ensure that all stakeholders are informed on an ongoing basis about: the project’s objectives; the projects activities; overall project progress; and the opportunities for involvement in various aspects of the project’s implementation. This strategy will ensure the use of communication techniques and approaches that appropriate to the local contexts such as appropriate languages and other skills that enhance communication effectiveness.

The project will support the employment of Community Liaison and Outreach Officers (CLOOs) at each of the targeted wildlife sanctuaries. The primary responsibility of CLOOs will be that of ensuring effective engagement of adjacent communities through creation of the necessary enabling environment (e.g. by identifying and addressing needs of the communities and identifying and providing the necessary incentives for their involvement).

(v) Stakeholder consultation and participation in project implementation

A comprehensive stakeholder consultation and participation process will be developed and implemented for each of the following activities:



Negotiation and formalization of a Conservation Agreement between the DNP and each targeted village


government;



Technical and financial assistance/support for socio-economic development activities in the enclave villages of TYE and TYW



Technical and financial assistance/support for community forestry in targeted HKK buffer villages



Business planning support to the Thap Salao Ecotourism Project



Project concept and project design for REDD+ and WPM projects

A participatory approach will be adopted to facilitate the continued involvement of local stakeholders including the vulnerable and marginalized members of the community (including women) and institutions (such as NGOs and

CSOs) in the implementation of the project activities within the wildlife sanctuaries and in targeted villages.

Wherever possible, opportunities will be created to train and employ local residents from villages within, or adjacent to, the wildlife sanctuaries.

(vi) Formal structures to facilitate stakeholder involvement in project activities

The project will also actively seek to strengthen the existing Protected Area Committees (PACs) of the three

Wildlife Sanctuaries to ensure that they: (i) facilitate meaningful participation in the reserve management planning and decision-making; (ii) can collectively enforce the village-based Conservation Agreements; (iii) provide an accessible and transparent dispute-resolution mechanism for communities and WS management; (iv) are more representative of the interests of local enclave and buffer villages and communities; (v) identify and actively support social and livelihood development opportunities in the enclave villages and villages in the buffer zone; (vi) optimise opportunities for local community ‘beneficiation’ from the conservation and use of the WS; and (vii) meet on a more regular basis.

The capacity of community representatives to participate equitably in PAC meetings, and to effectively represent the interests of the villages they represent, will be developed through focused training and capacity building programs

(vii) Capacity building

All project activities are strategically focused on building the capacity - at the systemic, institutional and individual level - of the targeted wildlife sanctuaries and villages in order to ensure sustainability of initial project investments. Significant GEF resources are directed at building the capacities of DNP at both the national and at the wildlife sanctuary levels as well as at the individual staff levels. Wherever possible, the project will also seek to build the capacity of forest adjacent communities (e.g. local community groups and vulnerable and marginalized segments) to enable them to actively participate in project activities.

B.2 Describe the socioeconomic benefits to be delivered by the Project at the national and local levels, including consideration of gender dimensions, and how these will support the achievement of global environment benefits

(GEF Trust Fund/NPIF) or adaptation benefits (LDCF/SCCF):

In order to secure livelihoods, particularly for vulnerable and marginalized members of forest adjacent communities, safeguards will be put in place to ensure equitable and sustainable sharing of benefits from the implementation of project activities. This will be done through a formal Conservation Agreement (CA) to be signed between the wildlife sanctuary and each adjacent or enclave village government. In line with UNDP policies and the government commitments to gender mainstreaming, attention will be placed on gender equity, and in particular to ensuring full participation of women in consultations and decision making related to natural resource management and land-use planning processes that affect their livelihoods and welfare .

At the local levels, direct benefits will include among other things; temporary or permanent employment (e.g. park ranger staff; labor staff; monitoring staff); technical and financial support for health care, education or farming activities; technical and financial support for community forestry activities; technical and financial support for alternative livelihood activities; sub-contracting of community-based businesses; procurement of locally produced


supplies; training and skills development; participation in and beneficiation from the Thap Salao tourism enterprise; and investment in upgrading local bulk services (water, roads, electricity).

The DNP has prepared a Social Assessment (SA) and Indigenous People Plan (IPP) using prior, free and informed consultation and participation, which was generally supported by IPs. Negative impacts from possibly curtailing land use rights and reduced collection of NTFPs, the IPP differentiated the IP groups within and outside the WSs in providing assistance ensuring livelihood restoration and maintenance; consisting of community agreements, ecotourism, and/or REDD plus. All activities will be implemented using a CDD approach. The IPP also designed an institutional structure, consultation and monitoring plan, training plan, etc. to ensure implementation of the IPP.

