UNDP PROJECT DOCUMENT
The Royal Government of Cambodia
United Nations Development Programme
The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Ministry of Environment and Provincial Authority of Preh
Vihear Province
Establishing Conservation Areas Landscape Management (CALM) in the Northern Plains
The Northern Plains of Cambodia are the largest remaining extensive intact block of a unique landscape
of exceptional global importance for biodiversity conservation. The area is either a last refuge for, or
maintains a key population of 36 species on the IUCN Red List, including six listed as Critically
Endangered. The project addresses the problem of escalating biodiversity loss across the Northern Plains,
caused by increasing human land and resource use. This is achieved through a seven-year, three-pronged
approach: (1) the introduction of biodiversity considerations into provincial level land use processes; (2)
the demonstration of specific mainstreaming interventions at four key sites (including community landuse tenure, community contracts and incentives for biodiversity supportive land-use practices, as well as
work to mainstream biodiversity into the forestry and tourism productive sectors); and (3) strengthen
biodiversity management by government at the four key sites. The Landscape Species Approach has been
used to identify the four sites.
The CALM project is consistent with the GEF Strategic Priority BD-2 (Mainstreaming Biodiversity in
Production Landscapes and Sectors). The project intervention will work to introduce biodiversity values
into landscape level land-use planning processes. Implementation will focus particularly on building the
capacity of provincial departments and authorities and integrate specific projects initiatives established
provincial planning processes (supported through the Seila/PLG Programme).The project will mainstream
biodiversity conservation in relevant sectors such as tourism, forestry, agriculture etc within that
landscape.
1
Table of Contents
SECTION I : ELABORATION OF THE ANALYSIS ............................................................. 5
PART I: SITUATION ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 6
Background ..........................................................................................................................................................6
Problem to be Addressed .....................................................................................................................................9
Underlying Causes ............................................................................................................................................. 11
Current Situation (Baseline) .............................................................................................................................. 13
PART II: STRATEGY .............................................................................................................. 17
Project Rationale (The Alternative) ................................................................................................................... 17
Relevance to UNDP Outcomes .......................................................................................................................... 23
National Support for the Alternative .................................................................................................................. 23
Project Sustainability, Partnerships and Linkages ............................................................................................ 26
Implementation Strategy .................................................................................................................................... 33
Risks and Risk Management Strategy ................................................................................................................ 34
Result Frameworks ............................................................................................................................................ 45
PART III: MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS ................................................................... 49
Execution............................................................................................................................................................ 49
Implementation (see Annex 7 for Terms of Reference) ...................................................................................... 49
Adaptive management ........................................................................................................................................ 51
Audit ................................................................................................................................................................... 52
PART IV: MONITORING AND EVALUTION PLAN AND BUDGET................................. 54
Conservation Impact Monitoring ....................................................................................................................... 54
Project Inception Phase ..................................................................................................................................... 55
Monitoring responsibilities and events .............................................................................................................. 56
Work plan and Reporting requirements ............................................................................................................. 57
Evaluation .......................................................................................................................................................... 59
Learning and Knowledge Sharing...................................................................................................................... 59
PART V: LEGAL CONTEXT .................................................................................................. 62
SECTION II : STRATEGIC RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND ............................................ 63
GEF INCREMENT .................................................................................................................... 63
PART I: INCREMENTAL COST ANALYSIS ................................................................................... 64
PART II: LOGICAL FRAMEWORK ANALYSIS ................................................................................ 68
SECTION III: TOTAL WORKPLAN AND BUDGET .......................................................... 84
FINANCING PLAN ................................................................................................................. 85
SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 85
WCS .......................................................................................................................................... 85
SEILA/PLG ................................................................................................................................ 85
DETAILED BUDGETS............................................................................................................ 87
WORKPLAN ............................................................................................................................ 94
SECTION IV : ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ................................................................. 100
PART I: OTHER AGREEMENTS ................................................................................................ 101
PART II: TERMS OF REFERENCES FOR KEY PROJECT STAFFS AND MAIN SUB-CONTRACTS ....... 101
ANNEX 1.7: TERMS OF REFERENCE (TOR) ............................................................................... 101
PART III: STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT PLAN ...................................................................... 114
STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS AND PARTICIPATION PLAN..................................................... 114
2
ABBREVIATIONS
AAH
APR
ASEAN
BPAM
CALM
CARERE
CBD
CCF
CDC
CG
CITES
CTIA
DAFF
DNCP
DoE
FA
FAO
GAP
GEF
GEF-SEC
GIS
GTZ
IA
ICF
IUCN
KPWS
LMAP
LSA
MAFF
MDGs
MLMUPC
MoE
MOU
MRC
MRD
MWRM
MYFF
NBSAP
NBSC
NEAP
NGO
NREM
NTFPs
OP
PA
Action Against Hunger
Annual Project Review
Association of South-East Asian Nations
Biodiversity and Protected Areas Management Project
Conservation Areas through Landscape Management
Cambodia Area Reconciliation and Rehabilitation (UNDP)
Convention on Biodiversity
Country Co-operation Framework
Council for the Development of Cambodia
Consultative Group meeting (RGC and International Donors)
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora
Cambodia Timber Industry Association
Department of Agriculture, Forests and Fisheries
Department of Nature Conservation and Protection
Department of Environment
Forest Administration of MAFF
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization
Government Action Plan
Global Environment Facility
Global Environment Facility Secretariat
Geographical Information System
German Technical Corporation
Implementing Agency
International Crane Foundation
International Union for the Conservation of Nature
Kulen Promtep Wildlife Sanctuary
Land Management and Administration Project (of MLMUPC, funded by GTZ)
Landscape Species Approach
Ministry of Agriculture, Forests and Fisheries
Millennium Declaration Goals
Ministry of Land Management and Urban Planning and Construction
Ministry of Environment
Memorandum of Understanding
Mekong River Commission
Ministry of Rural Development
Ministry of Water Resources and Meteorology
Multi-Year Funding Framework
National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan
National Biodiversity Steering Committee
National Environmental Action Plan
Non-Government Organisation
Natural Resource and Environment Management
Non-timber forest products
Operational Programme
Protected area
3
PDF
PDP
PEG
PIR
PLG
PLUP
PRDC
RCAF
RGC
SEDP II
Seila
SEG
STAP
TOR
TPR
TWG-FE
UN
UNDAF
UNDP
UNDP-GEF
WB
WCS
WS
Project Development Facility
Provincial Development Plan
Project Executive Group
Project Implementation Review
Partnership for Local Governance (component of Seila funded by UNDP)
Participatory Land Use Planning
Provincial Rural Development Committee (chaired by Governor)
Royal Cambodian Armed Forces
Royal Government of Cambodia
Socio-Economic Development Plan 2001-2005
Social Economic Integration in Local Administration (‘Foundation Stone’ in
Khmer)
Sub-Executive Group
Scientific And Technical Advisory Panel (of the GEF)
Terms of Reference
Tri-partite review
Technical Working Group on Forestry and Environment
United Nations
United National Development Assistance Framework
United Nations Development Programme
UNDP’s Global Environment Facility Office (with the Bureau for Development
Policy)
World Bank
Wildlife Conservation Society
Wildife Sanctuary
4
SECTION I : ELABORATION OF THE ANALYSIS
5
PART I: SITUATION ANALYSIS
Background
1.Since 1995 Cambodia has been a ratified signatory of the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD). As part of its response to the CBD Cambodia has developed a National Biodiversity
Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP), with support from a GEF Enabling Activity through UNDP.
The strategy provides a framework for action at all levels, which will enhance Cambodia’s
ability to ensure the productivity, diversity and integrity of its natural systems and, as a result, its
ability as a nation to reduce poverty and improve the quality of life of all Cambodians.
Specifically, the NBSAP highlighted the importance of the Northern Plains landscape.
2. The Northern Plains is a very remote region of Cambodia, a country that ranks amongst the
poorest in South-East Asia. From the early 1970s the region was a central base of the Khmer
Rouge and as a consequence experienced long periods of conflict and civil war, which only
ceased in 1998. During this time the local population was translocated and forced to adopt
collectivized paddy rice growing. As security improved from the 1980s onwards families
returned home and, to some extent, re-established traditional livelihood practices. The region is
presently sparsely populated, with densities as low as 5.5 people/km² in some areas. The vast
majority of families rely on subsistence rain-fed paddy rice growing, collection of forest products
and seasonal fishing. Chamkar (shifting cultivation) is practiced by many families for vegetables
and either to supplement rice production from paddyfields, or as an alternative. Fish, and to some
degree wildlife, is the principal source of protein. Livelihood assessments (see Annex 12 for an
example) have highlighted the prevailing food insecurity in the region, which is only mitigated
by the extensive availability of forest products.
3. The Northern Plains landscape is defined by the geography of the area, its boundaries being
naturally delimited by the Dangrek Mountains to the north, the Mekong River to the east and the
Tonle Sap Great Lake to the south and west. The total region covers over 18,000km². Land
tenure in the area is complex as the Northern Plains stretches across the borders of five
Provinces: Oddar Meanchey, Banteay Meanchey, Siem Reap, Preah Vihear and Stung Treng.
Government authority over the majority of the area is centred on the provincial capitals and the
Provincial Governors Office. Jurisdiction for natural resource issues falls under the Provincial
Department of the Environment (DoE) and the Provincial Department of Agriculture, Forests
and Fisheries (DAFF, particularly the Provincial Forestry Office). The DoE is responsible for
Protected Areas and DAFF for forest and agricultural lands. Overall development priorities for
the Province are set out in the Provincial Development Plan produced by the Provincial
Governors Office in collaboration with all line departments and the Provincial Rural
Development Committee (PRDC).
6
4.The Northern Plains of Cambodia are the largest remaining extensive intact block of a unique
landscape of exceptional global importance for biodiversity conservation. The area is either a last
refuge for, or maintains a key population of 36 species on the IUCN Red List, including six
listed as Critically Endangered (see Annex 1). The 1997 National Biodiversity Prospectus lists
the Northern Plains as a landscape of national and international importance, because it is the
largest remaining example of a forest type that once covered large areas of Indochina. Many
species that rely on these forests are known to be extinct elsewhere, thus heightening the value of
this region. One, the Giant Ibis Pseudoibis gigantea, was only known from a handful of records
in the 1900s, until re-discovered during the PDF-B in considerable numbers in the Northern
Plains. Conservation of these species is particularly challenging because the majority of them large birds and mammals - have large spatial requirements.
5. The landscape supports one of the most intact remaining examples of the bird community of
the dry forests of central Indochina. Many large bird species are dependent upon waterbodies,
including Green Peafowl Pavo muticus, White-winged Duck Cairina scutulata, Sarus Crane
Grus antigone, White-shouldered and Giant Ibises Pseudibis davisoni and P. gigantea, Greater
and Lesser Adjutants Leptoptilus dubius and L. javanicus and Black-necked Stork
Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus. These resources are spatially restricted and seasonal in nature, so
the bird species rely on a few key locations during the dry season and disperse across the
landscape following the rains.
6. There are strong linkages between the Northern Plains landscape, and one of the other major
landscapes in Cambodia, the Tonle Sap lake. A host of globally threatened waterbirds, such as
Spot-billed Pelicans Pelecanus philippensis, Painted Storks Mycteria leucocephala, Greater and
Lesser Adjutants breed on Tonle Sap, but disperse across the Northern Plains in the wet season.
Conversely, Sarus Cranes and White-shouldered Ibis breed in the Northern Plains and return to
the large permanent wetlands on the floodplain and the edge of the Northern Plains at the
beginning of the dry season. Maintenance of one landscape would be insufficient for the
conservation of these species. Ang Trapeang Thmor, a man-made reservoir on the edge of the
Northern Plains in Banteay Meanchey province, is the dry season feeding refuge for the largest
flock of eastern Sarus Crane in Southeast Asia and has probably the single largest herd of Eld’s
Deer Cervus eldi siamensis in Indochina.
7. Raptors, especially White-rumped Vulture Gyps bengalensis, Slender-billed Vulture G.
tenuirostris and Red-headed Vulture Sarcogyps calvus have large home ranges and rely on
extensive areas of intact habitat for their food supply. However, they also have restrictive spatial
requirements for breeding, because they are dependent upon isolated tall trees. The same Gyps
species have undergone > 97% declines in the last 5-10 years in the Indian subcontinent due to
poisoning by a veterinary drug, and are expected to become extinct within a few years.
Cambodia has one of only two existent refuge populations of these once widespread species
(now listed by the IUCN as critically endangered).
8. In addition to their key value to birds, the plains are also crucial to large mammal conservation
in Cambodia and, in fact, the entire Indo-Malayan Realm. Many formerly widespread species
7
are now only found in a few areas of which the Northern Plains is one of the largest and has high
potential for conservation. Examples of these include Lyle's Flying Fox Pteropus lylei, Eld's
Deer Cervus eldii, Banteng Bos javanicus, Tiger Panthera tigris, Fishing Cat Prionailurus
viverrina and Asian Elephant Elephas maximus. Like the water birds, these species rely on
being able to concentrate in a few key resource areas during infertile or dry times and disperse
widely across the floodplains when the water enriches the soil. Range sizes are poorly known,
but data from other countries would indicate that many of these species require large areas; even
the spatially restricted Eld’s Deer has been recorded moving 20 km in a single night in
Myanmar, crossing areas of unsuitable habitat (e.g. village rice fields and dense forests). Other
large mammals, e.g. Elephants and large cats, have much more greater requirements.
9. Although the landscape is of demonstrated global biodiversity importance, current
conservation efforts are inadequate to mitigate the threats to biodiversity. Such is the vulnerable
nature of the environment during the seasonal extremes, that although keystone resources
(permanent water bodies, semi-evergreen forest, mineral licks) are distributed across a wide area,
they are small in number, localized and especially vulnerable, so that the removal of even one
such resource could have significant detrimental affects on unique components of biodiversity
across a large distribution. Accordingly, an integrated conservation management strategy must
ensure sufficient maintenance of these resources across the landscape in order to be successful.
In addition, to incorporate the range requirements of large mammal species some extensive areas
of habitat, within the human-use landscape, will need to be retained.
10. All forest resources and land are technically managed by MAFF, which has very little
provincial capacity for this task. For example, the Forestry Office in one province has 16 staff for
130,000 inhabitants. Historically, communities had no legal right to use forest resources, beyond
some trival activities (e.g. firewood collection), and their traditional ownership systems (e.g. of
resin trees) are not recognised. Further, 25 years of conflict has disrupted traditional forms of
land management, and encouraged a prevailing attitude of insecurity, promoting a short-term
approach to resource extraction based upon competition with other individuals or groups. The
people who benefit most from this situation tend to be those who are richer and better equiped
(generally people from outside or members of the military or police), at the expense of local
people.
11. Hunting of wildlife (particularly turtles and lizards) is an important seasonal protein source
for local people. Commercial hunting of large mammals and waterbirds is undertaken by a
limited group of people who either have guns, or rent them from the police or army. Substantial
declines in the populations of large mammals in the last 10 years have probably reduced the
number of people engaged in this activity. Wildlife is principally sold to Thailand, or
occasionally Laos PDR. Two border crossing points to Thailand (one of which is not recognised)
are the main exit points for wildlife products. The prices paid are comparatively high - e.g. $50
for a Sarus Crane chick, $150 for an Eld’s Deer, and $2500-3000 for a Tiger. In comparison,
average family resin-tapping income is around $150/year.
8
12. Commercial activities are limited. The principal legally traded product is the resin of
dipterocarp trees, which is transported to Vietnam or Laos PDR for processing. Historically,
resin-tapping was a traditional activity undertaken for fuel and lighting and it became
commercially widespread only since the late 1980s. The tapping is probably sustainable (Evans
et al. 2002 A study of resin-tapping and livelihoods in southern Mondulkiri, Cambodia, with
implications for conservation and forest management, WCS Report), and is undertaken by the
families that are recognized, by the community, as owning a particular group of trees. Studies
have indicated that resin income is particularly important for livelihood security - families use
resin income to buy food, in times of shortage, or are able to borrow money from the trader
against future tapped resin. In recent years conflicts have arisen between the tappers and loggers
(either concessionaires or illegal logging by armed forces), who do not recognize the
communities’ traditional ownership system. The implication of the removal of family resin
income on livelihood security is the subject of a present study (by the Cambodia Development
Resource Institute and WCS). The communities surrounding the Chendar Plywood concession
organized themselves into a local NGO as a consequence of logging of resin trees in 2000.
13. Logging was undertaken by various groups in the 1980-1990s, and more recently by
concessionaires. The concessionaire system was established in the late 1990s, with 5 concessions
across the Northern Plains (TPP, Chendar Plywood, Timas, Samrong, Pheapimex Fuchan, see
Map 1). Cambodia declared a ban on all logging in 2001, following which all concessionaires
were required to submit revised management plans and environmental and social impact
assessments. Five concessions have been re-approved, including Chendar Plywood in the centre
of the Northern Plains and logging is anticipated to re-commence in 2005. In the meantime,
illegal logging by armed forces (police or military) has been widespread. Community
involvement is restricted to acting as guides to show the armed teams the locations of the best
trees, for which they are paid around $2.5/day.
Problem to be Addressed
Problem Statement
14. Escalating land and resource use across the Northern Plains is leading to competing humanwildlife requirements and loss of key biodiversity values. Human land and resource use has
increased partly as a result of increasing human population and in-migration, although
population densities remain fairly low, but also because as security returns to the area there is
much greater potential for resource exploitaiton. The conflicts are exacerbated by the current
“open-access” management system of natural resources across the Northern Plains, which
manifests through the following threatening processes:
a) Over-exploitation of wildlife resources
15. Local communities do not rely on large mammal or bird species for their food security,
although they do hunt other wildlife species (e.g. monitor lizards) at particular times of the year.
Most protein consumed in villages comes from fish. Hunting equipment is relatively small-scale
9
such as wire or rope snares and activities tend to accompany trips for other purposes - such as
resin-tapping or fishing. As such, disturbance is primarily focused in areas that are also critical
for wildlife (dense forest areas, rivers and seasonal waterbodies). Invariably, people are
accompanied by dogs on these trips, which is one of the principal causes of disturbance and
incidentally hunting of wildlife. Dogs are a particular threat to the globally threatened Whitewinged Duck when they are moulting or have young, flightless, chicks.
16.Uncontrolled commercial hunting has led to a massive decline in many species across the
landscape. Hunting of large mammals mainly requires guns and metal snares and is performed
by a relatively small group of people who have access to this equipment (generally connected to
police or military). The peak hunting season follows the first rains, when large mammal species
are attracted by new grass shoots in burnt, low-lying, regions of the landscape that are adjacent to
denser forest areas (used for hiding, such as the Chendar concession). Later in the wet season
large mammals can be attracted by the new rice growth in paddyfields and shifting cultivation
plots, and are easy targets for hunters. Large waterbirds start to nest in the wet season, and are
particularly susceptible to collection of eggs and chicks. Some of this collection is opportunistic
(e.g. Giant Ibis), whilst for other species hunters undertake specific trips (e.g. Sarus Cranes).
Large-scale hunting with guns and snares and collection of eggs and chicks is driven by their
commercial value from the wildlife trade. Wildlife is sold through a series of middlemen either
for the national markets, or the international trade, principally across the Thai border. These
border crossings are controlled by the police and military on both sides. In the wet season traders
will periodically visit villages to buy eggs and chicks, again mainly for sale to Thailand or Laos
PDR.
b) Over-exploitation of forest resources
17. Strong economic incentives promote logging, recently by military and police, and historically
by concessionaires. Logging occurs in areas of dense, evergreen, forest also used by large
mammal species for shelter and browsing, and by some species of birds for breeding (e.g. Whitewinged Duck nests in tree-holes, Adjutants and Vultures nest in large trees). Whilst logging
activities do not directly threaten these species it does contribute to a high level of disturbance
and removal of too much of the forest canopy which can lead to forest degradation, soil erosion
and an insufficient number of large trees for nesting purposes. More importantly, the
construction of logging roads opens up new areas and poor salaries given to loggers
(concessionaire and military) create ideal opportunities for hunting to supplement income and
food. Logging can have major implications for local villagers, who rely on timber and the
products that the forests provide. In particular, the loss of resin trees removes the major cash
income source for local people and the livelihood security that this provides. Present logging by
the military is on-going in the Kulen Promtep Wildlife Sanctuary, the Preah Vihear Protected
Forest, the Chendar Plywood concession, Phnom Tbeng and surrounding several communities in
the region.
18. Shifting cultivation by communities and the associated forest clearances is not a major
problem for biodiversity conservation, especially as these activities are generally located near
10
settlements and key biodiversity resources are mostly further distant. All communities complain
of over-exploitation by outsiders as the principal factor creating the present situation, and they
benefit little from these activities. For example, a villager may be paid $2.5/day to show military
loggers suitable trees for felling. However, under present land management systems the
communities have no tenure or title over land or natural resources adjacent to their villages and
accordingly have no legal right to prevent exploitation by outsiders. Forest land and resource
management resembles an ‘open-access’ system where there is no barrier, other than capacity, to
anybody exploiting the resource in any particular way.
c) Seasonal destruction of key water bodies
19. Waterbodies are a critical resource in the Northern Plains, and most of the key components of
biodiversity are dependent upon them for some of the year for food, water and habitat. Human
use of waterbodies is also essential for local livelihoods, as people are dependent upon fish for
protein, and traveling groups rely on particular watersources along forest trails. In the late dry
season, when only a few locations still contain water, competitive exclusion of wildlife from
waterbodies by humans may have serious implications for species’ populations.
20. The same open-access system that is causing degradation of the forest resource has similar
implications for the management of water bodies. The driving incentive is to maximise returns as
quickly as possible. This encourages over-exploitation of water resources and the use of
unsustainable methods. The most obvious and destructive include the illegal use of bomb,
poison and electric fishing techniques. These are generally used by temporary migrants
(sometimes military or police), who enter an area to remove all the fish and then leave.
Communities have more limited availability to such techniques, and are more aware that the use
of these methods reduces future yields in their area. All communities complained of reductions
in fish yields resulting from the use of unsustainable fishing methods by outsiders, although
communities are known to be increasing the use of electric fishing methods.
Underlying Causes
21. The threatening processes outlined above are caused by main “production sectors” operating
across the Northern Plains: the wildlife trade; NTFP collection; timber production; and fishing.
Biodiversity conservation or sustainable use considerations are clearly not factors shaping the
operation of these “sectors”. Partly this is a function of the fact that these sectors can barely be
considered established sectors:
 They operate in and outside of the Royal Government of Cambodia’s legislative
framework and rule of law. The wildlife trade is not only on the whole illegal, but is
also in contravention of international agreements, such as the CITES. The timber
production sector has historically included legal as well illegal elements. However,
currently logging is undertaken in the shadow of the 2001 ban. Electric, poison and
bomb fishing methods are technically illegal.
 They operate at commercial and subsistence levels. As has already been explained,
much of the productive activity of local communities is at the subsistence level – or at
11