Further, a Process Framework (PF) to handle possible incremental restrictions of access to the WSs has been prepared.

During the PF preparation, extensive consultation was conducted in most of the affected villages; meetings and workshops were held with village representatives, local government representatives, WS management, and NGOs. A clear project scope was defined with full identification of eligible villagers. Measures to assist affected villagers to improve their livelihood were developed and will be further detailed during implementation relying on communitybased CAs, payment for environmental services, and nature-based tourism.

B.3.

Explain how cost-effectiveness is reflected in the project design:

Despite common agreement that it is important to conserve biodiversity, the total areas under effective protection are often less than optimal while levels of funding are almost always insufficient to carry out such works.

This ‘market failure’ problem need not occur if the total benefits of biodiversity are fully known and recognized. Unfortunately, in practice, the total benefits of biodiversity are usually grossly underestimated leading to insufficient protection, overexploitation, and under-compensation. Because biodiversity provides global as well as local benefits, international organizations, communities, and governments all have important roles to play to correct this market failure.

Benefits of biodiversity conservation are estimated using the total economic value (TEV) approach, which takes into account the use and non-use values of biodiversity. Economic internal rate of return analysis (EIRR) is carried out to evaluate the economic returns from project activities. EIRR can be used to compare the cost of funds for the project with its return. If the EIRR is higher than the cost of funds, then the project is economically attractive. The average cost of funds for the public sector, measured by average government bond yield 4 is 3.76 percent per annum. On the other hand, the private sector cost of funds, measured by average minimum lending rate, MLR, is 6.8 percent per annum. These costs of funds can be compared to the estimated EIRR to decide whether to invest in project activities or not.

Since the project aims to stabilize and reduce the deforestation rate, and stabilize wildlife populations, within the project area, the TEV of the project will only include benefits accrued in the forest area, including habitat and wildlife that would have been saved by project activities. Assuming the project’s impact period is 30 years, the EIRR of the project is 9.37 percent, which is higher than both public and private cost of funds. This result is robust even when subjected to a sensitivity analysis with respect to key variables, namely, carbon prices, target reduction in deforestation rates, option and existence values, and operation and maintenance expenses. Detailed analysis can be found in Section

IV, Part II of the project document.

The project will seek to achieve a catalytic investment in securing the long-term sustainability of the Huai Kha Kaeng-

Thung Yai Naresuan WHS. Costs incurred in project implementation will focus only on those additional actions necessary to strengthen the capacity of the WCO and partners to effectively manage the areas, as well as development of the necessary incentives to ensure communities living in/adjacent to the areas benefit from the conservation of the area and therefore are accommodating in a sense that their lifestyles do not have a negative effect on the area’s forest habitat. To accomplish this, the project will seek to complement and build upon the extensive baseline activities

4

Average government bond yield (with different maturities), as of May 23, 2013 are based on data from Thai Bond Market Association. Average

(2009 – 2013) annual commercial banks’ MLR are calculated using data from Bank of Thailand.


already underway in the area (e.g. SMART patrolling system). Wherever possible, the project will use the competencies and technical skills within the mandated government and its partner institutions to implement project activities. Where applicable, project resources will also be deployed to strengthen and expand existing initiatives and programmes to avoid duplication of effort. Increased co-financing commitments will continue to be targeted by the project during the project implementation.

C. DESCRIBE THE BUDGETED M &E PLAN:

Project start-up:

A Project Inception Workshop will be held within the first 4 months of project start with those with assigned roles in the project organization structure, UNDP country office and where appropriate/feasible regional technical policy and programme advisors as well as other stakeholders. The Inception Workshop is crucial to building ownership for the project results and to plan the first year annual work plan.

The Inception Workshop should address a number of key issues including: a) Assist all partners to fully understand and take ownership of the project. Detail the roles, support services and complementary responsibilities of UNDP CO and the UNDP-GEF Regional Office vis-à-vis the project team.

Discuss the roles, functions, and responsibilities within the project's decision-making structures, including reporting and communication lines, and conflict resolution mechanisms. The Terms of Reference for project staff will be discussed again, as needed. b) Based on the project results framework and the relevant GEF Tracking Tool, if appropriate, finalize the first

AWP. Review and agree on the indicators, targets and their means of verification, and recheck assumptions and risks. c) Provide a detailed overview of reporting, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) requirements. The Monitoring and Evaluation work plan and budget should be agreed and scheduled. d) Discuss financial reporting procedures and obligations, and arrangements for annual audit. e) Plan and schedule Project Board meetings. Roles and responsibilities of all project organization structures should be clarified and meetings planned. The first Project Board meeting should be held within the first 6 months following the inception workshop.

An Inception Workshop report is a key reference document and must be prepared and shared with participants to formalize various agreements and plans decided during the meeting.

Quarterly:

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

Based on the initial risk analysis submitted, the risk log shall be regularly updated in ATLAS. Risks become critical when the impact and probability are high.

Based on the information recorded in ATLAS, a Project Progress Report (PPR) can be generated in the Executive

Snapshot.

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

Annually:

Annual Project Review/Project Implementation Reports (APR/PIR): This key report is prepared to monitor progress made since project start and in particular for the previous reporting period. The APR/PIR combines both UNDP and

GEF reporting requirements.

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




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



Project outputs delivered per project outcome (annual)



Lesson learned/good practice



AWP and other expenditure reports



Risk and adaptive management



ATLAS Quarterly Progress Reports (QPR)



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

Periodic Monitoring through site visits:

UNDP CO and the UNDP RCU will conduct visits to project sites based on the agreed schedule in the project's

Inception Report/Annual Work Plan to assess first hand project progress. Other members of the Project Board may also join these visits. A Field Visit Report/BTOR will be prepared by the CO and UNDP RCU and will be circulated no less than one month after the visit to the project team and Project Board members.

Mid-term of project cycle:

The project will undergo an independent Mid-Term Evaluation at the mid-point of project implementation. The Mid-

Term Evaluation will determine progress being made toward the achievement of outcomes and will identify course correction if needed. It will focus on the effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness of project implementation; will highlight issues requiring decisions and actions; and will present initial lessons learned about project design, implementation and management. Findings of this review will be incorporated as recommendations for enhanced implementation during the final half of the project’s term. The organization, terms of reference and timing of the midterm evaluation will be decided after consultation between the parties to the project document. The Terms of

Reference for this Mid-term evaluation will be prepared by the UNDP CO based on guidance from the Regional

Coordinating Unit and UNDP-GEF. The management response and the evaluation will be uploaded to UNDP corporate systems, in particular the UNDP Evaluation Office Evaluation Resource Center (ERC) .

The relevant GEF Focal Area Tracking Tools will also be completed during the mid-term evaluation cycle.

End of Project:

An independent Final Evaluation will take place three months prior to the final Project Board meeting and will be undertaken in accordance with UNDP and GEF guidance. The final evaluation will focus on the delivery of the project’s results as initially planned (and as corrected after the mid-term evaluation, if any such correction took place).

The final evaluation will look at impact and sustainability of results, including the contribution to capacity development and the achievement of global environmental benefits/goals. The Terms of Reference for this evaluation will be prepared by the UNDP CO based on guidance from the Regional Coordinating Unit and UNDP-GEF.

The Terminal Evaluation should also provide recommendations for follow-up activities and requires a management response which should be uploaded to PIMS and to the UNDP Evaluation Office Evaluation Resource Center (ERC) .

The relevant GEF Focal Area Tracking Tools will also be completed during the final evaluation.

During the last three months, the project team will prepare the Project Terminal Report. This comprehensive report will summarize the results achieved (objectives, outcomes, outputs), lessons learned, problems met and areas where results may not have been achieved. It will also lay out recommendations for any further steps that may need to be taken to ensure sustainability and replicability of the project’s results.


Learning and knowledge sharing :

Results from the project will be disseminated within and beyond the project intervention zone 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 project implementation though lessons learned. The project will identify, analyse, and share lessons learned that might be beneficial in the design and implementation of similar future projects.

Finally, there will be a two-way flow of information between this project and other projects of a similar focus.

Communications and visibility requirements

Full compliance is required with UNDP’s Branding Guidelines. These can be accessed at http://intra.undp.org/ coa/branding.shtml

, and specific guidelines on UNDP logo use can be accessed at: http://intra.undp.org/branding/ useOfLogo.html

. Amongst other things, these guidelines describe when and how the UNDP logo needs to be used, as well as how the logos of donors to UNDP projects needs to be used. For the avoidance of any doubt, when logo use is required, the UNDP logo needs to be used alongside the GEF logo. The GEF logo can be accessed at: http://www.thegef.org/gef/GEF_logo . The UNDP logo can be accessed at http://intra.undp. org/coa/branding.shtml

.