least at non-commercial levels. This applies to the timber production and fishing
sectors. Commercial scale production logging and fishing takes places (generally by
outsiders) and while destructive, only a small proportion of these operations are
formal (and legal). Resin tapping has been a commercial activity since the early
1990s, but it is unclear how many potential sources remain (i.e. most trees are now
tapped).
Even where productive activities are legal, they have been undertaken largely in an
“open-access” regime. This is a consequence of the short history of democratic
governance in the Northern Plains and the debilitatingly low baseline of systemic,
institutional and individual capacity that the long periods of conflict have created.
The resultant insecure tenures and rights shorten the planning horizons and promote
the pursuit of short-term rents at the expense of sustainability.
Changes in land-use practices to incorporate conservation impacts will involve a loss
of short-term earnings (from wildlife trade, timber etc…) in favour of long-term gain
(e.g. income from wildlife tourism, sustainable resin-tapping, community forests,
etc…). Encouraging these changes will require not only an increase in security of
tenure, but also positive incentive measures to replace the short-term loss of
production income.
22. As a result, the Northern Plains are characterized by varying land and resource use gradients,
creating an ad-hoc mosaic of biodiversity pressures and exploitations. Given the distribution of
relatively limited keystone resources that the globally significant large mammals and waterbirds
require, this invariably leads to an escalation of human-wildlife conflicts across the Northern
Plains –with a corresponding loss of biodiversity.
23. Further, tourism is a growing “production sector” for the Northern Plains. In 2003, the Royal
Government of Cambodia set a new policy to transform the Northern Plains into a new Tourism
Zone Destination through a Triangle Tourism Development Strategy between Cambodia, Laos
PDR and Thailand. This will require a significant level of infrastructure rehabilitation and
development, potentially contributing further to biodiversity conflicts.
24. A final underlying cause of biodiversity decline relates to populations of key species of
carnivores and scavengers (e.g. Tigers and Vultures). Research in other countries has shown that
these species are critically dependent upon abundant prey populations. The maintenance of these
species in the landscape can only, therefore, be achieved by addressing the threats outlined
(above) and ensuring that populations of prey species return to previous levels. The present low
numbers of these species across the Northern Plains is one of the major threats to carnivore and
scavenger species. Research during the PDF-B revealed that populations of Vultures are
critically low.
12
Current Situation (Baseline)
Legal Setting
25.Environmental management and biodiversity conservation in Cambodia has the potential to
build upon a strong, developing, base of legislation, policies and institutional structures. Articles
58 and 59 of the Cambodian Constitution (Rot Tommanuoen) relate specifically to the natural
environment, and Article 59 states in part: “The State shall protect the environment and balance
of abundant natural resources and establish a precise plan of management [of environmental
resources]”.
26.The legislative framework governing the management of land and forestry has been improved
greatly by the RGC within the past three years (see Annex 8). This includes Cambodia’s first
land law (2001), the new forestry law (2002), and sub-decrees on community forestry and
wildlife protection (2003). The Commune Administration Law (2001) established, through local
elections, authorities to manage small groups of villages (communes), government funds for their
work, and a local development planning process. Together this framework provides, for the first
time in Cambodian history, sufficient legislation to address issues of land tenure, community
rights and participation in management of natural resources.
The framework substantially improves laws regarding the enforcement of forest crime, wildlife
hunting and wildlife trade, and will be strengthened further with new sub-decrees on wildlife
protection. These laws apply both inside and outside protected areas and forests, and therefore
have the potential to be implemented across the whole of the Northern Plains landscape.
However, there is no current facility to ensure that all stakeholders are aware of these new laws
and it will be necessary for NGOs and other agencies to help increase understanding of the
implications and possibilities arising from these laws if they are to be implemented.
27.The new land law establishes a clear classification system for land, both public and private
(see Appendix 3 of Annex 8) and the usufruct rights of communities - the right to use natural
resources. A process of participatory land-use planning (PLUP) has been adopted by the Ministry
of Land Management, whereby facilitators assist communities to identify and map the land that
they use and to develop plans for its improved management. PLUP maps can eventually be
registered, achieving formal ownership (land title and resource tenure). Several projects,
supported by a variety of donor agencies including GTZ, UNDP and FAO are using PLUP to
improve natural resource management in Cambodia, although outside of the Northern Plains.
28.The new forestry law (2002), follows and respects the community title of the Land Law and
goes further in ensuring user rights for forest products to local communities living in or near
forests, even those who may not be able to obtain title under the land law (see Annex 8). The
mechanism defined in the forestry law to protect these community rights is a Community Forest
Agreement between the Forestry Administration and the local community for a specific area
within state forest land that the community traditionally uses for subsistence uses. The new subdecree on community forestry (2003, see Appendix 1 of Annex 8) sets out the required
13
procedures. Whilst this is a marked improvement over previous legislation, the complexity and
novelty of the law, and the relative inexperience of provincial authorities with regard to law,
require that support be given to all stakeholders in the coming few years. Further, the
Community Forest Agreement only covers the use of forest NTFPs, one of the three threats
identified (above). Additional tools would be required to improve management of waterbodies or
hunting and trade of wildlife.
29. Seila (see below) is the principal promotion agency of decentralization, including the transfer
of implementation responsibilities over national programs included in the new laws. However
Seila has only recently started to function in some of the provinces within the Northern Plains
landscape, and initiatives relating to the new land and forestry laws are only being implemented
in one of the four provinces, Siem Reap. LMAP (see below) is the principal implementation
project of the new land law, however only Siem Reap belongs to the priority provinces. Some
assistance will still be provided to non-priority provinces, including support for a provincial land
conflict resolution committee. Agencies can, however, be informed by Seila projects in other
areas - particularly the provinces of Ratanakiri and Mondulkiri (with LMAP). Without the
assistance from another Agency the implementation of the new legislative framework in the
Northern Plains would be weak.
30. Some existing legislation contains minor provisions on hunting and trade of wildlife issues.
However they fail to address several key issues or provide MAFF with incentives necessary for
adequate enforcement. Inside a protected area, enforcement is governed by MoE. A series of
wildlife protection sub-decrees is currently being enacted, developed by the Forest
Administration, with technical legal assistance from WCS.
31. Despite substantial improvements in Cambodia’s legal framework within the past three years
there is no current facility to ensure that all stakeholders are aware of these new laws and it will
be necessary for many agencies to help increase understanding of the implications and
possibilities arising from these laws. In addition, without positive incentives to encourage
changes in land use that are allowed for by the new laws current patterns of land management
may not be altered, despite implementation.
Seila programme and LMAP (see Annex 9)
32. Seila Programme is an aid mobilization and coordination framework in support of the Royal
Government’s decentralization and deconcentration reforms, and its goal is to contribute to
poverty alleviation through good governance. The core Seila component is PLG (Partnership for
Local Governance), which provides technical assistance and funding to provincial government,
provincial departments and district and communal authorities in support and implementation of
development plans. PLG is entirely funded by UNDP. At the province level, the Provincial Rural
Development Committee (PRDC) chaired by the Governor and including all Department
Directors, District Chiefs and senior officials from the military and police, are responsible for the
administration and management of the provincial territory. At the Commune level the Commune
Development Committees (CDC), chaired by the commune chief and elected representatives are
14
responsible for the administration and development of the commune. This includes management
of natural resources (including forests), however in general these issues are afforded lower
priority than those relating to health, education, and so on.
33. Seila/PLG also provides support to provincial departments in their decision-making and
implementation, especially where it is relevant to national strategies. Recently, support as been
provided to the provincial Department of Environment, in establishing a community forestry area
inside the Kulen Promtep Wildlife Sanctuary, and the provincial Department of Agriculture,
Forests and Fisheries to establish a community forest. However, capacity constraints mean that
these initiatives are likely to remain localized, and will not consider the landscape priorities in
the allocation of future funding.
Institutional Framework
34. Two ministries, MAFF and MoE, are responsible for the management of components of
biodiversity. Planning in both ministries does not incorporate landscape conservation values.
For example, the Kulen Promtep Wildlife Sanctuary contains 20,000 people in 4,000km².
Recently the provincial department of the environment has requested that several villages be
moved, for conservation purposes. However, these villages are located in areas with few of the
key components of biodiversity, or resources that they depend upon. Further, the villages are
located along a main road and are being settled by people moving out of a region that contains
several species of key conservation concern.
35. Enforcement of laws governing logging and the hunting and trade of wildlife is the authority
of Forest Administration (FA) of MAFF, and, inside a protected area only, MoE. The capacity
for MoE for enforcement is weak, mainly due to a lack of training, equipment, infrastructure and
(particularly) provincial-level support.
36. The new FA structure has created a four-tiered hierarchy of administration units from
Sangkats (covering several communes), Divisons (one or more districts), Cantonments
(effectively Provinces) and Inspectorates (each governing approximately a quarter of Cambodia).
This decentralization has led to large numbers of staff being relocated to provincial areas, and
has led to an increase in law enforcement and regulation. The new Sangkat boundaries do not
particularly reflect forested regions or conservation priorities. In addition, in a similar manner to
MoE, staff lack training, equipment, infrastructure and provincial-level support. In some cases,
FA staff have been involved in the confiscation of small-scale hunting gear and logging
equipment used by local communities and of incidental trade of lizards of turtles. However, these
activities ignore areas of much greater importance for biodiversity and much more serious threats
(hunting with guns, large-scale logging, wildlife trade to Thailand, activities by armed forces
etc.). Some activities, for example placement of small traps around rice fields, may be illegal but
have little impact on the key components of biodiversity, which are generally found further from
villages.
15
37. In the past few years development projects have begun to transform the landscape. New
roads have been built bisecting the Kulen Promtep Wildlife Sanctuary and a road is planned
across the Preah Vihear Protected Forest. One road through the wildlife sanctuary split an area
that, in the wet season, supports a colony of breeding large waterbirds. A logging concession
(TPP) was declared that included a steep-sided plateau, Phnom Tbeng. However, logging of the
slopes would seriously increase the risk of landslides and floods and would have implications for
the quality of the water supply to one of the provincial capitals.
38. In general, Government capacity to address conservation issues at the landscape scale still
remains very weak at all levels, although it is improving. The capacity at provincial level to
implement and enforce laws is still low. Coordination between government agencies and with
relevant stakeholders is lacking. The capacity of the local community and provincial departments
to participate in decision-making and in land use planning and management is limited.
The only exception is the management of Ang Trapeang Thmor reservoir. This site was declared
a Crane Reserve by Royal Decree in 2001, under the responsibility of MAFF. Subsequently, ICF
(the International Crane Foundation) has provided financial and technical support to MAFF site
officers, including land use planning. Given this continued support the importance of at least one
landscape feature for biodiversity conservation should be recognized.
Summary of Baseline
39. The baseline response to the threats and underlying causes can best be characterized as
having a strong new legislative framework, but very little implementation of that framework with
consideration of conservation objectives would be achieved for the following reasons:
 Government staff and institutions are not yet using the new framework; partly because it is a
new development, but also largely because they lack the capacity for implementation.
 There is little awareness amongst government staff and institutions regarding the globally
significant biodiversity values of the Northern Plains, and how these could be incorporated
into implementation of the new laws.
 Implementation of the new framework would be slow and fragmented, with different
government institutions promoting particular aspects (e.g. land rights, enforcement, and so
on). Although changes might be achieved these would probably be too late to sustainably
manage the keystone landscape resources that wildlife populations require.
 Low incentives for armed forces to participate in implementation of the new legislative
framework.
 Low incentives for alternative land use options amongst local communities means that
present land use management may not change, despite implementation of the new legal
structure.
 Existing management support to MAFF at Ang Trapeang Thmor means that this is the only
key site in the landscape recognized for biodiversity values.
16
Consequently, exploitation of the landscapes’ natural resources will continue through
unrestrained and unmanaged land use and development. This will lead to increased conflict with
wildlife movements across the Northern Plains and their reliance on keystone resources.
PART II: STRATEGY
Project Rationale (The Alternative)
40. The CALM project applies a three-pronged approach to augmenting the baseline efforts in
order to achieve global environmental outcomes:
(i) introduce biodiversity into provincial-level land use processes (using PLUP, land tenure and
the implementation of new Laws). These interventions will occur across the Northern Plains by
virtue of the fact that they will be strengthening provincial level institutional capacities. This
will be done through Component 1.
(ii) “road test” more specific mainstreaming interventions at 4 key sites - community land-use
tenure; community contracts and incentives for changes in land-use practices, biodiversityfriendly resin tapping, and - most importantly - working to mainstream biodiversity into 2
production sectors; forestry (in the concession sites) and tourism. This will be done through
Components 2. They can be scaled-up by contributing to Component 1.
(iii) strengthen biodiversity management at 4 key sites within the landscape mosaic by ensuring
the needs of the landscape species (waterbirds and large mammals) are understood and
addressed. This will be done through Component 3.
An additional Component 4 will cover Project Management and Evaluation, including adaptive
management, project reviews and reporting to GEF.
41. The second and third prongs will be developed under the “Landscape Species Approach” to
achieving biodiversity results at the landscape level. The approach is consistent with the GEF
Strategic Priority BD-2’s rationale of integrating biodiversity conservation into the broader
development agenda through capacity building and demonstration1.
Introducing Biodiversity at the Provincial Level
42. The project intervention will work to introduce biodiversity values into landscape-level landuse processes. Implementation will focus particularly on building the capacity of provincial
departments and authorities and integrating specific project initiatives with established provincial
planning processes (supported through Seila/PLG ). These specific project initiatives include the
direct implementation of the new land law and sub-decree on community forestry to develop
management plans for natural resource areas that include conservation of key components of
biodiversity. The project will also work with the forestry and tourism sectors, and the provincial
1
GEF/C.21/Inf.11
17
departments of agriculture and environment, to enhance the recognition of key components of
biodiversity in planning and management strategies. These activities are described in Component
1 of the full project. The aim of the work will be to ensure biodiversity considerations are
incorporated into the new land use planning and management regimes anticipated under the land
law and forestry law. The project therefore is in line with objective (a) of the GEF Strategic
Priority: facilitate the mainstreaming of biodiversity within production systems.
Additional Measures to Achieve Biodiversity Results Across Production Landscapes – the LSA
43. The earlier explanation of the underlying causes of biodiversity loss (see paragraph 21) set
out the marginal nature of “production” sectors across the Northern Plains. The ramifications of
this are that landscape-level biodiversity outcomes are unlikely to be achieved by mainstreaming
biodiversity considerations into the production systems alone.
44. As a result of these ramifications, the GEF alternative will also deliver biodiversity outcomes
at the production landscape level through the application of innovative landscape-level
conservation tools. This is in line with objective (c) of the GEF Strategic Priority:
demonstration. New and better land use management practices are required to help people and
wildlife share the same landscapes. The project will apply the “Landscape Species Approach”
(LSA) – a wildlife-based strategy used to define conservation landscapes, identify threats and
achieve conservation outcomes at the landscape scale in a cost-effective manner (by prioritizing
conservation investments). LSA helps identify where human and biological landscapes intersect.
It is a tool to mainstream biodiversity values into human uses of landscapes (i.e. productive
processes).
45. Pioneered internationally by WCS through its Living Landscapes Program, the LSA centres
on preserving the ecological integrity of a large area or wilderness through understanding and
conservation of a suite of “landscape species”, selected as being ecologically representative of
that landscape. The Living Landscape philosophy is to develop strategies for the conservation of
large, complex ecosystems that are integrated in wider landscapes of human influence which
includes, but is not restricted to, protected areas, community land, forestry concessions,
plantations and other areas of economic importance. For landscape scale conservation to be
socially as well as ecologically sustainable, strategies must succeed in a mosaic of different land
uses that not only conserve biodiversity, but also allows people to make a living.
46. The focus on landscape species (wildlife) allows the landscape to become geographically
tangible and ecologically meaningful and makes the targets for, and outcomes of, conservation
investments explicit and measurable. In other words, the approach guides where interventions
should “touch the ground” in order to have broader landscape-level impacts. The Northern
Plains are ideally suited to this approach as the main biodiversity values reside in populations
and unique assemblages of large mammals and waterbirds. Both groups include very good
“landscape species”.
18
47. Simple decision rules were used to select a suite of 10 landscape species (or species groups)
that had particular habitat requirements and were threatened by particular human behaviours (see
Annex 1). The Living Landscape philosophy states that interventions designed for the
conservation of these species will be sufficient to address the threats faced by and habitat
requirements of the other key components of biodiversity found across the landscape. During the
PDF-B the distribution of each species was mapped across the Northern Plains (see Map 2). This
distribution was analysed in comparison with the human threats (see Map 3) and used to select
four key sites for conservation (Map 4), comprising a total of 12 core and 8 buffer areas (see
Annex 2). A fifth key site, Ang Trapeang Thmor, was not included due to the existing strong
management support to MAFF provided by ICF.
48. The selection of these key sites implies that the successful management of each, for all of the
key species, will result in the maintenance of all components of biodiversity across the Northern
Plains landscape. However, only one of the key sites, Kulen Promtep Wildlife Sanctuary, lies
within a formal PA, and, in addition it has a population of over 20,000 people. Another is within
the Preah Vihear MAFF-designated ‘protected forest’ for which management guidelines are yet
to be established but will include conservation objectives together with productive uses. Ang
Trapeang Thmor is a Protected Area by Royal Decree, although again management regulations
are unclear. ICF is currently working with MAFF to develop a management structure. The
remaining sites are the O’Scach and O’Dar rivers within the Chendar Plywood logging
concession, which is contiguous with the Preah Vihear Protected Forest, and the Phnom Tbeng
plateau, inside the TPP logging concession. The CALM project is designed to integrate
biodiversity values within the human land-use systems found in these key sites, with the aim of
maintaining local populations of key species. If the assumptions of the Living Landscape
approach are valid then the suite of sites selected will (importantly) be sufficient for the
successful conservation of all key components of biodiversity across the landscape.
49. At the four key sites the project will test specific project initiatives that aim to mainstream
biodiversity values into the human use of the landscape. These initiatives will include the use of
PLUP with communities and authorities to map and approve community land-use areas and
establish management plans for these areas that recognize biodiversity values (Component 2).
Community land-use will include the establishment of security of tenure for the owners of resin
trees, in order to promote this sustainable form of forest use. A program of ‘contracts’ will
provide direct incentives to those communities that incorporate measures for the conservation of
key biodiversity components into their management plans, and lead to tangible changes in
resource-use behaviour (Component 2). An education and awareness program (Component 3)
will be necessary to increase the capacity of communities to plan and manage natural resources
with consideration of the impact of decisions on biodiversity components. The products of
Component 2 will be integrated into provincial-level (and hence landscape-level) processes
through Component 1.
50. Lack of know-how has been identified during the PDF-B phase as a key barrier to sustainable
natural resource management that needs to be addressed - in addition to securing tenure and user
rights. Simple usufructual rights will not promote sustainable management if communities are
19
unaware of the alternatives to short-term over-exploitation. The project will support the removal
of some of the key knowledge barriers to sustainable natural resource management through
Component 2:
a) Economic and financial viability The conditions necessary for the economic and financial
viability of sustainable natural resource management have not been elaborated in the
Northern Plains. Clear guidelines are needed for practitioners and planners to be able to
recognize the conditions under which the new legislative framework can provide adequate
incentives for communities to adopt sustainable practices. This will be evaluated by activity
4.2.
b) Technical know-how Provincial authorities and local communities need to understand
appropriate harvesting systems and management strategies for forest NTFPs and water
resources. In addition, they lack the technical knowledge of how to use the results of
community-based monitoring to define sustainable harvesting limits.
c) Financing Provincial authorities and local communities lack appropriate knowledge of
accounting systems and the costs and benefits of sustainable natural resource management.
d) Enforcement Practitioners need to know what types of internal and external
enforcement/control/oversight mechanisms to recommend for sustainable natural resource
management and how to maintain these functioning systems.
51. In some cases improved knowledge may be insufficient to encourage a change to sustainable
management practices, particularly if they are viewed with suspicion, or require foregoing
financially attractive but highly unsustainable alternatives. If the new land-use management
regime is to be effective in achieving biodiversity conservation outcomes and sustainable
livelihoods it will have to generate much more substantial incentives for local communities.
Support in protecting their natural resources from illegal activities will help, but it is expected
that additional incentives will be required.
52. The incentive scheme and the community contracts (Component 2) are therefore essential
requirements of the intervention. Recent reviews of Integrated Conservation and Development
Projects have shown that there are very few incidences where increasing peoples livelihoods or
meeting developmental needs has contributed to conservation objectives (e.g. Wells, M., S.
Guggenheim, A. Khan, W. Wardojo, and P. Jepson. 1999. Investing in Biodiversity. The
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Washington D.C.). Many conservation
projects around the world are emphasizing more direct incentives approach or in some cases a
direct payment for biodiversity conservation. These might be in the form of easements for nonuse and performance payments based conservation outcome. These payment plans are based on
a person or group of people producing conservation outcomes in exchange for a payment in cash
or exchange (Ferraro, P. J., and A. Kiss. 2002. Direct Payments to Conserve Biodiversity.
Science 298). In the Northern Plains, these incentives will replace income lost through reductions
in current exploitation patterns in the short-term whilst long-term sustainable practices are
developed (including wildlife tourism, resin-tapping, community forests and fisheries). Options
will be investigated during the first year of the project, but might include:
1. The leasing of keystone watersources in the short-term, replaced by a tourism
observation platform in the longer term.
20
2. Payments for reductions in incidences of poison fishing in the short-term, in the longerterm the establishment of community fisheries and the recovery of fish populations
would demonstrate the clear benefit of the cessation of unsustainable fishing methods.
53. An evaluation system would be established for the incentives scheme, and rewards only
provided if the community contract is upheld. During the PDF-B CALM established a pilot
project that serves as an example of how the incentives scheme might work. The village of
Tmatboey was selected as an eco-tourism site. An agreement was made with the village whereby
CALM would facilitate tourist visits to see Giant Ibis, in exchange for a commitment not to hunt
with guns, collect eggs or chicks (or assist others with these activities). Each tourist group was
levied a fee, and the agreement states that this money will be dispersed to the village at the end
of the 2004 wet season, if the agreement has been upheld. Village meetings will be held before
this time for the community to decide how the funds should be spent.
54. Activity 2b2 of the intervention will specifically research the requirements for the incentive
scheme. In particular, there will be an economic analysis of the environmental values being
compensated, and the benefits of short-term over-extraction. This will be used to determine an
appropriate level of payment under the incentive scheme. Activity 2b2 will also establish the
mechanism (rules and processes) by which incentives are provided to communities, and the
procedure for evaluation of the scheme. Finally, Component 3 will address the sustainability of
the scheme, by calculating its long-term running costs and identifying the source of future
revenue.
55. Within the same key sites the project will strengthen biodiversity management through
support to the relevant government structure (MoE in Kulen Promtep Wildlife Sanctuary and the
FA in the remaining sites). At the MoE site activities will be managed by the WS Director, with
support from project officers. At FA sites local activities will be managed by the Sangkat and
Division directors of the FA, with site co-ordination provided by a FA Site Manager. WCS/FA
have successfully adopted this management structure for another project in Mondulkiri. This
implementation structure ensures that project activities are integrated within government
structures, thus increasing the sustainability of initiatives. The FA and MoE site managers will be
responsible for approving and promoting agreements made with communities (including
Community Forestry Agreements and PLUP maps) established during Component 2. Some
immediate government action will be necessary at these sites if the threats from outside
individuals and armed forces are to be reduced and biodiversity is to be maintained. However, in
the longer term project initiatives (Component 2) will strengthen local community governance
and reduce the need for FA and MoE management.
56. In Component 3 the project will provide site assistance to the local FA or MoE management
structures - particularly through training, equipment and infrastructure to address the ‘knowledge
barriers’ outlined. Site staff will be supported in the production of management plans,
particularly focusing on the importance of adaptive management and the ability to respond to
prioritize responses to threats across jurisdictional units. The project will ensure that there is a
structure for sound management of long term activities. Site management staff will be members
21
of the appropriate authority (FA or MoE) with jurisdiction over the area including key sites. The
project will not therefore create new (non-government) management structures, instead
providing support to existing systems. Component 3 will also ensure that sufficient training is
provided to government managers and provincial staff. Activities under this component will
further establish the infrastructure and necessary equipment for long-term management of key
sites.
57. At each site, the project will train and support FA or MoE staff in the legal framework and
law enforcement (Component 3). Government staff will then work to address site threats and,
across their jurisdictional control (FA Sangkat or MoE WS), to target threats such as the wildlife
trade. Enforcement will be conducted within the limits set by agreements made between the
users of key sites (such as communities or concessionaires) and the local authority (FA or MoE).
The primary objective of law enforcement teams will be the mitigation of the immediate and
substantive threat caused by outside individuals and the armed forces, and supporting the rights
of communities established under Component 2. This threat will also be addressed through the
education program (Component 3), which will operate both within key sites and for threats (e.g.
military bases) across the landscape. In addition, the project will seek the active engagement of
armed forces in law enforcement, through their direct involvement in enforcement teams. This
model has been used at several locations in Cambodia to reduce threats caused by armed forces.
58. A monitoring program (Component 3) will establish the progress of the project in meeting
the objective of maintained biodiversity, in order to inform adaptive management. The LSA
implies that the successful management of each site, for all of the key species, will result in the
maintenance of all components of biodiversity across the Northern Plains landscape. Component
3 will monitor populations of wildlife and their habitats across each of the sites to ensure that this
objective is met. Results will be used to inform an annual process that will prioritize activities for
each site (Component 4, Project Management). This will ensure that the project does not adopt a
‘site-by-site’ approach, whereby site activities are completed in isolation and without
consideration of the status of other sites. For example, an immediate land encroachment problem
would be solved by mobilization of PLUP teams from other sites where threats were lower.
59. Activities within Component 3 will include an initiative to monitor the remaining population
of Gyps vultures in the Northern Plains. These species will become extinct in the Indian
subcontinent within the immediate few years as a consequence of poisoning by a veterinary drug
- a drug that is not used in Cambodia. The Cambodian and Myanmar populations will therefore
represent the only wild populations in existence. Within Component 3 the project will use
techniques (vulture restaurants) developed during the PDF-B to monitor the vulture populations
in the Northern Plains.
60. Many project activities (Component 1, 2-3) will be completed within the 7 year project plan.
For other activities (Components 2 and 3) and management support (Component 3) start-up costs
will be covered by the project and long-term running costs are expected to be low. Component 3
will assess the cost of maintaining necessary project activities in the longer-term and identify
funding sources (see below). The final Component 4, Project Management and Evaluation, will
22
include reporting to GEF, adaptive management across implementation units and project
reviews.
Relevance to UNDP Outcomes
61.The project will directly contribute to the achievement of the service line 3.5 Conservation
and sustainable use of biodiversity under the second Multi-Year Funding Framework (MYFF)
2004-2007 of UNDP. The linkages that the project will build with the provincial Seila
programme (see Annex 9) will help to integrate environmental concerns into the local planning
process and thus will strengthen the framework and strategies for sustainable development at the
local level (service line 3.1). In addition, the project will develop community land use planning,
monitoring and law enforcement mechanisms, thereby helping to control deforestation and land
degradation (service line 3.4). At the landscape-level the project will facilitate the incorporation
of biodiversity conservation values into provincial and national planning processes, including,
for example, the recognition of key sites for conservation. The project will contribute to the
achievement of the target 9 of MDG 7, to “integrate the principles of sustainable development
into country policies and programmes”, specifically indicators 25 (forest cover), 26 (protected
areas).
National Support for the Alternative
62.The Royal Government of Cambodia’s key policy documents illustrating support for the
objective of the project are: (i) the Second Socio-Economic Development Plan (SEDP II)
adopted in 2002; (ii) the National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP) adopted in 1997; (iii) the
National Climate Change Action Plan; (iv) the Cambodia's Initial National Communication to
the UNFCCC; (v) the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan adopted in 2002; (vi)
Cambodia Report to the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) approved in 2002;
(vii) the Governance Action Plan (GAP)2 adopted in April 2001; (viii) the National Poverty
Reduction Strategy (NPRS) launched in March 2003; (ix) the Cambodia Millennium
Development Goals (MDG) Report; and (x) the Rectangular Strategy. The National Biodiversity
Strategy and Action (NBSAP) highlighted the importance of the Northern Plains landscape and
the necessity for improved management of Kulen Promtep Wildlife Sanctuary.
63. Through the development of new laws on land, forests and wildlife protection within the past
three years, the RGC has demonstrated a strong willingness to improve the management of
forested areas and their wildlife components. Cambodia is presently undergoing a forestry
review period that includes evaluating alternatives to commercial forestry, such as community
forests, the sustainable harvesting of NTFPs by indigenous communities, and biodiversity
conservation. The policy of the national Forestry Administration (FA) of MAFF aims to improve
forest management through the development of strategies that complement or provide
alternatives for commercial forestry. The CALM PDF-B has directly informed the decision of
2
Reform of natural resources management (land, forestry and fisheries) is one of 8 priority areas to which the RGC
has committed itself through the implementation of the GAP.
23
MAFF to designate the Preah Vihear Protected Forest. In other regions of Cambodia these
protected forests are being used to develop models for forest management.
64.The Royal Government of Cambodia considers good governance as the backbone of the
national strategy to alleviate poverty. The National Development Objectives outlined in the
SEDP II focus on “Three Pillars”:
 Economic growth that is broad enough to include sectors where the poor derive a
livelihood
 Social and cultural development
 Sustainable use of natural resources and sound environmental management.
The RGC’s Rectangular Strategy focuses on addressing forestry reform based on the forest
sector strategy that will ensure sustainable forestry management based on the three Pillars as
follows:
1. Sustainable Forest Management Policy: to ensure the rational and strict monitoring of
forest exploitation according to the international best practices in forest management that
require adequate forest reserves for domestic consumption, protection against drought
and floods as well as wetlands that serve as fish sanctuary;
2. Protected Area System to protect biodiversity and endangered species;
3. Community Forestry as a sound, transparent and locally managed program
The Prime Minister Samdech Hun Sen and other senior officials of the RGC have on many
occasions publicly acknowledged that achieving effective governance will be essential to
Cambodia’s sustainable development including a substantial reduction in corruption, will be
especially important to overcoming the aforementioned economic challenges. In particular, the
Prime Minister stated on 16 July 2004 that
“Good governance is the most important pre-condition to economic development with
sustainability, equity and social justice. Good governance requires wide participation, enhanced
sharing of information, accountability, transparency, equality, inclusiveness and the rule of law.
In this regard, good governance will ensure that: corruption be reduced to the minimum, the
views of minorities and the voices of the most vulnerable in society be fully heard and considered
in the decision making processes. Indeed, the attainment of good governance is crucial to the
proper functioning of society both in the present and the future.”
65. The latest Royal Government of Cambodia – Donor Consultative Group (CG) meeting took
place on 6-7 December 2004. At the meeting government and donors, through established
technical working groups, proposed the following benchmarks relevant to CALM:
Area
Key proposed relevant Benchmarks
- Increase transparency of state management of natural resources
Cross-cutting for
through immediate public disclosure of existing contracts and
Agriculture and
compliance status (royalties and other key provisions) of contracts
Natural Resources
governing economic land concessions, mining concessions, fishing
Management
lots and continued disclosure of status of review of forest concessions
- Increasing emphasis, with donor support, for local benefit sharing
arrangements for management of natural resources including local
24
Forestry
communities, private sector and decentralized resource management
agencies
- The Technical Working Group on Forestry and Environment (TWGFE) will implement its agreed work plan and benchmarks for 2005
- RGC disclose the location and legal status and process for
termination of mining concessions, Military Development Zones,
economic land concession and other development arrangements
situated on forest land or in protected areas and inconsistent with law
governing management of these areas
CALM will directly assist the TWG-FE to implement its workplan, by contributing to the
following indicators:
Benchmark
1. Major part of the natural forests
rationalized, reclassified and
dedicated to their ecosystems
protection and biological
conservation functions.
2. Socio-economic value of forest
ecosystems protection and
biodiversity conservation of forest
resources promoted.
3. Benefits to local people from the
use and management of forest
resources optimized via
implementation of forestry and
wildlife management concepts based
on the participation of local
populations
4. Capacity building, institutional
strengthening and research program
implemented at all levels through
the adopted Overall Capacity
Building Program for Forestry
Sector.
Indicator
Item 1.1.1 Rationalization /reclassification and practical
implementation of Forest Demarcation
and protected areas demarcation
completed for 1 mill ha, giving due
consideration the claims of indigenous
people and settled communities
Items 1.1.2 and 1.1.3 National Forest
Management and Protected Area Plans
are prepared, and implemented and
managed accordingly.
Item 2.1.1 Sustainable increase forestry
incomes and environmental services in
consistent with the real forestry
potentials.
Item 3.2.2 Partnership forestry
approach testing initiated in pilot
communes for contributions to local
development.
Item 4.1.1 Overall Capacity Building
Program implemented
Demarcation of protected areas in
Northern Plains (Component 3)
Management Plans for Protected
forest and Wildlife Sanctuary
(Component 3)
Improvements in forestry
community livelihoods measured
by CALM impact indicators
(Component 2)
Establishment of community
natural resource management
systems (Component 2)
Capacity-building for government
staff and local authorities
(Components 1,2,3)
66. UNDP considers sustainable management and rational use of the natural resources of
Cambodia a necessary supplementary prerequisite to the national strategy to alleviate poverty.
Accordingly, and in line with the government’s national priorities, support to good governance in
the fields of environmental and natural resource management is also a priority area for both the
UN system and the RGC. This is elaborated in the first United National Development Assistance
25
Framework (UNDAF 2001 - 2005) and the second UNDP Country Co-operation Framework
(CCF 2001 - 2005). Sustainable management of natural resources is one of the four programme
areas of concentration in the UNDAF 2001-2005 for Cambodia. The UNDAF provides for the
UN system focusing on supporting national efforts in land use planning, sustainable forestry and
fisheries activities, and the promotion of environmental awareness and protection.
67.Under this overall framework, UNDP’s second CCF for Cambodia has identified the
Management of Sustainable Resources as one of the three programme areas. Under the CCF
UNDP’s support to Cambodia in the area of environment and natural resources, management is
focused on:
I.
Strengthening monitoring and assessment of environmental sustainability.
II.
Promoting national policy, legal and regulatory framework for environmentally
sustainable development
III.
Enhancing national capacity for participation in global conventions, regulatory
regimes and funding mechanisms for environmentally sustainable development.
68.The proposed CALM project reflects on all three programme areas. By strengthening the
sustainable development strategy of Cambodia through capacity development and good
governance, the project is consistent with the UNDAF/CCF.
Project Sustainability, Partnerships and Linkages
“The Royal Government considers as a top priority the strengthening of partnerships with all
development partners, including the donor community, the private sector and civil society. The
mechanisms of partnership with the donor community shall be established consistent with the
Resolutions of the General Assembly of the United Nations, the principles of the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development – Development Assistance Committee, as well as
the initiatives of the World Bank and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)....
Civil society shall become an effective partner of the Government in nation building. To this end,
the Royal Government will encourage the activities of the Non-Government Organizations and
other duly registered associations working to serve and benefit the people and the nation. The
Royal Government welcomes the participation of the NGOs in the process of socio-economic
rehabilitation and development.”
Statement by Prime Minister Hun Sen
National Ownership
69.National ownership of project activities and outputs is critical for successful implementation.
Ownership will be achieved by the fact that activities and processes will be dictated and carried
out entirely by Cambodians through a series of national stakeholder consultations.
70.The project steering committee will be set up to oversee the project’s direction and strategies.
The ownership of the project will be broadly linked with the current UNDP supported
decentralization program (Seila/PLG). The project activities and plans will be integrated into the
Provincial Seila/PLG Programme thus the project will be recognized and will operate within the
26
provincial annual planning framework. The Provincial Rural Development Committee/EXCOM
will be used to provide leadership forums to discuss and coordinate to integrated landscape
conservation and development into Seila/PLG. The existing National Biodiversity Steering
Committee will provide an overview on how the project should contribute to the achievement of
the national conservation agenda as set in the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan.
The National Committee on Discussion, Recommendation and Conflict Resolution of Protected
Areas, which was established in 2000 will be used to resolve any institutional conflicts regarding
the management objectives of Kulen Promtep Wildlife Sanctuary in particular and regarding the
management of the productive landscape in general.
71.To implement Component 2 participatory land use planning (PLUP) will be used as a tool to
generate consensus on how land is management and allocated to local communities. This will
contribute to the objectives of conservation and sustainable use of the landscape.
Commitments, Partnerships and Linkages
72.The Royal Government of Cambodia has committed to long term conservation and
sustainable use of natural resources in the region through the establishment of the Kulen Promtep
Wildlife Sanctuary and the Preah Vihear Protected Forest in the region. UNDP is committed to
capacity building and sustainable management of natural resources in Cambodia.
73. The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) Cambodia Program will be the non-Governmental
implementing partner, operating under its existing MoU in cooperation with both the concerned
Government Ministries (MAFF and MoE). The Royal Government of Cambodia and UNDP
have selected this NGO based on its proven technical, managerial, administrative and financial
expertise and both global and Cambodia-specific experience in conservation and promoting a
community based participation in conservation in the project area. Moreover, WCS already
operates under a 5-year MoU signed on 13 December 1999 with MAFF and MoE defining a cooperative programme on biodiversity conservation in Cambodia. WCS has now been required to
sign individual Project MoUs. The project agreement with MAFF for the Northern Plains was
signed in December 2003 and lasts for the duration of the 7 year project (until 2011). WCS is
committed to the conservation of the Northern Plains landscape having contributed $475,400 to
activities during 2000-2003. During the full project WCS is looking to mobilise co-financing of
about $1,600,000.
74.Specific linkages to GEF and IA programs and activities include:
• UNDP/GEF/ADB Integrated Resource Management and Development in the Tonle Sap Region
There is an important relationship between the Northern Plains and the Tonle Sap that is
essential for the existence of a unique assemblage of wildlife. Reflecting this, the project would
complement the current UNDP-GEF for Integrated Resource Management and Development in
the Tonle Sap Region. Many of the globally threatened species that breed on the Tonle Sap, such
as Spot-billed Pelicans Pelecanus philippensis, Painted Storks Mycteria leucocephala, Greater
27
and Lesser Adjutants Leptoptilus dubius and L. javanicus are heavily reliant on being able to
disperse across the Northern Plains in the wet season when resources on the lake are scarce.
Conversely, Sarus Cranes Grus antigone and White-shouldered Ibis Pseudibis davisoni breed in
the Northern Plains and return to the large permanent wetlands on the floodplain at the beginning
of the dry season. However, far from being a simple flow of wildlife following the flood line, the
regeneration of habitats and the movements of wildlife are complex and little understood. Of the
two landscapes, the lake has received nearly all of the recent conservation attention, and has been
designated a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve. Whilst warranted, the status of the Northern Plains
as, firstly, a unique biome and, secondly, as an integral ecological cornerstone for the Tonle Sap,
has been entirely neglected. This bias in conservation resources has long-term dangers, which, if
ignored, could result in the loss of a significant proportion of regional biodiversity.
• WB/GEF Biodiversity and Protected Areas Management Project (BPAMP)
BPAMP’s overall objective is to improve the MOE’s capacity to plan, implement and monitor an
effective system of protected areas (PA’s). The immediate objectives focus on developing and
testing measures to minimize degradation of the biodiversity of Virachey National Park (VNP)
and to use the field experiences for the development of the national PA system. At national level,
the project has made important contributions towards improving the capacity of the MOE by
strengthening the Geographical Information System (GIS) Unit and drafting a Protected Area
Law. The final enactment of this law, possibly in 2004, will be particularly relevant for CALM
and activities in Kulen Promtep Wildlife Sanctuary. BPAMP has also achieved significant local
successes in developing ‘best practice’ models for some project components, which are suitable
for implementation inside and outside of Protected Areas in the Northern Plains.
These include the development of community-based NRM planning and its integration with
provincial planning, and the on-going implementation of a management information system
(MIST) originally designed for use in Ugandan National Parks. CALM has held consultations
with BPAMP staff to understand how linkages can be made with these components. A trainer
from BPAMP participated in the CALM PLUP training course, including a detailed description
of the activities undertaken to setup community NRM committees. The MIST software is
particularly relevant for use by enforcement teams, to enable reporting and analysis of patrolling
effort and trends in illegal activities, and might suitable to transfer to the Northern Plains as part
of Component 3 (Law enforcement) of CALM. BPAMP has also recently developed a
management plan for VNP, which, although relatively complicated, might provide a model for
plans developed by CALM for Kulen Promtep later in the project. During the full project these
linkages will be investigated further.
According to BPAMP’s mid-term review the project’s impact has been limited by (i) insufficient
technical support (especially from international advisors), (ii) the physical distance between the
two project offices; (iii) the weak institutionalisation of the project which limited the scope of
project operation and continue to make planning and agreements beyond the project period
difficult; and (iv) rapid changes in legislation which made it difficult for the project to pursue a
coherent strategy towards the local communities. Two of these (ii and iii) are relevant to CALM,
28
whilst the others are less applicable. CALM has, for example, been developed with strong
international assistance from WCS, and this relationship will be maintained through the full
project. Further, the legislative framework (with the exception of the new PA law) is now
established and further changes in policy are unlikely, although individual components may be
strengthened through sub-decrees. However, the physical remoteness of the Northern Plains is
likely to have a strong impact on the project, and this should be taken into account when
determining where project staff should be stationed. CALM should also take into account the
relative weakness of BPAMP to produce institutional arrangements within MOE, or to form
linkages with other ministries (especially MAFF) and projects. This has particular relevance to
Components 1 and 3 of CALM, although both ministries are implementing agencies and are
represented on the project steering committee. Project activities and management structures
should be rapidly integrated during the full project with ministerial and provincial departments, if
the project is to achieve government ownership and management sustainability. Opportunities for
forming cross-linkages between staff working on similar components in MAFF and MOE areas
should be pursued, to foster ministerial cooperation at multiple levels.
• UNDP/GEF Medium-size Project for the Cardamom Mountains
The Management of the Cardamom Mountains Range Project focuses on the consolidation of
management activities in the region’s three protected areas: the Central Cardamom Protected
Forest (CCPF), the Phnom Aural and Phnom Samkos Wildlife Sanctuary (PSWS). The project
aims to build national and local government capacity to manage the three areas, combined with
sustainable development interventions designed to reduce pressure on the sites from local
populations. The project is being co-implemented by the Forest Administration (FA) of the
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) and the Department of the Nature
Conservation and Protection (DNCP) of the Ministry of Environment (MoE) in partnership with
Conservation International (CI) and Fauna and Flora International (FFI) respectively. The CI/FA
component will last until August 2004; while FFI/MoE component will last until April 2006.
The project will improve the planning, management and regulatory framework for these
protected areas, for example through management plans and land-use zoning systems, practices
that could be shared with the CALM Project. The two projects will be able to exchange
information regarding wildlife, monitoring and data management to provide a better
understanding of landscape management issues. The Cardamom Project will also provide
examples of the engagement of local communities in sustainable natural resource management