Full compliance is required with the GEF’s Communication and Visibility Guidelines (the “GEF Guidelines”). The

GEF Guidelines can be accessed at: http://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/ documents/C.40.08 Branding the

GEF%20final 0.pdf

. Amongst other things, the GEF Guidelines describe when and how the GEF logo needs to be used in project publications, vehicles, supplies and other project equipment. The GEF Guidelines also describe other GEF promotional requirements regarding press releases, press conferences, press visits, visits by Government officials, productions and other promotional items.

M&E work plan and budget

Budget US$

Type of M&E activity Responsible Parties Time frame

Excluding project team staff time

Inception Workshop and Report

Measurement of Means of Verification of project results.

 PC



UNDP CO, UNDP GEF



UNDP GEF RTA/PC will oversee the hiring of specific studies and institutions, and delegate responsibilities to relevant team members.

Indicative cost: 6,000

To be finalized in

Inception Phase and Workshop.

Within first two months of project start up

Start, mid and end of project (during evaluation cycle) and annually when required.

Measurement of Means of Verification for

Project Progress on output and implementation

 PC

To be determined as part of the

Annual Work

Plan's preparation.

Annually prior to

ARR/PIR and to the definition of annual work plans


Type of M&E activity Responsible Parties

Budget US$

Excluding project team staff time

Time frame

ARR/PIR



PC



UNDP CO



UNDP RTA



UNDP EEG

None Annually

Periodic status/ progress reports



PC None Quarterly

Mid-term Evaluation

Final Evaluation

Project Terminal

Report



PC

 UNDP CO



UNDP RCU

 External Consultants (i.e. evaluation team)



PC

 UNDP CO



UNDP RCU

 External Consultants (i.e. evaluation team)



PC

 UNDP CO

 local consultant

Indicative cost:

40,000

Indicative cost:

45,000

0

Audit

Visits to field sites



UNDP CO

 Project manager and team

Indicative cost per year:

6,000 for 2 years



UNDP CO

 UNDP RCU (as appropriate)

 Government representatives

For GEF supported projects, paid from IA fees and operational budget

TOTAL indicative COST

Excluding project staff (PC and PAA) time and UNDP staff and travel expenses

US$ 103,000

At the mid-point of project implementation.

At least three months before the end of project implementation

At least three months before the end of the project

Yearly

Yearly


*Note: Costs included in this table are part and parcel of the UNDP Total Budget and Work Plan (TBW) in the PRODOC, and not additional to it.


PART III: APPROVAL/ENDORSEMENT BY GEF OPERATIONAL FOCAL POINT(S) AND GEF AGENCY

(IES)

A.

R ECORD OF E NDORSEMENT OF GEF O PERATIONAL F OCAL P OINT ( S ) ON B EHALF OF THE G OVERNMENT ( S ):

N AME

Mr. Chote Trachoo

P OSITION

Permanent Secretary

M INISTRY

M INISTRY OF N ATURAL

R ESOURCES AND

E NVIRONMENT

D

26

ATE

M

(MM/dd/yyyy)

ARCH 2012

B. GEF AGENCY (IES) CERTIFICATION

This request has been prepared in accordance with GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF policies and procedures and meets the

GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF criteria for CEO endorsement/approval of project.

Agency

Coordinator,

Agency Name

Adrian Dinu,

Executive

Coordinator and

Director a.i.,

UNDP - GEF

Signature

Date

(Month, day,

year)

16 Sept 2014

Project

Contact

Person

Johan

Robinson,

Regional

Technical

Advisor, EBD,

UNDP

Telephone Email Address

+66-2-304-9100 johan.robinson@undp.org


ANNEX A: PROJECT RESULTS FRAMEWORK

PROJECT INDICATOR

OBJECTIVE AND

OUTCOMES

METT Scores of HKK, TYE and TYW Wildlife Sanctuaries

Number of villages (of the 43 targeted enclave and buffer zone villages) directly benefiting from communitybased livelihood activities that contribute to reducing the extent and intensity of threats to the HKK-TY WHS

BASELINE

HKK: 67%

TYE: 75%

TYW: 60%

Financial sustainability scorecard for the WHS

Project Objective:

To improve the management effectiveness of, and sustainable financing for, Huai Kha

Khaeng-Thung Yai

Naresuan (HKK-

TYN) World Heritage

Site and incentivise local community stewardship

Capacity development indicator score for DNP (Wildlife

Conservation Office)

TBD

Systemic: 67%

Institutional: 64%

Individual: 61%

0

END OF

PROJECT

TARGETS

SOURCE OF

INFORMATION

RISKS AND ASSUMPTIONS

HKK: 71%

TYE: 77%

TYW: 68%

TBD

Systemic: 69%

Institutional: 65%

Individual: 68%

>28

Project review of METT

Scorecards

Project review of

Financial Sustainability

Scorecard

Project review of

Capacity Development

Indicator Scorecard

Project record of technical support and sub-grant funding agreements

Assumptions:



The government continues to invest in improving the management of the WHS, as part of its strategy to conserve the forest ecosystems, forest habitats and rare and threatened forest fauna in the WEFCOM.



Communities living in and around the three wildlife sanctuaries respect the sanctity, and derive value from the conservation, of these sanctuaries.

Risks:



Not all communities cooperate with the conservation authorities in addressing the key threats of deforestation and poaching in the

WHS.



The DNP is unable to solicit the support, and coordinate the efforts, of other organs of state, due its limited mandate in the villages around the WHS.



Income-generating mechanisms do not generate sufficient revenues for reinvestment back into the conservation of the WHS



The effects of climate change further exacerbate the fragmentation of forest ecosystems, leading to an increase in the vulnerability of rare and threatened forest species.


PROJECT

OBJECTIVE AND

OUTCOMES

INDICATOR BASELINE

Outputs:

1.1

Wildlife and habitat protection.

1.2

Resource monitoring and information management.

1.3

Training and capacity development

Number of tigers/100 km 2 in the three wildlife sanctuaries

HKK: 2.3

TYE: 0.7

TYW: 1.3

Aggregate occupancy index

(number/km 2 ) of select tiger prey species (sambar; gaur; banteng) and elephant in the three wildlife sanctuaries

HKK: 6.5

TYE: 9

TYW: 13

Outcome 1

Strengthening onground conservation actions and wildlife protection

Number of poacher encounters per annum reported by ranger patrol staff from HKK, TYE and TYW

Areal coverage (as a % of total

WHS area) of the ranger patrols in the WHS

HKK: 84

TYE: 72

TYW: 96

60%

END OF

PROJECT

TARGETS

HKK: 2.7

TYE: 0.9

TYW: 1.5

HKK: 8

TYE: 11

TYW: 17

HKK: 76

TYE: 65

>90%

5

TYW: 86

Number of wildfire incidences per annum in the WHS

Number of tigers (captive and wild) with a documented DNA record

Coverage (as a % of total area) of the wildlife monitoring program in the wildlife sanctuaries

TBD

Captive: 0

Wild: 0

HKK: 60%

TYE: 30%

TYY: 30%

TBD

Wildlife sanctuary monthly and annual reports

Captive: 1,250

Wild: 500

DNA tiger database

HKK: >70%

TYE: >40%

TYW: >40%

SOURCE OF

INFORMATION

Wildlife monitoring survey reports

WHS wildlife monitoring survey reports

SMART patrol data


SMART patrol data

WHS wildlife monitoring survey reports


Assumptions:



The SMART patrol system is maintained across the three wildlife sanctuaries



The DNP allocates adequate budget for the ongoing running costs and maintenance of project-procured infrastructure and equipment.



The wildlife sanctuaries sustain current ranger patrol and wildlife monitoring efforts in the WHS



The security and integrity of the tiger DNA database is protected

Risks:




WHS.



The effects of climate change further exacerbate the fragmentation of forest ecosystems, leading to an increase in the vulnerability of rare and threatened forest species.

5 It is anticipated that there will be an initial increase in number of poachers encountered as the patrols are increased, but that by the end of the project the poachers will be aware of the increased patrolling and therefore reduced their activity within the WHS.


PROJECT

OBJECTIVE AND

OUTCOMES

Outcome 2

Promoting incentives and sustainable financing for wildlife conservation and forest protection

INDICATOR

Number of staff of HKK, TYE and TYW who receive (a) refresher training and (b) trainthe-trainer training,

BASELINE

Refresher: 0

Train-the-trainer: 0

END OF

PROJECT

TARGETS

SOURCE OF

INFORMATION

Referesher: 470

Train-the-trainer: 40

Record of training course


Percentage of temporary ranger staff across the three wildlife sanctuaries who have adequate 36% death and disability insurance cover

Outputs:

2.1

Community livelihood assistance.

2.2

Nature-based tourism development

2.3

REDD+ and Wildlife Premium Mechanism

Number of villages with signed

Conservation Agreements

0

100%

>28

Insurance policy documentation

Area registered as community forest in the HKK buffer zone

Number of people (of which percentage are female) living in the enclave villages of TYE and TYW who are direct recipients of project grant funding support

Direct project beneficiaries living in buffer villages (of which percentage are female) who are direct recipients of project grant funding support

Financial, Tourism and

Integrated Fire Management plans for the WHS are in place

1,029 ha

0 (0)

0 (0)

Financial: No

Tourism: No

Fire: No

1,338 ha

175 (60)

300 (60)

Financial: Yes

Tourism: Yes

Fire: Yes


Conservation agreements

Community forest registration certificates

Project record of subgrant funding agreements

Project record of subgrant funding agreements

Approved plans

Assumptions:



Village leadership structures are stable and representative of the interests of the villages



Village populations remain relatively stable



The RFD registers community forests timeously

Risks:




WHS.






Income-generating mechanisms do not generate sufficient revenues for reinvestment back into the conservation of the WHS



The effects of climate change


PROJECT

OBJECTIVE AND

OUTCOMES

INDICATOR

Avoided forest and forest degradation (ha and tonnes of

CO

2 eq.) in the WHS, enclave villages and HKK buffer areas

BASELINE

0

0

Annual deforestation rate (%) in the WHS, enclave villages and HKK buffer areas

0.76% per annum

Outcome 3

Improved local education, awareness and participation

Outputs:

3.1 Community education and outreach

3.2 Participatory management

Number of WS community liaison and outreach staff working in targeted enclave and buffer zone villages

<21

Number of schools using

WHS-based education and information materials

Number of informational and educational road shows presented per annum using the mobile environmental education units

0

0

Number of PACs with full representation and involvement of enclave and buffer zone villages

0

END OF

PROJECT

TARGETS

985 ha

249,969 tonnes of

CO

2

eq.

0.62% per annum

SOURCE OF

INFORMATION


Remote sensing data and ground-truthing reports

Carbon monitoring reports further fragmentation exacerbate of the forest ecosystems, leading to an increase in the vulnerability of rare and threatened forest species.

Remote sensing data and ground-truthing reports

29

20

144/annum

3

Wildlife sanctuary organograms and annual reports

Project reports

Project reports

Minutes of PAC meetings

Assumptions:



DNP continues to support, and strengthen the role of, PACs for wildlife sanctuaries



DNP encourages the adoption and expansion of outreach and extension programmes in wildlife sanctuaries

Risks:




WHS.





ANNEX B: RESPONSES TO PROJECT REVIEWS ( from GEF Secretariat and GEF Agencies, and Responses to Comments from Council at work program inclusion and the Convention Secretariat and STAP at PIF).

Comments Responses Changes made in full project

By CEO endorsement, Agency fees in the document and the endorsement letters need to be similar at maximum 9% of the project grant.

At CEO endorsement, please be clear about the incremental

CCM activities vs SFM activities

GEF Secretariat Review

The Agency fees are now 9% of the project grant. As per correspondence between the Thailand GEF

Operational Focal Point Office and the GEF Secretariat it was agreed that a revised Letter of

Endorsement is not necessary.

Refer to part I Project

Information and Table

D of the GEF CEO ER.

By CEO endorsement, please provide improved documentation for the carbon estimates.

The project is consistent with Objective 5 of the GEFs Climate Change (CC) Focal Area Strategy,

‘ Promote Conservation and Enhancement of Carbon Stocks through Sustainable Management of Land

Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF)’. The project will contribute incrementally to the following outcomes under Objective 5: (i) Good management practices in LULUCF adopted both within the forest land and in the wider landscape (Indicator increment due to project – from zero to at least 28 villages in the enclave and buffer villages adopt Conservation agreements); and (ii) Restoration and enhancement of carbon stocks in forests and non-forest lands, including peatland ( Indicator increment due to project – from 1029 ha to 1,338 ha of natural forest habitat restored in the WHS buffer area .