through the use of agreements and the PLUP process. These initiatives are similar to those
proposed by CALM under Component 2.
• UNDP Seila/PLG
The project activities and plan will be integrated into the Provincial Seila/PLG Program, thus the
project will be recognised and will operate within the provincial annual planning framework. The
Provincial Rural Development Committee/EXCOM will be used to provide leadership forums to
discuss and coordinate to integrated landscape conservation and development into the Provincial
29
Development Plans (PDPs). At the commune level, the CDC will be responsible for drawing
commune PLUP maps and producing management plans for natural resource areas.
PLG is part of the larger Seila programme. Seila is establishing community-based natural
resource and environmental management programmes in other provinces, including Ratanakiri
(building on the CARERE initiatives) and Siem Reap (supported by DANIDA). The Siem Reap
provincial project will extend to an area including one of the Northern Plains’ key sites for
conservation in 2005-7. Experience from these other initiatives will be used to understand how to
implement CALM initiatives within the Seila/PLG framework in the Northern Plains.
• UNDP-GEF Mekong River Basin Wetlands Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use
Programme
The Northern Plains covers four provinces including the Ramsar Site of Stung Treng located on
the Mekong River, which is the demonstration site of the Mekong Wetland Project. The
sustainable use and conservation of the Ramsar site should be seen as part of the landscape
management strategy and would significantly contribute to the conservation of habitats for
migratory bird species. The Mekong Wetland project aims for conservation and sustainable use
of biodiversity in the Lower Mekong Basin through strengthening capacity at regional, national
and local level, formulating mechanisms to effectively manage wetlands. The project involves
four countries sharing the Mekong wetland river basin: Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam.
At the regional level, the program will develop and apply technical tools for conservation and
management of wetlands, as well as developing systems for all the countries to collaborate in
wetland conservation. Given the importance of Mekong wetlands for migratory birds within the
Northern Plains region, the two projects will provide direct benefits to each other. At national
level, by encouraging a multi-sector approach through building capacities and increasing public
involvement, the programme will enhance planning processes. The information base needed to
support sound wetlands policy, planning and management decision-making will also be
strengthened through the development of specialists network, awareness campaigns, adequate
tools, and Wetland Action Plan. At the local level, within the demonstration site of Stung Treng,
integrated planning and community-based natural resource management will be implemented.
The programme will identify the values of the fresh water ecosystem and work with local people
to develop improved management systems and alternative livelihood options.
Training will be provided and information will be disseminated as part of a targeted awareness
campaign. Sharing lessons learnt from local governance, community based natural resource
management and ecotourism, as well as national policy implication from GEF projects will
benefit conservation of biodiversity in the respective projects.
• WB/Land Management and Administration Project (LMAP)
The overall goals of the project are to reduce poverty, promote social stability and stimulate
economic development. The specific objectives of the project are to improve land tenure
security and promote the development of efficient land markets. The project is planned to run
30
from 2002-2007 and is managed by the Ministry of Land Management, Urban Planning and
Construction. LMAP has supported the establishment of the “Council on Land Policy Reform”
by the Government.
LMAP is developing legislation and policies to strengthen land tenure through implementation of
the land law, which is directly relevant to component 2 of CALM. LMAP has set up Provincial
Cadastral Commissions to resolve land disputes and conflicts, following the guidance of the
recently approved Sub-decree. CALM will help local communities and Government officials to
understand and use these commissions to help secure community tenure and title as part of
component 2. LMAP is also producing guidelines and case studies to improve land-use mapping
and zoning and CALM will be able to learn from these findings and integrate them into the
management of the Northern Plains.
• MAFF/ICF management of Ang Trapeang Thmor
Ang Trapeang Thmor is a large man-made reservoir, constructed during the 1970s. The large
wetland and grassland areas provide an essential dry season feeding refuge for the majority
population of Eastern Sarus Crane Grus antigone. The site is also important for many stork
species, Spot-billed Pelican Pelecanus philippensis, and has probably the largest single herd of
Indochinese Eld’s Deer Cervus eldi siamensis.
Earlier surveys by WCS, the International Crane Foundation (ICF) and MAFF had identified
Ang Trapeang Thmor as a critical landscape feature for biodiversity conservation. This led to the
proclamation, by Royal Decree, of the site as a Conservation Area for Sarus Crane. Ang
Trapeang Thmor continues to be managed by MAFF with support from ICF. It is therefore not
recognised as a key site for CALM due to the existing management assistance. CALM will be
able to learn from the experiences of that project, particularly in establishing a site management
structure and the importance of land-use planning.
Sustainability
75. CALM will build the capacity of the government staff at the national and local levels to
maintain project ownership. This will include considerable support to the new local government
system, the Commune Councils, which were established by elections in 2003. The commune
officials will be primarily responsible for developing community regulations on natural resource
management. Further, CALM will build cross-institutional coordination amongst relevant
government agencies. Key project outcomes will be endorsed by the appropriate government
authorities. Consultation and participatory processes will generate a better understanding of
conservation priorities and better cooperation with relevant government agencies. The
participatory and consultation processes will also be promoted to generate trust and respect the
voices of various national stakeholders.
76.The project will develop leadership of key national staff in planning, decision making and
coordination. The implementation process will be led by Cambodian nationals with the
31
minimum of technical assistance from external consultants. This will ensure that there is very
little dependency on external resources after completion of the project. The use of participatory
land-use planning processes with communities and stakeholders will build local capacity for land
management and development planning. Component 1 will develop a landscape conservation
plan, which will be mainstreamed into the local, provincial and national planning process. The
project will integrate the principles of good governance such as improving accountability and
transparency of decision making process.
77.Several factors will help to ensure the sustainability of necessary project activities and
benefits beyond the completion of the GEF project.
- Conformity of project activities with new RGC legislation and policy development strategy,
and specifically by integrating the project into the Provincial Development Plans (PDPs).
- High level of commitment from the RGC for integrated forest management in the Northern
Plains. Evidence for this includes the recent designation of a major new protected area (Preah
Vihear Protected Forest) and the commitment already shown during the PDF-B phase.
- Strong level of commitment from NGOs to support continued biodiversity conservation and
community natural resource management in the Northern Plains.
- Conformity with the RGC’s policy of decentralisation. The project will raise provincial and
community capacity to manage biodiversity and natural resources, in order to substitute
expensive centralised control.
78.The project will be designed to cover all setup costs, and ensure that any necessary long-term
maintenance costs of project initiatives are minimal. Many components will be completed within
the timescale of the project:
 Landscape Conservation Framework (Component 1).
 Establishment of community land-use tenure and title (Component 2) and resource
management plans (Component 2).
 Environmental Education program (Component 3)
For other components or activities initial costs will be high, however necessary maintenance
costs will be low:
 Incentives scheme (Component 2).
 Law enforcement (Component 3). As security and institutional structures are established the
capacity of local communities and provincial government to enforce laws should be
strengthened so that available resources are sufficient to cover long-term costs.
 Monitoring (Component 3).
However it is recognised that sufficient financial sustainability must be established to cover these
maintenance costs, especially the incentives scheme and monitoring program. An incremental
cost matrix will be produced to identify the costs and activities. Opportunities for key-species
eco-tourism have been researched during the PDF-B, and there is potential for tourism to fund
necessary project activities, especially the village incentive scheme (Component 2). During the
full project, activities will create a framework for key species eco-tourism that benefits both
32
biodiversity and local communities. Further activities will investigate the potential for
establishing a trust fund, or securing long-term additional government and NGO financial
commitment, to fund other necessary project activities (e.g. the monitoring program).
79. WCS/FA/MoE has successfully piloted a model for biological monitoring at a project site in
Mondulkiri. The same model will be implemented in the Northern Plains as part of Component
3, and was established at the Preah Vihear Protected Forest during the PDF-B. Although the
start-up costs can be quite high, by year 4 the annual cost of this program is about $10,000.
80. Through Component 3, the project will ensure that there is a structure for sound management
of long term activities. Site management staff will be members of the appropriate authority (FA
or MoE) with jurisdiction over the area including key sites. The project will not therefore create
new (non-government) management structures. The only exception is the Site Project Manager;
this position will follow a model created by WCS and the FA for another region in Cambodia. In
this region, the FA employs a site manager to co-ordinate activities between FA jurisdictional
units within a landscape of importance for biodiversity conservation. Component 1 will ensure
that the importance of particular sites within the landscape is recognised and provide support for
the continued existence of site managers in the long term. Component 3 will ensure that
sufficient training is provided to government managers and provincial staff. Activities under this
component will also establish the infrastructure and necessary equipment for long-term
management of key sites.
Implementation Strategy
Inter-Agency Cooperation
81.The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and the Ministry of Environment the
implementing agencies of the PDF-B, will be involved in project execution through the chairing
of the Project Executive Group and by implementation of project activities under the technical
assistance of WCS. As remarked earlier, one of the current constraints faced by MAFF and MoE
is the lack of an inter-sectoral approach. Through this landscape project, strong ties with MAFF
and MoE (relatively the Forestry Administration of MAFF and the Department of Nature
Conservation and Protection of MoE) will be established by the project. During the progress of
the project, senior staff and technical representatives from various relevant departments at both
national and provincial levels will be required to interact, serving to promote multi-sectoral
collaboration addressing landscape conservation in the Northern Plains. At policy level, a project
steering committee will be established to coordinate policy and management issues. At technical
level, a project technical advisory committee will be established to coordinate technical issues.
Stakeholder Consultation
82.Inclusion of all stakeholders is critical to the formulation of the project relevant outputs.
Stakeholder identification and outreach are needed to ensure participation of a wide range of
interests and concerns, including marginalized groups. Extensive consultation through the
33
means of interviews, seminars and workshops will assist in improving planning and decisionmaking under the project. Annex 10 gives the stakeholder consultations completed under the
PDF-B, and gives the participation plan for the full project.
Risks and Risk Management Strategy
83. There are five risks to the project intervention (see Risk Management Strategy table):
1. Provincial support to the implementation of the new legal structure and government
initiatives (land management and administrative policy, forestry reform and law
development).
2. Failure to engage the armed forces.
3. Inadequate financial resources for long term running of necessary project activities.
4. Land mines.
5. Security.
6. Corruption
1. Ensuring Provincial support
84. The project relies heavily on the assumption that present national government initiatives
continue. Although national policy and legislation is advanced, provincial implementation has
been slow and therefore this project will be one of the first to apply the framework in a forested
region. Success will be dependent on the extent to which provincial governments are interested
and required to execute the new initiatives, though experience with the PDF-B suggests that this
interest will remain relatively high. Developing provincial capacity and awareness will be
particularly important. The high level of support from national government, and the activities of
Seila/PLG means that there are be several mechanisms to ensure the engagement of provincial
government in project activities.
2. Engagement of Armed Forces
85. Project success will require the engagement of the Royal Cambodian Armed Forces (RCAF)
and Police Forces. The military and police are influential bodies in the Northern Plains,
particularly in the border regions, and the governor of Preah Vihear province is a military
general. The involvement of the military will be especially necessary if border wildlife trade and
logging is to be controlled and if community management plans are to be successful.
Issues with military in Cambodia and CALM site
Although Cambodia has established democratic government with support from the international
community, the country is still in the process of strengthening governance, in particular at the
local governance. The lack of strong governance, coupled with a high level of poverty,
particularly in the provinces, provides a high incentive for officials to be involved in illegal
activities. Provincial soldiers, for example, often receive little more than a monthly ration of rice
as salary, and therefore require an alternative source of income to maintain their base. Since the
34
military are armed their capacity for corruption and illegal activities is considerably greater than
other officials. The Northern Plains is no exception.
In the area of CALM project, military threat to biodiversity includes
- Illegal logging: Military are the principal proponent of illegal logging in the Northern
Plains; local community people sometimes act as guides to show the armed teams the
locations of the best trees
- Large-scale hunting: Since the gun confiscation programs in the late 1990s firearms are
restricted to the Military and Police who use them for hunting, or loan the guns to others.
- Wildlife trade in border: wildlife is sold through a series of middlemen either for the
national markets, or the international trade, principally across the Thai and Laos PDR
border. These border crossings are controlled by the police and military on both sides,
and sometimes, the military is involved in such trade.
These activities are possible in the Northern Plains because there is little associated ‘cost’. 25
years of conflict has disrupted traditional forms of land management, and encouraged a
prevailing attitude of insecurity, promoting a short-term approach to resource extraction based
upon competition with other individuals or groups. In addition, the lack of effective law
enforcement means that these activities are not penalised.
The people who benefit most from this situation tend to be those who are richer and better
equiped (generally people from outside or members of the military or police), at the expense of
local people.
CALM project addresses these threats by the following:
1) Strengthen governance/system of land and natural resource management
86. Engaging the RCAF and Police Forces in conservation will not be a simple matter. Enduring
biodiversity results will only come from overall improvements in good governance. The 2003
UNDP Human Development Report considered the issue (Chapter 6: “Public Policies to Ensure
Environmental Sustainability”). It suggests two responses to institutional failures and poor
governance: strengthened property rights and decentralisation of environmental governance
(accompanied by efforts that build community capacity to manage environmental resources and
influence planning and policy-making). The CALM project provides these responses. In
collaboration with other agencies, the project will establish the first land management system,
based upon tenure and title, in the Northern Plains (Components 1 and 2). This will result in the
demarcation of land allocated to community management, and clear demarcation of state land.
Through the system of community agreements and ‘contracts’ on land-use capacity and
understanding of the management of natural resources will be increased, both by communities
and by government officials responsible for authorising land management systems. These
activities will establish responsibilities for land and natural resources management, consequently
the impact and occurrence of illegal activities will become clearly defined.
35
Component 1 will integrate these outputs at higher government levels. Land-use maps and
community management plans will require authorisation from Provincial Government, and thus
the government will assume some responsibility to ensure that they are not violated by other
governmental agencies. The project will support provincial and district-level consultation
workshops so that the new land management system is disseminated to stakeholders, including
the military.
The new Land Law allows for a system of land conflict resolution through provincial Cadastral
Commissions. These will be the principal authority used to judge situations where land violations
occur.
87. The 2003 Human Development Report goes on to state: “In many developing countries
natural resources are plundered by corruption, benefiting powerful elites at the expense of poor
people who depend on such resources. Countering corruption requires strengthening
governance, with better enforcement, stiffer penalties and increased community involvement. In
several countries citizens are assessing how well governments provide access to environmental
decision-making and regularly monitor environmental governance. Both efforts will likely spur
further progress.” CALM fully supports this approach. The project alternative is to strengthen
local community ownership of what are essentially “open-access” resources; by assisting with
the application of new Land and Forestry Laws to provide land tenure or usufructual rights and
also to develop Community Management Plans for these reousrces (Component 2). Importantly,
by supporting an improvement in site-based management there will be much greater disincentive for armed forces to engage in illegal activities (Component 3). This improvement is an
essential part of the intervention. A general increase in governance of the Northern Plains is
hoped to “squeeze” the illegal activities out.
88. To achieve this “squeeze”, careful attention needs to be paid to making the link between
biodiversity management and human development. CALM integrates biodiversity issues into the
national development frameworks, by building on the new legislative framework. The project
will also strengthen decentralisation for environmental management by supporting the new laws
and working through the Seila/PLG programme. It aims to empower civil society through an
environmental awareness program and by demonstrating mechanisms to strengthen civil
management of biodiversity resources. It also seeks to reduce environment-related conflict by
working at four sites specifically chosen to minimize the potential for conflict.
2) Awareness raising
Component 3b of the project will increase the awareness of military personnel towards natural
resources, management issues, and the role that the military should adopt. The boundaries of
community resource areas and state areas will be clearly defined and their significance
explained. It is important for military personnel who are involved in illegal activities or who are
unsustainably exploiting natural resources to be aware of their actions.
36
The project is piloting an education and awareness program for military personnel, which, if
successful, could be extended across the Northern Plains through Component 3b. The new
Military Commander, Key Nonn, has assisted project staff in visiting remote army bases to
conducted education awareness. Such activities provide a useful example of both increasing
awareness of military and engaging them in the project. Since the authority of the Commander
must be sought, and he accompanies the project team, this provides an opportunity for him to
learn about CALM and its objectives.
The project will develop and disseminate a code of environmental conduct for military and
police that will be approved by Ministry of Defence, with MoE and MAFF. The process should
involve extensive consultations with both military, MAFF and MoE. The Ministry of Defence
has a Department of Training, which has been involved in the prodcution of similar codes in
other areas, and whose input will be sought.
3) Support from high government officials
It is also important that high officials from military, understand the importance of conservation
and natural resource management. If key personnel do not understand issues associated with
natural resources management, regulations, and management responsibilities, it would be
difficult to make all the military personnel to follow the rules.
CALM will negotiate with military and senior government officer to obtain evidence of afirm
and substantive commitment from RCAF and the Provincial Military, MAFF, and MoE before
the project starts. This will include formal discussions and minutes of these meetings, In
addition, the project will support greater dialogue between these agencies. Conflicts will be
resolved through higher bodies inside the MoE and MAFF. In other areas of Cambodia conflicts
have been successfully resolved through high level discussions between MAFF and the Ministry
of Interior or Ministry of Defence.
Frequent reporting to national government will be necessary so that the relevant Government
agency (MAFF or MoE) is aware of those situations where local initiatives are failing.
Experience with other projects suggests that national government is driven and able to intervene
in those situations where conflicts arise. The most important of the project’s key sites, the Preah
Vihear Protected Forest, was declared by Government sub-decree in 2002, and its borders
determined by the same government staff who have worked on developing CALM.
National government has also shown considerable interest in the threats to biodiversity, such as
those the project aims to reduce. Recently there has been positive commitment from the Prime
Minister himself in addressing illegal forest related activities through (1) The Prime Minister’s
Public Announcement on 31 May 2004 on a government-wide campaign against deforestation;
(2) The Prime Minister’s Decision of 06 June 2004 on the establishment of a national committee
to prevent, eliminate and suppress the acts of clearance, burning, earth working and encroaching
forest lands to claim ownership; and (3) the Prime Minister’s Order of 09 June 2004 on the
prevention, suppression, burning, earth working and encroaching forestland to claim ownership.
37
All government agencies are charged with developing their own procedures to implement these
orders.
4) Military and Police engagement in conservation
Projects in other areas of Cambodia have shown that it is difficult to achieve conservation goals
if the Military and Police are not engaged in project activities (e.g. through Component 3c).
Approval for joint enforcement teams will be sought from military and police commanders, MoE
and MAFF. This model has been adopted in other areas, where it has successfully involved
military staff and their officers in conservation activities and goals.
In later years, the project will work with provincial and national authorities to request the
relocation of military checkpoints and camps away from key sites for conservation (except in
those cases where there is a clear National Defence objective).
5) Monitoring
Through the site monitoring program (Component 3d) illegal activities performed by the military
will be recorded and used to produce yearly reports on the success of the project at reducing this
threat.
3. Financial Sustainability
89. The project is assuming that it will be possible to ensure financial sustainability of necessary
activities, particularly the incentives scheme. This will be essential if the project is to create
structures for long-term biodiversity conservation. The section on sustainability (above) has
already considered this issue.
4. Land Mines.
Land mines are prevalent in a few sites inside project areas, however the project will mitigate
their impact through continuing consultations started during the PDF-B with de-mining agencies,
local authorities charged with identifying and prioritising mined areas (e.g. LUPU) and with
local communities, so that mined areas are understood and cleared. The project will not develop
land-use regulations (e.g. community forestry) for mined areas. Safety and security protocols
developed by the project office will make sure that activities are not undertaken in or across
mined areas.
5. Security
Since 1998 there has been a steady increase in security in the project area, and it is hoped that
this trend will continue as governance and access improves. Nevertheless bandits remain a
problem in one project site, and security in this area was particularly poor during the PDF-B. The
project took this problem extremely seriously and worked to mitigate its impact through
38
consultations with provincial and district police authorities and direct communication with the
Provincial Governor. As a consequence several arrests were made and the situation has since
improved.
During the full project all staff will operate within Safety and Security Protocols developed by
the project office, and continuing the policy of advising police authorities on local staff
movements. In addition, it is anticipated that project activities will contribute to a continued
increase in security. Support to site management authorities and law enforcement teams should
lead to a general improvement in the local security situation (Components 3a and 3c). Increases
in governance through Component 1 should create awareness of local problems and stimulate
higher authorities into taking action (as happened during the PDF-B).
6. Corruption
Corruption could be a problem for project implementation. A strong monitoring and evaluation
framework has been incorporated into the project design: by maintaining an open and transparent
implementation process, with independent review, oversight by the project management staff and
auditing of expenses it is hoped that this risk will be minimised. The PDF-B was audited and it
was concluded that no funds had been misappropriated during project formulation. It is hoped
that this initial foundation will be continued. Addressing fundamental governance issues (low
government pay, etc…) is not an outcome of this project, however by linking with Seila/PLG it
is anticipated that the project will assist general on-going efforts to improve governance, and,
indeed, serve as a model for future projects.
39
Risk Management Strategy
1. Risks
1. Provincial support to
the implementation of the
new legal structure and
government initiatives
(land management and
administrative policy,
forestry reform and law
development) continues.
2. Current
status of risk
on-going
3. Risk
rating
medium
4. Mitigation activities
5. Relevant project activities
Mitigation activities at the provincial
level will include improving local
governance (mainly through existing
Seila/PLG mechanisms) and awareness
of sound environmental and natural
resource management. The National
Project Steering Committee will have an
oversight role, and could intervene if
required.
All Activities under
Component 1: Incorporating
biodiversity into the
implementation of new laws.
Particularly including training
and awareness-raising (1.1 and
1.2), Seila/PLG integration
workshops (1.4 – 1.8),
Provincial Steering Committee
integrated into PRDC (1.6).
Awareness raising 1. Consultations during PDF-B have
suggested that provincial authorities’
interest is high, and central government
is willing to support project initiatives if
required (Annex 10).
2. Raising awareness of provincial
authorities.
Improving local governance 3. Development of provincial capacity
4. Integration of project activities into
Seila/PLG supported provincial planning
processes (Annex 9). Seila/PLG’s aim is
to support local governance, through decentralised planning, accountability and
transparency.
5. Provincial Steering Committee to
40
Development of community
land-use plans and their
approval by authorities
(Component 2, particularly
Activities 2a.4 – 2a.6).
Environmental Education
program (Component 3),
particularly Activities 3b.3 –
3b.4.
Agreements made with local
authorities and military and
police commanders (Activity
3c.1)
National-level Project Steering
review project progress and resolve
conflicts, integrated into PRDC.
6. Involvement of additional
implementing agencies and projects
during the 7-year period of CALM.
Example – DANIDA will support an
NRM component to Seila in Siem Reap
province in 2005.
National level –
7. Project Steering Committee, involving
national ministries, can identify barriers
to implementation and mobilise centrallevel support if necessary.
41
Committee (Activity 4.2)
2. Failure to engage the
armed forces.
on-going
high
3. Financial Sustainability
of Activities
long term
low
Activities include –
1. Community land-use plans,
tenure and title (Component 2))
supported and recognised by
provincial government
(Component 1). Site-based
management systems
(Component 3a) and law
enforcement teams
(Component 3c).
2. Education (Component 3b)
3. Meetings and workshops
conducted with high-ranking
provincial and government
officials during Component 1
and the Project Steering
Committee.
4. Involvement of armed forces
in law enforcement teams
(Component 3c).
5. Site-based monitoring
(Component 3d).
See Sustainability section of Project
Component 3a will specifically
Document.
identify necessary long-term
The project includes a large number of
costs and create a funding plan
activities that aim to build the capacity of so that these activities can
communities and provincial authorities to continue.
manage land and natural resources.
These activities will be completed within
the timescale of the project (see Para. 77
of Project Document). For others the
start-up costs will be high, but
maintenance costs will be low.
See description in of Project Document
1. Strengthen governance/system of land
and natural resource management
2. Awareness raising
3. Support from high government
officials
4. Military and Police engagement in
conservation
5. Monitoring
42
4. Land-mines
5. Security
short to
medium term
short to
medium term
low
medium
to low
Land mines are prevalent in a few sites
inside project areas, however the project
will mitigate their impact by:
1. Continuing consultations with demining agencies, local authorities
charged with identifying and prioritising
mined areas (e.g. LUPU) and with local
communities, so that mined areas are
understood and cleared.
2. Land-use regulations (e.g. community
forestry) will not be developed for mined
areas.
3. Facilitating visits by de-mining
agencies and provincial authorities to
communities with adjacent mined areas.
Promoting clearing of areas important for
local livelihoods.
4. Ensuring that no project personnel
work in mined areas.
Considerable progress has been made in
de-mining the project areas during the
past few years and if these efforts
continue hopefully the risk of land mines
will be much reduced in the longer term.
The security situation at one project site
was poor in 2003, although with the
formation of a new government it has
subsequently improved. The project takes
local security problems, and their threat
to communities and staff, extremely
seriously and has worked to mitigate this
problem during the PDF-B by:
43
Liaison with communities,
LUPU and de-mining agencies
will occur during the
preparation of community
land-use plans (Component 2)
and their approval
(Components 1 and 2).
Participation by project
representatives in district and
provincial integration
workshops (Activities 1.4 - 1.6
and 1.8) will ensure that local
priorities for de-mining can be
promoted at higher levels.
Project safety and security
protocols will be developed by
the Project Office (Activity
4.1), including the risk of land
mines.
Project safety and security
protocols will be developed by
the Project Office (Activity
4.1).
Project will improve site-based
management through
Component 3, in particular
1. Extensive consultations with
provincial police authorities, PLG and
the Provincial Governor. These
consultations led to several arrests in
2004 and the establishment of new police
posts.
2. Development of project security
protocols.
3. Advising provincial police on staff
movements.
These activities will continue during the
full project. In addition, by supporting
site-based management and agreements
with local authorities the project aims to
achieve a general improvement in
governance in these areas.
6. Corruption
short to long
term
low
Overall since 1998 there has been a
steady increase in security in the project
site and it is hoped that this trend will
continue as governance and access
improves.
Strong Monitoring and Evaluation
framework
Independent project technical advisors
Annual Adaptive Management reviews
and Independent Evaluations
Partnership with Seila/PLG
Annual Auditing
44
support to management
authorities (3a) and law
enforcement (3c).
Improvements in governance
will be achieved through
agreements with local
commanders and authorities
(Activity 3c.1) and Component
1 (see Risk 1).
Project Management
Component 4.
International Project Advisor,
TPR and steering committee
meetings (Component 1).
Result Frameworks
90.The CALM project will deliver the GEF alternative through four components over the seven
year project duration (see Logical Framework [Annex 5], Incremental Cost Matrix [Annex 6],
Budget and Workplan [Section II]). The overall project goal is “the effective conservation of key
components of Cambodia’s Northern Plains Landscape’.
Component 1: Incorporating biodiversity into landscape-level planning processes
Outcome 1 - Integrated conservation and development planning at the landscape-level
91.Cambodia is currently developing and implementing new land management legislation, of
which the Land Law is the most significant at the national level, but within this, biodiversity
conservation values are not yet fully recognised. Provincial implementation of this policy is
weak, and an opportunity exists to integrate conservation management objectives at the
landscape scale, working both inside and outside the current protected areas network. To do this,
the project will work in cooperation with the UNDP-funded Seila/PLG programme to build the
capacity of provincial planners and land management decision-makers to consider and apply
biodiversity values. The project will also integrate the results of Components 2 and 3 into
commune plans, district integration workshops and provincial planning processes. Through the
project steering committee and Provincial Rural Development Committee a framework will be
established for integrated conservation planning at the landscape scale. The framework will
include dialogue and agreements made with all relevant stakeholders on activities.
Component 2: Applying Mainstreaming Measures
Outcome 2a - Establishment of appropriate community land tenure and resource-right use
92.Current land and resource-use patterns reveal an ‘open-access’ system that results in general
over-exploitation with no incentives for sustainable or co-ordinated management. The Royal
Government of Cambodia’s new Land Law permits the process of Participatory Land-use
Planning (PLUP) for all land estate, including forest estate and protected areas. Elements of the
PLUP process will be used to determine rights, title and demarcate village land-use areas. This
process of planning will subsequently highlight where and how tenure may be sought and, using
additional PLUP elements, how appropriate tenure systems should be established over particular
resources and resource areas. These activities are essential in order that more complex resourceuse issues can be addressed in Component 3. Since two of the project key sites lies within
concession forests, the land use planning process will enable biodiversity to be mainstreamed
into the forestry sector.
Outcome 2b - Community engagement in natural resource management
93.A participatory process will work with villages to produce management plans for the land
areas and resources for which tenure and title were negotiated as part of Component 2. Initially
management plans will cover simple issues where there is considerable agreement between
authorities and villages. For more complicated issues where agreement cannot be reached, such
as forest fires or hunting with dogs, an incentive scheme will be introduced to reward improved
management. The scheme will provide benefits in return for improved management and
maintenance of wildlife populations (measured by Component 3d) to encourage the concept of
‘ownership’ and the value of the wildlife resource. An on-going evaluation of the incentive
45
scheme will be conducted for adaptive management. This evaluation will include collection of
data on community livelihoods, which will be used to monitor the impact of the project on local
people. Through the use of incentive schemes and land use planning at potential eco-tourism
sites, the project aims to mainstream biodiversity into this sector.
Component 3: Strengthening capacity for biodiversity management
Outcome 3a - Establishment of long-term financial and management sustainability
94. The project will be designed to cover all setup costs, and ensure that any necessary long-term
maintenance costs of project initiatives are minimal. Many components will be completed within
the timescale of the project:
 Landscape Conservation Framework (Component 1).
 Establishment of community land-use tenure and title (Component 2a) and resource
management plans (Component 2b).
 Environmental Education program (Component 3b).
For other components or activities initial costs will be high, however necessary maintenance
costs will be low:
 Incentives scheme (Component 2b).
 Law enforcement (Component 3c). As security and institutional structures are established
the capacity of local communities and provincial government to enforce laws should be
strengthened so that available resources are sufficient to cover long-term costs.
 Monitoring (Component 3d).
95. However it is recognised that sufficient financial sustainability must be established to cover
these maintenance costs, especially the incentives scheme and monitoring program. An
incremental cost matrix will be produced to identify the costs and activities. Further, the project
will establish a structure for sound management of these activities. Site management staff will be
members of the appropriate authority (FA or MoE) with jurisdiction over the area including key
sites. This will provide the necessary sustainability of project management. Opportunities for
key-species eco-tourism have been researched during the PDF-B, and there is potential for
tourism to fund necessary project activities, especially the village incentive scheme (Component
3). During the full project, activities will create a framework for key species eco-tourism that
benefits both biodiversity and local communities. Further activities will investigate the potential
for establishing a trust fund, or securing long-term additional government and NGO financial
commitment, to fund other necessary project activities (e.g. the monitoring program).
Outcome 3b - Increased public awareness of the key project sites for conservation and the need
for sustainable use of natural resources
96.While environmental awareness will be an important theme throughout the work of
Components 1, 2a and 2b, additional supplementary activities will be needed to target specific
groups and specific issues (e.g. those with communities living in close proximity to breeding bird
colonies). This work needs to be both specialised and to have its achievements measurable if it is
not to avoid conventional pitfalls of education/awareness activities. This Component will run
concurrently with the PLUP process, with which it is closely linked, and seek to identify specific
activity needs that the process will highlight.
46
97.A mobile education unit will be formed to increase awareness levels in and around key sites
for conservation and a school support program will target local education efforts. The program
will aim to build awareness and pride in key species conservation. Particular focus will be placed
upon education and awareness activities for armed forces and at military bases to encourage their
participation in conservation. An on-going evaluation scheme will assess and adapt the education
activities to improve their impact. The setup costs (teacher training, production of materials and
so on) will be covered by this component. However, by training provincial teachers and
provincial department staff it is anticipated that activities will continue with minimal funding
beyond the 7 year project.
Outcome 3c - Reduction in illegal commercial exploitation of biological resources and their
components
98.Effective law enforcement will be necessary for successful biodiversity conservation,
particularly with respect to reducing commercial hunting and wildlife trade. This will require
improvements in the technical training, equipment and available infrastructure (e.g. offices for
FA Sangkats) for government staff. Law enforcement teams will include representatives from
relevant provincial authorities and the armed forces and work within guidelines determined by
authorities and village natural resource management agreements. Additionally, once community
organisations are established and tenure issues have been resolved, then local representation on
these enforcement teams will begin in order to better involve locals, increase community
responsibility for NRM management, and to build local methods of dealing with forest crime.
The timing and nature of this participation will be linked to the achievements of Component 2.
99.A data management system will be designed to collect and collate information gathered
during patrols and enforcement activities, and a reporting system established to monitor these
activities and their impacts. This data system will probably be modelled on that already
implemented by BPAMP project in north-eastern Cambodia.
Outcome 3d - Adequate data for conservation management and project evaluation purposes
100. The results framework will use five indicators to measure the project’s impact:
 Biological populations
 Habitat extent
 Level of human activities identified as threats
 Community livelihood indicators
 Extent of Government support
101. The first three determine the immediate success of the project in achieving the objective, the
the fourth monitors the project’s impact on local people and the last will be crucial if activities
are to be sustained. Site monitoring programs will collect standardised data to allow rigorous
conclusions to be made about the levels of the first three indicators; activities during Component
2 will measure the fourth and government plans, reports and proclamations will measure
progress on the final indicator. This will require the development of a database management
system for input of field data and analysis of results. Training in data collection and analysis
techniques will ensure that there is sufficient capacity for provincial staff and communities to
understand the results of the monitoring program and the implications of these results for project
activities. A pilot database was developed during the PDF-B phase and staff trained in its use.
47
Under this component, one activity will use the vulture restaurant program, also developed
during the PDF-B, to monitor the population of Gyps vultures in the Northern Plains. The
Cambodian population will represent only one of two existent populations following the
dramatic declines in the Indian Subcontinent.
102. This component will monitor and quantify the ecological impacts and requirements of the
innovative sustainable natural resource management being trialled at the four key sites. These
will be used to generate knowledge on the application of sustainable natural resource
management techniques in the Northern Plains. The results will be used to provide adequate data
to inform conservation management decisions by site authorities. Protocols for data collection
and monitoring will be developed and improved as part of the adaptive management process. To
the extent possible, community-based monitoring techniques will be developed and used.
Component 4: Project Management and Evaluation
Outcome 4: Adequate reporting on project outcomes and indicators.
103. A Project Management Office will be required for the duration of the project only, to coordinate administration and reporting on GEF activities. This component will include required
activities to evaluate progress towards achieving impact and outcome indicators. Baseline
information on indicator levels has already been collected during the PDF-B, and will be
augmented by data collected in year 1 of CALM. It will also include the annual project reviews,
adaptive management missions and planning meetings, adaptive management technical
expertise, mid-term evaluation ($30,000) and final evaluation ($30,000).
104. Each year there will be a major, participatory adaptive management review of each of the
four key sites. The missions will be timed so that they benefit from as up to date monitoring
results as possible, but more importantly, can provide timely input to the annual project review.
The adaptive management reviews will also include a focus on knowledge management (through
formal lessons learned preparation etc and informal consultations and feedback loops), as well as
dissemination to practitioners across the Northern Plains. Tools will be developed for adaptive
management both for the improvement of outcomes at the key sites and to contribute to the
broader application of biodiversity considerations in land management processes at the
provincial levels.
105. The project is adopting a ‘landscape’ conservation strategy, with targeted interventions at
particular sites. These sites have been selected because together they are necessary and sufficient
for successful conservation of all species found in the landscape. An annual evaluation process,
informed by data collected during the monitoring program, will be necessary to set intervention
priorities for the following year. The objective should be the maintenance of key species at all
the identified sites. This annual evaluation will be necessary if the project is to avoid a ‘site by
site’ implementation strategy that will not result in successful landscape-level conservation.
48
PART III: MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS
Execution
106.Given the leading role taken in project design and implementation of the PDF-B by WCS,
UNDP and the Royal Government of Cambodia have decided that the most appropriate
implementation modality for CALM is NGO implementation. The selection of WCS was
approved on 5 May 2005, based upon the results of a UNDP-authored capacity assessment, and
extensive government consultations. The capacity assessment clearly indicated the suitability of
WCS, highlighting the NGO’s technical, managerial, administrative and financial expertise both
globally and in Cambodia at delivering conservation projects. WCS already operates under a 5year MoU with MAFF and MoE defining a co-operative programme on biodiversity
conservation in Cambodia. In addition, WCS has an agreement with MAFF covering the
relevant components of CALM that was signed in December 2003 and lasts for the duration of
the CALM. WCS’s involvement in the project will be a major asset to the Government. The two
Government ministries, MAFF and MoE, will enter into agreements with WCS for the
implementation of individual project components with the technical assistance of WCS.
107.As per the UNDP Programming for Results Management Guide, and as Implementing
Partner, WCS will be responsible and accountable for overall management of the project and the
attainment of all project objectives, including such tasks as the planning of project activities,
financial accountability, the assessment of progress and technical quality, reporting to the
stakeholders of the project (UNDP, Royal Government of Cambodia and beneficiaries), project
monitoring and evaluation.
Implementation (see Annex 7 for Terms of Reference)
108. WCS will enter in agreements for the implementation of the project with both the
Department of Nature Conservation and Protection (DNCP) of the Ministry of Environment and
the Forest Administration (FA) of MAFF. DNCP has a mandate over the management of Kulen
Promtep Wildlife Sanctuary while FA has a mandate over the management of the Preah Vihear
Protected Forest, Phnom Tbeng and the concession forest that includes the O’Scach River. Thus,
the DNCP will play a leading role in implementing project activities in the Kulen Promtep
Wildlife Sanctuary and the FA will lead project implementation of project activities in remaining
areas. The Ministry of Land Management (MLMUPC) is the Government body responsible for
the implementation of the Land Law and will be an essential partner in the Participatory LandUse Planning (PLUP) process across the landscape, within both the Wildlife Sanctuary and the
rest of the Forest Estate. The provincial departments of MLMUPC will be crucial implementing
partners, and the project will enter into agreements for these activities with these departments.
109.To facilitate the implementation of the project, and at the request of the implementing
partner, the UNDP Cambodia Country office will provide support services to the project in
accordance with the UNDP procedures. UNDP will assist WCS with access to information,
services and support, provide WCS with all relevant documents on UNDP rules and procedures,
and assist with liason with stakeholders. UNDP will be responsible for monitoring the progress
of the project and reporting to GEF and for disbursement of GEF funds. Monitoring activities
will include the project reviews (TPR meeting, mid-term and final evaluation).
49
110.The practical and technical implementation of the project will be led at all steps by the
Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS).
111.To enhance national ownership and leadership a Project Executive Group (PEG) will be
established and chaired by the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, will be established
to provide overall guidance for the implementation of the project. The PEG will consist of
representatives of the relevant parties including the Council for Development of Cambodia, the
Ministry of Environment (deputy chair), the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries,
Ministry of Land Management Urban Planning and Construction, Ministry of Defense, Regional
Representatives from Military, Police and Border Police, UNDP, WCS, Seila/PLG and
Provincial Governors of 5 provinces, which share boundaries and territories with the Northern
Plains landscape. Representatives of other ministries and organizations will be invited to attend
as appropriate. The PSC will advise on project implementation, provide a mechanism for
resolving implementation problems that go beyond single department mandates, and review
progress. Meetings will take place at least yearly during the life of the Project.
The existing Provincial Rural Development Committee (PRDC) will function as a Sub-Executive
Group (SEG) in those provinces where the project has significant activities. The SEG will be
chaired by the Governor, or their representative, and will consist of representatives from
Provincial Departments, Seila/PLG, WCS, Military, Police and Border Police. The SEG will
advise on project activities and provide a forum to integrate initiatives across the landscape.
Members of the SEG (such as the Governor’s office) will be responsible for approving site
management plans produced by project components.
112.The National Project Director (NPD) appointed by MAFF will serve as the
government director of the project. The same modality worked efficiently during the
phase and is therefore recommended to continue in the full project. A Deputy National
Director (DNPD) appointed by MoE will be responsible for overall management of
activities in Kulen Promtep Wildlife Sanctuary.
overall
PDF-B
Project
project
WCS, in consultation with UNDP, will appoint/recruit an International Project Advisor (IPA)
who act as the overall project manager and will be responsible for day-to-day management and
decision-making for the project.
A Project Support (UNDP program officer) will be appointed or recruited to provide project
administration and management support from UNDP to WCS as required by the needs of the
project or WCS.
To ensure appropriate management milestones are managed and completed, UNDP will
designate a Project Assurance Officer. The Project Assurance will support the Project Executive
Group by carrying out objective and independent oversight and monitoring functions.
A Project Implementation Office (PIO) has been established in Tbeng Meanchey (Preah Vihear
province), since this region will be the focus of implementation activities and is in the centre of
the landscape.
50
Two National Site Managers (NSMs) will be recruited by CALM and will serve as the principal
liaison between the project and the NPD and PSC. The NSMs will be responsible for reporting to
the NPD, PSC, UNDP/GEF and WCS on the project’s progress.
Individual Project Implementation Units (PIU) will be responsible for project activities. Some
activities relate to site-based management, and these will be coordinated through existing
Government management authorities, such as the Kulen Promtep Wildlife Sanctuary. Other
activities provide support to decentralized government processes, implementation of new laws
and support to the formation of site-based plans by local authorities, and these will be
coordinated by new PIUs that will be required only for the duration of the project.
Adaptive management
113. UNDP is intent on implementing a monitoring process that serves as an effective support
tool to the project implementation team, allowing them to incorporate new scientific knowledge,
and the results of lessons learned in similar projects elsewhere. This approach is particularly
important for a project, which seeks to integrate conservation into a productive landscape.
114. Adaptive management will be promoted in order to create conditions that ensure greater
success in project implementation. The term “adaptive management” is used in the context of
experience developed by “Foundation for Success”, under the Biodiversity Conservation
Network. They defined the concept as3:
“Adaptive management is a process of defining actions, decision-making, and learning in which
a group responsible for the conservation of a particular area is responsive to biophysical and
social changes and is able to respond quickly and appropriately to these changes. In order to
make sound management decisions under complex and evolving conditions, a group must be
able to:





Continuously test assumptions and hypotheses;
Experiment with alternative approaches to resolve problems and address pertinent issues;
Generate, analyze and use relevant and reliable data and information;
Determine the impacts of its chosen course of action; and
Learn from failure as well as success and apply these lessons to future program decisions.
“An organization's ability to understand and react to the complex and dynamic ecological and
social environments at a given project site is a major determinant of its success. Adaptive
management is a useful tool in helping organizations deal with the complexity of managing
conservation and development projects.”
115.The objectives of the adaptive management reviews in the context of the CALM project will
be:
From: “Adaptive Management of Conservation and Development Projects: Transforming Theory into Practice”. Biodiversity
Support Program Reference No.: 39, 1999
3
51




To strengthen the existing annual project review process (APR). The reviews will provide
support to the project implementation team in preparation for the APR and will improve the
basis for recommendations made by the PEG.
To apply adaptive, learning-based approaches to project implementation. Adaptive, learningbased implementation requires a clear understanding of the project logic and periodic well
structured events in which the project’s experience (successes and failures) and changes in its
operating context (opportunities and threats) can be examined in an objective manner by
those involved.
To promote exchange and learning across UNDP/GEF’s portfolio of similar projects in the
Asia/Pacific region. Progress in individual projects and across the UNDP/GEF portfolio will
be enhanced by reciprocal visits that permit peer managers to examine and contribute to
addressing issues raised by the execution of one another’s projects.
To improve the documentation and dissemination of project learning’s and project
accomplishments. This will ensure that the outcomes and lessons learned from each project
are widely disseminated.
Adaptive management reviews will be undertaken yearly by the IPA, NSMs, MAFF, MoE, the
project team and may include representatives from the UNDP Country Office. Individual project
components will undertake their own adaptive management reviews prior to this. The review
process will be used to:
 Generate the workplan for the coming year
 Update the risk assessment and risk management strategy
 Upadate the project logical framework
 Quantify progress towards meeting indicators in the results measurement framework (Annex
4) and logical framework (Annex 5).
 Identify Lessons learned
 Identify key project achievements that should be publicized (e.g. reports for publication,
etc..).
Audit
116.As per UNDP/GEF Administration and Financial Guidelines, projects exceeding
expenditures of $20,000 per year should be audited annually. The audit will be conducted in
conformity with generally accepted international standards, by UNDP internal auditors hired
directly by UNDP Cambodia. Funds to finance the audit are included in the project budget. The
audit report will be an integral part of the monitoring and evaluation process and its contents
shall be taken into account in the annual progress review and evaluations of the project.
52
CALM Project Structure
Project Executive Group
Chairman: MAFF
(CDC, MAFF, MoE, MLMUPC, MoD,
Governors, UNDP, Seila, WCS)
Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry and Fisheries
Forestry
Administration
UNDP/GEF
Project
Assurance
Ministry of
Environment
Department of Nature
Conservation and Protection
National Project Director
Deputy NPD
WCS
(Implementing Partner)
WCS Cambodia Director
Intl Project Advisor
Project Implementation Office
(Tbeng Meanchey)
National Site Managers
WCS Technical Advisors
Administration Director
Sub-Executive
Group
(Governor, Seila/PLG, ExCom,
Provincial Departments, FA
Cantonment)
Preah Vihear Protected
Forest Director
Kulen Promtep Wildlife
Sanctuary Director
Phnom Tbeng and
O’Scach Key Sites
Environmental Education
Unit
Communities and Natural
Resource Management Unit
53
Monitoring and
Evaluation Unit
PART IV: MONITORING AND EVALUTION PLAN AND BUDGET
Project monitoring and evaluation will be conducted in accordance with established UNDP and
GEF procedures and will be provided by the project team and the UNDP Country Office
(UNDP-CO) with support from UNDP/GEF. The Results Measurement Framework in Annex 4
and the Logical Framework Matrix in Annex 5 provide performance and impact indicators for
project implementation along with their corresponding means of verification. These will form the
basis on which the project's Monitoring and Evaluation system will be built. WCS and UNDPCambodia shall be responsible that the overall monitoring and evaluation framework for the
CALM project will effectively assess the quality and appropriateness of the various
outputs/results of the project activities, and contribute to the national development goals of the
country.
The following sections outline the principle components of the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan
and indicative cost estimates related to M&E activities. Specific funds have been allocated in the
CALM budget.
Conservation Impact Monitoring
117.The conservation impact of the project will be evaluated using 4 key indicators (see Annex
4):
a) Populations of key wildlife species (see Annex 1 for definitions)
b) Habitat Extent
c) Level of human activities identified as threats (see Annex 3)
d) Government support, indicated by recognition for key sites
118.A monitoring and evaluation program will also be essential for:
a) To provide the objective, quantifiable, measures of change required to determine reward
rates for the community-based incentive scheme
b) Inform law enforcement teams
c) Provide information for internal project adaptive management at key sites
119.In the project logframe, the monitoring program is designated a separate component in
recognition of its importance, and the necessity of maintaining independence between project
activities and their evaluation. This is particularly relevant given that the results of the
monitoring program will be used to set reward rates for the incentive scheme. The project
recognises the critical need for quantifiable indicators, not just for management to adapt
activities, but to provide a public and transparent process to evaluate project success. Both
communities and government need to understand and accept monitoring results for there to be
genuine stakeholder buy-in to the project.
120.A model for monitoring of biological populations has been developed by WCS/MAFF/MoE
in another area of Cambodia and will be applied to the project site. Key species have been
identified (see Annex 1), and will be the principal target of population monitoring. The necessary
baseline data for the biological monitoring program was collected during the PDF-B phase, and
this will be used to analyse future trends in populations during the full project. Key members of
government and communities have received appropriate training in applying the methodologies.
54
121.Monitoring of habitat extent and quality will require the analysis of time-series remote
sensing data, with field data collection for ground-truthing. Suitable baseline datasets already
exist, both from aerial photography and satellite imagery.
122.Trends in human activities, where they impact on land-use, will also be monitored through
the results of remote sensing data analysis. Data on other human activities, including illegal
activities and other types of hunting, fishing and NTFP collection will be collected by field
teams. The details of the data required will depend upon the threats analysis (see Annex 3) and
those activities prohibited under agreed village management regulations. For the latter reason,
monitoring systems may require different forms for particular villages. Baseline data needs will
be determined early in the project, and data recorded before the implementation of management
agreements and incentive schemes, in order that their impact can be evaluated.
The Site-based monitoring systems (Component 3d) will measure the conservation impact
indicators and will provide the results to site managers for their adaptive management review
process (Component 3a)
Project Inception Phase
An Inception Workshop will be conducted with CALM, MAFF, MoE, Seila/PLG, Provincial
Government, UNDP-Cambodia and other representatives as appropriate. Prior to the inception
workshop the first Annual Workplan will be produced by the CALM team. This will include
precise and measurable performance indicators (baselines and targets) for the first year in a
manner consistent with the expected outcomes for the project. The indicators will be used to
assess whether implementation is proceeding at the intended pace and in the right direction.
A fundamental objective of this Inception Workshop will be to assist all stakeholders to
understand and take ownership of the CALM’s goals and objectives, as well as to review the first
annual workplan on the basis of the project's logframe matrix.
Additionally, the purpose and objective of the Inception Workshop will be to: (i) introduce
project staff with the UNDP-GEF expanded team which will support the project during its
implementation, namely UNDP-Cambodia and responsible Regional Coordinating Unit staff; (ii)
detail the roles, support services and complementary responsibilities of UNDP-Cambodia and
Regional Coordinating Unit staff vis a vis the project team; (iii) provide a detailed overview of
UNDP-GEF reporting and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) requirements, with particular
emphasis on the Annual Project Implementation Reviews (PIRs) and related documentation, the
Annual Project Report (APR), Tripartite Review Meetings, as well as mid-term and final
evaluations. Equally, the Inception Workshop will provide an opportunity to inform the project
team on UNDP project related budgetary planning, budget reviews, and mandatory budget
rephasings.
The Inception Workshop will also provide an opportunity for all parties to understand their roles,
functions, and responsibilities within the project's decision-making structures, including
reporting and communication lines, and conflict resolution mechanisms. Linkages with other
projects, including those supported by UNDP and GEF will be discussed.
55
Monitoring responsibilities and events
A detailed schedule of project reviews meetings will be developed by CALM, in consultation with
project implementation partners and stakeholder representatives and incorporated in the Project
Inception Report. Such a schedule will include: (i) tentative time frames for Tripartite Reviews, and
(ii) project related Monitoring and Evaluation activities.
Day to day monitoring of implementation progress will be the responsibility of the NSMs and
IPA based on the project's Annual Workplan and its indicators. CALM will inform UNDPCambodia of any delays or difficulties faced during implementation so that the appropriate
support or corrective measures can be adopted in a timely and remedial fashion.
The NSMs and the IPA will fine-tune the progress and performance/impact indicators of the
project in consultation with the full project team at the Inception Workshop with support from
UNDP-Cambodia and assisted by the UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating Unit. Specific targets
for the first year implementation progress indicators together with their means of verification
will be developed at this Workshop. These will be used to assess whether implementation is
proceeding at the intended pace and in the right direction and will form part of the Annual
Workplan. The local implementing agencies will also take part in the Inception Workshop in
which a common vision of overall project goals will be established. Targets and indicators for
subsequent years would be defined annually as part of the internal evaluation and planning
processes undertaken by the project team.
Impact indicators, and their measurement, has been clearly described in the section about
(Conservation Impact Monitoring) and Annex 4.
Periodic monitoring of implementation progress will be undertaken by UNDP-Cambodia
through quarterly meetings with CALM, or more frequently as deemed necessary. This will
allow parties to take stock and to troubleshoot any problems pertaining to the project in a timely
fashion to ensure smooth implementation of project activities.
UNDP-Cambodia and UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating Unit as appropriate, will conduct
yearly visits to the Northern Plains, if required, to assess project progress. Visits will be
scheduled in the CALM Annual Workplan. Any other member of the Steering Committee can
also accompany, as decided by the PSC. A Field Visit Report will be prepared by UNDPCambodia and circulated no less than one month after the visit to CALM, all PSC members, and
UNDP-GEF.
Annual Monitoring will occur through the Tripartite Review (TPR), undertaken by the Project
Steering Committee (PSC). This is the highest policy-level meeting of the parties directly
involved in the implementation of a project. CALM will be subject to Tripartite Review (TPR) at
least once every year. The first such meeting will be held within the first twelve months of the
start of full implementation. CALM will prepare an Annual Project Report (APR) and submit it
to UNDP-Cambodia and the UNDP-GEF regional office at least two weeks prior to the TPR for
review and comments.
56
The APR will be used as one of the basic documents for discussions in the TPR meeting. CALM
will present the APR to the TPR, highlighting policy issues and recommendations for the
decision of the TPR participants. CALM will also inform the participants of any agreement
reached by stakeholders during the APR preparation on how to resolve operational issues.
Terminal Tripartite Review
The terminal tripartite review is held in the last month of project operations. CALM is
responsible for preparing the Terminal Report and submitting it to UNDP-Cambodia and the
UNDP/GEF Regional Coordinating Unit. It shall be prepared in draft at least two months in
advance of the terminal TPR in order to allow review, and will serve as the basis for discussions
during the review. The terminal tripartite review considers the implementation of the project as a
whole, paying particular attention to whether the project has achieved its stated objectives and
contributed to the broader environmental objective. It decides whether any actions are still
necessary, particularly in relation to sustainability of project results, and acts as a vehicle through
which lessons learnt can be captured to feed into other projects under implementation of
formulation.
The TPR has the authority to suspend disbursement if project performance indicators are not
met. Indicators are provided in Annexes 4 and 5 and will be developed further at the Inception
Workshop.
Work plan and Reporting requirements
The IPA and NSMs in conjunction with the UNDP-GEF extended team will be responsible for
the preparation and submission of the following reports that form part of the monitoring process.
(a)
Inception Report (IR)
A Project Inception Report will be prepared immediately following the Inception Workshop. It
will include a detailed First Year Work Plan divided in quarterly time-frames detailing the
activities and progress indicators that will guide implementation during the first year of the
project. This Work Plan will include the time-frames for meetings of the project's decision
making structures. The Report will also include the detailed project budget for the first full year
of implementation, and including any monitoring and evaluation requirements to effectively
measure project performance during the targeted 12 months time-frame. A section will be
included on progress to date on project establishment and start-up activities and an update of any
changed external conditions that may effect project implementation.
When finalized the report will be circulated to project counterparts who will be given a period of
one calendar month in which to respond with comments or queries. Prior to this circulation of the
IR, the UNDP-Cambodia and UNDP-GEF’s Regional Coordinating Unit will review the document.
(b)
Annual Project Report (APR)
The APR is a UNDP requirement and part of UNDP-Cambodia’s central oversight, monitoring
and project management. It is a self-assessment report submitted by the Executing Agency
57
(WCS) to UNDP-Cambodia and provides input to the country office reporting process, as well as
forming a key input to the Tripartite Review (TPR). An APR will be prepared on an annual
basis two weeks prior to the TPR, to reflect progress achieved in meeting the project's Annual
Work Plan and assess performance of the project in contributing to intended outcomes through
outputs and partnership work.
The format of the APR is flexible but should include the following:
 An analysis of project performance over the reporting period, including outputs produced
and, where possible, information on the status of the outcome
 The constraints experienced in the progress towards results and the reasons for these
 The three (at most) major constraints to achievement of results
 Annual Work Plan and other expenditure reports
 Lessons learned
 Clear recommendations for future orientation in addressing key problems in lack of progress
(c)
Project Implementation Review (PIR)
The PIR is an annual monitoring process mandated by the GEF. It has become an essential
management and monitoring tool for project managers and offers the main vehicle for extracting
lessons from ongoing projects. Once the project has been under implementation for a year, a
Project Implementation Report must be completed by UNDP-Cambodia together with the
Executing Agency (WCS). The PIR can be prepared any time during the year and ideally two
weeks prior to the TPR. The PIR should then be discussed in the TPR so that the result would be
a PIR that has been agreed upon by the project, the executing agency and UNDP-Cambodia. The
individual PIRs are collected, reviewed and analysed by the Regional Coordinating Office of
UNDP/GEF prior to sending them to UNDP/GEF headquarters. The PIR and APR follow a
standard harmonized format in recognition of their similarity.
(d)
Quarterly Progress Reports
One week after the end of each quarter, the Executing Agency (WCS) is required to prepare a
summary report (maximum one page) of the project's substantive and technical progress towards
achieving its objective as described in the annual work plan. These quarterly reports will include
financial statements. The summaries are reviewed and cleared by UNDP-Cambodia one week
before being sent to the UNDP/GEF Regional Coordinator.
(e)
Periodic Thematic Reports
As and when called for by UNDP-Cambodia, UNDP-GEF or the Implementing Partner, the
project team will prepare Specific Thematic Reports, focusing on specific issues or areas of
activity. The request for a Thematic Report will be provided to the project team in written form
by UNDP and will clearly state the issue or activities that need to be reported on. These reports
can be used as a form of lessons learnt exercise, specific oversight in key areas, or as
troubleshooting exercises to evaluate and overcome obstacles and difficulties encountered.
UNDP is requested to minimize its requests for Thematic Reports, and when such are necessary
will allow reasonable timeframes for their preparation by the project team.
58
(f)
Project Terminal Report
During the last three months of the project the project team will prepare the Project Terminal
Report. This comprehensive report will summarize all activities, achievements and outputs of
the Project, lessons learnt, objectives met, or not achieved, structures and systems implemented,
etc. and will be the definitive statement of the Project’s activities during its lifetime. 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 activities.
Evaluation
The project will be subjected to at least two independent external evaluations as follows:(i) Mid-term Evaluation
An independent Mid-Term Evaluation will be undertaken at the middle of the fourth year of
implementation. The Mid-Term Evaluation will determine progress being made towards 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 mid-term evaluation will be decided after
consultation between the parties to the project document. The Terms of Reference for this Midterm evaluation will be prepared by the UNDP Country Office based on guidance from the
Regional Coordinating Unit and UNDP-GEF.
(ii) Final Evaluation
An independent Final Evaluation will take place three months prior to the terminal tripartite
review meeting, and will focus on the same issues as the mid-term evaluation. The final
evaluation will also look at impact and sustainability of results, including the contribution to
capacity development and the achievement of global environmental goals. The Final Evaluation
should also provide recommendations for follow-up activities. The Terms of Reference for this
evaluation will be prepared by UNDP-Cambodia based on guidance from the Regional
Coordinating Unit and UNDP-GEF.
Learning and Knowledge Sharing
Results from the project will be disseminated within and beyond the project intervention zone
through a number of existing information sharing networks and forums. In addition:

The project will participate, as relevant and appropriate, in UNDP/GEF sponsored networks,
organized for Senior Personnel working on projects that share common characteristics.
UNDP/GEF shall establish a number of networks, such as Integrated Ecosystem
Management, eco-tourism, co-management, etc, that will largely function on the basis of an
electronic platform.
59

The project will identify and participate, as relevant and appropriate, in scientific, policybased and/or any other networks, which may be of benefit to project implementation though
lessons learned.
The project will identify, analyze, and share lessons learned that might be beneficial in the
design and implementation of similar future projects. Identify and analyzing lessons learned is an
on-going process. UNDP/GEF shall provide a format and assist the project team in categorizing,
documenting and reporting on lessons learned every 2 years.
Monitoring and Evaluation Work plan and corresponding Budget
Type of M&E activity
Responsible Parties
Budget US$
Excluding project team
Staff time
Time frame
Inception Workshop
(UNDP staff travel costs
to be charged to IA fees)




IPA and NSMs
CALM staff
UNDP Cambodia
UNDP GEF
$2000
Inception Report


CALM staff
UNDP Cambodia
None
Measurement of Means
of Verification for
Project Impact Indicators


Image analysis and
interpretation: $25,000
Site-based Monitoring
teams: approximately
$10,000/year.
Community teams:
approximately 5,000 in
years 3 and 6.
Measurement of Means
of Verification for
Project Progress and
Performance (on an
annual basis )
APR and PIR


See Annex 4.
IPA will oversee the hiring of
the contract for image analysis
and interpretation, all other
indicators will be measured by
site monitoring teams
(Component 3d) and
community teams (Component
2b)
IPA and NSMs
Measurements by individual
activity coordinators
None: incorporated into
annual reports by activity
coordinators
Annually for the
adaptive
management review
prior to APR/PIR
None
Annually
$14,000 ($2000/year)
Every year, upon
receipt of APR
As required, $8,000
included in budget.
As required, $8,000
included in budget.
To be determined by
CALM and UNDP
Cambodia
To be determined by
CALM and UNDPCambodia
TPR
(UNDP staff travel costs
to be charged to IA fees)










Periodic status reports

NSMs and IPA
UNDP-Cambodia
UNDP-GEF
MAFF, MoE
UNDP Cambodia
NSMs and IPA
CALM staff
Seila/PLG
Provincial Government
UNDP-GEF Regional
Coordinating Unit
CALM
Technical reports

CALM
60
Within first two
months of project
start up
Immediately
following Inception
Workshop
Habitat extent: start
and end of project,
Site-based
monitoring teams:
annual reports.
Mid-term External
Evaluation





Final External
Evaluation





Terminal Report
Audit
Visits to field sites
(UNDP staff travel costs
to be charged to IA fees)








NSMs and IPA
CALM staff
UNDP-Cambodia
UNDP-GEF Regional
Coordinating Unit
External Consultants (i.e.
evaluation team)
NSMs and IPA
CALM staff
UNDP-Cambodia
UNDP-GEF Regional
Coordinating Unit
External Consultants (i.e.
evaluation team)
NSMs and IPA
CALM staff
UNDP-Cambodia
UNDP-CO
Project team
UNDP Cambodia
UNDP-GEF Regional
Coordinating Unit (as
appropriate)
Government representatives
TOTAL INDICATIVE COST
Excluding project team staff time and UNDP staff and travel
expenses
61
$30,000
In Year 4.
$30,000
In Year 7.
None
$21,000 (average $3000
per year)
At least one month
before the end of the
project
Yearly
As required.
US$ 235,000
PART V: LEGAL CONTEXT
123.This Project Document shall be the instrument referred to as such in Article I of the Standard
Basic Assistance Agreement between the Royal Government of Cambodia and the United
Nations Development Programme, signed by the parties on 19 December 1994. The host country
implementing agency shall, for the purpose of the Standard Basic Assistance Agreement, refer to
the government co-operating agency described in that Agreement.
124.UNDP acts in this Project as Implementing Agency of the Global Environment Facility
(GEF), and all rights and privileges pertaining to UNDP as per the terms of the SBAA shall be
extended mutatis mutandis to GEF.
125.The UNDP Resident Representative in Cambodia is authorized to effect in writing the
following types of revision to this Project Document, provided that he/she has verified the
agreement thereto with the Executive Coordinator, GEF Unit, UNDP (or designated Officer-inCharge/Representative) and is assured that the other signatories to the Project Document have no
objection to the proposed changes:

Revision of, or addition to, any of the annexes to the Project Document;

Revisions which do not involve significant changes in the immediate objectives, outputs or
activities of the project, but are caused by the rearrangement of the inputs already agreed to
or by cost increases due to inflation;

Mandatory annual revisions which re-phase the delivery of agreed project inputs or increased
expert or other costs due to inflation or take into account agency expenditure flexibility; and

Inclusion of additional annexes and attachments only as set out here in this Project
Document.
SECTION II : STRATEGIC RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND
GEF INCREMENT
63
PART I: Incremental Cost Analysis
Component
Component 1.
Incorporating
biodiversity into
landscape-level
planning processes
Component 2.
Applying
Mainstreaming
Measures
2a. Community landuse tenure and title
2b. Village
agreements on natural
resource management
linked to direct
incentives scheme
Category
Baseline
US $
$68,000
Seila/PLG and MoE,
MAFF annual provincial
budgets
Alternative
Increment
$1,256,920
$1,148,920
Of which:
GEF: $442,350
WCS: $333,050
Seila/PLG: $350,000
RGC: $23,520
Baseline
$120,000
LUPU (land Use Planning
Unit)
$60,000
Seila/PLG
Domestic Benefit
UNDP support to Seila/PLG and Provincial Rural
Development Committee (PRDC). However, the
PRDC currently has does not consider conservation
values. Sectoral management by Provincial MoE
and MAFF considers some aspects of the
landscape, but is uncoordinated and unfocused.
Technical management capacity and infrastructure
(including equipment) are poor.
Global Benefit
No consideration of the global
importance of biodiversity and key
sites in planning decisions.
Establishment, through PRDC and Project Steering
Committee of integrated provincial and national
conservation and development planning.
Management between agencies is co-ordinated.
Planning decisions by government and agencies
reference and take into account conservation
priorities.
Community Land-use tenure and title
Isolated projects supported by LUPU, but without
consideration of conservation priorities. General
absence of implementation of mechanisms to
regulate ownership of natural resources.
Continuing over-exploitation by communities,
especially in competition with increasing numbers
of immigrants and temporary migrants from other
areas. Unregulated new settlements impacting on
resource-use patterns of established communities.
Eventual loss of wood, fish and wildlife resources.
No community benefit from tourism.
Global conservation values
included in national and provincial
planning strategies. PRDCs reflect
global conservation priorities.
64
No clear ownership of key sites for
conservation and associated
management responsibilities.
2 key sites afforded govt.
recognition.
Alternative
Increment
Component 3:
Strengthening
capacity for
biodiversity
management
Baseline
$843,182
$663,182
Of which:
GEF: $362,700
WCS: $214,200
Seila/PLG: $78,407
RGC: $7,875
$30,000
(MAFF and MoE law
enforcement budgets)
Village agreements on natural resource
management linked to direct incentives scheme
Commune Development Plans assisted by
Seila/PLG, but these do not explicitly include
natural resource management. Poor local
government capacity to manage natural resources.
No incentives for improved natural resource
management, or conservation-orientated activities.
Continued unregulated over-exploitation.
Local government planning process
does not include conservation
values.
Community Land-use tenure and title
Implementation of new laws governing the
ownership of natural resources. Community
understanding of rights and responsibilities.
Reduction in unauthorised immigration, and
resource exploitation by temporary migrants.
Ownership (state/private)
established for key sites for
conservation, producing a
framework upon which subsequent
activities are developed.
Recognition of key sites by govt.
Reduction in threats to global
biodiversity conservation values.
Village agreements on natural resource
management linked to direct incentives scheme
Implementation of new laws governing the
management of natural resources. Community
understanding and regulation of improved
management practices, and defence of resource-use
rights. Incentive scheme provides direct rewards in
return for reduction of threats to wildlife. Crucially,
the scheme establishes a link between wildlife and
rewards given, creating a clear foundation for
community conservation management.
Financial and management sustainability of
activities
No financial management planning by Provincial
MoE/MAFF. Wildlife tourism occurs, but is
unregulated and gives no benefits to local
communities or protected area/forest management.
Reduction in activities by
communities that threaten global
wildlife conservation values.
Creation of link between
biodiversity and incentives results
in community support against
immigrants that seek to exploit
local wildlife.
3a. Financial and
65
Conservation management remains
weak and under-funded.
management
sustainability of
activities
3b. Environmental
awareness program
targeted at
communities and
armed forces.
Environmental awareness program targeted at
communities and armed forces
Poor understanding of threats to biodiversity
conservation and the importance of maintaining
environmental services. No understanding of the
location and boundaries of key sites for
conservation, or new protected forest. No focusing
of efforts on these key sites.
No understanding of the global
importance of species.
Law enforcement
Weak implementation of protected area laws, new
forestry law and wildlife sub-decrees by MoE and
MAFF. Untargeted and unplanned enforcement
does not recognise key sites for conservation or the
major threats to conservation.
Global importance of biodiversity,
or the necessity of maintaining
critical ecosystem services not
recognised in enforcement
activities.
Monitoring and adaptive site management
No collection of standardised data. No analysis of
trends in populations, habitat, or human activities.
No monitoring of species of global
importance.
Financial and management sustainability of
activities
Plan for long-term financing of activities.
Management structure, including transparent
financial system, established. Eco-tourism
guidelines and regulations, so that communities
understand the link between conservation and
tourist income.
Long-term funding and
management structure for an area
of global significance for
conservation.
3c. Law enforcement
3d. Monitoring and
site adaptive
management
Alternative
Increment
$1,934,075
$1,904,075
Of which:
GEF: $939,200
WCS: $861,100
Seila/PLG: $35,000
RGC: $68,775
66
Component 4. Project
Management and
Evaluation
Baseline
$nil
Alternative
Increment
$752,440
$752,440
Of which:
GEF: $555,750
WCS: $191,650
RGC: $5,040
Environmental awareness program targeted at
communities and armed forces
Co-ordinated education program targeted at all
stakeholders, including communities, armed forces
and authorities, especially around key sites.
Increased understanding of the threats to
biodiversity conservation and the necessary
services provided by the environment (e.g.
maintenance of watersheds). Understanding of the
location and boundaries of key sites for
conservation, and the project and its objectives.
Clear understanding by
stakeholders of the global
importance of species found on the
Northern Plains.
Law enforcement
Clear understanding of laws and requirements for
implementation. Co-ordinated, planned
enforcement activities focused around key sites and
address key threats. Teams are well trained,
equipped and have sufficient infrastructure.
Global importance of biodiversity
and critical ecosystem services
recognised in enforcement
activities. Reduction in illegal
activities, especially at key sites.
Monitoring and adaptive site management
Established monitoring programs at all key sites.
Training of staff in methodologies, data analysis
and interpretation of results. Sufficient data for
long-term monitoring of populations, habitats and
human activities to determine project impact.
Provision of simple reports to advise site adaptive
management.
No capacity to report on overall project activities
or expenditure. Little adaptive management or
evaluation of management activities.
Ongoing monitoring of the impact
of project outcomes in achieving
global environmental benefits.
Project office to administer expenditure and coordinate activities. Adaptive management
framework to improve effectiveness of project
implementation. Mid-term and final evaluations.
67
Part II: Logical framework analysis
Project Objective
The effective
conservation of the key
components of
biodiversity of
Cambodia’s Northern
Plains Landscape
Key Outcome Indicators
Biological Populations Percentage of Km squares
where key species
recorded (patch
occupancy)
Survey records from
monitoring transects and
points, e.g. encounter-rates
from camera-traps
Maintenance of Habitat Number of hectares of
forest within key sites
Number of hectares of
grassland
Reduction in human
activities causing
excessive resource usePercentage of water bodies
with poison/electric
fishing activity within key
sites
Number of hunting
incidences
(traps/dogs/guns) recorded
at monitoring points
within key sites
Baseline
Target
Baseline data
exists for 3 key
sites, and will be
collected for site 4
in year 1.
25% increase in total key
species records at two
sites by year 5, remaining
by year 7
Results of
monitoring
transects and
points established
at all sites in year
1.
Maintained presence of
each key species at
respective sites
Protected Forest 135,396
Wildlife Sanctuary
- 76,884
O’Scach-O’Dar 57,998
Phnom Tbeng 27,858
No decreases in forest area
compared with baseline in
years 3 and 7.
Analysis of
remote-sensing
data in year 1
No net loss of grassland
area compared with
baseline in years 2-7.
90% of dry season
water bodies
poisoned or
electric fished
50% reduction in
Protected Forest site by
year 2, achieved at
remaining sites by year 4.
75% reduction at all sites
by year 5.
Baseline will be
established in year
1 for all sites
20% reduction in
Protected Forest site by
year 2, achieved at
68 remaining sites by year 4.
75% reduction at all sites
by year 5.
Verification Means
Site Monitoring
programs
(Component 3d)
- standardized
transect data
- point counts
- fixed camera-traps
Assumptions
Maintenance of
government, military,
police and community
interest and support for
biodiversity conservation
Conservation areas are of
sufficient size to support
biological populations
Populations are able to
recover from past overexploitation
Site Monitoring
programs
(Component 3d)
- analysis of timeseries remote sensing
data
Site Monitoring
programs
(Component 3d)
- data collection
within key sites,
including core areas
and village
management areas
- enforcement team
reports
Number of Km squares with
logging activity recorded by
teams in key sites
Baseline data exists
for 3 key sites, and
will be collected for
site 4 in year 1.
30% reduction in Protected
Forest site by year 2,
achieved at remaining sites
by year 4. 75% reduction at
all sites by year 5.
> 40% of families in
2003.
20% reduction at two sites
by year 4, 50% reduction at
three sites by year 7.
Community surveys in
years 3 and 6
(Component 2d).
Percentage of families that
experience an annual rice
shortage of more than
100kg
> 40% of families in
2003.
20% reduction at two sites
by year 4, 50% reduction at
three sites by year 7.
Community surveys in
years 3 and 6
(Component 2d).
Percentage of families with
more than 2 cows or
buffalos
>70% of families in
2003.
20% increase at two sites
by year 4, 50% increase at
three sites by year 7.
Community surveys in
years 4 and 7
(Component 2d).
236,886ha (72%)
2 sites recognised
4 sites recognised by year 5.
Government maps
Protected Forest - 2
Wildlife Sanctuary 2
Phnom Tbeng – 1
1 at each site by year 5.
Government records
Community Livelihoods –
Number of families doing
shifting cultivation
Government Support Number of hectares of key
sites with formal
recognition
Number of military bases in
key sites
Shifting cultivation is an
unpopular form of
agriculture with local
people, that produces low
yields. Shortage of
livestock is the major
reason people chose this
livelihood.
Livestock shortage is a
major barrier to
improvements in
agriculture
Key Species: Asian Elephant (evergreen forests), Giant/White-shouldered Ibis (water bodies), Eld’s Deer (dry forests and water bodies), Large Cats, Oriental Darter,
Sarus Crane (grasslands), Vultures, Wild Cattle (evergreen and dry forests), White-shouldered Ibis, White-winged Duck (river forests)
69
Project Components
1. Incorporating
biodiversity into
landscape-level
planning processes
Key Outcome
Indicators
Number of Seila/PLG
Commune Development
Plans including
conservation planning
Level of capacity in key
provincial ministries and
government for
conservation planning and
co-ordination.
Provincial Development
Plans, Sectoral Agency
Plans (e.g. Concessionaires)
include conservation
priorities
Conservation landscape
incorporated within
national planning strategies
2. Applying
Mainstreaming
Measures
2a. Community land-use
tenure and title
Level of Provincial
capacity for participatory
land-use planning
Baseline
Target
Verification Means
Assumptions
Currently no CDPs include
conservation plans
5 by year 3, 8 by year 5
- Revised Commune
Development Plans
No staff trained.
Candidate staff from
each ministry, authority
and agency trained by
year 3. At least 100
staff trained.
Plans and EIAs
reference conservation
plans by year 3
- Reports of training
courses. Number of
staff trained.
Authorities’ interest
in being involved in
coordinated landuse planning
continues.
PDP, Ministry, Agency
plans and Environmental
Impact Assessments do not
account for conservation
priorities
Currently only mentioned
within Biodiversity Action
Plan
1 training course for
provincial government staff
completed during PDF-B
Included within MAFF
annual plans by year 3.
Endorsement of key site
management plans by
year 3 (MAFF, MOE,
MLMUPC).
2 further training
courses for 20
government staff each.
Training courses for 12
villages by year 3.
- Conservation
guidelines for
landscape, including
maps of priorities and
management
objectives
- Minutes of
Provincial
Development
committees
Sectoral Plans
(Ministries and
NGOs) and EIAs
- Revised plans by
central level agencies
Seila/PLG’s interest
in NRM continues.
Provincial capacity
can be increased or
is sufficient for
coordinated
planning.
Community and
district plans are
supported by higher
authorities.
Key developments
are made in
Cambodia’s land
law legal
framework
Seila/PLG accepted
as main provincial
planning framework
- Number of trained
PLUP facilitators.
Provincial
governments
support PLUP
process
Trained provincial
70
Government approved landuse maps
No villages have tenure or
title maps
6 villages by year 3, 12
by year 5 to have
established land and
resource tenure
- Government
recognized PLUP
maps
staff remain in
provincial
government.
Number of village
committees
No villages have land-use
planning committees
6 villages by year 3, 12
by year 5 to have
established committees
- Number of
committees and
records of activities
Local governance
structures
(Commune
Councils) remain.
Authorities endorse
community plans.
2b. Village agreements
on natural resource
management linked to
direct incentives scheme
Level of Provincial and
local capacity for
Sustainable Natural
Resource Management
Provincial staff and villages
have no capacity to support
villages in developing
sustainable natural resource
management plans
3 training courses for
20 government staff
each. Training courses
for 8 villages by year 5.
Number of villages
successfully implementing
natural resource
management plans
No villages have natural
resource management plans
5 villages by year 3, 8
by year 5
Number of villages with
successfully implemented
incentive scheme contracts
Contract established with 1
village for initiation of ecotourism, in exchange for
reduction of hunting and
wildlife trade
71
5 villages by year 3, 8
by year 5
- Number of trained
natural resource
management
facilitators.
- Number of
communities trained.
- Existence of natural
resource management
committees
- Commune
development plans in
years 3-7.
Community Forestry
Agreements.
- Village contracts
No drastic change
in legislative
framework.
Communities agree
to act together with
the support of the
project to manage
key wildlife and
natural resources.
Communities
recognize/agree to
enforcement teams
as a support and
monitoring.
3. Strengthening
capacity for biodiversity
management
3a. Financial and
management
sustainability of
activities
3b. Environmental
awareness program
targeted at communities
and armed forces.
Established project
management structures for
key sites
Although 50% of project
staff are full government
employees, only 1 key site
has a government
management structure that
includes relevant project
staff.
Project staff at two key
sites are included in
government
management structures
by year 2, remainder by
year 4.
- Government
management
structures.
Key site management plans
None exist
Plans for 2 areas by
year 2, remaining 2
areas by year 4.
- Management Plans
exist and are
reviewed annually
Sufficient interest
exist in key species
eco-tourism.
Sustainable financing of
project activities
95% funding from WCS
and UNDP-GEF
30% funding from
WCS by year 7,
remainder from
government, tourism or
other sources.
- Financial
statements.
The targeted ecotourism market
requires minimal
infrastructure
investment.
Number of villages around
key sites with increased
awareness of project,
species and the importance
of natural resource
management.
Pre-testing will be
conducted in year 1.
6 Villages recognize
project and its
objective, state key
species and threats by
year 3, further 6
villages by year 5.
- Comparison of pretesting results with
questionnaires
completed in years 3,
5 and 7.
Senior military
support continues.
Number of provincial
sectoral staff and agencies
with increased awareness of
project, sites, and issues for
conservation management
Existing provincial and
agency plans
Staff and agencies can
identify key sites by
year 2, and identify
issues for conservation
management by year 5
- Provincial, Ministry
and Sectoral Agency
plans in years 3-7.
72
Government
support for project
management and
activities continues
Security threats
remain limited.
3c Law enforcement
Number of army personnel
and commanders with
increased awareness of
project, sites, and threats to
conservation
No baseline exists, pretesting will be conducted in
year 1
Personnel at 5 bases can
identify key sites by
year 2 and threats to
conservation by year 4.
12 military personnel
have participated in
enforcement team
activity by year 2.
- Comparison of pretesting results with
questionnaires
completed in years 27
- Agreements
produced with
military commanders
(Component 3)
- Enforcement team
composition
Number of incidences of
commercial logging within
key sites
Enforcement team reports in
year 1
Less than 5 incidences
of commercial logging
annually in Protected
Forest site by year 3,
achieved at remaining
sites by year 4.
Less than 20 incidences
of wildlife trade
annually in Protected
Forest site by year 3,
achieved at remaining
sites by year 4.
Monitoring program
(Component 3)
- data collection
within key sites
- enforcement team
reports
Number of incidences of
wildlife trade
Enforcement team reports in
year 1
Security threats
remain limited
Approval of
enforcement teams
Relevant authorities
agree to the
establishment of
enforcement teams.
Patrol teams have
sufficient authority
to effect law
enforcement.
Illegal activities of
armed forces can be
brought under
control.
3d. Monitoring and site
adaptive management
Number of key sites with
monitoring programs
designed to collect
sufficient data for
evaluating project impact
indicators.
Biological Monitoring
program established at the
Preah Vihear Protected
Forest during the PDF-B.
73
Monitoring program
established at all sites
by year 2.
- Annual monitoring
report for key sites
- Database
Staff trained in
monitoring
methodologies
remain in provincial
govt.
4. Project Management
and Evaluation.
Increased provincial
capacity for biological
monitoring.
1 provincial team trained in
biological monitoring
during PDF-B.
4 provincial teams
trained by year 2.
- Number of people
trained.
Adaptive management to
inform intervention
priorities at key sites
No adaptive management
Management plans for
key sites take into
account the results of
monitoring programs
when determining
annual priorities.
- Revised
management plans
Adaptive management by
Project Implementation
Units
No adaptive management
Rolling and annual
workplans by project
implementation units
take into account
activities’ progress and
problems encountered.
- Revised Workplans
No project evaluation
Mid-term and final
reviews
- Review reports
Evaluation
74
Project Logical Framework
Components
Component 1.
Incorporating
biodiversity
into the
implementation
of new laws
Outcome 1.
Integrated
conservation
and
development
planning at the
landscapelevel
Outcome
Indicators (20042011)
Number of
Seila/PLG
Commune
Development Plans
including
conservation
planning
Level of capacity in
key provincial
ministries and
government for
conservation
planning and coordination.
Provincial
Development Plans,
Sectoral Agency
Plans (e.g.
Concessionaires)
include
conservation
priorities
Activities
Indicators
Assumptions
1.1 Training completed during years 1-4. Authorities’ interest
1.1 Training of provincial staff from MoE,
Number of people trained.
MAFF, MLMUPC in planning and project
in being involved in
management. These staff will be responsible
coordinated land-use
for implementation of new laws and
planning continues.
conservation priorities.
Seila/PLG’s interest
1.2 Training and awareness (through
1.2 Number of people trained during in NRM continues.
Component 3) in conservation priorities and years 1-4.
Provincial capacity
planning for relevant staff in all provincial
can be increased or is
governments in the Northern Plains.
sufficient for
coordinated
1.3 Incorporate village PLUP land-use plans 1.3 Commune Development Plans
planning.
into
commune
development
plans from the villages where PLUP is
(supported by Seila/PLG).
completed (Component 2).
Community and
district plans are
1.4 Incorporation of commune development 1.4 District integration workshops,
plans into district integration workshops and and provincial plans shown to include supported by higher
authorities.
provincial planning processes, supported by village PLUP plans.
Seila/PLG.
1.5 Holding of integration workshops and
1.5 Number of people consulted or Key developments
stakeholder consultations to disseminate
attending
workshops,
agencies are made in
Cambodia’s land law
project plans and receive input from other
involved.
legal framework
planning agencies.
75
Components
Outcome
Indicators (20042011)
Conservation
landscape
incorporated within
national planning
strategies
Component 2.
Applying
Mainstreaming
Measures
Level of Provincial
capacity for
participatory landuse planning
Component 2a
Community
land-use tenure
and title
Government
approved land-use
maps
Activities
Indicators
Assumptions
1.6 Establish a framework through the
Provincial Rural Development committee
and Provincial Steering Committee to
integrate conservation priorities into
development planning.
1.6 Planning recognizes conservation Seila/PLG accepted
priorities and adapts development as main provincial
plans as a result.
planning framework
1.7 Co-ordinate conservation activities with
Military, Concessionaires and development
agencies. Formation of agreements.
1.7
Meetings
and
resultant
agreements. Monitoring reports of
agreements.
1.8 Integration of project conservation plans
into sectoral planning processes, including
provincial government (PLG), MoE, MAFF
and Ministry of tourism.
1.8 Endorsement of plans in land-use
by Seila/PLG committees, MoE
committees, PLG committees, MAFF
committees, Ministry of tourism.
Government support for key sites for
conservation.
2a.1 Training courses in years 1-2 in new
laws and PLUP process. Visits to other
relevant national projects.
2a.1 Number of people attending
training courses and visiting other
projects.
Trained provincial
staff remain in
provincial govt.
2a.2 Preparation of PLUP maps and
formation of village natural resource
management committees.
2a.2 Natural resource management
committees created in 5 priority
villages4 around two key sites in year
1. Extension to villages in remaining
key sites by year 3.
Local governance
structures (Commune
Councils) remain
Authorities endorse
community plans.
Number of village
4
Priority villages have already been identified during the PDF-B, defined as villages particularly close to keystone resources for wildlife, where establishment of
land management systems is an urgently required intervention.
76
Components
Outcome 2a.
Establishment
of appropriate
community
land tenure
and resourceright use
Component 2b
Village
agreements on
natural resource
management
linked to direct
incentives
scheme
Outcome 2b.
Outcome
Indicators (20042011)
committees
Activities
Indicators
Assumptions
2a.3 Conflict resolution in villages.
2a.3 Conflict resolution completed in
priority villages in year 2, with
extension to remaining areas in year 3.
No drastic change in
legislative
framework.
2a.4 Cooperation with authorities to
formally recognize PLUP maps. Workshops
to disseminate results.
2a.4 PLUP maps receive formal
recognition in year 2 for priority
villages, extension to remaining areas
by year 5. Number of people attending
workshops.
Provincial
government support
for PLUP process
continues.
2a.5 Demarcation of village land-use areas
and development of local agreements on
land-use maps.
2a.5 Demarcations completed for
priority villages by year 2, remaining
villages by year 4.
2a.6 Consolidate outputs into GIS system
for national registration.
2a.6 All project data stored in database
and linked to a provincial-level GIS
system
2b.1 Number of people attending Communities agree
training courses. Set of village to act together with
regulations.
the support of the
project to manage
key wildlife and
natural resources.
2b.2 Report.
Communities
recognize/agree to
enforcement teams as
Level of Provincial
and local capacity
for Sustainable
Natural Resource
Management
2b.1 Training and awareness workshops on
Sustainable Natural Resource and
Environmental Management, agreements
and regulations for government staff and
communities.
Number of villages
successfully
implementing
natural resource
2b.2 Design of appropriate mechanism for
an incentive scheme: how the scheme will
function and be monitored.
77
Components
Community
engagement in
natural
resource
management
Component 3a.
Financial and
management
sustainability of
Outcome
Indicators (20042011)
management plans
Number of villages
with successfully
implemented
incentive scheme
contracts
Established project
management
structures for key
sites
Activities
Indicators
2b.3 Development of village agreements
(including Community Forestry
Agreements) for management of natural
resources, including agreements on the
situations when enforcement activities will
be used. Initiation of agreement monitoring
system.
2b.3 Agreements completed and a support and
signed by priority villages by year 2.
monitoring presence.
2b.4 On-going evaluation of village
agreements produced in priority villages.
2b.4 Adapted village agreements
resulting from evaluations.
2b.5 Negotiations with villages regarding
key conservation issues. Implementation of
incentive scheme to cover the results of
these negotiations.
2b.5 Contracts between the project
and priority villages governing
incentive structures. Revised village
regulations.
2b.6 Regular auditing of incentive scheme
activities for adaptive management,
including community surveys in years 3 and
6 to measure impact on livelihoods (for
contribution to impact indicator).
2b.6 Adapted management plans.
Reports on community livelihood
impact indicator levels in years 3 and
6.
2b.7 Extension of activities to further
villages.
3a.1 Establish management structures
within existing FA and MoE systems for
key sites. Provide training to staff in
management and financing. ,
2b.7 Village agreements and contracts.
78
3a.1 Government management
structures.
Number of staff trained
Assumptions
Government support
for project and
activities continue.
Components
Outcome
Indicators (20042011)
activities
Outcome 3a.
Establishment
of long-term
financial and
management
sustainability
Key site
management plans
Sustainable
financing of project
activities
Activities
Indicators
3a.2 Provide equipment and adequate
infrastructure for key sites.
3a.3 Establish an accountable financial
system, for the long-term running of the
project.
3a.4 Annual and long-term management
plans for key sites.
3a.2 Equipment purchased
buildings funded.
3a.3 Project financial system.
3a.5 Determine long-term running costs to
maintain necessary project initiatives
(especially Component 2 and Component 3)
in the long-term at each key site.
3a.5 Incremental cost matrix
Assumptions
and Security threats
remain limited.
3a.4 Written management plans for
each key site produced annually and
every 5 years, from year 2.
Management plans are adapted based
upon results of monitoring program
(Component 3d).
3a.6 Establish a framework for key species
3a.6 Eco-tourism guidelines, payment
eco-tourism that benefits biodiversity and
system and management system.
local villages, through incentive schemes
and agreements created under Component 2.
3a.7 Evaluate feasibility of establishing a
trust fund, partnerships and capacity
development to mobilize resources to cover
costs identified under Activity 3s.5.
79
3a.7 Recommendations of feasibility
report acted upon.
Sufficient interest
exists in key species
eco-tourism.
The targeted ecotourism market
requires minimal
infrastructure
investment.
Components
Outcome
Indicators (20042011)
Component 3b.
Environmental
awareness
program
targeted at
communities
and armed
forces.
Number of villages
around key sites
with increased
awareness of
project, species and
the importance of
natural resource
management.
Outcome 3b.
Increased
public
awareness of
the key project
sites for
conservation
and the need
for sustainable
use of natural
Number of
provincial sectoral
staff and agencies
with increased
awareness of
project, sites, and
issues for
conservation
management
Activities
Indicators
3a.8 Secure additional long-term
government and NGO commitment to cover
costs identified under Activity 3a.5 and
management costs under Activity 3a.1.
3a.8 Necessary funding commitment
from NGOs and Government.
3b.1 Identification of education
requirements and methods. Consideration of
strategies required for different groups
(military vs. communities).
3b.1 Plan of environmental education Senior military
project.
support continues.
3b.2 Preparation of environmental
education materials, training of staff.
3b.2 Pre-testing assessment. Number
of staff trained.
3b.3 Education activities in all villages
surrounding key sites and with armed forces
across the landscape.
3b.3 Priority villages and armed forces
bases completed by year 2, remaining
areas by year 4.
3b.4 Building local/provincial support for
key species conservation, based upon plan
developed in 3b.1 and 3b,2, Includes mobile
education unit, capacity-building for
provincial and local authorities and study
tours.
3b.4 Component plan developed in
year 2 based on outcomes of 3b.1 and
3b.2. Activity reports from education
teams.
80
Assumptions
Components
resources
Component 3c.
Law
enforcement
Outcome 3c.
Reduction in
illegal
commercial
exploitation of
biological
resources and
their
components
Outcome
Indicators (20042011)
Number of army
personnel and
commanders with
increased awareness
of project, sites, and
threats to
conservation
Number of
incidences of
commercial logging
within key sites
Number of
incidences of
wildlife trade
Activities
Indicators
3b.5 On-going evaluation of education
activities and their impact.
3b.5 Evaluation shows increased
awareness of target audience.
3c.1 Production of agreements with local
authorities, communities and security
forces.
3c.1 Agreements produced by the end Security threats
of year 1.
remain limited
3c.2 Assemble staff and define law
enforcement protocol, target areas and
activities. Develop a strategy for curtailing
border wildlife trade.
3c.2 Team structures and staffing.
Written plan of proposed enforcement
activities.
Assumptions
Approval of
enforcement teams
3c.4 Demarcation of protected sites within
the landscape.
Relevant authorities
agree to the
establishment of
3c.3 Number of people trained and enforcement teams.
equipped.
Patrol teams have
sufficient authority to
effect law
3c.4 Boundaries established and
enforcement.
marked on the ground.
3c.5 Development of a database to monitor
effectiveness of enforcement activities, with
a reporting system.
Illegal activities of
3c.5 Evidence of use of the data armed forces can be
management
system,
including brought under
control.
generated reports.
3c.3 Training, equipment and infrastructure
provided for provincial government
enforcement staff.
81
Components
Component 3d.
Monitoring and
site adaptive
management
Outcome 3d.
Adequate data
for
conservation
management
purposes
Outcome
Indicators (20042011)
Number of key sites
with monitoring
programs designed
to collect sufficient
data for evaluating
project impact
indicators.
Increased provincial
capacity for
biological
monitoring.
Adaptive
management to
inform intervention
priorities at key
sites.
Activities
Indicators
3c.6 Evaluation of enforcement activities.
3c.6 Reduced wildlife trade and illegal
logging demonstrated by reports and
data collected by enforcement teams.
3d.1 Planning of monitoring program,
including methodology, monitoring sites
and protocols.
3d.1 Report on the proposed Staff trained in
monitoring program in year 1.
monitoring
methodologies
remain in provincial
3d.2 Staff training materials; number govt.
of people trained.
3d.2 Training of staff in monitoring
methodologies in years 1-2.
Assumptions
3d.3 Trial of monitoring program.
3d.3 Monitoring program established
in one key site during year 1. First
year report.
3d.4 Development of a data management
system for the monitoring program, with
training of provincial staff in its use.
3d.4 Data management system and
documentation. Number of staff
trained.
3d.5 On-going evaluation of trial
monitoring program.
3d.5 Adaptation of monitoring
program following from the results of
evaluations.
3d.6 Extension of program to other key sites 3d.6 Implementation
by year 2.
reports.
3d.7 Monitoring of Vulture Populations
82
and
3d.7 Annual reports of vulture
numbers
yearly
Components
Component 4.
Project
Management
and Evaluation
Outcome 4.
Adequate
reporting on
project
outcomes and
indicators
Outcome
Indicators (20042011)
Adaptive
management by
project
implementation
units
Mid-term and final
reviews
Activities
Indicators
3d.8 Annual evaluation of site activities
based on results of monitoring program to
identify problems and priority interventions
for following year.
3d.8 Adaptation of site management
plans resulting from problems
analysis. Priorities established for each
site intervention.
4.1 Establishment of project office and
administrative staff
4.1 Office and staff exist
4.2 Regular meetings of Project Steering
Committee to monitor and advise on
implementation, ensuring initiatives are
integrated into government strategy and
approved.
4.2 Minutes of meetings.
4.3 Rolling and Annual evaluation of
project activities based upon results of
monitoring program and progress made
towards outcome indicators.
4.3 Adaptation of rolling and annual
workplans for project implementation
units resulting from analysis.
4.4 Reports from reviews.
4.4 Mid-term and final reviews
83
Assumptions
SECTION III: TOTAL WORKPLAN AND BUDGET
84
FINANCING PLAN
Summary
The total financial package of the intervention (excluding preparatory funds) is estimated to be
US$ 4,468,618. Of this, the GEF is requested to support incremental costs through a grant of
US$ 2,300,000, in addition to the US$ 210,000 dispersed during the PDF-B. All co-financing
sources, WCS, Seila/PLG and the RGC, are parallel funding with a total value of US$ 2,665,518
including monies dispersed during the PDF-B. The table below summarises the co-financing
sources. An incremental cost analysis has been provided as Annex 6 in Section 1.
Name of Cofinancier (source)
WCS (preparatory
phase)
WCS (preparatory
phase)
WCS
WCS
Co-financing Sources
Status
Classification
Type
Amount
(US$)
NGO
Grant
260,000 Dispersed during PDF-B
NGO
NGO
NGO
Seila/PLG (Year 1) Multilateral
donor project
Seila/PLG
Multilateral
donor project
RGC (preparatory
phase)
RGC
EA
EA
Committed
in-kind
Grant
215,400
Dispersed during PDF-B
1,100,000
Confirmed. See letter
attached.
Confirmed. See letter
attached.
Confirmed. See letter
attached.
Confirmed. See
description below and
letter attached.
Dispersed during PDF-B
Committed
in-kind
Grant
500,000
Committed
in-kind
331,005
Committed
in-kind
Committed
in-kind
21,500
132,402
105,210
RGC has endorsed the
project.
2,665,518
Sub-Total Co-financing
WCS
WCS dispersed US$ 475,400 during the PDF-B phase and has committed co-financing of US$
1,600,000 (US$ 500,000 in-kind, US$ 1,100,000 grant) to the full project. This has been
calculated on the basis of US$ 200,000 per annum, including the 1-year preparatory phase to the
full project following the end of the PDF-B.
Seila/PLG
Seila/PLG is committing various financial resources to the five provinces (Preah Vihear, Banteay
Meanchey Odor Meanchey, Stung Treng and Siem Reap) of the Northern Plains project. Some of
these resources are for unrelated activities or for activities which can be considered baseline to
the GEF proposed project. However, considerable resources are being directed to specific
85
activities that are crucial for the success of the CALM project and which are recognised in the
project logistical framework. The current phase of Seila/PLG is due to last until 2005, however
UNDP funding to PLG is expected to be renewed for the 2006-2010 phase.
The annual PLG planning process is particularly relevant for CALM and activities leading to
Outcome 1: Integrated conservation and development planning at the landscape-level. Without
PLG activities there would be no forum to integrate project achievements at key sites into
district, provincial or landscape plans. In 2004 and 2005 the annual UNDP financing for these
processes will be approximately $50,000 per province. If biodiversity values are integrated into
only 20% of planning activities, the total in 2004-5 would be $100,000, with a further $250,000
anticipated for 2006-2010 if the current contribution is maintained at this level.
PLG also provides funding to Provincial Departments, through the Provincial Rural
Development Committee (PRDC). In 2004 and 2005 $32,402 will be allocated to activities that
directly contribute to natural resources management and are within the CALM logistical
framework (such as establishing community forests). Even if the Seila/PLG contribution remains
the same, at a minimum level, over 2006-2010 the contribution is expected to be $81,005. In
reality, the CALM project is expected to motivate a greater contribution than this from
Seila/PLG through influencing the ability of the relevant Government agencies to apply for
resources, though this cannot now be estimated.
From the committed budgets of Seila/PLG and the operational plans for coming years, it is
expected that a total of US$463,407 will be provided for activities directly related to the CALM
project.
86
DETAILED BUDGETS
A. GEF (annual ATLAS budget)
Award ID: tbd
Award Title:
PIMS 2177 BD FSP:Cambodia Northern Plains
Project ID: tbd
Project Title:
GEF
OUTCOME/
Atlas Activity
1. Integrated
conservation
and
development
planning at the
landscapelevel
FSP Establishing Conservation Areas through Landscape Management (CALM) in the Northern Plains of Cambodia
Responsible
Atlas
Party
Source Budgetary
(Implementing of
Account
Agent)
Funds Code
ERP/ATLAS Budget Description/Input
YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6 YEAR 7 TOTALS
WCS
GEF
71200 Intl Project Advisor
52,000
54,600
57,300
60,200
31,600
WCS
GEF
71300 Natl Management Advisor
19,600
10,300
0
0
0
WCS
GEF
12,000
12,000
12,000
8,000
4,000
WCS
GEF
71600 Study Tours. Workshops. Provincial
74200 Steering Committee Meetings
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
WCS
GEF
72500
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
33,200
34,800
323,700
0
0
29,900
4,000
2,000
54,000
4,000
4,000
28,000
1,000
750
Sub-total
2.
Establishment
of Community
Engagement in
conservation
management
WCS
GEF
71200 Intl Specialists (NRM and Communities)
WCS
GEF
71300 Natl Communities Specialists
WCS
GEF
WCS
442,350
67,200
14,950
70,600
9,000
52,900
9,450
0
3,800
0
0
0
0
0
0
190,700
71400 Communities Officers
7,150
11,150
11,650
4,800
3,500
3,650
3,800
45,700
GEF
72500 Expendable Equipment and Supplies and
Imagery
3,000
2,500
2,250
1,250
500
500
500
10,500
WCS
GEF
72300 Boundary Demarcation
2,500
2,500
2,500
1,250
0
0
0
8,750
WCS
GEF
74500 Incentive Scheme Payments
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
3,500
2,500
31,000
WCS
GEF
71600 Travel and Workshops
6,000
6,000
6,000
2,500
500
500
500
22,000
WCS
GEF
72200 Non-Expendable Equipment
8,800
0
0
0
0
0
0
8,800
WCS
GEF
73400 Equipment Maintenance & Fuel
1,600
1,600
1,600
1,600
550
550
550
Sub-total
3.
Strengthened
capacity for
biodiversity
management
6,750
$
WCS
GEF
71200 Intl Monitoring and GIS Specialist
WCS
GEF
71300 GIS Specialist
WCS
GEF
WCS
GEF
37,200
8,050
$
362,700
18,000
18,900
0
0
0
0
0
3,300
3,450
3,600
3,800
2,000
0
0
16,150
71400 National Officers
59,900
63,450
66,400
55,850
47,800
38,200
30,700
362,300
74200 Audio/Visual Production and Posters
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
0
0
0
40,000
87
36,900
WCS
GEF
72100 Contracts : Database Programming,
Infrastructure Development and Imagery
Interpretation
120,000
70,000
10,000
0
0
5,000
0
205,000
WCS
GEF
71600 Travel and Workshops
WCS
GEF
72500 Supplies
15,000
15,000
15,000
10,000
10,000
7,500
5,850
78,350
3,250
3,250
3,250
3,250
3,250
2,250
1,250
19,750
WCS
GEF
72300 Expendable Equipment and Boundary
Demarcation
5,250
6,500
3,250
3,250
1,850
1,300
1,100
22,500
WCS
GEF
74500 Vulture Restaurants
2,500
2,500
2,500
2,500
0
0
0
10,000
WCS
GEF
72200 Non-Expendable Equipment
71,600
0
0
0
0
0
0
71,600
WCS
GEF
72400 Non-Expendable Equipment
4,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,000
WCS
GEF
73400 Equipment Maintenance & Fuel
10,850
10,850
10,850
10,800
10,800
10,800
7,700
72,650
GEF
71400 Project Administrators and Officers
19,750
20,450
21,150
21,950
18,850
18,700
19,400
140,250
GEF
72400 Communication Costs
2,400
2,400
2,400
2,400
2,400
2,400
2,400
16,800
GEF
72400 Communication Costs
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
7,000
WCS
GEF
73100 Office Rental
3,600
3,600
3,600
3,600
3,000
3,000
2,400
22,800
WCS
GEF
72500 Office Equipment and Supplies
WCS
GEF
71600 International and National Travel, Field
Visits, DSAs, Project Executive Group
UNDP
GEF
74100 Audit
UNDP
GEF
74500 Independent Evaluations
WCS
GEF
75100 Indirect Costs
WCS
GEF
72800 Non-Expendable Equipment
2,000
WCS
GEF
73400 Equipment Maintenance & Fuel
1,400
Sub-total
4. Learning,
WCS
evaluation and
adaptive
management WCS
UNDP
increased
$
4,500
4,500
4,500
4,500
2,700
2,700
2,700
26,100
11,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
7,000
7,000
6,000
64,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
21,000
0
0
0
30,000
0
0
30,000
60,000
45,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
17,000
16,000
16,000
184,000
0
0
2,000
0
0
0
4,000
1,400
1,400
1,400
1,400
1,400
1,400
9,800
Sub-total
$
555,750
TOTAL
$
2,300,000
B. WCS (7-year budget)
ITEM
939,200
DETAILS
1. Incorporating biodiversity into landscape-level planning processes
Staff
Intl Technical Advisors
88
ATLAS CODE
TOTAL COST
71200
244,300
TOTALS
$1,600,000
Activities
Study Tours. Site-level training.
Site workshops and national
workshops. Provincial Steering
Committee Meetings
Travel
71600
54,000
Reports/Publications
74200
28,000
Supplies
72500
6,750
$ 333,050
2. Applying Mainstreaming Measures
Staff
Intl NRM Specialist
Natl Communities Specialists
Communities Officers
Activities
71200
71300
71400
60,000
28,200
45,700
72500
2,750
Boundary Demarcation
72300
8,750
Incentive Scheme Payments
74500
31,000
71600
22,000
72500
7,750
73400
8,050
Buying Imagery
Travel
Aerial Photos
Travel
Equipment
Expendable Equipment and
Supplies
Equipment Maintenance & Fuel
Motorbikes (6)
$ 214,200
3. Strengthening capacity for biodiversity management
Staff
Intl PA Advisors
Intl Monitoring and GIS
Intl Eco-tourism Specialist
GIS Specialist
Natl Site Managers
Eco-tourism Specialist
Eco-tourism Officers
Law Enforcement Officers
Rangers
Education Officers
Monitoring Officers
71200
71200
71200
71300
71400
71300
71400
71400
71400
71400
71400
89
163,900
36,900
26,500
16,150
85,350
15,700
8,800
104,850
89,300
9,600
23,900
Local Staff
Support Staff
Activities
Contract : Infrastructure
development
Boundary Demarcation /
Signboards
Teacher Supplements
Drivers, Cooks
Travel
Equipment
Expendable Equipment
Expendable Equipment
Supplies
Annual ranger/patrol team
equipment
Expendable Equipment
Vulture Restaurant Cows
Non-Expendable Equipment
Vulture Trap
Hi-lux (2), Motorbikes (20),
Generators (12), Radios (20)
Equipment Maintenance & Fuel
71400
71400
7,200
14,700
72100
50,000
72300
10,250
71600
78,350
72500
19,750
72300
12,250
74500
10,000
72200
5,000
73400
72,650
$ 861,100
4. Project Management and Evaluation
Staff
WCS Administrator
Local Staff
Activities
71400
71400
68,900
4,250
Communication Costs
72400
16,800
Office Rental
73100
22,800
Office Equipment and Supplies
72500
11,600
National Travel, Field Visits, DSAs
71600
22,000
71600
21,000
Batteries, Medical Kits etc..
72500
14,500
Hi-lux (1)
73400
9,800
International Travel
Equipment
Expendable Equipment
Equipment Maintenance & Fuel
$ 191,650
90
C. Seila/PLG (7-year budget)
ITEM
DETAILS
1. Incorporating biodiversity into landscape-level planning processes
Support to ExCom, Training and Capacity-building
Salary support to staff
Travel, DSAs, etc..
Training Costs to Commune Councils
Motorcycle Maintenance & Fuel
Office Supplies
Communications
Materials/handouts
Snacks
Seila T-shirts and caps
Provincial Planning Process
DSA for staff
Materials/handouts
Snacks
Office Supplies
Camera and motorbike
Computer training course
Contingency cost
2. Applying Mainstreaming Measures
Support to Provincial Departments - Preah Vihear
Contract to Prov Dept Environ
Community Forestry
Contract to Prov Dept Land Mgmt
Education on Land-use policy
Support to Provincial Departments - Oddar Meanchey
Contract to Prov Dept Land Mgmt
Land-use plan
Contract to Prov Dept Environ
Community Forestry
91
ATLAS CODE
TOTAL COST
71300
71600
71600
73400
72500
72400
72500
72500
72300
126,000
21,000
55,937
56,700
4,200
1,680
20,195
10,808
3,500
71600
72500
72500
72500
72200
20,146
11,514
5,660
1,680
9,240
469
1,271
72100
72100
35,000
14,000
72100
72100
18,697
10,710
TOTALS
$ 463,407
$
350,000
$
78,407
3. Strengthening capacity for biodiversity management
Support to Provincial Departments - Preah Vihear
Contract to Prov Dept Environ
Environmental Education
Support to Provincial Departments - Stung Treng
Contract to Prov Dept Environ
Environmental Education
72100
7,000
72100
28,000
$
35,000
D. RGC (7-year budget)
ITEM
TOTAL COST
1. Incorporating biodiversity into landscape-level planning processes
National Programme Office
National Programme Director
NPD support staff (two counterparts)
Attendance of personnel at meetings
Provincial Steering Committee
Contributions from other government staff
Attendance at meetings, workshops, training etc
Contributions to documents etc
Government decision making process leading to approving key project outputs
2. Applying Mainstreaming Measures
Contributions from other government staff
Attendance at meetings, workshops, training etc
Contributions to documents etc
Government decision making process leading to approving key project outputs
3. Strengthening capacity for biodiversity management
Provincial Office and Management
Provincial project co-manager (2 people)
Provincial Support staff
Office space rent
Utilities/building maintenance etc
6,300
6,300
2,520
5,250
1,050
2,100
$
23,520
$
7,875
5,250
525
2,100
12,600
8,400
33,600
8,400
92
TOTALS
$ 105,210
Contributions from other government staff
Attendance at meetings, workshops, training etc
Contributions to documents etc
Government decision making process leading to approving key project outputs
4. Project Management and Evaluation
Attendance of personnel at meetings
National Steering Committee
Technical Working Group Meetings
2,625
1,050
2,100
$
68,775
$
5,040
2,520
2,520
93
WORKPLAN
(see Detailed Budgets [above] for a breakdown of costs under each outcome)
Outcomes
Output
Indicators
1. Incorporating biodiversity into landscape-level planning processes
Outcome 1.
1.1 Training of provincial staff from MoE, MAFF,
1.1 Training completed during years 1-4.
Integrated
MLMUPC in planning and project management.
Number of people trained.
conservation
These staff will be responsible for
and
implementation of new laws and conservation
development
priorities.
planning at
1.2 Training and awareness (through
1.2 Number of people trained during years
the
Component 3) in conservation priorities and
1-4.
landscapeplanning for relevant staff in all provincial
level
governments in the Northern Plains.
1.3 Incorporate village PLUP land-use plans into
1.3 Commune Development Plans from
commune development plans (supported by
the villages where PLUP is completed
Seila/PLG).
(Component 2).
1.4 Incorporation of commune development
plans into district integration workshops and
provincial planning processes, supported by
Seila/PLG.
1.5 Holding of integration workshops and
stakeholder consultations to disseminate project
plans and receive input from other planning
agencies.
1.6 Establish a framework through the Provincial
Rural Development committee and Provincial
Steering Committee to integrate conservation
priorities into development planning.
1.4 District integration workshops, and
provincial plans shown to include village
PLUP plans.
1.7 Co-ordinate conservation activities with
Military, Concessionaires and development
agencies. Formation of agreements.
1.7 Meetings and resultant agreements.
Monitoring reports of agreements.
1.8 Integration of project conservation plans into
sectoral planning processes, including provincial
government (PLG), MoE, MAFF and Ministry of
tourism.
1.8 Endorsement of plans in land-use by
Seila/PLG committees, MoE committees,
PLG committees, MAFF committees,
Ministry of tourism. Government support
for key sites for conservation.
Yr1
Yr2
TIMEFRAME (Years)
Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6
Yr7
Responsible
Party
WCS
WCS
WCS and
Seila/PLG
WCS and
Seila/PLG
1.5 Number of people consulted or
attending workshops, agencies involved.
WCS and
Seila/PLG
1.6 Planning recognizes conservation
priorities and adapts development plans
as a result.
WCS and
Seila/PLG
2. Applying Mainstreaming Measures
94
BUDGET
Source and Amount
WCS, MAFF
and MoE
WCS,
MAFF, MoE
and
Seila/PLG
GEF: $442,350
WCS: $333,050
Seila/PLG:
$350,000
RGC: $23,520
Outcomes
Outcome 2a.
Establishment
of appropriate
community
land tenure
and resourceright use
Output
2a.1 Training courses in years 1-2 in new laws
and PLUP process. Visits to other relevant
national projects.
2a.1 Number of people attending training
courses and visiting other projects.
2a.2 Preparation of PLUP maps and formation of
village natural resource management
committees.
2a.2 Natural resource management
committees created in 5 priority villages
around two key sites in year 1. Extension
to villages in remaining key sites by year
3.
2a.3 Conflict resolution completed in
priority villages in year 2, with extension to
remaining areas in year 3.
2a.3 Conflict resolution in villages.
Outcome 2b.
Community
engagement
in natural
resource
management
Indicators
Yr1
Yr2
TIMEFRAME (Years)
Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6
Yr7
Responsible
Party
BUDGET
Source and Amount
WCS
2a.4 Cooperation with authorities to formally
recognize PLUP maps. Workshops to
disseminate results.
2a.4 PLUP maps receive formal
recognition in year 2 for priority villages,
extension to remaining areas by year 5.
Number of people attending workshops.
2a.5 Demarcation of village land-use areas and
development of local agreements on land-use
maps.
2a.5 Demarcations completed for priority
villages by year 2, remaining villages by
year 4.
2a.6 Consolidate outputs into GIS system for
national registration.
2a.6 All project data stored in database
and linked to a provincial-level GIS
system
2b.1 Training and awareness workshops on
Sustainable Natural Resource and
Environmental Management, agreements and
regulations for government staff and
communities.
2b.2 Design of appropriate mechanism for an
incentive scheme: how the scheme will function
and be monitored.
2b.1 Number of people attending training
courses. Set of village regulations.
2b.3 Development of village agreements
(including Community Forestry Agreements) for
management of natural resources, including
agreements on the situations when enforcement
activities will be used. Initiation of agreement
monitoring system.
2b.4 On-going evaluation of village agreements
produced in priority villages.
2b.3 Agreements completed and signed
by priority villages by year 2.
WCS
WCS
WCS,
MAFF, MoE
and
Seila/PLG
WCS
WCS
WCS
2b.2 Report.
WCS
WCS,
MAFF, MoE
and
Seila/PLG
2b.4 Adapted village agreements resulting
from evaluations.
WCS
95
GEF: $362,700
WCS: $214,200
Seila/PLG:
$78,407
RGC: $7,875
Outcomes
Output
2b.5 Negotiations with villages regarding key
conservation issues. Implementation of incentive
scheme to cover the results of these
negotiations.
2b.6 Regular auditing of incentive scheme
activities for adaptive management, including
community surveys in years 3 and 6 to measure
impact on livelihoods (for contribution to impact
indicator).
2b.7 Extension of activities to further villages.
Indicators
Yr1
Yr2
TIMEFRAME (Years)
Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6
Yr7
Responsible
Party
BUDGET
Source and Amount
2b.5 Contracts between the project and
priority villages governing incentive
structures. Revised village regulations.
WCS
2b.6 Adapted management plans. Reports
on community livelihood impact indicator
levels in years 3 and 6.
WCS
2b.7 Village agreements and contracts.
WCS
3. Strengthening capacity for biodiversity management
Outcome 3a.
3a.1 Establish management structures within
Establishment existing FA and MoE systems for key sites.
of long-term
Provide training to staff in management and
financial and
financing. ,
management
3a.2 Provide equipment and adequate
sustainability
infrastructure for key sites.
3a.1 Government management structures.
Number of staff trained.
MAFF, MoE
and WCS
3a.2 Equipment purchased and buildings
funded.
3a.3 Establish an accountable financial system,
for the long-term running of the project.
3a.3 Project financial system.
3a.4 Annual and long-term management plans
for key sites.
3a.4 Written management plans for each
key site produced annually and every 5
years, from year 2. Management plans
are adapted based upon results of
monitoring program (Component 3d).
MAFF, MoE
and WCS
WCS
3a.5 Determine long-term running costs to
maintain necessary project initiatives (especially
Component 2 and Component 3) in the longterm at each key site.
3a.6 Establish a framework for key species ecotourism that benefits biodiversity and local
villages, through incentive schemes and
agreements created under Component 2.
3a.5 Incremental cost matrix
3a.7 Evaluate feasibility of establishing a trust
fund, partnerships and capacity development to
mobilize resources to cover costs identified
under Activity 3s.5.
3a.7 Recommendations of feasibility
report acted upon.
MAFF, MoE
and WCS
WCS
3a.6 Eco-tourism guidelines, payment
system and management system.
WCS
WCS
96
GEF: $939,200
WCS: $861,100
Seila/PLG:
$35,000
RGC: $68,775
Outcomes
Outcome 3b.
Increased
public
awareness of
the key
project sites
for
conservation
and the need
for
sustainable
use of natural
resources
Output
Indicators
3a.8 Secure additional long-term government
and NGO commitment to cover costs identified
under Activity 3a.5 and management costs under
Activity 3a.1.
3b.1 Identification of education requirements and
methods. Consideration of strategies required for
different groups (military vs. communities).
3a.8 Necessary funding commitment from
NGOs and Government.
3b.2 Preparation of environmental education
materials, training of staff.
3b.2 Pre-testing assessment. Number of
staff trained.
3b.3 Education activities in all villages
surrounding key sites and with armed forces
across the landscape.
3b.3 Priority villages and armed forces
bases completed by year 2, remaining
areas by year 4.
3b.4 Building local/provincial support for key
species conservation, based upon plan
developed in 3b.1 and 3b,2, Includes mobile
education unit, capacity-building for provincial
and local authorities and study tours.
3b.5 On-going evaluation of education activities
and their impact.
3b.4 Component plan developed in year 2
based on outcomes of 3b.1 and 3b.2.
Activity reports from education teams.
3c.1 Production of agreements with local
authorities, communities and security forces.
3c.1 Agreements produced by the end of
year 1.
3c.2 Assemble staff and define law enforcement
protocol, target areas and activities. Develop a
strategy for curtailing border wildlife trade.
3c.2 Team structures and staffing. Written
plan of proposed enforcement activities.
3c.3 Training, equipment and infrastructure
provided for provincial government enforcement
staff.
3c.3 Number of people trained and
equipped.
3c.4 Demarcation of protected sites within the
landscape.
3c.4 Boundaries established and marked
on the ground.
3c.5 Development of a database to monitor
effectiveness of enforcement activities, with a
reporting system.
3c.5 Evidence of use of the data
management system, including generated
reports.
Yr1
Yr2
TIMEFRAME (Years)
Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6
Yr7
Responsible
Party
WCS
3b.1 Plan of environmental education
project.
WCS
WCS
WCS
WCS
3b.5 Evaluation shows increased
awareness of target audience.
WCS
Outcome 3c.
Reduction in
illegal
commercial
exploitation of
biological
resources
and their
components
WCS
97
MAFF, MoE
and WCS
MAFF, MoE
and WCS
MAFF, MoE
and WCS
WCS
BUDGET
Source and Amount
Outcomes
Outcome 3d.
Adequate
data for
conservation
management
purposes
Output
Indicators
3c.6 Evaluation of enforcement activities.
3c.6 Reduced wildlife trade and illegal
logging demonstrated by reports and data
collected by enforcement teams.
3d.1 Planning of monitoring program, including
methodology, monitoring sites and protocols.
3d.1 Report on the proposed monitoring
program in year 1.
3d.2 Training of staff in monitoring
methodologies in years 1-2.
3d.2 Staff training materials; number of
people trained.
3d.3 Trial of monitoring program.
3d.3 Monitoring program established in
one key site during year 1. First year
report.
3d.4 Development of a data management
system for the monitoring program, with training
of provincial staff in its use.
3d.4 Data management system and
documentation. Number of staff trained.
3d.5 On-going evaluation of trial monitoring
program.
3d.5 Adaptation of monitoring program
following from the results of evaluations.
3d.6 Extension of program to other key sites by
year 2.
3d.6 Implementation and yearly reports.
3d.7 Monitoring of Vulture Populations
3d.7 Annual reports of vulture numbers
Yr1
Yr2
TIMEFRAME (Years)
Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6
Yr7
Responsible
Party
BUDGET
Source and Amount
WCS
WCS
WCS
WCS
WCS
WCS
WCS
WCS
3d.8 Annual evaluation of site activities based on
results of monitoring program to identify
problems and priority interventions for following
year.
4. Project Management and Evaluation.
3d.8 Adaptation of site management plans
resulting from problems analysis. Priorities
established for each site intervention.
Outcome 4.
Adequate
reporting on
project
outcomes
and indicators
4.1 Office and staff exist
4.1 Establishment of project office and
administrative staff
WCS
WCS
4.2 Regular meetings of Project Steering
Committee to monitor and advise on
implementation, ensuring initiatives are
integrated into government strategy and
approved.
4.2 Minutes of meetings.
WCS,
MAFF, MoE
and
Seila/PLG
98
GEF: $555,750
WCS: $191,650
RGC: $5,040
Outcomes
Output
4.3 Rolling and Annual evaluation of project
activities based upon results of monitoring
program and progress made towards outcome
indicators.
4.4 Mid-term and final reviews
Indicators
Yr1
Yr2
TIMEFRAME (Years)
Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6
Yr7
Responsible
Party
4.3 Adaptation of rolling and annual
workplans for project implementation units
resulting from analysis.
WCS
4.4 Reports from reviews.
WCS
99
BUDGET
Source and Amount
SECTION IV : ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
100
PART I: Other Agreements
Co-financing letters (see attached)
- UNDP for Seila/PLG
- WCS
- RGC (from MoE GEF focal point)
Support letters (see attached)
- Preah Vihear Military
- Preah Vihear Police
- Preah Vihear Governor
PART II: Terms of References for key project staffs and main sub-contracts
Annex 1.7: Terms of Reference (ToR)
1. Project Executive Group ToR
The Project Executive Group (PEG) will provide guidance and direction to the CALM Project,
funded by UNDP/GEF.
Although the PEG will have decision-making powers as well as an advisory function, it may not
unilaterally alter project objectives or outputs. The PEG may alter project activities and/or
implementation arrangements, including arrangements for the sub-contracts, only if there is clear
and consistent evidence, based on progress reports against project output indicators that the
project activities are failing to deliver project outputs, or the sub-contracts are failing to meet
their obligations under their Terms of Reference. Changes to project activities and/or
implementation arrangements funded by the GEF will require the consent of the UNDP/GEF
Executive Coordinator or his representative.
The Minister of MAFF will be the Chairman of the PEG. The committee will meet at least
annually, or more often if required. The annual meeting will be the TPR. The Chairman, Deputy
Chairman, UNDP or WCS may request committee meetings.
The PEG will be responsible for the following:







Advise project management on implementation;
Review project progress;
Approve the annual work plan and budget;
Monitor project expenditures;
Review the project APR/PIR during the annual Tripartite Review (TPR)
Foster coordination and synergy between the different components and actors involved in
CALM; and
Provide a framework for conflict resolution in case of any problem arising during the
implementation of CALM.
The PEG membership will comprise of:
101








Minister of MAFF as the PEG Chairman;
Minister of MoE as the PEG Deputy Chairman
Representatives of MAFF, MoE, MLMUPC, MoD and CDC;
Governors, or Representative of the five Project Provinces;
Representatives of Regional Police, Military and Border Police units;
Representative of UNDP-Cambodia and UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating Unit if required
for TPR.
Representative of Seila/PLG; and
Representative of WCS
Representatives of other government bodies and other international organizations as relevant will
be invited to participate in meetings of the PEG to offer policy and technical advice.
2. Sub-Executive Group ToR
The Sub-Executive Group (SEG) will provide guidance and direction to the provincial
implementation of CALM Project, funded by UNDP/GEF. There will be one SEG for each
province with on-going activities. The SEGs will assist with achieving of Outcome 1 of CALM:
Integrated conservation and development planning at the landscape-level.
The SEGs will have a primarily integration role, to advise on project implementation, resolve
conflicts, and involve relevant provincial authorities in decision-making processes. The SEGs
may alter project activities within the province, only if there is clear and consistent evidence,
based on progress reports against project output indicators that the project activities are failing to
deliver project outputs. Changes to project activities and/or implementation arrangements
funded by the GEF will require the consent of the UNDP/GEF Executive Coordinator or his
representative.
The Provincial Governor will be the Chairman of the SEG. The committee will meet at least
annually, or more often if required. The Chairman, Deputy Chairman, UNDP or WCS may
request committee meetings.
The SEG will be responsible for the following:





Advise project management on implementation;
Review project progress, particularly Community and Site Management Plans;
Review the project APR/PIR;
Foster coordination and synergy between the different components and actors involved in
CALM; and
Provide a framework for conflict resolution in case of any problem arising during the
implementation of CALM.
The SEG membership will comprise of:

Provincial Governor as the SEG Chairman;
102




Representatives of FA Cantonment, Provincial Departments (including Environment and
Land Management);
Representatives of Provincial Police, Military and Border Police units;
Representative of Seila/PLG; and
Representative of WCS
Representatives of other government bodies and other international organizations as relevant will
be invited to participate in meetings of the SEG to offer policy and technical advice.
103
3. International Project Advisor (IPA)
Position:
International Project Advisor (IPA)
Duty Station: CALM Project Office, Tbeng Meanchey
Duration:
4 years full-time, 3 years half-time.
The IPA will be appointed by WCS.
Background
Under the overall supervision of the WCS Cambodia Director, and in close collaboration with
the National Site Managers (NSMs) and the Project Office based in Tbeng Meanchey, the IPA
will be responsible for establishment of the project activities as per the project document. In
particular he/she will be responsible for for planning and implementing two protected area
management systems described in Component 3. The position is based in the Project Office in
Tbeng Meanchey, with time in Phnom Penh
Duties and Responsibilities
The IPA will: (i) Establish all project activities and ensure that activities are in accordance with
the project document, particularly relating to Components 1 and 3 of CALM; (ii) Establish a
Project Office, including a system of control of project expenditures and reporting on activities
and results to the GEF; (iii) together with the NSMs design a management structure and
regulations for the protected areas; (iv) with the NSMs recruit and train protected area staff; (v)
oversee the construction of required infrastructure and purchasing of equipment; (vi) with the
NSMs produce management plans for each site, including zonation maps; (vii) implement a
database system to monitor and report to protected area managers on management activities;
(viii) establish an adaptive management protocol; (ix) Respond to queries raised by UNDP
Cambodia, WCS Cambodia, the Project Steering Committee and the National Project Director;
(x) With the NSMs prepare and update quarterly and annual work plans and review the budget
accordingly through a participatory process, and in close collaboration with the Project Office,
the executing agency, the implementing agencies and Seila/PLG; (xi) Liaise with the relevant
ministries, national and international research institutes, NGOs, Seila/PLG and other relevant
institutions in order to involve their staff and coordinate their efforts in project activities.
Cooperation and coordination with relevant provincial government agencies will be particularly
crucial in regard to law enforcement within the core areas; (xii) Coordinate the required reporting
duties with the assistance of the National and International Consultants, and as per the UNDP
Guidelines and the Project Document; (xiii) Participate in the PEG and SEG meetings; (xiv)
Carry out the functions of GEF Clearing House Mechanism Focal Point; (xv) Ensure that the
Cambodia GEF Focal Point is kept advised of Project progress; (xvi) Organise project
evaluations; (xvii) With the NSMs prepare the terminal report; and (xviii) Initiate and mobilize
resources for the potential follow-up activities.
Outputs to be produced
In collaboration with the NSMs, the IPA will provide the following outputs:
104
1.
A successful establishment of the project activities, including activities sub-contracted by
the project;
2.
Reviewed and updated quarterly and annual work plans and budgets through a
participatory process involving the Project Office, WCS, the Government agencies and
Seila/PLG;
3.
Assistance to the NSMs in preparation of quarterly progress reports, annual progress
reports, and the final report;
4.
Provide technical support and facilitate consultants, project staff, and sub-contracts;
5.
Communicate effectively with all levels of government to ensure the integration of
project activities and outputs into planning processes and national initiatives (e.g. land
management). In particular through the PEG and SEG, and other relevant committees,
facilitate the recognition of project outputs at higher government levels.
6.
Establish a procedure for adaptive management, and an annual adaptive management
review process.
7.
With the NSMs produce development plans for the two protected areas in the Northern
Plains. These development plans should include (i) a management structure, (ii)
management regulations and responsibilities, (iii) establish a process to produce a
zonation of each area, and (iv) establish a staff training and recruitment schedule.
8.
A ranger manual for protected area staff, which should include (i) staff code of conduct,
(ii) staff responsibilities, (iii) management rules and regulations, (iv) data collection
protocols, (v) data entry forms.
9.
A database manual for protected area management units, which should include the
functioning of the database, reporting features and data-entry protocols.
10.
A completed set of management rules, protocols, structure, zonation for each protected
area.
11.
With the NSMs, in the second year, produce management plans for each protected area.
12.
Review, edit and disseminate the reports to relevant government, NGO and UN bodies,
and foster cooperation with them regarding implementation of the different strategies.
Qualifications
The successful candidate should be have the following attributes:
1.
Strong technical background in a relevant discipline: biodiversity conservation, protected
area management, environment training;
105
2.
Minimum of three years working experience in Project Management;
3.
Minimum of three years working experience in areas relevant for the project;
4.
Demonstrated ability to work with government and to foster cooperation between
governmental agencies, NGOs, etc;
5.
Extensive experience in Asia, and ideally in Cambodia;
6.
Previous experience with the UN and more specifically UNDP and the GEF would be an
important asset;
7.
Computer literate; and
8.
Perfect written and verbal command of English, and ideally good spoken Khmer.
NB: Gender and cultural diversity is preferred
4. International Communities and Education Specialist (ICES)
Position:
International Education Specialist (ICES)
Duty Station: CALM Project Office, Tbeng Meanchey
Duration:
3 Years
The ICES will be appointed by WCS.
Background
The Northern Plains is currently characterized by an ‘open-access’ management system, with no
recognized land tenure or title assigned to any parties. Establishing an effective land
management, including the natural resources found, is essential if conservation priorities are to
be integrated into the landscape and the needs of communities recognized in protected area
plans. Current awareness of the environment, biodiversity conservation, the law, and land and
natural resource management by provincial authorities, armed forces and local communities in
the Northern Plains is also weak. Under the overall supervision of WCS and together with the
national communities specialists, the ICES will be responsible for planning and implementing all
activites described in Component 2 of the CALM project document, in addition to the education
program described in Component 3b and eco-tourism initiatives (Component 3a). The position is
based in the Project Office in Tbeng Meanchey, but part of the time will be spent in Phnom Penh
and other provinces where CALM has activities.
Duties and Responsibilities
In collaboration with the national communities and education specialists and the IPA, the ICES
will: (i) design an environmental education program for the Northern Plains, targeted at local
communities and armed forces around the key sites and at provincial departments and
106
authorities; (ii) hold training and awareness workshops for provincial staff and target audiences;
(iii) establish a mobile education unit and other units required to implement the education plan;
(iv) organize study tours, as required; (v) review and adapt education activities, based upon
results of evaluations; (vi) with the INRMS to work with local communities to establish land-use
plans for each target village; (vii) facilitate preparation of community regulations for land and
natural resource management; (viii) facilitate the official recognition of these regulations; (ix)
design the incentive scheme (direct payments for conservation); (x) advise on the
implementation the incentive scheme in target villages; (xi) review and audit the incentive
scheme; (xii) design an eco-tourism programme for suitable key sites in the Northern Plains;
(xiii) facilitate the production of community eco-tourism regulations for key sites; and (xiv)
review the effectiveness of eco-tourism initiatives.
Outputs to be produced
In collaboration with the national communities specialists the IECS will produce:
1.
Training needs report based upon capacity of provincial staff and target audiences.
2.
Design of the education programme.
3.
Reports on training and awareness workshops and study tours.
4.
Report on the education programme and its impact.
5.
Review education activities as required by evaluations.
6.
Reports on the PLUP process completed in target villages (with INRMS).
7.
Produce land and natural resource management maps once the PLUP process is
completed.
8.
A set of community land and natural resource management regulations (with INRMS),
incorporating the incentive scheme.
9.
A framework for key species eco-tourism.
10.
A set of community eco-tourism regulations.
11.
A report on the design and implementation of the incentive scheme system.
12.
A methodology to assess community livelihoods in years 3 and 6, to measure progress
against baseline levels
Qualifications
The successful candidate should be have the following attributes:
107
1.
Strong technical background in natural resource mamagement, education and
communication;
2.
Minimum of four years working experience in areas relevant for the project;
3.
Demonstrated ability to communicate, and foster cooperation with governmental
agencies, NGOs, etc;
4.
Extensive experience in Asia, and ideally in Cambodia;
5.
Ability to travel and spend extended periods undertaking consultation and fieldwork;
6.
Computer literate; and
7.
Perfect written and verbal command of English, and ideally good spoken Khmer.
NB: Gender and cultural diversity is preferred
5. International Natural Resource Management Specialist (INRMS)
Position:
International Natural Resource Management Specialist (INRMS)
Duty Station: CALM Project Office, Tbeng Meanchey
Duration:
12 months.
The INRMS will be appointed by WCS.
Background
The Northern Plains is currently characterized by an ‘open-access’ management system, with no
recognized land tenure or title assigned to any parties. Establishing an effective land
management, including the natural resources found, is essential if conservation priorities are to
be integrated into the landscape and the needs of communities recognized in protected area
plans. Under the overall supervision of WCS, the INRMS will be responsible for conducting
natural resource management research to inform the progress of activities described in
Component 2 of the CALM project document, and the implementation of legal policies. The
position is based in the Project Office in Tbeng Meanchey, but part of the time will be spent in
Phnom Penh and other provinces where CALM has activities.
Duties and Responsibilities
In collaboration with the national communities specialists, the INRMS will: (i) conduct a training
needs assessment for national communities facilitators and local communities on PLUP and
NRM; (ii) organize training and awareness workshops based upon these recommendations, with
the assistance of the International Communities/Education Specialist (ICES) if required; (iii)
assist the ICES to work with local communities to establish land-use plans for each target
108
village; (iv) advise on the preparation of community regulations for land and natural resource
management; (v) facilitate the official recognition of these regulations; (vi) design the incentive
scheme (direct payments for conservation); (vii) advise on the implementation the incentive
scheme in target villages; (vii) review and audit the incentive scheme; and (viii) initiate natural
resource management research as required to inform project decisions.
Outputs to be produced
In collaboration with the national communities specialists the INRMS will produce:
1.
Training needs report based upon capacity of national community specialists and local
communities for land and natural resource management.
2.
Reports on the PLUP process completed in target villages (with ICES).
3.
With the ICES produce land and natural resource management maps once the PLUP
process is completed.
4.
A set of community land and natural resource management regulations (with ICES).
5.
A report on the design and implementation of the incentive scheme system.
6.
Natural resource management research reports, as required.
Qualifications
The successful candidate should be have the following attributes:
1.
Strong technical background in natural resource management, facilitating community
development and community participation in NRM or conservation (Master’s degree or
higher);
2.
Minimum of four years working experience in areas relevant for the project: natural
resource management, facilitating community development and community participation
in NRM or conservation in rural areas;
3.
Demonstrated ability to communicate, work in a team, and liaise with governmental
agencies, NGOs, etc;
4.
Extensive experience in Asia, and ideally in Cambodia;
5.
Ability to travel and spend extended periods undertaking consultation and fieldwork.
6.
Computer literate; and
7.
Perfect written and verbal command of English, and ideally good spoken Khmer.
109
NB: Gender and cultural diversity is preferred
6. International GIS Specialist (IGS)
Position:
International Monitoring and GIS Specialist (IMGS)
Duty Station: CALM Project Office, Tbeng Meanchey
Duration:
12 months
The IMGS will be appointed by WCS.
Background
Mapping of protected area zones and management systems, and community land and natural
resource management systems, will be key outputs of Components 2 and 3 of CALM. Together
with the National GIS Specialist the IMGS will be responsible for providing GIS and mapping
support, at the direction of the IPA, ICES and NSMs. The position is based in the Project Office
in Tbeng Meanchey.
Duties and responsibilities
With the National GIS Specialist the IMGS will provide GIS support to the project, in particular:
(i) community land-use (PLUP) maps for approval; (ii) protected area maps and zonations; (iii)
analysis of land-use patterns and changes; (iv) mapping of key habitat features; (v) analyzing the
spatial impact of management decisions and human threats to biodiversity; (vi) supervising the
production of accurate remote-sensing maps of the land-use of the Northern Plains in years 1 and
2.
Outputs to be produced
1.
Community land-use (PLUP) maps
2.
Protected Area zonations
3.
Supervise a contract in Years 1 and 2 to produce an accurate land-use map of the
Northern Plains’ key sites, derived from remote sensing data.
4.
Detailed maps for each key site, giving land-use, wildlife habitat features and their
distribution, and management systems.
5.
Supervise a contract in Years 1 and 2 to produce data management systems for key sites
in the Northern Plains. The systems should include monitoring and reporting on
enforcement activities (with the IPA).
Qualifications
The successful candidate should be have the following attributes:
110
1.
Strong technical background in research, statistical analysis and GIS;
2.
Minimum of four years working experience in areas relevant for the project: ecological
research and GIS;
3.
Demonstrated ability to communicate, work in a team, and liaise with governmental
agencies, NGOs, etc;
4.
Extensive experience in Asia, and ideally in Cambodia;
5.
Ability to travel and spend extended periods undertaking consultation and fieldwork.
6.
Computer literate; and
7.
Perfect written and verbal command of English, and ideally good spoken Khmer.
7. National Site Managers (NSMs)
Position:
National Site Managers (NSMs) (2 positions)
Duty Station: CALM Project Office, Tbeng Meanchey
Duration:
7 Years
The NSMs will be appointed by WCS.
Background
Under the overall supervision of the WCS Cambodia Director, and in close consultation with the
IPA the NSMs are responsible for day-to-day management, coordination and supervision of the
implementation of project activities. The positions are based in the Project Office in Tbeng
Meanchey, but part of the time will be spent in other provinces where CALM has activities.
Duties and Responsibilities
The NSMs will: (i) Coordinate and supervise all project activities and ensure that activities are in
accordance with the project document; (ii) Respond to queries raised by UNDP Cambodia, WCS
Cambodia, the Project Steering Committee, the IPA and ICES; (iii) Prepare and update quarterly
and annual work plans and review the budget accordingly through a participatory process, and in
close collaboration with the Project Office, WCS and International Advisors; (iv) With the IPA
identify and recruit the project staff in close consultation; (v) Liaise with the relevant ministries,
national and international research institutes, NGOs, Seila/PLG and other relevant institutions in
order to involve their staff and coordinate their efforts in project activities. Cooperation and
coordination with relevant provincial government agencies will be particularly crucial in regard
to law enforcement within the core areas; (vi) Coordinate the required reporting duties with the
assistance of the National and International Consultants; (vii) Participate in the PEG and SEG
111
meetings; (viii) With the IPA, carry out the functions of GEF Clearing House Mechanism Focal
Point; (ix) With the IPA, ensure that the Cambodia GEF Focal Point is kept advised of Project
progress;; and (x) Specifically assist the IPA with all activities relating to Component 3
(Strengthening capacity for biodiversity management) of CALM, including establishing
appropriate adaptive management and review procedures.
Outputs to be produced
1.
A successful implementation of the project's activities, including the activities subcontracted by the project at project sites;
2.
Reviewed work plans and budget through a participatory process involving the IPA, the
Project Office, WCS and the Government agencies;
3.
Quarterly progress reports, annual progress report, and final report in collaboration with
the IPA;
4.
Communicate effectively with all levels of government to ensure the integration of
project activities and outputs into planning processes and national initiatives (e.g. land
management). In particular through the PEG and SEG, and other relevant committees,
facilitate the recognition of project outputs at higher government levels.
5.
Together with the National and International Consultants ensure the completion of the
following report-based deliverables to a sufficient level of rigour: site management plans;
training needs assessment report for law enforcement officers, education staff;
biodiversity monitoring reports; annual reports on output indicators and conservation
impact indicators.
6.
Review, edit and disseminate the reports to relevant government, NGO and UN bodies,
and foster cooperation with them regarding implementation of the different strategies.
Qualifications
1.
Advanced degree (Master’s or higher) in the area relevant to protected area management,
biodiversity conservation and monitoring;
2.
Good knowledge of the nature of biodiversity;
3.
Minimum two years working experience as a Project Manager and a demonstrated ability
in managing donor-funded projects, especially UNDP projects;
4.
Minimum of five years of working experience in the area relevant to the project;
protected area management, biodiversity conservation;
5.
Demonstrated ability in liaison and fostering cooperation between agencies, including
governmental, academic, NGOs, etc.;
112
6.
Computer literate; and
7.
Perfect written and verbal command of English.
8. National Administration Director (NAD)
Position:
National Administration Director (NAD)
Duty Station: WCS Office, Phnom Penh
Duration:
7 years.
The NAD will be appointed by WCS.,
Background
The project will require a strong administration office to manage the various needs of project
components and site managers, and to organize effective reporting to GEF on activities and
expenditure. Under the supervision of the IPA, the NAD will be responsible for establishing and
maintaining an administration system, ensuring that activity reports are completed and reporting
to GEF on activities and expenditure.
Outputs to be produced
1.
Project administration policy manual
2.
Project financial system
3.
Quarterly, annual and final financial reports
4.
Organise activity reports.
Qualifications
1.
Degree in business or financial management
2.
Minimum five years experience in financial administration of large projects, ideally for
UN or UN agencies.
3.
Demonstrated ability in liaison and fostering cooperation between agencies, including
governmental, academic, NGOs, etc.;
4.
Computer literate; and
5.
Perfect written and verbal command of English.
NB: Gender diversity is preferred
113
PART III: Stakeholder Involvement Plan
Stakeholder consultations and participation plan
Stakeholder Consultations during PDF-B
Date
Purpose
Key
Stakeholders
Key findings and Conclusions
2 January
2004
Brief on the
progress of the
PDF-B project
GEF Government
Operational Focal
Point - Director
General of MoE
UNDP and WCS
representatives
2 January
2004
Review
project
stakeholder
meetings and
discuss project
progress
Deputy Resident
Representative of
UNDP Cambodia
UNDP and WCS
representatives
18
December
2003
Brief on the
progress of the
PDF-B project
Project Advisory
Committee
- MAFF, MoE,
DNCP, FA,
Provincial
authorities and
departments
- His Excellency was pleased with the activities of the CALM
project and the efforts made to consult stakeholders within
Government and local communities.
- Need for clear modality arrangements for the project’s
implementation, especially in regard to the Kulen Promtep
Wildlife Sanctuary.
- Agreed to new endorsement letter for CALM project.
- The project PDF-B phase has achieved all major objectives.
- Preparation of Project Document is progressing well and
feedback from Government agencies has been positive and
productive.
- Importance of co-financing for full CALM project, and the
potential role of Seila/PLG programme (also funded by UNDP).
Agreed that Seila/PLG should be included as a crucial cofinancing partner.
- See Appendix 1.
- Appreciated the progress of the project development phase
- Understood the threats and the proposed interventions in the
logframe
- Suggested to have individual institutional consultations with
MAFF, MoE and provincial authorities over the draft logframe,
then followed by a national workshop
- Suggested that the logframe should strongly address the
supports in infrastructure development, capacity building,
community forestry and livelihood development, boundary
demarcation, wildlife trade control and resettlement and
immigration control.
(See attached minutes).
- Save Cambodia’s Wildlife have developed a curriculum and
trained non-formal teachers in the Northern Plains provinces,
and would be able to do so again
- Mlup Baitong have a radio unit that is planning to visit Preah
Vihear to produce programs with the local radio station
- Mlup Baitong have some experience of training military
personnel in environmental education
- Handicap International will be withdrawing in November
2003, but Seila/PLG will continue to support LUPU
- LUPU have an annual provincial planning process that
determines priorities for demining and subsequent land-use
options. There are 7 trained staff in each province.
- The procedures for facilitating LUPU to visit new areas
(within key sites) that are mined were discussed.
- LUPU will also be working with Austcare and World Vision in
other districts in the Northern Plains
- Seila/PLG provided information about the provincial planning
process and copies of commune development plans for 2003
Seek initial
comments on
the logframe
27 participants
28 and 29
November
2003
Investigate
options for
cooperating on
environmental
education
projects
21 October
and 19
November
2003
Explain
CALM
project, learn
about LUPU
in the
Northern
Plains
23 October
and 22
Explain
CALM
Save Cambodia’s
Wildlife
Mlup Baitong
WCS technical
staff
5 participants
Handicap
International staff
LUPU provincial
staff
WCS project staff
5 participants
Seila/PLG staff
WCS technical
114
Date
Purpose
Key
Stakeholders
Key findings and Conclusions
November
2003
project, learn
about
Seila/PLG in
Northern
Plains and
discuss future
cooperation
Discuss PLUP
and holding a
training
workshop in
Preah Vihear
Discuss the
importance of
learning from
PLUP/NREM
in Ratanakiri
Discuss cooperation on
activities to
improve
livelihoods of
communities
around key
sites
and project
management staff
(MAFF)
- WCS project staff were invited to provincial meetings,
scheduled for December 2003
- Seila/PLG were invited to attend PLUP training course in
January 2004 to learn about the land law and PLUP process
- Arrangements to incorporate project plans into the Seila/PLG
process was discussed
Produce
problem and
threat analysis
for the
Northern
Plains and
proposed
interventions
Discussion on
integration and
cooperation
between the
provincial
departments of
environment
WCS/MAFF/MoE
project staff and
Provincial
technical staff
11 participants
Discussion
with Colonel
Ghnem Sok
Heng on
border wildlife
trade
Participatory
problems
analysis and
consultations
with 8
WCS/MAFF
project staff and
technical advisors
Colonel Ghnem
Sok Heng
6 participants
WCS/MAFF/MOE
project staff,
technical advisors
and communities
More than 600
8 October
2003
Subsequent
meetings
October December
2003
29
September
- 10
October
2003
11-14 May
2003
March
2003
January June 2003
5 participants
PLUP focal point
MLMUPC
LMAP
10 participants
Action Against
Hunger
WCS Staff
5 participants
Directors of the
Provincial
Departments of the
three provinces
and WCS staff
6 participants
- Enthusiastic about assisting with the implementation of the
new land law in the Northern Plains
- Agreed to support a training workshop in Preah Vihear for 1931 January 2004
- Training workshop will include a description of the new Land
Law by a legal expert from MLMUPC
- Kim Sovann from Ratanakiri will attend the training to provide
advice on land-use planning in forested areas.
- AAH is interested to continue work on improving village food
security in districts containing key sites for conservation.
- AAH has funding for continuing village garden scheme and
animal health workers
- WCS is able to provide technical veterinary support to assist
with the identification and treatment schedules for domestic
cattle
- Joint proposals written and submitted to obtain funding for a 3year project
- Key species and key sites identified
- Draft threats and problems analysis was completed (see Annex
3)
- Interventions for different threats proposed and discussed
- Sharing information about illegal activities related to logging
and wildlife trade
- Cooperation was sought on law enforcement
- Assessed basic needs of the provincial environmental
departments in assisting the management of Kulen Promtep
Wildlife Sanctuary.
- Assessed key stakeholders in the three provinces and threats to
the wildlife sanctuary
- Colonel Ghnem Sok Heng agreed that reduction of border
wildlife trade was necessary and gave his support
- Participatory maps were drawn of resource use areas
- Discussions on environmental and natural resource
management problems and threats. Prioritization.
- Recommendations produced for future natural resource
management by communities.
115
Date
January
2003 and 8
- 11 April
2003
December
2002 and
12-15
March
2003
Purpose
Key
Stakeholders
Key findings and Conclusions
communities
Capacity
assessment of
provincial
department of
forestry, and
consultations
on training
needs.
participants
Provincial
department of
forestry, Preah
Vihear, staff
WCS/MAFF
project staff and
technical advisor
Capacity
assessment of
provincial
department of
environment,
and
consultations
on training
needs.
Provincial
department of
environment,
Preah Vihear, staff
WCS/MoE project
staff and technical
advisor
- Assessment of village livelihoods.
- See Appendix 2.
- DAFF have 70 staff, but few with a high level of education or
formal training
- Equipment, infrastructure are insufficient for management
needs
- A training course was requested, and provided by WCS
trainers from 8-11 April 2003.
- Opportunities for building capacity during the full project were
discussed.
- See Appendix 3.
- PDoE have 17 staff and 25 rangers in Kulen Promtep Wildlife
Sanctuary
- Few staff are educated or have received any training
- Equipment, infrastructure are insufficient for management
needs
- Seila/PLG have provided funds to PDoE to undertake
activities, however it is unclear if PDoE has the capacity to
achieve these activities
- PDoE has particular problems prosecuting the perpetrators of
illegal activities in wildlife sanctuaries, due to problems
completing official documentation
- A training course was requested, and provided by WCS
trainers from 12-15 March 2003, in collaboration with the
Seila/PLG funded training course for Kulen Promtep Wildlife
Sanctuary rangers
- Opportunities for building capacity during the full project were
discussed.
Local Consultations
In each village (except for those around Phnom Tbeng) PRA techniques were used to:
 Map village resource use areas
 Discuss trends in wildlife populations and the causes of any changes
 Discuss livelihood problems relating to environmental problems experienced by communities,
and prioritise them.
Meetings included group discussions with up to 100 people (in one village including
representatives of all families), smaller group consultations with village elders and commune
officials, and key informant interviews with school teachers and village workers.
Preah Vihear Protected Forest and O’Scach Key Sites. Project staff visited all 4 Communes
directly surrounding the area, or 7 of 10 villages. 2 further communes (5 villages) at a greater
distance but known to use forest in the O’Scach area were also visited.
Kulen Promtep Wildlife Sanctuary. Detailed consultations were undertaken in all 4 villages in, or
nearby, to key sites.
116
Phnom Tbeng. Project Staff visited most villages surrounding the hill and had discussions with
village representatives.
In addition, a socio-economic assessment of local livelihoods was undertaken in 7 off the
villages surrounding the protected forest and 2 off the villages in the wildlife sanctuary.
Further, the project interacted strongly with a development NGO (Action Against Hunger) who
had 10 years experience working in the area. AAH had conducted their own livelihood
consultations with the same villages. The projects were able to share results, conclusions and
recommendations. AAH has supported the project approach and has suggested collaboration over
future activities, so that short-term improvements in food security by AAH might contribute to
longer-term activities by CALM. This proposal is currently awaiting approval.
Stakeholder Participation Plan
Stakeholder Mandate
Role in Project
Interest in the Project
WCS
International
Conservation
NGO. Works
under MoUs
signed in
1999 with
MAFF and
MoE
Government
Ministry
responsible
for
Agriculture,
Forestry and
Fisheries
Executing Agency
and project initiator
WCS will provide
technical and financial
assistance to CALM.
Member of project
steering committee.
WCS first worked in the
Northern Plains in the 1950s
and returned in 2000-2003,
investing $300,000 in the area.
WCS has been responsible for
development of the CALM
project.
Implementing
Agency.
MAFF will provide
the management and
staff for 3 of the key
sites.
Chairs project steering
committee.
MAFF will be involved
in resolving land
conflicts between
communities, logging
concessions and the
provincial departments
Government
Ministry
responsible
for
management
of protected
areas
Government
Ministry
responsible
for land
management
and
administration
Implementing Agency
MoE will provide the
management and staff
for 1 key site.
Member of project
steering committee.
MAFF has had a long interest
in the Northern Plains,
including the Community
Tiger Project since 1998 and
proposing the sub-decree that
led to the establishment of the
Preah Vihear Protected Forest.
The new forestry law and
wildlife sub-decrees provide
the ministry with the
necessary legal framework to
manage forest areas and
protect wildlife.
MoE manages Kulen Promtep
Wildlife Sanctuary, which has
been selected as one of the key
sites for conservation
MLMUPC, through LMAP
and the PLUP focal point, has
shown interest in
implementing the new land
law and procedures in the
Northern Plains. Ministry staff
have been involved in training
The cadastral
commission is located in
the provincial
department and will be
responsible for resolving
land disputes
MAFF
MoE, DNCP
MLMUPC and
Provincial
departments
Provide official
support to the PLUP
facilitators during
land-use planning and
demarcation.
Resolve disputes over
land.
117
Potential Conflicts
MoE will be involved in
negotiating land conflicts
with communities inside
the wildlife sanctuary
Stakeholder Mandate
MRD
Government
Ministry
responsible
for rural
development.
Provincial
Government
Responsible
for
administration
and
management
of province.
Seila/PLGUNDP
Provides
technical and
financial
assistance to
provincial and
commune
planning
process and
line ministry
activities.
Manages
forestry and
fishery
resources at
the provincial
level.
Provincial
Department of
Agriculture,
Forestry and
Fisheries
Provincial
Department of
Environment.
Responsible
for
environmental
issues at the
provincial
Role in Project
Interest in the Project
Responsible for
maintaining database
of registered land.
Member of project
steering committee.
Collaboration on
activities to improve
food security in
Member of project
steering committee.
CALM project staff and
opened the awareness course
in Preah Vihear.
Key role in integrated
conservation values
into provincial
planning, approving
community
management plans
and facilitating
establishment of law
enforcement teams.
Provincial
government support
for activities is
essential.
Member of project
steering committee.
Key role in
incorporating natural
resource management
into community
development plans,
and integrating these
at provincial level.
The Provincial Governor has
attended in several project
activities, including training
courses, and is known to have
a strong interest in wildlife.
The first deputy Governor
issued a ban on hunting in
support of WCS.
Management of
forested areas,
including key sites,
and enforcement of
wildlife laws.
Capacity building of
provincial staff will be
necessary if project
activities are to be
sustainable.
CALM has worked in close
collaboration with DAFF
during the PDF-B phase.
Three DAFF staff have been
employed by CALM and have
participated in most provincial
activities. DAFF has
frequently requested
assistance, particularly in
controlling border wildlife
trade.
CALM has worked in close
collaboration with DoE during
the PDF-B phase. Two
provincial counterparts have
been employed and they have
Actively works with other
NGOs on development work
in the Northern Plains.
Management and
patrolling of Kulen
Promtep Wildlife
Sanctuary.
Capacity building of
118
Potential Conflicts
The incentive scheme
(Component 2)
requires that rewards are
provided to communities
based upon improved
management practices,
this may conflict with
development needs.
Occasions may arise
where the provincial
government must chose
between conservation
needs and development
goals.
The Seila/PLG project advisor
in the province has
demonstrated considerable
interest in the CALM project,
and is enthusiastic about
integrating outputs at
commune and provincial
levels.
DAFF will also be
involved in the
regulation of forest
concessionaires.
Stakeholder Mandate
Role in Project
Interest in the Project
level and
management
of protected
areas.
provincial staff will be
necessary if project
activities are to be
sustainable.
Royal
Cambodian
Armed Forces
and Police
forces
Responsible
for
maintenance
of defense
and security.
Involvement in law
enforcement
activities.
The cooperation of
military and police
commanders around
key conservation sites
will be crucial if
illegal activities are to
be controlled.
participated in all project
activities inside the wildlife
sanctuary. WCS supported a
training course for wildlife
sanctuary rangers, and DoE
has frequently asked for
further assistance.
The Provincial Police
Department has shown
considerable interest in
CALM, and its staff have
frequently cooperated with the
project. WCS has had
consultations with some
military commanders, who
have indicated their support
for reduction in wildlife trade.
WCS also has good links with
the regional commander in
Siem Reap. The provincial
governor is also a military
general.
Communities
in Chhep,
Chaom Ksan
and Kulen
Districts
Commune
councils are
responsible
for writing
management
plans and
regulating
community
areas.
CALM will encourage
and facilitate
communities around
key sites to complete
land-use maps for
approval and develop
management plans.
Incentive schemes
will provide rewards
in return for improved
management and
reduction in illegal
activities.
Communities will
benefit from ecotourism projects
initiated in their areas.
WCS has established close
links with at least 5
communities during the PDFB, and employs rangers in
these villages. Village
consultations during PDF-B
established the problems and
threats local people face, both
to livelihoods and specifically
to natural resources. Villages
indicated their enthusiasm to
be involved in the project,
especially for assistance with
improving livelihoods and
education.
Villages will encounter
conflicts with
livelihoods, although it is
hoped that the incentives
scheme will mitigate
this.
Land Use
Planning Unit
LUPU is a
multidepartment
provincial
body that
identifies
priority areas
for demining
and
determines
subsequent
land-use.
Two key sites contain
mines and CALM will
work with LUPU to
determine when
demining will occur
and how the land will
be used afterwards.
Preah Vihear LUPU were
interested in visiting project
sites known to contain mines
to discuss with communities
for their removal.
Land allocation conflicts
between conservation
and communities may
arise, however these
should be covered by
existing community
agreements.
119
Potential Conflicts
Conflicts may arise if
components of the
military continue logging
and hunting activities.
Stakeholder Mandate
Role in Project
Interest in the Project
ITTO Transboundary
project
ITTO-funded
project for
conservation
of Phatam,
Thailand, and
transboundary
cooperation
The ITTO project has
established a
consultation
framework that could
be used by CALM to
address border issues.
WCS has held consultations
with Thai and Cambodian
project members, and with the
Thai border police, all of
whom are interested in
stopping wildlife trade. The
Cambodian project member is
provincial DAFF.
Chendar
Plywood
Forest
Concession
Responsible
for
management
of the forest
concession
The forest concession
lies on the border with
the Preah Vihear
Protected Forest, and
partly overlaps with
the O’Skach key site.
Action Against
Hunger
International
Development
NGO,
working in
Preah Vihear
since 2000
Joint proposals with
WCS for
improvements in food
security in villages
surrounding key sites.
The head of the logging
company has indicated his
support for biodiversity
conservation efforts and has
facilitated project staff
working within the
concession.
Has consistently provided
provincial level support for
WCS in developing the project
plan. Staff have collaborated
on animal health issues, and
on the writing of proposals for
joint activities.
120
Potential Conflicts
If the concessionaire
follows its management
plans and environmental
impact assessment no
problems should occur.
Appendix 1. Project Advisory Committee: Establishing CALM in the Northern Plains of
Cambodia
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF)
18th Dec 2003
Background
On 18 December 2003 at 200pm, a presentation and discussion on the CALM project was held.
The meeting was led by H.E Uk Sokhunn, Under Secretary of MAFF, the National Project
Director. The meeting served as both a project advisory session as well as an opportunity for
additional stakeholders to view, and comment on, the draft plans for the full project.
List of participants
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF)
H.E Uk Sokhunn
Under Secretary of State for MAFF and the National Project Director
Ministry of Environment (MoE)
Mr. Chay Sameth
Director, Department of Nature Conservation and Protection
(DNCP)
Forestry Administration
Mr. Ong Sam Art
Deputy Director, Forestry Administration
Mr. Men Phymean Director, Wildlife Protection Office (WPO)
Mr. Lic Vuthy
Deputy, Forest and Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI)
United Nations Development Program (UNDP)
Mr. Lay Khim
Department of Environment Preah Vihear (DoE PVH)
Mr. Khoy Khunchanrath
Director, Provincial Department of Environment
Preah Vihear Provincial Authorities
Mr. Long Sovann
Deputy Governor Preah Vihear
Mr. Yem Chan
Deputy Director Department of Agriculture in Preah Vihear
Mr. Lim Mao
Director Forestry office in Preah Vihear
Military
Soldier No. 122
Soldier No. 4
CALM Project
Mr. Tan Setha, Project Coordinator (CALM) and DFRI/MAFF
Mr. Kong Kim Sreng, Component Manager, DNCP/MoE
Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS)
Mr. Joe Walston, Acting Director, WCS Cambodia
121
Mr. Tom Clements, Technical Advisor, CALM
Presentations



H.E Uk Sokhunn - welcomed all the stakeholders present from MAFF, MoE, WCS, Preah
Vihear authorities, UNDP representative and other institution involved in the CALM project.
Mr. Tan Setha - presentation on the CALM Project in Preah Vihear Province.

The CALM Project employs 26 people. In Preah Vihear Protected Forest: 11 people, 3
from Forestry Administration, 1 from Preah Vihear and 7 Rangers. In Kulen Promtep
Wildlife Sanctuary: 15 people, 5 from MoE and 10 Rangers.

The main activities during the year: wildlife research in conservation areas - all WCS
staff and rangers; to identify the populations of keys species of wildlife such as G. Ibis,
W.Ibis, W.W. Duck, S. Crane and mammals, such as Eld’s Deer, Gaur, Banteng and
Elephant;

Progress has also been made on piloting conservation interventions and with
developing strong relationships with communities and other stakeholders.
Mr. Kong Kim Sreng - presentation on survey and conservation activities in Kulen Promtep
Wildlife Sanctuary.
Comments from Participants
H.E Uk Sokhunn stated that:
 He supports the project activities, and is pleased with the skill of the staff. He would like to
see even more qualified and intelligent people to come and work on the project.
 More research should be done in Northern Plain areas not only on wildlife, because for the
future these areas will become a potential place for eco-tourism.
 H.E compared these areas to other developing countries that have built viewing towers in
protected areas for looking at wildlife.
 Infrastructure should be provided for staff and communities working in these areas.
 Training courses for project staff in communities for appropriates.
 Do more law enforcements on wildlife trade and other illegal activities.
Mr. Chay Samith:
 He welcomes the work CALM has been doing with MoE and DoE.
 He would welcome information about the present project infrastructure.
 The project will need more infrastructure: station, equipment (for office supplements,
motorbike, boat…) if it is to be effective.
 He requests that the project work very closely with communities.
 He welcomes WCS’s technical support
 Requests that the project prepares good documents before the next meeting.
 He asked for the national seminar to be held on 29 Dec, 03.
Mr. Khoy Khunchanrath DoE, PVH
 He welcomes the work that CALM has been doing in Preah Vihear with MoE and DoE.
 The main objective of the project in Kulen Promtep Wildlife Sanctuary should be community
management and education awareness.
122






He asks the project works with and trains MoE rangers, to contribute to the sustainability of
activities.
He requests to close the Chendar Playwood concession company because this place is the
crossing point between Prey Preahroka and Prey Saak for animal migration.
Kulen Promtep Wildlife Sanctuary needs large improvements in infrastructure.
Soldier No. 122: Live inside the wildlife sanctuary. He requests that they be moved, because
they always disturb the wildlife. Further, the government provides only rice to the soldiers,
so they are reliant on the forest (especially wildlife) for food and trade.
Soldier No. 4: Based on the border with Thailand, near Trapangprasat. They are currently
making new settlements within the wildlife sanctuary in areas that have good hard woods
like: Beng tree, Nieng Nourn tree… Additonally they are hunting the wildlife.
It is possible to discuss problems with the Soldier of No. 122, but it is very difficult to talk to
Soldier No. 4.
Mr. Long Sovann, Deputy Governor, PVH
 He welcomes the project’s activities in Preah Vihear
 He would like the project to help local people create community forests, and provide
incentives.
 He would like the project to provide an education awareness component and especially
targeted at the local community, e.g. by using video show about the importance of wildlife
and forest for livelihoods and national pride.
Mr.Ong Sam Art: Deputy director Forestry Administration.
 He supports the project activities, but commented that the logframe format was difficult to
understand.
Mr.Men Phymean, Director of Wildlife Protection Office.
 Although the PDF-B has completed lots of wildlife research, it is necessary to also look at
the forest and plants.
 Should place controls on the border with Thailand between Sesaket and Uboun province, the
principal points for wildlife and orchid trade.
Mr.Lic Vuthy, Deputy of Forest and Wildlife Research Institute.
 Stated that there are many wildlife-protection areas along the border to stop wildlife hunting
and illegal logging, but outsiders still cause problems.
Mr.Yem Chan, Deputy director Department of Agriculture in PVH.
 Should continue conservation activities.
 CALM should link with local communities because they are reliant on natural resources.
 Should continue efforts to protect forested areas.
 However strong law enforcement activities may have negative impacts for the local
community.
Mr.Lim Mao, Director Forestry office in PVH.
 Welcomes CALM project activities in Preah Vihear over the past year.
123


He mentions that the population of wildlife has increased following the cessation of logging
in the Chendar Plywood concession.
Wildlife research should include important areas for migration.
At the end of the meeting H.E Uk Sokhunn stated that in the future the project should.
 Report should more clearly.
 Inform about the meeting more than one week before, and attach all relevant documents
 Work harder to achieve lasting results
The meeting finished at 18:00pm at the same day, all agreed to meet again separately to discuss
their comment with WCS before the national workshop.
Appendix 2. Consultations and Capacity Assessment of Provincial Department of
Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Preah Vihear Province
By Tan Setha, MAFF.
1. Structure of DAFF and Provincial Forestry Office
DAFF in total have 70 people working in the whole of Preah Vihear Province, composed of:
- 65 men
- 5 women
Education:
- 2 Master degrees
- 12 Bachelor degrees
- 6 Diploma level II
- 4 Under diploma level II
- 46 Non graduate
Transportation and Equipment:
- 1 Car
- 4 Motorcycle
- 1 Computer
DAFF is currently working with the following NGOs:
- Rural Aid Development (RAD)
- Action Against Hunger (AAH)
- Seila/PLG program
Director of Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.
124
DAFF is divided into 7 Offices: Administration Office (Ad.O), Forestry Office (F.O),
Agriculture Office (A.O), Fishery Office (Fis.O), Veterinary Office (V.O), Planning Office
(P.O), Accounting Office (Ac.O).
The Forestry Office is divided into 5 district offices with a total of 16 staff: Tbengmeanchey
Forestry Office, Rovieng District Forestry Office, Chamkhsan District Forestry Office, Kulen
and Sangkomthmey District Office, Chhep and Cheysen District Office.
Director of Preah Vihear Forestry Office
Ad.O - Administration office, P.O -Planning office, FM.O - Forest management office, Af.O Afforestation office, L.O. - Legislation office and WP.O - Wildlife protection office.
2. DAFF Activities
-
Working with NGOs on agriculture education programs to help local people improve
vegetable growing.
Working with NGOs to build roads, schools and wells.
Seila/PLG program has provided assistance to:
- Establish a community forestry area
- Provide training on the new Forestry Law
125
- Establish a tree nursery
- Create fish ponds
- Establish an agronomy research station, with additional support from AusAid.
3. Problems faced by DAFF
-
Insufficient human resources
Lack of infrastructure and equipment, including vehicles and radios
Poor quality roads make transportation difficult
Problems with drought
Considerable forest clearance by people
4. Recommendations
-
Require office in the province and district buildings
Provide training to provincial staff
Require additional staff that have experience in other regions
5. Phnom Tbeng
The Provincial forestry office has proposed to the Ministry that Phnom Tbeng should be
removed from the TPP forest concession. Phnom Tbeng is a large (500 metres above sea-level)
hill above the provincial town. Logging and land clearance around the base and slopes of the hill
is frequent, and if continued might cause erosion.
126
Appendix 3. Consultations and Capacity Assessment of Provincial Department of
Environment and Kulen Promtep Wildlife Sanctuary, Preah Vihear Province
By Kong Kim Sreng, MoE
I. Department of Environment of Preah Vihear.
1. PDoE Responsibilities
The Provincial Department of the Environment (PDoE) is responsible for pollution, waste
management, natural resources management and the protected areas including Kulen Promtep
Wildlife Sanctuary, Beng Per Wildlife Sanctuary and Preah Vihear temple.
2. PDoE Structure
PDoE in total have 17 people working in the whole of Preah Vihear Province, composed of:
- 15 men
- 2 women
Education:
- 1 Diploma level I
- 2 Graduate from High school
- 13 Non-graduates
All staff were recently nominated from other institutions when PDoE started in the province.
127
Mr. Khoy Khun Chan Rath
Director of Department of Environment
Acting director of Kulen Promtep WS
Mr. Pheung Phang Sub director.
-Responsible for PVH temple
landscape protected area.
Wildlife conservation
and environment data
management office.
- Meung Sam Phon (SD).
- Pen Yaok (SD), and
also sub director of Beng
Per.
Mr. Oum Soborin, Sub director
- Working with Seila/PLG project
Administration office.
- Tlang Kim Sy (D).
- Chan Bun tha (SD).
- 2 staffs
Environment Impact
Assessment office
- Yem Montha (SD).
Sang Kum Thmey district.
-Mr. Saom Kim Orn (D).
Kulen district.
-Mr. Hong Hoeung (D).
Pollution Monitoring
and Education
office.
- Kong Sambat (D)
Roveang district.
- Dourng Sunly (D).
Cham Ksan district.
-Mr. Chum Marong (D).
- One staff.
Cheb district.
-Mr. Reth Leng (D).
*Remark: (D)= Director; (SD)= Sub director.
PDoE have 2 buildings - one is made of brick and other one is wood. Both are located in Tbeng
Meanchey town, where there is a generator. The department has no cars or motorbikes, no fax
machine and no telephone. They do have a single computer and 5 radio sets that are used in Tbeng
Meanchey, the Wildlife Sanctuaries and Preah Vihear Temple.
PDoE is currently working the Seila/PLG program and with LUPU. One staff from the department
works with each.
3. Seila/PLG Program
128
In 2003, Seila/PLG approved $14,200 for PDoE, to fund 5 activities, mostly inside the Wildlife
Sanctuaries 1. Training course about Protected Area Management for 25 rangers.
2. Education awareness and Understanding about Environment. Includes a training course for
30 staff for 14 days, a training course for 147 members of commune councils,
environmental awareness courses for 59 villages.
3. Produce a reservoir for water.
4. Support Eco-tourism and natural resource community management, through data collection,
capacity-building to the community, community management, boundary demarcation and
project assessment.
5. Operational Support to PDoE.
4. Workplan
The PDoE workplan for 2003 aims to:
1. Establish natural resource management in one community in Kulen Promtep wildlife
sanctuary.
2. Continue patrolling to control illegal activities in protected areas.
3. Short training course for staff about the environment
4. Short training course for the rangers of Kulen Prumtep wildlife sanctuary.
5. Education awareness program for the villages and communes inside and along the border of the
protected areas.
5. Problems faced by PDoE
-
Lack of human resources and education
Lack of training courses
Insufficient funding, vehicles and equipment for activities
Problems with military and land mines in protected areas
Land clearances
6. Recommendations
-
Require increased national government support
Training courses from MoE regarding ministry procedures and enforcement
Training courses on management and ranger patrolling
Funding for building ranger stations in wildlife sanctuaries
Equipment, vehicles and communications devices
New, experienced staff to assist with provincial work
Require technical advice in order to assist communities with natural resource management
129
II. Kulen Promtep wildlife sanctuary
Kulen Prumtep Wildlife Sanctuary is located in three provinces, Preah Vihear, Siem Reap and
Odor Meanchey. It currently has no overall director, with each provincial department taking
responsibility for their section. The Wildlife Sanctuary contains a total of has eight communes,
35 villages, 3626 houses, 4496 families and 22070 people.
Five ranger stations exist within the wildlife sanctuary:
1 Tukhung
2 Yearng
3 Kantourt
4 Krolar Pears
5 Poure
UTM: 0481541E, 1532640N.
UTM: 0465000E, 1554800N.
UTM: 0460200E, 1570200N.
UTM: 0498000E, 1545000N.
UTM: 0502064E, 1531936N.
There are 25 rangers working in the wildlife sanctuary, recruited from villages inside. They have
never been trained. Rangers usually patrol one or sometimes two weeks per month, mainly
during the dry season when more people are doing illegal activities. They work without using
GPS, map or compass but know about their local area. The salary range is 42,500 - 152,000 riel.
Their targets are to reduce illegal activities such as hunting, forest clearance, electric fishing or
poison fishing.
No formal workplan or management plan exists. However, in 2003 PDoE plans to create two
more ranger stations:
1 Kulen either at:
a Koh Ke
b Prey Veng
2 Anteul
UTM: 0450200E, 1524200N or
UTM: 0451800E, 1539700N.
UTM: 0455500E, 1558500N.
Particular threats include:
-
The soldier base near Tukhung station
-
Wildlife hunting, electro fishing, logging and forest clearance
-
The road from Thbeng Meanchey to Preah Vihear temple was recently constructed
through the wildlife sanctuary, so the land along the road will be the target for
encroachment.
130
SIGNATURE PAGE
Country: _Cambodia
UNDAF Outcome(s)/Indicator(s): Increased and equitable access to and utilization of land, natural resources,
markets and related services to enhance livelihoods. UNDAF outputs: Enhanced management capacity of
government and empowerment of local communities in sustainable use of natural resources and in environmental
protection.
Expected Outcome(s)/Indicator (s): Conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity (MYFF,SL3.5)
Expected Output(s)/Indicator(s):The Effective Conservation of Key Components of Cambodia’s Northern Plains
Landscape
Implementing partner: Wildlife Conservation Society
Other Partners:
The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Ministry of Environment and
Provincial Authority of Preh Vihear Province
Total budget:
$4,468,617
General Management Support Fee:
Grant total budget:
Allocated resources:

Government

Regular
:

Other:
GEF:
$2,300,000
- WCS:
$1,600,000
- UNDP/Seila/PLG:
$463,407

In kind contributions (government):
$105,210
Programme Period:2006-2020
Project Title: : Establishing Conservation Areas Landscape
Management (CALM) in the Northern Plains
Project ID: PIMS 2177
Project Duration: 7 years
Management Arrangement: NGO Execution
Agreed by (Government): _______________________________________________________
(H.E. Mr. Keat Chhon, Senior Minister, Minister of Economy and Finance)
Agreed by (Implementing partner/Executing agency):________________________________
(Mr. Joe Walston, WCS Country Program Director)
Agreed by (UNDP):______________________________________________________________
(Mr. Douglas Gardner, Resident Representative)
131