The project is further consistent with Objective 1 of the GEFs Sustainable Forest Management (SFM)/

REDD-PLUS Focal Area Strategy, ‘ Reduce pressures on forest resources and generate sustainable flows of forest ecosystem services’

. The project will contribute incrementally to the following outcome under Objective 1: Outcome 1.2 Reduce pressures on forest resources and generate sustainable flows of forest ecosystem services (Avoided deforestation and forest degradation – Indicator increment due to project – from zero to 985 ha or 249,969 tonnes of CO

2

or CO

2 eq) .

During project preparation, the GEF tracking tools for SFM/REDD+ projects and CCM projects were prepared. The underlying calculations for the carbon estimates have been included into the tracking tools.

SECTION 1, PART II:

Project Rationale and

Conformity : ‘Fit with

GEF Focal Area

Strategy and

Programme’ provides a tabulated description of the contribution of the project to the performance indicators for the CC and

SFM/REDD+ focal areas.

The detailed project budget prepared in support of the Total

Budget and Work Plan

(see SECTION III of the UNDP PRODOC) provides a detailed breakdown of the budget allocation for project activities across each of the three GEF focal areas (BD, CC and SFM/REDD+)

The Tracking Tool for

SFM/REDD-Plus

Projects and Climate

Change Mitigation

Projects is appended in


Comments Responses

By CEO endorsement, more details of how gender dimensions are taken into account are expected

At CEO endorsement please concisely state what is being done to ensure GHG emissions are managed.

Only in a few of the expected outputs and outcomes are quantities specified leaving the expected impact of the project vague. STAP expects that at the time of CEO endorsement a comprehensive results framework will be included to address the gap

In activities to achieve project Outcome 2: “Promoting incentives and sustainable financing for wildlife conservation and forest protection”, GEF funding will be used to support selective livelihood development pursuits in the enclave villages, such as: improved health care (utilizing indigenous Karen knowledge and products); planting of indigenous varieties of upland rice, chili, medicinal herbs, and betel nut; educational scholarships; and micro-enterprises (such as traditional weaving). Interested farmers, especially women and youth, will be encouraged to organize self-help groups to facilitate the production of indigenous products on existing agricultural land, taking advantage of indigenous knowledge and the marketing of surplus produce. GEF funds will be used to provide livelihood assistance to communities living in the enclave villages through (a) small grants and (b) technical assistance.

This activity will be evaluated through measuring quantified indicators for the outcome, specifically i) number of people (of which percentage are female) living in enclave villages of the TYE and TYW who are direct recipients of project grant funding support (0 (0) to 175 (60); and ii) direct project beneficiaries living in buffer villages (of which percentage are female) who are direct recipients of project grant funding support (0 (0) to 300 (60).

The project will support the preparation of an Integrated Fire Management Plan (IFMP) for the WHS, and the adjacent buffer zones. One of the objectives of the IFMP will be to reduce GHG emissions, and the specific actions to achieve this objective defined. The project will further support the WHS in developing and maintaining a network of firebreaks to reduce the spread and impact (including GHG emissions) of uncontrolled wildfires. The project will also support the development of fire management skills in targeted community, WS and other WCO-DNP staff. The project will then assist in improving the rapid fire response capabilities (detection, equipment, etc.) of the community and wildlife sanctuaries. The project will, as an integral part of negotiating and supporting the implementation of

Conservation Agreements (CAs), identify the land use activities that are resulting in increased GHG emissions (e.g. clearing and burning of forest land for agriculture) and incentivize (through financial grants and technical support) the adoption of alternative, more environmentally friendly technologies or alternative livelihood practices.

STAP Scientific and Technical Screening of the PIF

The comment by the STAP committee has been addressed as follows: i) A comprehensive Results Framework has been developed in which numeric targets are specified for each of the outcomes making the expected impact of the project absolutely clear. ii) The global environmental benefits have been clearly articulated in the PRODOC as part of the motivation for the project and as in the primary outputs. Thailand, and in particular the forests, is one of the most biodiverse areas in the world. Thus global significance is derived from project efforts to reduce the rate of deforestation and forest degradation in the globally important biodiversity of the WEFCOM forests. This reduction will be achieved through both Conservation Agreements signed with 14 enclave and at least 14 buffer area villages and through establishing demonstration carbon sequestration sites


Changes made in full project

SECTION IV, PART V

GEF Tracking Tools of the UNDP PRODOC.

SECTION I, PART II,

Strategy , ‘Project

Objective, Outcomes and Outputs/Activities’ of the UNDP

PRODOC describe the link between the activities and gender.

ANNEX A of the GEF

CEO ER describes the gender indicators for the project.

SECTION I, PART II,



PRODOC describe the activities proposed to improve the state of

GHG emission, notably those derived from wildfires and controlled burning.

Refer to the following sections of the UNDP

PRODOC: i) SECTION II: SRF ii) Project Objective,

Outcomes and

Outputs/Activities :

Component 2: Output

2.1. and Output 2.3

Comments including clarifying the global environmental benefits at national level and also the contribution to the regional

Program

Germany: Thailand is one of the FCPF member countries, which has not established an

R-PP yet. Hence the national setup of REDD+ and the readiness activities remain unclear.

The full proposal should therefore clearly outline how links to the national development of REDD+ can be established and how incentives for wildlife conservation could become an element in the national

REDD+ readiness process.

Responses under REDD+ and the Wildlife premium Mechanism. iii) In addition, the global conservation status of tigers is “Endangered”, and with Thailand having the sixth largest national tiger population as well as being a key tiger range country, the global and regional significance of protecting and increasing the tiger population of HKK-TY (containing roughly half of

Thailand’s tigers) is apparent. Thus a significant proportion of the project support goes towards increasing both the tiger population of HKK-TY WHS and its habitat and prey base. This project support is aimed at increased protection for the tiger populations through better capacitated patrol rangers as well as through improved relations between protected area staff and both enclave and buffer area villagers. In addition the project has a strong focus on the recovery of the ecosystem (forest and prey base) elements which support the tigers and their targeted growing numbers. iv) The project aims to promote regional tiger conservation through assessing the feasibility of a

Regional Tiger Conservation Training Centre.

Comments submitted by Council Members on the Work Program

Although Thailand does not as yet have a national REDD+ strategy, national preparedness for implementing REDD+ in Thailand has been initiated and is being advanced under the national Readiness

Preparation Proposal (R-PP).

The project has been designed to be implemented as an integral part of the broader development of

Thailand’s R-PP. Project activities are focused on supporting the development of demonstration carbon sequestration projects in the HKK-TY WHS and its buffer areas, in order to demonstrate the technical and financial feasibility of carbon projects in Thailand’s protected areas. As part of this development process, the feasibility of adopting an explicit performance-based Wildlife Premium Mechanism

(WPM 6 ) will also be assessed.

With the considerable delays experienced in the national preparedness for implementing REDD+ in

Thailand; the low carbon prices; the unsettled carbon markets under the REDD scheme; complications of

REDD methodologies; and high carbon transaction costs, it was considered that the demonstration

REDD+ WPM pilot in the Huai Kha Khaeng-Thung Yai World Heritage Site (HKK-TY WHS) may not actually reach the point of being able to start generating ring-fenced income from carbon trading during the project’s lifetime, as was initially anticipated in the PIF.

Changes made in full project iii) Project Objective,

Outcomes and


Component 1: Output

1.1. and Output 1.2 and

Output 1.3. iv) Project Objective,

Outcomes and


Component 1: Output

1.3 (viii)

SECTION I, PART II,



PRODOC describes the link between the activities under Output

2.3 and the national R-

PP.

6

E. Dinerstein, et.al. 2012, “Enhancing Conservation, Ecosystem Services, and Local Livelihoods through a Wildlife Premium Mechanism,” Conservation Biology , 27 (1), pp.14-23


A NNEX C: STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF PROJECT PREPARATION ACTIVITIES AND THE USE OF FUNDS

A.

Describe findings that might affect the project design or any concerns on project implementation, if any:

The project remains aligned with the original project design.

With the transfer of the project from the World Bank to UNDP, the World Bank has indicated that the co-financing commitment from the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) is now no longer available.

There are no fundamental concerns in respect of project implementation.

B.

Provide detailed funding amount of the ppg activities financing status in the table below:

N/A


ANNEX D : CALENDAR OF EXPECTED REFLOWS ( if non-grant instrument is used )

Provide a calendar of expected reflows to the GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF Trust Fund or to your Agency (and/or revolving fund that will be set up)

N/A


request for CEO ENDORSEMENT - Global Environment Facility

Related documents

Products

Support

request for CEO ENDORSEMENT - Global Environment Facility

REQUEST FOR CEO ENDORSEMENT

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib